Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Dell is involved in a class action suit for
"bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
switched parts and charged her for the more
expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
for which no one qualifies and then charges
ridiculously high interest rates.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/

http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html

*TimDaniels*
208 answers Last reply
More about dell sued bait switch false promises
  1. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    It seems someone did not read the credit terms, before purchasing item,
    "buyers' remorse". And lawyers trying to make a buck from it. Hope federal
    tort reform gets passed by the congress, so we can get rid of these
    charlatans.

    --

    Rich/rerat

    (RRR News) <message rule>
    <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>


    "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    news:gK6dndSLI7EFzLzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
    Dell is involved in a class action suit for
    "bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
    switched parts and charged her for the more
    expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
    for which no one qualifies and then charges
    ridiculously high interest rates.

    http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/

    http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html

    *TimDaniels*
  2. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Believe it or not there are companies that go over the line and need to be
    hit with a stick called a law suit. It seems the fear of law suits is the
    only thing that keeps some of these crooked companies in line. The
    government sure doesn't have the resources or desire to pursue them so it's
    left to the private sector to protect themselves. Lawyers are bounty
    hunters of sorts. BTW, I hate lawyers but there are times that they are
    useful. Some are sleazebags but that can be said of most professions.
    There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
    maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.

    "RRR_News" <nospam@isp.com> wrote in message
    news:HPadnZZM5u_6nb_fRVn-ow@comcast.com...
    > It seems someone did not read the credit terms, before purchasing item,
    > "buyers' remorse". And lawyers trying to make a buck from it. Hope federal
    > tort reform gets passed by the congress, so we can get rid of these
    > charlatans.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Rich/rerat
    >
    > (RRR News) <message rule>
    > <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>
    >
    >
    >
    > "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    > news:gK6dndSLI7EFzLzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
    > Dell is involved in a class action suit for
    > "bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
    > switched parts and charged her for the more
    > expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
    > for which no one qualifies and then charges
    > ridiculously high interest rates.
    >
    > http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/
    >
    > http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html
    >
    > *TimDaniels*
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Nascar12" wrote:
    > There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
    > maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.


    I agree.

    *TimDaniels*
  4. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    i agree that the buyer probably didn't read the credit terms to find
    themselves with an unexpected rate... i always see that "for qualified
    customers" in all of their advertisements that probably releases them of any
    wrong doing... but i also believe in the court systems so let it take its
    course and see what happens. the only tort reform that i think should be
    done is to cap fees that lawyers are allowed to extract for class action
    suits. i feel that there is a valuable public service that comes from class
    actions suits which is to keep companies on the straight and narrow so that
    they avoid such actions... but from a monetary perspective the only real
    winners from class actions are the lawyers. i remember once receiving a
    fifty cent check in an envelope with postage of at least half that amount
    for the great 17" monitor class action suit.

    "RRR_News" <nospam@isp.com> wrote in message
    news:HPadnZZM5u_6nb_fRVn-ow@comcast.com...
    > It seems someone did not read the credit terms, before purchasing item,
    > "buyers' remorse". And lawyers trying to make a buck from it. Hope federal
    > tort reform gets passed by the congress, so we can get rid of these
    > charlatans.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Rich/rerat
    >
    > (RRR News) <message rule>
    > <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>
    >
    >
    >
    > "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    > news:gK6dndSLI7EFzLzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
    > Dell is involved in a class action suit for
    > "bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
    > switched parts and charged her for the more
    > expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
    > for which no one qualifies and then charges
    > ridiculously high interest rates.
    >
    > http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/
    >
    > http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html
    >
    > *TimDaniels*
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Then there was the class action suit against Gateway brought by some
    Philadelphia lawyers a number of years ago. Gateway advertised and stickered
    many of its 486 computers as "Pentium Ready", meaning that a special Type 3 ZIF
    socket Pentium OverDrive could be installed and run.

    Micronics designed the motherboards used by Gateway, and the basis of the design
    was a prototype Pentium OverDrive with an internal write-through cache, a more
    conservative cache design. Then Intel changed the Pentium OverDrive, and the
    final version had a write-BACK cache. When installed in a Gateway system, the
    chip ran slower than slow, maybe about as fast as an IBM AT, and bus-mastering
    devices like NICs and SCSI cards refused to work.

    So the lawyers sued Gateway, and the settlement approved by the judge consisted
    of megabucks for the lawyers and coupons to owners of Gateway 486 computers.
    The coupon was good for $50 off on the purchase of a Pentium OverDrive processor
    from Gateway, at its usual inflated prices !!! So, let's see. What does a
    discount coupon for a processor I can't use in my system do for me? I wonder
    how many people gleefully cashed in their coupons and bought Pentium OverDrives
    from Gateway.

    Intel eventually compensated by making available an "interposer", a little
    socketed thingie installed between the Pentium OverDrive and the ZIF socket.
    The sole purpose of the interposer was to raise a signal on the CPU to force its
    cache to operate in the write-thru mode which was compatible with most ZIF
    Socket 3 486 motherboards.

    Needless to say, this was the least successful "OverDrive" CPU ever done by
    Intel. The 486-DX4 OverDrive was OK, as were several Socket 5 Pentium
    OverDrives and the Socket 8 Pentium Pro OverDrive. Finally Intel gave up on
    OverDrives... Ben Myers

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:50:32 GMT, "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net>
    wrote:

    >i agree that the buyer probably didn't read the credit terms to find
    >themselves with an unexpected rate... i always see that "for qualified
    >customers" in all of their advertisements that probably releases them of any
    >wrong doing... but i also believe in the court systems so let it take its
    >course and see what happens. the only tort reform that i think should be
    >done is to cap fees that lawyers are allowed to extract for class action
    >suits. i feel that there is a valuable public service that comes from class
    >actions suits which is to keep companies on the straight and narrow so that
    >they avoid such actions... but from a monetary perspective the only real
    >winners from class actions are the lawyers. i remember once receiving a
    >fifty cent check in an envelope with postage of at least half that amount
    >for the great 17" monitor class action suit.
    >
    >"RRR_News" <nospam@isp.com> wrote in message
    >news:HPadnZZM5u_6nb_fRVn-ow@comcast.com...
    >> It seems someone did not read the credit terms, before purchasing item,
    >> "buyers' remorse". And lawyers trying to make a buck from it. Hope federal
    >> tort reform gets passed by the congress, so we can get rid of these
    >> charlatans.
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> Rich/rerat
    >>
    >> (RRR News) <message rule>
    >> <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    >> news:gK6dndSLI7EFzLzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
    >> Dell is involved in a class action suit for
    >> "bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
    >> switched parts and charged her for the more
    >> expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
    >> for which no one qualifies and then charges
    >> ridiculously high interest rates.
    >>
    >> http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/
    >>
    >> http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html
    >>
    >> *TimDaniels*
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > "Nascar12" wrote:
    >
    >> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
    >> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
    >
    >
    >
    > I agree.
    >
    > *TimDaniels*

    The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.

    Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
    merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.

    If you don't believe that, witness the Vioxx lawsuits. The company
    making Vioxx determined it might increase mortality and pulled it from
    the market. Because of that, it is being sued. The companies making
    similar drugs (Celebrex and Bextra) did not pull their product from the
    market. They are not being sued. Doing the right thing provides no
    protection from class action.

    All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
    cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Jerry Park" wrote:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >
    >> "Nascar12" wrote:
    >>
    >>> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
    >>> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I agree.
    >>
    >> *TimDaniels*
    >
    > The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
    >
    > Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
    > merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.
    >
    > If you don't believe that, witness the Vioxx lawsuits. The company
    > making Vioxx determined it might increase mortality and pulled it from
    > the market. Because of that, it is being sued. The companies making
    > similar drugs (Celebrex and Bextra) did not pull their product from the
    > market. They are not being sued. Doing the right thing provides no
    > protection from class action.
    >
    > All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
    > cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.


    Perhaps it is factored into every drug that you buy, but there is
    still *some* incentive to keep the cost of drugs down so that doctors
    don't prescribe alternative drugs. On the other hand, how else would
    consumers be protected from being cheated by large corporations
    if there could be no class action suits? Do *you* have the resources
    to sue, say, Microsoft? GE? Toyota? Merril Lynch? Dell?

    *TimDaniels*
  8. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:12:59 -0600, Jerry Park <NoReply@No.Spam>
    wrote:

    >Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >
    >> "Nascar12" wrote:
    >>
    >>> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
    >>> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I agree.
    >>
    >> *TimDaniels*
    >
    >The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.

    Depends how you look at it. Perhaps the payout from the suite is low,
    however, the threat of future lawsuits can keep companies honest; so
    in this sense the public can profit from the action. I think you would
    agree that it is not enough to trust big business to do the right
    thing, they are in business to make money and this means push the
    legal envelope. The Justice Department doesn't have the time to keep
    every company in line, so we rely on the trial lawyers.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > "Jerry Park" wrote:
    >
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Nascar12" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company
    >>>> beware" to
    >>>> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I agree.
    >>>
    >>> *TimDaniels*
    >>
    >>
    >> The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
    >>
    >> Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of
    >> the merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.
    >>
    >> If you don't believe that, witness the Vioxx lawsuits. The company
    >> making Vioxx determined it might increase mortality and pulled it
    >> from the market. Because of that, it is being sued. The companies
    >> making similar drugs (Celebrex and Bextra) did not pull their product
    >> from the market. They are not being sued. Doing the right thing
    >> provides no protection from class action.
    >>
    >> All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone.
    >> The cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you
    >> buy.
    >
    >
    >
    > Perhaps it is factored into every drug that you buy, but there is
    > still *some* incentive to keep the cost of drugs down so that doctors
    > don't prescribe alternative drugs. On the other hand, how else would
    > consumers be protected from being cheated by large corporations
    > if there could be no class action suits? Do *you* have the resources
    > to sue, say, Microsoft? GE? Toyota? Merril Lynch? Dell?
    >
    > *TimDaniels*
    >
    No, I don't have the resources to sue someone. If I received a bad
    product from one of the above listed companies, and the company did not
    deal appropriately with me, I'd just lose the cost of the product.

    If, however, someone filed a class action suit against the company that
    sold me a bad product, I'd still lose the cost of the product and I
    would pay more for the replacement product. You don't really think
    anyone BUT lawyers receive anything of real value from class action suits?
  10. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    news:x1KUd.37516$Rl5.8794@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
    > cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.

    The last time I looked, the USA had more lawyers per head of poulation than
    any other country. That was quite a long time ago, so it might have changed.

    Clearly, if you have that many lawyers sitting around, they'll find a way of
    making work for themselves.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Code4u wrote:

    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:12:59 -0600, Jerry Park <NoReply@No.Spam>
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Nascar12" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
    >>>>maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I agree.
    >>>
    >>>*TimDaniels*
    >>>
    >>>
    >>The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Depends how you look at it. Perhaps the payout from the suite is low,
    >however, the threat of future lawsuits can keep companies honest; so
    >in this sense the public can profit from the action. I think you would
    >agree that it is not enough to trust big business to do the right
    >thing, they are in business to make money and this means push the
    >legal envelope. The Justice Department doesn't have the time to keep
    >every company in line, so we rely on the trial lawyers.
    >
    >
    I agree that there are 'bad' companies. But most successful companies
    want to provide a good product at a good price. They do that because it
    is good for business.

    A company that has to be 'kept in line' with the threat of a lawsuit,
    won't be 'kept in line'. They will just see the lawsuit as the cost of
    doing business.

    Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have an effect is on good
    companies who do want to do a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit
    mentality forces them to charge more for their product than they
    otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.

    It hardly matters (in terms of cost) if a company wins or loses such a
    lawsuit. The cost of winning is extremely high. And everyone doing
    business with that company pays the increased cost of their product.

    Class action lawsuits do no good to the complaintants and harm everyone
    else.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:12:59 -0600, Jerry Park <NoReply@No.Spam>
    wrote:

    >The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
    >
    >Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
    >merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.

    Oh, I think the threat of big lawsuits keeps a lot of companies honest
    that wouldn't be otherwise. So, indirectly, we all do benefit.

    Some awards may have gotten out of hand, though. But some are
    deserved, like the girl in North Carolina who got a transplant of the
    wrong blood type. I mean, I'd double-check and triple-check something
    like that, wouldn't you?
    --
    Top 10 Conservative Idiots:
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/
  13. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Jerry Park" wrote:
    > Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
    > an effect is on good companies who do want to do
    > a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit
    > mentality forces them to charge more for their product
    > than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.


    And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
    and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
    the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
    "frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
    practices.

    *TimDaniels*
  14. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Paul Knudsen wrote:

    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:12:59 -0600, Jerry Park <NoReply@No.Spam>
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
    >>
    >>Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
    >>merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Oh, I think the threat of big lawsuits keeps a lot of companies honest
    >that wouldn't be otherwise. So, indirectly, we all do benefit.
    >
    >Some awards may have gotten out of hand, though. But some are
    >deserved, like the girl in North Carolina who got a transplant of the
    >wrong blood type. I mean, I'd double-check and triple-check something
    >like that, wouldn't you?
    >
    >
    Certainly. But then, that wasn't a class action ...
  15. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > "Jerry Park" wrote:
    >
    >> Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
    >> an effect is on good companies who do want to do
    >> a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them to
    >> charge more for their product
    >> than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.
    >
    >
    >
    > And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
    > and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
    > the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
    > "frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
    > practices.
    >
    > *TimDaniels*

    No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
    class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
    lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
    the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.

    To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
    business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small benefit
    is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of business by
    class action.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    right, and that is why i suggested (above) that the reform should be on how
    much in fees the lawyers are allowed to collect and not how much a
    complainant is allowed to receive. it is disgusting how little is paid out
    to the complainant. fees can still be attractive to the lawyers at one
    quarter of what they currently collect in such matters. fees as a ratio to
    the settlement amount can be legislated. limiting the right to sue or
    limiting the possible reward to the complainant goes against the fundamental
    principal of a free market economy.

    "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    news:Q5PUd.25461$hd6.3896@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >
    >> "Jerry Park" wrote:
    >>
    >>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Nascar12" wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware"
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I agree.
    >>>>
    >>>> *TimDaniels*
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
    >>>
    >>> Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
    >>> merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.
    >>>
    >>> If you don't believe that, witness the Vioxx lawsuits. The company
    >>> making Vioxx determined it might increase mortality and pulled it from
    >>> the market. Because of that, it is being sued. The companies making
    >>> similar drugs (Celebrex and Bextra) did not pull their product from the
    >>> market. They are not being sued. Doing the right thing provides no
    >>> protection from class action.
    >>>
    >>> All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
    >>> cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Perhaps it is factored into every drug that you buy, but there is
    >> still *some* incentive to keep the cost of drugs down so that doctors
    >> don't prescribe alternative drugs. On the other hand, how else would
    >> consumers be protected from being cheated by large corporations
    >> if there could be no class action suits? Do *you* have the resources
    >> to sue, say, Microsoft? GE? Toyota? Merril Lynch? Dell?
    >>
    >> *TimDaniels*
    >>
    > No, I don't have the resources to sue someone. If I received a bad product
    > from one of the above listed companies, and the company did not deal
    > appropriately with me, I'd just lose the cost of the product.
    >
    > If, however, someone filed a class action suit against the company that
    > sold me a bad product, I'd still lose the cost of the product and I would
    > pay more for the replacement product. You don't really think anyone BUT
    > lawyers receive anything of real value from class action suits?
  17. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:01:22 -0600, Jerry Park wrote:
    >
    > A company that has to be 'kept in line' with the threat of a lawsuit,
    > won't be 'kept in line'. They will just see the lawsuit as the cost of
    > doing business.

    Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc....

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  18. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    news:WNUUd.18769$Q47.16520@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    > Paul Knudsen wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Some awards may have gotten out of hand, though. But some are
    >>deserved, like the girl in North Carolina who got a transplant of the
    >>wrong blood type. I mean, I'd double-check and triple-check something
    >>like that, wouldn't you?
    >>
    > Certainly. But then, that wasn't a class action ...

    Some of it is daft. Like the girl who was so pleased at her pay raise that
    she hopped, skipped and jumped back to her desk. She snapped her Achilles
    Tendon on the way, so sued her employers for not protecting her properly.
    She won!
  19. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Jerry Park" wrote:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >
    >> "Jerry Park" wrote:
    >>
    >>> Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
    >>> an effect is on good companies who do want to do
    >>> a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them to
    >>> charge more for their product
    >>> than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
    >> and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
    >> the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
    >> "frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
    >> practices.
    >>
    >> *TimDaniels*
    >
    > No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
    > class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
    > lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
    > the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.
    >
    > To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
    > business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small benefit
    > is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of business by
    > class action.


    While it's mostly attorneys who benefit *directly* from class action suits,
    we all benefit indirectly as consumers because the threat of law suit is
    one of the few things that keep corporations in check. The government
    is *supposed* to do that for us, but, well... you know how that goes.
    Whenever a class action suit is slapped on a publicly-owned company,
    its stock price goes down because every analyst knows what a drain they
    frequently are on the corporate officers' time and attention. They can drag
    on for years and sap a company's strength and vitality. That is why they are
    frequently settled out of court. The attorneys reap a wad of fees, and the
    company goes on, but a bit chastised. Corporations may set aside funds
    for unforeseen law suits, but those funds come out of company profits, and
    companies try to avoid law suits to keep their profit margins up. I agree that
    class action suits are an inefficient way to police corporations, but in the
    absence of effective government agencies, what other mechanism is there?

    *TimDaniels*
  20. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Gosh! Let's turn this thread into a debate about the Bush administration's tort
    reform proposal, which would reduce the number of class action lawsuits. Based
    on 4 years and 2 months in office, one must conclude that ANY initiative by the
    Bush administration would benefit the oligarchs who bought and paid for this
    presidency, and works to the detriment of the large and growing underclass in
    the United States... Ben Myers

    On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:22:57 -0000, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    >news:WNUUd.18769$Q47.16520@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    >> Paul Knudsen wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Some awards may have gotten out of hand, though. But some are
    >>>deserved, like the girl in North Carolina who got a transplant of the
    >>>wrong blood type. I mean, I'd double-check and triple-check something
    >>>like that, wouldn't you?
    >>>
    >> Certainly. But then, that wasn't a class action ...
    >
    >Some of it is daft. Like the girl who was so pleased at her pay raise that
    >she hopped, skipped and jumped back to her desk. She snapped her Achilles
    >Tendon on the way, so sued her employers for not protecting her properly.
    >She won!
    >
    >
  21. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > "Jerry Park" wrote:
    >
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Jerry Park" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
    >>>> an effect is on good companies who do want to do
    >>>> a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them
    >>>> to charge more for their product
    >>>> than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
    >>> and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
    >>> the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
    >>> "frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
    >>> practices.
    >>>
    >>> *TimDaniels*
    >>
    >>
    >> No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
    >> class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
    >> lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
    >> the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.
    >>
    >> To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
    >> business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small
    >> benefit is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of
    >> business by class action.
    >
    >
    >
    > While it's mostly attorneys who benefit *directly* from class
    > action suits,
    > we all benefit indirectly as consumers because the threat of law suit is
    > one of the few things that keep corporations in check. The government
    > is *supposed* to do that for us, but, well... you know how that goes.
    > Whenever a class action suit is slapped on a publicly-owned company,
    > its stock price goes down because every analyst knows what a drain they
    > frequently are on the corporate officers' time and attention. They
    > can drag
    > on for years and sap a company's strength and vitality. That is why
    > they are
    > frequently settled out of court. The attorneys reap a wad of fees,
    > and the
    > company goes on, but a bit chastised. Corporations may set aside funds
    > for unforeseen law suits, but those funds come out of company profits,
    > and
    > companies try to avoid law suits to keep their profit margins up. I
    > agree that
    > class action suits are an inefficient way to police corporations, but
    > in the
    > absence of effective government agencies, what other mechanism is there?
    >
    > *TimDaniels*

    Free market forces?
  22. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:20:03 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    >
    > one must conclude that ANY initiative by the
    > Bush administration would benefit the oligarchs who bought and paid for this
    > presidency, and works to the detriment of the large and growing underclass in
    > the United States... Ben Myers

    Got news for you - the people voted and BUSH WON - now face that fact or
    stop whining.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  23. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    GB wrote:

    > "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
    > news:x1KUd.37516$Rl5.8794@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    >
    >>All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
    >>cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.
    >
    >
    > The last time I looked, the USA had more lawyers per head of poulation than
    > any other country.

    True

    > That was quite a long time ago, so it might have changed.

    Only in that the US has even more lawyers now.

    > Clearly, if you have that many lawyers sitting around, they'll find a way of
    > making work for themselves.

    Obviously.

    ;)
  24. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented objectively to
    the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your bait and
    switch! ... Ben Myers

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:15:57 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

    >On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:20:03 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    >>
    >> one must conclude that ANY initiative by the
    >> Bush administration would benefit the oligarchs who bought and paid for this
    >> presidency, and works to the detriment of the large and growing underclass in
    >> the United States... Ben Myers
    >
    >Got news for you - the people voted and BUSH WON - now face that fact or
    >stop whining.
    >
    >--
    >spam999free@rrohio.com
    >remove 999 in order to email me
    >
  25. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:

    > And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented objectively to
    > the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your bait and
    > switch! ... Ben Myers

    Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented facts
    and other information that was completely honest and correct all the time?

    The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
    his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
    always had the same stance on his positions.

    So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president, just
    get over it, accept it, and be happy that you don't have a two faced,
    dishonorable, gumby looking, double talker, idiot in the office now.

    Dell is about as guilty of Bait-Switch as this thread is - they present
    you with options and if you want something else it's not B&S by Dell. I'm
    sure that if they only offered two products someone would still complain
    about it.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  26. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > "Jerry Park" wrote:
    >
    >> Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
    >> an effect is on good companies who do want to do
    >> a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them to
    >> charge more for their product
    >> than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.
    >
    > And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
    > and which are "non-frivolous"?

    Judges should have leeway in making this decision.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Leythos wrote:

    > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    >
    >>And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented objectively to
    >>the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your bait and
    >>switch! ... Ben Myers
    >
    > Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented facts
    > and other information that was completely honest and correct all the time?
    >
    > The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
    > his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
    > always had the same stance on his positions.
    >
    > So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president

    You've just established yourself as a Rush lapdog & have lost all
    credibility whatsoever.

    Social Security ain't broke, don't fix it!!!
  28. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Honesty and complete presentation of the facts were not part of the last
    presidential campaign. BOTH candidates were full of fog and obfuscation. I
    don't hate Bush, but because I am not in the top 1% of wage earners, the Bush
    regimes policies have hit me in the pocketbook, time and again and again. When
    well over half of the people in this country take an economic hit, even those
    who voted for Bushie, can we call this government of the people, by the people
    and for the people? Heck no!!!

    You and I and all our children will pay and pay dearly for what can only be
    characterized as the reckless economic policy of the last four years. We've
    gone from a healthy budgetary surplus to horrific budget deficits and equally
    horrific balance of payment issues in just over four years. Yes, 9/11 and the
    dot-com implosion helped. So did Enron, Arthur Anderson, Health South, AIG and
    all the other corporate thieves. But the bottom line is that cutting taxes and
    increasing spending results in deficits. Duh! Doesn't anyone in Washington do
    the math? ... Ben Myers

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:13:51 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

    >On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    >
    >> And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented objectively to
    >> the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your bait and
    >> switch! ... Ben Myers
    >
    >Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented facts
    >and other information that was completely honest and correct all the time?
    >
    >The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
    >his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
    >always had the same stance on his positions.
    >
    >So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president, just
    >get over it, accept it, and be happy that you don't have a two faced,
    >dishonorable, gumby looking, double talker, idiot in the office now.
    >
    >Dell is about as guilty of Bait-Switch as this thread is - they present
    >you with options and if you want something else it's not B&S by Dell. I'm
    >sure that if they only offered two products someone would still complain
    >about it.
    >
    >--
    >spam999free@rrohio.com
    >remove 999 in order to email me
    >
  29. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.03.01.14.25.08.739595@nowhere.lan...
    > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:20:03 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    >>
    >> one must conclude that ANY initiative by the
    >> Bush administration would benefit the oligarchs who bought and paid for
    >> this
    >> presidency, and works to the detriment of the large and growing
    >> underclass in
    >> the United States... Ben Myers
    >
    > Got news for you - the people voted and BUSH WON - now face that fact or
    > stop whining.
    >
    > --
    > spam999free@rrohio.com
    > remove 999 in order to email me
    >


    Don't bait the RDDB's......

    ;-)


    Stew
  30. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    well said. and least we forget the defective thinking that got us into the
    iraq mess where another 122 innocent people died earlier today. i also can
    not help wondering why new york city, the place that suffered (and still
    suffers from) the greatest loss from the 9/11 attacks, and a place that
    remains to be the most likely target for future attacks, voted
    overwhelmingly against bush. bush won, but the country lost.

    11/2004 presidential election results for nyc were 16% for bush, 78% for
    kerry
    http://www.miata.net/faq/wheel_weights.html

    <ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    news:42249c68.13612464@nntp.charter.net...
    > Honesty and complete presentation of the facts were not part of the last
    > presidential campaign. BOTH candidates were full of fog and obfuscation.
    > I
    > don't hate Bush, but because I am not in the top 1% of wage earners, the
    > Bush
    > regimes policies have hit me in the pocketbook, time and again and again.
    > When
    > well over half of the people in this country take an economic hit, even
    > those
    > who voted for Bushie, can we call this government of the people, by the
    > people
    > and for the people? Heck no!!!
    >
    > You and I and all our children will pay and pay dearly for what can only
    > be
    > characterized as the reckless economic policy of the last four years.
    > We've
    > gone from a healthy budgetary surplus to horrific budget deficits and
    > equally
    > horrific balance of payment issues in just over four years. Yes, 9/11 and
    > the
    > dot-com implosion helped. So did Enron, Arthur Anderson, Health South,
    > AIG and
    > all the other corporate thieves. But the bottom line is that cutting
    > taxes and
    > increasing spending results in deficits. Duh! Doesn't anyone in
    > Washington do
    > the math? ... Ben Myers
    >
    > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:13:51 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    >>
    >>> And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented
    >>> objectively to
    >>> the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your
    >>> bait and
    >>> switch! ... Ben Myers
    >>
    >>Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented facts
    >>and other information that was completely honest and correct all the time?
    >>
    >>The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
    >>his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
    >>always had the same stance on his positions.
    >>
    >>So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president, just
    >>get over it, accept it, and be happy that you don't have a two faced,
    >>dishonorable, gumby looking, double talker, idiot in the office now.
    >>
    >>Dell is about as guilty of Bait-Switch as this thread is - they present
    >>you with options and if you want something else it's not B&S by Dell. I'm
    >>sure that if they only offered two products someone would still complain
    >>about it.
    >>
    >>--
    >>spam999free@rrohio.com
    >>remove 999 in order to email me
    >>
    >
  31. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:0O2Vd.38197$ya6.36610@trndny01...
    > well said. and least we forget the defective thinking that got us into
    > the iraq mess where another 122 innocent people died earlier today. i
    > also can not help wondering why new york city, the place that suffered
    > (and still suffers from) the greatest loss from the 9/11 attacks, and a
    > place that remains to be the most likely target for future attacks, voted
    > overwhelmingly against bush. bush won, but the country lost.
    >
    > 11/2004 presidential election results for nyc were 16% for bush, 78% for
    > kerry
    > http://www.miata.net/faq/wheel_weights.html
    >


    Lest we forget that well over 100,000 Americans died in the U.S. Civil War.
    I suppose we could've avoided all of that abolition stuff and simply
    negotiated with the confederacy. We'd all be better off today, no? <sarcasm>

    I really do hate it when this group rails of topic into politics. I find
    myself at odds with many in here whose opinions I otherwise hold in high
    regard.


    Stew
  32. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    wrong link... should be
    http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2004/general/G2004Recaps.pdf

    "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:0O2Vd.38197$ya6.36610@trndny01...
    > well said. and least we forget the defective thinking that got us into
    > the iraq mess where another 122 innocent people died earlier today. i
    > also can not help wondering why new york city, the place that suffered
    > (and still suffers from) the greatest loss from the 9/11 attacks, and a
    > place that remains to be the most likely target for future attacks, voted
    > overwhelmingly against bush. bush won, but the country lost.
    >
    > 11/2004 presidential election results for nyc were 16% for bush, 78% for
    > kerry
    > http://www.miata.net/faq/wheel_weights.html
    >
    > <ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
    > news:42249c68.13612464@nntp.charter.net...
    >> Honesty and complete presentation of the facts were not part of the last
    >> presidential campaign. BOTH candidates were full of fog and obfuscation.
    >> I
    >> don't hate Bush, but because I am not in the top 1% of wage earners, the
    >> Bush
    >> regimes policies have hit me in the pocketbook, time and again and again.
    >> When
    >> well over half of the people in this country take an economic hit, even
    >> those
    >> who voted for Bushie, can we call this government of the people, by the
    >> people
    >> and for the people? Heck no!!!
    >>
    >> You and I and all our children will pay and pay dearly for what can only
    >> be
    >> characterized as the reckless economic policy of the last four years.
    >> We've
    >> gone from a healthy budgetary surplus to horrific budget deficits and
    >> equally
    >> horrific balance of payment issues in just over four years. Yes, 9/11
    >> and the
    >> dot-com implosion helped. So did Enron, Arthur Anderson, Health South,
    >> AIG and
    >> all the other corporate thieves. But the bottom line is that cutting
    >> taxes and
    >> increasing spending results in deficits. Duh! Doesn't anyone in
    >> Washington do
    >> the math? ... Ben Myers
    >>
    >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:13:51 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented
    >>>> objectively to
    >>>> the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your
    >>>> bait and
    >>>> switch! ... Ben Myers
    >>>
    >>>Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented
    >>>facts
    >>>and other information that was completely honest and correct all the
    >>>time?
    >>>
    >>>The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
    >>>his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
    >>>always had the same stance on his positions.
    >>>
    >>>So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president, just
    >>>get over it, accept it, and be happy that you don't have a two faced,
    >>>dishonorable, gumby looking, double talker, idiot in the office now.
    >>>
    >>>Dell is about as guilty of Bait-Switch as this thread is - they present
    >>>you with options and if you want something else it's not B&S by Dell. I'm
    >>>sure that if they only offered two products someone would still complain
    >>>about it.
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>>spam999free@rrohio.com
    >>>remove 999 in order to email me
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
  33. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:28:04 -0500, Sparky wrote:

    > Leythos wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    >>
    >>>And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented objectively to
    >>>the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your bait and
    >>>switch! ... Ben Myers
    >>
    >> Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented facts
    >> and other information that was completely honest and correct all the time?
    >>
    >> The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
    >> his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
    >> always had the same stance on his positions.
    >>
    >> So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president
    >
    > You've just established yourself as a Rush lapdog & have lost all
    > credibility whatsoever.
    >
    > Social Security ain't broke, don't fix it!!!

    That's funny - some one I don't know telling me I'm not credible to them.
    If you have a problem with my opinion on the economy or the leadership
    then I suspect that you have no credibility and no business experience in
    the world.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  34. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Leythos wrote:

    > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:20:03 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    >
    >>one must conclude that ANY initiative by the
    >>Bush administration would benefit the oligarchs who bought and paid for this
    >>presidency, and works to the detriment of the large and growing underclass in
    >>the United States... Ben Myers
    >
    > Got news for you - the people voted and BUSH WON - now face that fact or
    > stop whining.

    Don't you mean "face that fact AND stop whining"? ;)


    Yes, Bush won the election; but that's no reason to roll over & play
    dead while he completes the rape of the US. Remember the Republicons &
    President Clinton in the 90's? Don't expect people to treat you any
    better than you've been treating them (so bend over & grab your argyles).
  35. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:21:21 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
    >
    > http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html
    > or more specifically
    > http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
    > and the replacement certificate dd215 where the "vietnam service metal" was
    > deleted and "vietnam service metal with 4 bronze stars" was added...
    > http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD-215_Correction.pdf
    > you may find this site interesting.
    > http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

    I see you've fallen for the Kerry lies too - Kerry was discharged in 72 if
    I remember correctly. The one he shows on the site above shows 78, it's
    not the same discharge as he would have got the first time.

    It's kind of funny too - the DD215 shows that it's correcting a DD214
    (Item 24) that was dated 3-01-70, but the DD214 he shows in the links
    provided is not dated in 1970!

    I'm telling you, as a X-Navy service member, with a long history of
    service to our country, if you don't look at any of the political or
    swiftboat sites (as I don't follow either sides BS), and just look at his
    refusal to present his DD214, then you can see what he really did/stands
    for.

    I just looked at my DD214 and all the dates on it are correct and match my
    separation date, my awards dates, etc...

    Don't forget, Carter granted Amnesty to a lot of Vets that were given
    OTH's, and some of the paperwork that Kerry has shown has official dates
    of the Carter era - which is another reason I fully believe that Kerry was
    OTH discharged.

    As I said before, I don't care about the politics, I'm an independent, but
    I'll take Bush's ways/methods/beliefs over anyone halfway like Kerry
    appears to be.

    Go back and look at their speeches when they talked with opposing groups
    that supported them - Kerry is on file (video) of telling one group of
    supporters that he supports their position and the next group at another
    rally that he directly opposes the position he supported with the first
    group - I didn't see anything like that from Bush.

    Oh, one last thing - During the campaign's I got numerous calls from
    President Bush and Laura and several others inviting me to Dinner with
    them, but none on the Kerry team called to invite me to dinner :)

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  36. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:39:38 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    >
    > Denial? Heck no! l deny being in denial. So I guess I am in some sort of
    > philosophic meta-denial, having denied being in denial.
    >
    > I read the pinko subversive NY Times and the Financial Times (non-US
    > perspective) cover to cover every day to get a reality check on my own
    > observations and experience, plus on-line news sources. If the dollar continues
    > to lose significant value against major currencies or China finally decides to
    > do a significant revaluation of the RMB against $US, you have the makings for
    > world-wide economic chaos. I don't need to be Greenspan to make that sort of
    > prediction, either. Of course, I don't wear Greenspan's blinders, either.

    The problem is that technology has made it very easy to be a global
    community of businesses. While some still struggle with it, many are
    getting it right, and that ease of communication then levels the field.
    When it use to require local workers and local parts a local wage was the
    norm, now I can move almost my entire business outside any country and
    take advantage of the remote countries wage structure - which directly
    impacts (negatively) my home country's economy, but many companies don't
    care about that effect.

    It's interesting to see that IT workers in India that use to earn $3/day
    (USD) are now making the equivalent (USD) of $30K/$40K per year due to the
    leveling of the workforce resources. As it turns out, the economy is like
    water, it will spread until it's level across the paying region. Wages
    will drop in the US, increase in remote countries, and things will level
    out, it's never going to be the same, and it's going to continue to
    change. Your only option is to see it and learn how to survive with the
    changes or you will be lost in the sea.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  37. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    i don't follow what you are trying to say about the dates on the documents
    or what it means to have discharge papers issued at time of separation or
    not... but to discredit kerry's service record without a clear and
    researched argument is absurd. given bush's spotty service record the
    attack on kerry's record seems to stink of being another weapon of mass
    distraction. i would love to know the truth about both of them and i am
    open to listen to your argument about the problems with kerry's service
    record if you would put it into laymen's terms. but i also understand if
    you don't want to spend the time doing that...

    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.03.02.13.47.56.924352@nowhere.lan...
    > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:21:21 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
    >>
    >> http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html
    >> or more specifically
    >> http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
    >> and the replacement certificate dd215 where the "vietnam service metal"
    >> was
    >> deleted and "vietnam service metal with 4 bronze stars" was added...
    >> http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD-215_Correction.pdf
    >> you may find this site interesting.
    >> http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp
    >
    > I see you've fallen for the Kerry lies too - Kerry was discharged in 72 if
    > I remember correctly. The one he shows on the site above shows 78, it's
    > not the same discharge as he would have got the first time.
    >
    > It's kind of funny too - the DD215 shows that it's correcting a DD214
    > (Item 24) that was dated 3-01-70, but the DD214 he shows in the links
    > provided is not dated in 1970!
    >
    > I'm telling you, as a X-Navy service member, with a long history of
    > service to our country, if you don't look at any of the political or
    > swiftboat sites (as I don't follow either sides BS), and just look at his
    > refusal to present his DD214, then you can see what he really did/stands
    > for.
    >
    > I just looked at my DD214 and all the dates on it are correct and match my
    > separation date, my awards dates, etc...
    >
    > Don't forget, Carter granted Amnesty to a lot of Vets that were given
    > OTH's, and some of the paperwork that Kerry has shown has official dates
    > of the Carter era - which is another reason I fully believe that Kerry was
    > OTH discharged.
    >
    > As I said before, I don't care about the politics, I'm an independent, but
    > I'll take Bush's ways/methods/beliefs over anyone halfway like Kerry
    > appears to be.
    >
    > Go back and look at their speeches when they talked with opposing groups
    > that supported them - Kerry is on file (video) of telling one group of
    > supporters that he supports their position and the next group at another
    > rally that he directly opposes the position he supported with the first
    > group - I didn't see anything like that from Bush.
    >
    > Oh, one last thing - During the campaign's I got numerous calls from
    > President Bush and Laura and several others inviting me to Dinner with
    > them, but none on the Kerry team called to invite me to dinner :)
    >
    > --
    > spam999free@rrohio.com
    > remove 999 in order to email me
    >
  38. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:22:01 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
    >
    > i don't follow what you are trying to say about the dates on the documents
    > or what it means to have discharge papers issued at time of separation or
    > not... but to discredit kerry's service record without a clear and
    > researched argument is absurd.

    it's quite simple - when you are discharged from a branch or move from
    active duty to reserves you are given a discharge from that branch. If you
    look at all the documents posted in the links you will be able to start
    seeing things inconsistent with the dates and how dates on one document
    that reference another documents date don't match.

    Kerry was discharged after 6 years, that puts his discharge data in 72
    (maybe 73, I can't remember) if I remember correctly. His paperwork,
    revised, shows 78 in one palace, a DD215 says it's referencing a discharge
    DD214 dated in 70, and other inconsistent dates on the forms that were
    presented. What none of us has seen is his discharge paper DD214 from his
    initial enlistment. The only thing you can come close to is the amended
    discharge paperwork that was updated due to Carters amnesty program.

    I my mind, a figure running for office that makes grand claims about his
    service and HONORABLE service at that, and has questionable accounting of
    his medals, and that supported the Enemy Political Engine during his early
    years, has discredited himself. Kerry's only hope of salvation is to make
    the truth public, show his initial separation DD214, admit the truth about
    his Medals, admit and ask for forgiveness by the American people for his
    giving comfort to the Enemy, and to do so without any conditional BS. If
    he would have done that I would have voted for him. As a honorably
    discharged member of the Navy, having seen/done things that were never
    reported, or where the opposite was reported, having work with Intel, I
    have what I consider my honest opinion of him based on what I consider to
    be factual accounts and factual withholdings of information that should be
    available from any honorable person.

    If you were to talk with 10,000 Vets that were given Honorable discharges,
    you would not find one that you be afraid to show you - that simple thing
    is very telling of Kerry.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  39. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Jerry Park wrote:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >
    >> "Jerry Park" wrote:
    >>
    >>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Jerry Park" wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
    >>>>> an effect is on good companies who do want to do
    >>>>> a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them
    >>>>> to charge more for their product
    >>>>> than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.
    >>>>
    >>>> And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
    >>>> and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
    >>>> the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
    >>>> "frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
    >>>> practices.
    >>>>
    >>>> *TimDaniels*
    >>>
    >>> No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
    >>> class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
    >>> lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
    >>> the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.
    >>>
    >>> To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
    >>> business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small
    >>> benefit is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of
    >>> business by class action.
    >>
    >> While it's mostly attorneys who benefit *directly* from class
    >> action suits,
    >> we all benefit indirectly as consumers because the threat of law suit is
    >> one of the few things that keep corporations in check. The government
    >> is *supposed* to do that for us, but, well... you know how that goes.
    >> Whenever a class action suit is slapped on a publicly-owned company,
    >> its stock price goes down because every analyst knows what a drain they
    >> frequently are on the corporate officers' time and attention. They
    >> can drag
    >> on for years and sap a company's strength and vitality. That is why
    >> they are
    >> frequently settled out of court. The attorneys reap a wad of fees,
    >> and the
    >> company goes on, but a bit chastised. Corporations may set aside funds
    >> for unforeseen law suits, but those funds come out of company profits,
    >> and
    >> companies try to avoid law suits to keep their profit margins up. I
    >> agree that
    >> class action suits are an inefficient way to police corporations, but
    >> in the
    >> absence of effective government agencies, what other mechanism is there?
    >>
    >> *TimDaniels*
    >
    > Free market forces?

    What's that mean?
  40. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    i get that you are passionate about this, but i still don't understand what
    your objection is to the service records that are plainly listed on his web
    site http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html
    lets take this one step at a time... start with the dd214. box 13
    (character of service) says "honorable". what in this document do you find
    objectionable?

    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.03.02.17.36.47.816089@nowhere.lan...
    > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:22:01 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
    >>
    >> i don't follow what you are trying to say about the dates on the
    >> documents
    >> or what it means to have discharge papers issued at time of separation or
    >> not... but to discredit kerry's service record without a clear and
    >> researched argument is absurd.
    >
    > it's quite simple - when you are discharged from a branch or move from
    > active duty to reserves you are given a discharge from that branch. If you
    > look at all the documents posted in the links you will be able to start
    > seeing things inconsistent with the dates and how dates on one document
    > that reference another documents date don't match.
    >
    > Kerry was discharged after 6 years, that puts his discharge data in 72
    > (maybe 73, I can't remember) if I remember correctly. His paperwork,
    > revised, shows 78 in one palace, a DD215 says it's referencing a discharge
    > DD214 dated in 70, and other inconsistent dates on the forms that were
    > presented. What none of us has seen is his discharge paper DD214 from his
    > initial enlistment. The only thing you can come close to is the amended
    > discharge paperwork that was updated due to Carters amnesty program.
    >
    > I my mind, a figure running for office that makes grand claims about his
    > service and HONORABLE service at that, and has questionable accounting of
    > his medals, and that supported the Enemy Political Engine during his early
    > years, has discredited himself. Kerry's only hope of salvation is to make
    > the truth public, show his initial separation DD214, admit the truth about
    > his Medals, admit and ask for forgiveness by the American people for his
    > giving comfort to the Enemy, and to do so without any conditional BS. If
    > he would have done that I would have voted for him. As a honorably
    > discharged member of the Navy, having seen/done things that were never
    > reported, or where the opposite was reported, having work with Intel, I
    > have what I consider my honest opinion of him based on what I consider to
    > be factual accounts and factual withholdings of information that should be
    > available from any honorable person.
    >
    > If you were to talk with 10,000 Vets that were given Honorable discharges,
    > you would not find one that you be afraid to show you - that simple thing
    > is very telling of Kerry.
    >
    > --
    > spam999free@rrohio.com
    > remove 999 in order to email me
    >
  41. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Chris,
    Basically, if his original DD214 read anything but "Honorable", he could not
    run for US Senate, and maybe even public office in Massachusetts. If he got
    some type of amnesty during the Carter years, people would wonder why, and
    how it was accomplished. If you look further through the DD214 form, you
    would have seen that there were no separation papers issued to him, in the
    Remarks section, referring to line "13b". Also, there was a change in his
    original separation date, almost a two (2) year, discrepancy. Even if it was
    a delay in processing DD214's during that time period. He should have been
    able to provide discharge orders for termination of service. These would
    have been issued so that he could travel back to his hometown. On the form
    would show the type of discharge he received at the time.

    My reenlistment orders when I was in the Army, shows that I received an
    Honorable discharge from my first enlistment. I was not issued a DD214 for
    the first enlistment, but I have a copy of the orders. And I got them after
    10 years out of the service. So Kerry should just sign the form to release
    his records. The funny thing is, he already has a copy of his records, that
    is why he was able to release the docs that he thought could benefit
    himself.
    --

    Click on Link to Add MS to your News Reader: news://msnews.microsoft.com
    Rich/rerat

    (RRR News) <message rule>
    <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>


    "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:Y5rVd.67170$8a6.48088@trndny09...
    i get that you are passionate about this, but i still don't understand what
    your objection is to the service records that are plainly listed on his web
    site http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html
    lets take this one step at a time... start with the dd214. box 13
    (character of service) says "honorable". what in this document do you find
    objectionable?
  42. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:28:08 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:

    > i get that you are passionate about this, but i still don't understand what
    > your objection is to the service records that are plainly listed on his web
    > site http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html
    > lets take this one step at a time... start with the dd214. box 13
    > (character of service) says "honorable". what in this document do you find
    > objectionable?

    several things -

    Page 1
    3M/27D of Active Duty Service - he claimed more.
    Discharge Date type is close but does not completely match rest of doc.
    Line 26 - Only one Award - no medals
    Line 27 - No wounds as a result of action with enemy forces

    Page 2 - record shows Effective date of 1970
    Shows more information that conflicts with other parts of other
    documents on the same site.

    Page 1 - Box 18 - shows terminal date of RESERVE as 72 with 3 months of
    active service (no medals listed)
    Page 2 - Box 18 - shows terminal date of RESERVE as 72 with 3 YEARS of
    active service (and now has medals)

    I will review these documents this week and reply with my "opinion" on
    them and if I've changed my view.


    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  43. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.03.02.14.02.58.721116@nowhere.lan...
    > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:39:38 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
    > >
    > > Denial? Heck no! l deny being in denial. So I guess I am in some sort
    of
    > > philosophic meta-denial, having denied being in denial.
    > >
    > > I read the pinko subversive NY Times and the Financial Times (non-US
    > > perspective) cover to cover every day to get a reality check on my own
    > > observations and experience, plus on-line news sources. If the dollar
    continues
    > > to lose significant value against major currencies or China finally
    decides to
    > > do a significant revaluation of the RMB against $US, you have the
    makings for
    > > world-wide economic chaos. I don't need to be Greenspan to make that
    sort of
    > > prediction, either. Of course, I don't wear Greenspan's blinders,
    either.
    >
    > The problem is that technology has made it very easy to be a global
    > community of businesses. While some still struggle with it, many are
    > getting it right, and that ease of communication then levels the field.
    > When it use to require local workers and local parts a local wage was the
    > norm, now I can move almost my entire business outside any country and
    > take advantage of the remote countries wage structure - which directly
    > impacts (negatively) my home country's economy, but many companies don't
    > care about that effect.
    >
    > It's interesting to see that IT workers in India that use to earn $3/day
    > (USD) are now making the equivalent (USD) of $30K/$40K per year due to the
    > leveling of the workforce resources. As it turns out, the economy is like
    > water, it will spread until it's level across the paying region. Wages
    > will drop in the US, increase in remote countries, and things will level
    > out, it's never going to be the same, and it's going to continue to
    > change. Your only option is to see it and learn how to survive with the
    > changes or you will be lost in the sea.


    And it'll be interesting to see how all this plays out when China attempts
    to take over Taiwan militarily, and then maybe North Korea decides to take
    advantage of it with a move south since they are all starving up there and
    decides to pre-empt with a nuke to Okinawa. Or maybe Pakistan gets taken
    over by Islamic fundamentalists (Musharaf can't dodge those assassination
    attempts forever) and decides it really does want to use those Islamic
    nukes on India.

    All this wonderful foreign outsourcing is dependent on stability. The
    minute it disappears these companies are going get screwed! Then the U.S.
    government will realize how it is also hog tied by its dependence. The last
    page is yet to be written on all this "globalization". The reality is that
    it is still a very nasty world out there. I have $20 that says one of the
    above scenarios will play out within the next 10 years.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:09:41 -0500, Dogface wrote:
    >
    > And it'll be interesting to see how all this plays out when China attempts
    > to take over Taiwan militarily, and then maybe North Korea decides to take
    > advantage of it with a move south since they are all starving up there and
    > decides to pre-empt with a nuke to Okinawa. Or maybe Pakistan gets taken
    > over by Islamic fundamentalists (Musharaf can't dodge those assassination
    > attempts forever) and decides it really does want to use those Islamic
    > nukes on India.

    Actually, China has stated that it will take over the US within 20 years -
    they are very patient.

    > All this wonderful foreign outsourcing is dependent on stability. The
    > minute it disappears these companies are going get screwed! Then the U.S.
    > government will realize how it is also hog tied by its dependence. The last
    > page is yet to be written on all this "globalization". The reality is that
    > it is still a very nasty world out there. I have $20 that says one of the
    > above scenarios will play out within the next 10 years.

    That's why IBM started pulling a lot of it back to the US.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  45. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:12:34 -0500, Sparky wrote:
    >
    > I do not admire people who stand on their beliefs when their beliefs are
    > wrong & detrimental to the strategic interests of the US. We're
    > certainly no safer now from a terrorist attack than we were 3 1/2 half
    > years ago, in spite of the billions spent on "homeland security".

    I clipped the rest because this summarizes your beliefs enough for me. As
    a former military service member, family man, been around the world, teach
    shooting sports to kids groups, and business owner - I can only say that I
    feel safer than when Clinton was in, and that my business has grown during
    the Bush terms.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  46. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Strange. You feel safer when Clinton was in, but the Quick Reaction Forces
    had a chance to take out Bin Laden well before 9/11 and it was Clinton that
    gave the order preventing the action.

    I can only guess that this is one of those cases where what you do not know
    makes you feel safer. >g<


    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.03.03.22.29.55.533173@nowhere.lan...
    > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:12:34 -0500, Sparky wrote:
    >>
    >> I do not admire people who stand on their beliefs when their beliefs are
    >> wrong & detrimental to the strategic interests of the US. We're
    >> certainly no safer now from a terrorist attack than we were 3 1/2 half
    >> years ago, in spite of the billions spent on "homeland security".
    >
    > I clipped the rest because this summarizes your beliefs enough for me. As
    > a former military service member, family man, been around the world, teach
    > shooting sports to kids groups, and business owner - I can only say that I
    > feel safer than when Clinton was in, and that my business has grown during
    > the Bush terms.
    >
    > --
    > spam999free@rrohio.com
    > remove 999 in order to email me
    >
  47. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Irene wrote:
    > Strange. You feel safer when Clinton was in, but the Quick Reaction Forces
    > had a chance to take out Bin Laden well before 9/11 and it was Clinton that
    > gave the order preventing the action.
    >
    > I can only guess that this is one of those cases where what you do not know
    > makes you feel safer. >g<
    >
    >
    > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2005.03.03.22.29.55.533173@nowhere.lan...
    >
    >>On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:12:34 -0500, Sparky wrote:
    >>
    >>>I do not admire people who stand on their beliefs when their beliefs are
    >>>wrong & detrimental to the strategic interests of the US. We're
    >>>certainly no safer now from a terrorist attack than we were 3 1/2 half
    >>>years ago, in spite of the billions spent on "homeland security".
    >>
    >>I clipped the rest because this summarizes your beliefs enough for me. As
    >>a former military service member, family man, been around the world, teach
    >>shooting sports to kids groups, and business owner - I can only say that I
    >>feel safer than when Clinton was in, and that my business has grown during
    >>the Bush terms.
    >>
    >>--
    >>spam999free@rrohio.com
    >>remove 999 in order to email me
    >>
    >
    >
    >

    You missed a word Irene. <grin>. He said: "I feel safer than when
    Clinton was in . . . ."

    Dave
  48. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    You are absolute correct and I apologize to Leythos.

    Irene

    "Dave Friedenberg" <davefr@iname.com> wrote in message
    news:oMMVd.19077$VD5.17751@twister.socal.rr.com...
    > Irene wrote:
    >> Strange. You feel safer when Clinton was in, but the Quick Reaction
    >> Forces had a chance to take out Bin Laden well before 9/11 and it was
    >> Clinton that gave the order preventing the action.
    >>
    >> I can only guess that this is one of those cases where what you do not
    >> know makes you feel safer. >g<
    >>
    >>
    >> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    >> news:pan.2005.03.03.22.29.55.533173@nowhere.lan...
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:12:34 -0500, Sparky wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I do not admire people who stand on their beliefs when their beliefs are
    >>>>wrong & detrimental to the strategic interests of the US. We're
    >>>>certainly no safer now from a terrorist attack than we were 3 1/2 half
    >>>>years ago, in spite of the billions spent on "homeland security".
    >>>
    >>>I clipped the rest because this summarizes your beliefs enough for me. As
    >>>a former military service member, family man, been around the world,
    >>>teach
    >>>shooting sports to kids groups, and business owner - I can only say that
    >>>I
    >>>feel safer than when Clinton was in, and that my business has grown
    >>>during
    >>>the Bush terms.
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>>spam999free@rrohio.com
    >>>remove 999 in order to email me
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > You missed a word Irene. <grin>. He said: "I feel safer than when Clinton
    > was in . . . ."
    >
    > Dave
  49. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:44:06 -0800, Irene wrote:
    >
    > Strange. You feel safer when Clinton was in, but the Quick Reaction
    > Forces had a chance to take out Bin Laden well before 9/11 and it was
    > Clinton that gave the order preventing the action.

    I specifically said: I can only say that I feel safer than when Clinton
    was in.... Which means I feel safer NOW than when Clinton WAS in office.

    In case you miss the intent of the above - I feel safer with Bush in
    office than I have with any other president during my lifetime.

    > I can only guess that this is one of those cases where what you do not
    > know makes you feel safer. >g<

    I've been around the world, in places where they threw stuff at us for
    being American, in places where they praised us for being American. I've
    been in places I felt safe and places I felt unsafe in groups.

    I left my post below so you could reference it for the part you misread.


    > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2005.03.03.22.29.55.533173@nowhere.lan...
    >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:12:34 -0500, Sparky wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I do not admire people who stand on their beliefs when their beliefs
    >>> are wrong & detrimental to the strategic interests of the US. We're
    >>> certainly no safer now from a terrorist attack than we were 3 1/2 half
    >>> years ago, in spite of the billions spent on "homeland security".
    >>
    >> I clipped the rest because this summarizes your beliefs enough for me.
    >> As a former military service member, family man, been around the world,
    >> teach shooting sports to kids groups, and business owner - I can only
    >> say that I feel safer than when Clinton was in, and that my business
    >> has grown during the Bush terms.
    >>
    >> --
    >> spam999free@rrohio.com
    >> remove 999 in order to email me
    >>
    >>

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
Ask a new question

Read More

Dell Switch Computers