Calumet files Chapter 7

On 3/25/2014 5:18 PM, Scott Schuckert wrote:
In article , Sandman
wrote:

So, the actual price of the product is just one parameter of many when you
decide how "competitive" a retail vendor is.

Well, you certainly SEEMED to make it about price. When I had my
stores, I offered all the amenities I mentioned before, and like to
think I did a good job at them. I still lost customers to mail order,
over price differences of 10% or less.

So I ask again, in two ways: On price, how close is close enough; on
services, what more do customers need to justify a price difference of,
say, 15% or 20%, my additional operating costs over the mail order
guys?

I already know the answer - customers won't pay for services. But
convince me...


It depends. I think that enough customers will pay for services, to keep
some stores in business.
I see in my neighborhood, brand new independent pharmacies are starting
to open up. Independent hardware stores are increasing their sales.
There is a bookstore in NYC that hires only knowledgeable, service
oriented staff. This particular store sell books for full list price.

--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
If it isn't stated, it's ignored.

Sandman:
Whoa! That quote is one for the archives. If it isn't stated, it's
ignored.

Uhhh, yes. How could it be any other way?

Maybe you're just ignorant about the meaning of the word "ignore"? Could
be.

ignore
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally:

Ignoring something is an active action, not stating something isn't. There
are millions of things you didn't state in your post here, but you're not
actually ignoring all of them; like floods in malaysia, the price of IKEA
furniture and the mating calls of sea lions. You didn't state any of those
items, and according to you, that means you ignored them. Well, according
to the English language, you didn't.

Ignoring something is deliberate, and one cannot prove the existence of a
deliberate action (ignoring something) solely by noting the absence of
another deliberate action (i.e. stating something).

Tony Cooper:
While everything can't be stated, when the position is taken
that retail stores do not have helpful staff, and that there is
an "online landscape" to be reckoned with, the same analysis of
the online landscape should be addressed.

Sandman:
That's like saying that a retail store have ugly shelves and thus
one is forced to make a comment about online store's lack of
shelves.

Surely you can come up with a better analogy than that.

Maybe, but it worked.

Tony Cooper:
Within certain parameters that the *buyer* determines.

Sandman:
Not necessarily, While most of my experience is with swedish
sites, I'm sure comparable ones exists for the US. Sites that will
give you some basic questions to get you started in finding your
product. Like if you're looking for a TV, you get the questions
whether you want 3D, how large it should be, what price range
you're interested in and so forth. We have pricerunner and
prisjakt (price hunt) as two examples here in Sweden.

All your examples above are parameters that the *buyer* determines.

Maybe you're being unclear, but I disagree. THe buyer knows nothing about
what parameters is important to him or her, the site in questions
determines what parameters to ask the customer in order to help him or her
make an informed purchase.

So, the buyer comes to the site with only one goal - "I want to buy a TV",
and the site will tell him what parameters that may be important in that
acquisition.

How would one go about to determine whether such
staff is on the floor on any given day - or even on the
payroll at all?

Tony Cooper:
You can't figure that out in two or three minutes?

Sandman:
Not unless I actually get in my car and drive down to the store
and interact with them, no. And that's a lot of time wasted there
already.

Unless you've just moved to a new town, or are just starting out in
photography as a hobby, you know what to expect in the store.

Not unless I've already tried and failed many times. Since you can't write
off an entire store just because you had one lousy interaction with one
employee, you still have to come back a couple of times in order to
conclude that the store doesn't have knowledgable staff. Plus, employees
come and go and new knowledgable ones could easily replace older ones so
you'd have to come back every now and then and take a new sample to refresh
your conclusion.

What you might not know is what changes there have been in personnel
since your last visit.

Indeed.

Tony Cooper:
It removes him from any position of authority on the subject.

Sandman:
I'm quite sure that's ok with him. We all know the animosity you
have towards him and I don't think he's delusional to imagine that
you consider him an "authority" on anything.

You'd be quite wrong. I consider him an authority in many areas
involving technical expertise.

Unless, of course, if he has used that technical expertise to you correct
you, in which case he's automatically wrong.

Where he goes wrong is in trying to shove his personal preferences down
the throat of everyone who dares to differ with him. In general, he's an
arrogant boor who discounts the preferences of others because they don't
do things his way.

While I'm sure that has happened as well, most of the time he's using
exaggeration to state what I consider obvious things regarding backup,
lightroom and things like that. I can't remember him ever talking about how
he manages backups or how he use Lightroom.

In fact, just about everything he's said about how to use Lightroom
properly I agree with 100%, and *I* don't use Lightroom - so I agree with
him without actually stating *my preference*, and it's quite possible that
nospam doesn't use Lightroom either (which, of course, doesn't exclude
extensive knowledge about the program).

If I were to tell you that off-site backup is the only right way to do
backup if you're concerned about your data, I'm not shoving my personal
preference down your throat, I am stating a very obvious fact.

Fact is, many poster here (especially among the elder ones) aren't
technically proficient and will make comments about computers, programs or
other technical matters that aren't correct, and nospam (and me) are happy
to correct them. But these people have a hard time being corrected so they
will argue about a subject they know very little about.

Tony Cooper:
It makes one doubt anything he says. While hyperbole is often
used in other cases, nospam and his "never", "always", "no one",
"everyone", and examples like this one, he's alone at the top in
this department.

Sandman:
I'm sure you're quite aware that this applies as much to you as
him. And me as well, probably. It's easy to use absolutes in a
discussion because it gets the message across. Sometimes I call
you on it and sometimes you call me on it (difference being that I
either retract or substantiate the claim and you don't).

Bull****. You "substantiate" by saying "Incorrect" more than
anything else.

I have never substantiated anything by saying "Incorrect". Me stating
"Incorrect" to something you write is due to one of three reasons
(generally):

1. You have made a claim about my motives, feelings, actions or something
that you have no knowledge about but I can't really prove otherwise, so I'm
just letting you know that your claim is incorrect

2. You have repeated a claim that I have already proven false, with
substantiation, no need to repeat myself, just let you know that you're
(still) incorrect.

3. You have made an incorrect statement for the first time, and unless you
specifically ask for proof, I'm starting out with letting you know that
you're incorrect - if you want substantiation, all you have to do is ask.


--
Sandman[.net]

"PeterN" wrote in message
On 3/25/2014 9:36 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
On 3/24/2014 10:33 AM, PAS wrote:

snip

The U.S. Constitution does not give any authority to the federal
government
to compete with private business. The founders were distrustful of
government, and rightly so. The Constitution is designed to LIMIT the
power
of the federal government.


You got it backwards. the Constitution is designed to grant certain
limited powers to the Federal government.

We need go no further than the "savings clause." the Tenth amendment
makes
it clear that the federal government has only only the enumerated
powers.


Perhaps it's a matter of semantics but enumerating limited powers to the
federal government IS limiting their power which is what the Constitution
does. The 10th Amendment does indicate that the federal government is
limited to the powers granted to it by the Constitution. "The powers not
delegated to the United Stated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
To
me, this makes it crystal clear the federal government has, for quite a
long
time, acted unconstitutionally and continues to. The bailouts, the ACA,
and
a whole host of others are unconstitutional.




the Constitution is not to be read literally. e.g. Freedom of speech does
not give anyone ot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion
does not give the right to use illegal drugs, or commit bigamy, etc.

The bailout is legal under the Commerce clause. If you fell the government
has actd illegally, you have a right to bring an action to stop the
action, provided you are harmed by it.

IMO, it is a ridiculous stretch to interpret the Commerce clause as giving
the power to the federal government to take taxpayer money and invest in
businesses. The Commerce clause is for regulation, not investing. Yes, we
were all harmed by the unconstitutional action - the taxpayers lost over 10
billion in the GM bailout.

On 3/26/2014 9:04 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
On 3/25/2014 9:36 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
On 3/24/2014 10:33 AM, PAS wrote:

snip

The U.S. Constitution does not give any authority to the federal
government
to compete with private business. The founders were distrustful of
government, and rightly so. The Constitution is designed to LIMIT the
power
of the federal government.


You got it backwards. the Constitution is designed to grant certain
limited powers to the Federal government.

We need go no further than the "savings clause." the Tenth amendment
makes
it clear that the federal government has only only the enumerated
powers.


Perhaps it's a matter of semantics but enumerating limited powers to the
federal government IS limiting their power which is what the Constitution
does. The 10th Amendment does indicate that the federal government is
limited to the powers granted to it by the Constitution. "The powers not
delegated to the United Stated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
To
me, this makes it crystal clear the federal government has, for quite a
long
time, acted unconstitutionally and continues to. The bailouts, the ACA,
and
a whole host of others are unconstitutional.




the Constitution is not to be read literally. e.g. Freedom of speech does
not give anyone ot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion
does not give the right to use illegal drugs, or commit bigamy, etc.

The bailout is legal under the Commerce clause. If you fell the government
has actd illegally, you have a right to bring an action to stop the
action, provided you are harmed by it.

IMO, it is a ridiculous stretch to interpret the Commerce clause as giving
the power to the federal government to take taxpayer money and invest in
businesses. The Commerce clause is for regulation, not investing. Yes, we
were all harmed by the unconstitutional action - the taxpayers lost over 10
billion in the GM bailout.

fortunately, the vast majority of our elected officials, and multiple
decisions of the Supreme Court, with judges appointed by both parties,
think otherwise.


--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Ignoring something is an active action, not stating something
isn't.

Good Lord! How in the world do you come to that conclusion?

By using logic and facts.

How, in writing, does one "actively" ignore something other than by
not acknowledging it, not responding to it, or not stating anything
about it?

Only one of those actions could be called "ignoring" something - i.e. the
one where one does not respond to something. Like if they snip away
something that was written. That is, unsurprisingly, an active action
performed by the person.

"Not acknowledging it" is not, unless you're also there talking about
acknowledging something that was written by someone and then actively
ignored by the one responding.

"not stating something about it" is not the same as ignoring it. I did not
state anything about my wife in my preceeding post, yet that does not mean
I am ignoring her.

If you take active action in response, it is the complete
opposite of "ignore".

Of course not. Snipping out parts of a message, or choosing not to reply to
certain parts of a message is an active choice made by the poster, and
*can* be him or her ignoring it (it can also be done by mistake, by
overlooking or missing it or a number of other reasons as well).

Not acknowledging something is a passive, not active, response.

I am not talking about "responses", I am talking about the act of ignoring
something. It's something you do, it's a verb. I even posted the
definition. It's a refusal to take notice or acknowledge, to disregard
intentionally. It's something you DO. If you miss something, forgot to
think about something or overlooked something, that's not an act.

The intent to ignore may be an active mental process, but no statement in
response is a passive action.

There is no such thing as a "passive action". It's an oxymoron. They are
both nouns that contradict each other.

passive
- accepting or allowing what happens of what others do without action

action
- the process of doing someting

In non-written situations, we often ignore by silence.

That's only one way to ignore something. You can ignore traffic by walking
right into the street, you can ignore the battery warning on your phone by
continuing using it and so on. Silence is just one way to ignore something
or someone that expects your response to be spoken.

Consider the situation where you are sitting there eating your breakfast
and your wife loosens a tirade of charges that you don't pick up your
dirty laundry from the floor, don't help out around the house, and spend
too much time on the computer. You sit there in stony silence and
continue to eat your Croonchy Stars. You offer no response.

Are you not ignoring her?

Of course. But if I have my headset on at the time and didn't hear her,
then I'm not. Me ignoring her is a choice and an action, even though I am
passive as far as speech or response goes. One can be passive with regards
to something while at the same time being active with regards to something.
You slouching on the sofa means you're passive in term of movement, but
you're actively learning something from the book you're actively reading.

Don't mistake this for a "passive action", however.

Sandman:
There are millions of things you didn't state in your post here,
but you're not actually ignoring all of them; like floods in
malaysia, the price of IKEA furniture and the mating calls of sea
lions. You didn't state any of those items, and according to you,
that means you ignored them. Well, according to the English
language, you didn't.

Go back and read the definition you provided: "refuse to take
notice". There has to be something that could be noticed or
acknowledged that isn't noticed or acknowledged for that something
to be ignored.

Indeed. You have yet to provided anything what was presented and then
actively choosen not to be acknowledges (and thus ignored) by nospam.

With no mention of a flood in Malaysia, the topic of floods in
Malaysia is not ignored if it is not addressed.

Indeed, and with no mention about X, then nospam can't ignore it. And even
with the mention of X, it takes more than just noting that he didn't
acknowledge it to determine whether or not he actually didn't acknowledge
it due to him ignoring it.

Sandman:
Ignoring something is deliberate, and one cannot prove the
existence of a deliberate action (ignoring something) solely by
noting the absence of another deliberate action (i.e. stating
something).

Well, we can.

No.

When the ignoring is done in written response to a written statement, the
omission of addressing that point is sufficient proof.

While this isn't a true claim as stated, you have yet to provide this
"written statement" and the written response where the act of ignoring was
obvious. Remember how this was the first thing I asked you?

Sandman
03/25/2014

"How did you determine that he "ignores" this? Where is the
quote from nospam where he made it clear that he is ignoring
this aspect?"

You actually ignored this question. I.e. your response to it didn't address
it in any capacity.

In your history of misunderstanding words and terms in English, and
taking preposterous positions in defense of your error, this one is
the most bizarre.

Ironic.

Tony Cooper
03/25/2014

"If it isn't stated, it's ignored."


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
Not acknowledging something is a passive, not active, response.

Sandman:
I am not talking about "responses", I am talking about the act of
ignoring something.

Where else, but in a response, does one ignore something in a
newsgroup posting?

Non sequitur.

Sandman:
There is no such thing as a "passive action". It's an oxymoron.
They are both nouns that contradict each other.

The problem you have is that you just don't have a feel for English.

The problem you have is that you think there is some magical "feel"
required to understand English. Learn to use the language correctly
instead.

You're dictionary-dependent, and when you find a one definition of a
word you think that's the only way the word is used.

Incorrect.

Your mind ceases to function when you find some definition that you think
fits what you want it to mean.

Ironic - your mind ceases to function without ever looking in a dictionary
in the first place.

The meaning was almost in your grasp when you wrote "I am talking
about the act of ignoring something.". "Act", in that sentence is a
verb and is defined as "to do something" or "to reach a decision"
and "to produce an effect". So, the act is an action and the
something is to ignore.

Maybe you're learning. You seem to have managed not to ignore the actual
meaning of words here.

I'll snip a bunch of stuff here because it's no more than a series
of forays up and down different garden paths, but I will leave this:

Yes, run away, Tony. It's what you do best.

Sandman:
Sandman 03/25/2014

"How did you determine that he "ignores" this? Where is the quote
from nospam where he made it clear that he is ignoring this
aspect?"

I didn't know better, I'd say this was a sign of a sense of humor on
your part. You want a quote where he says he is ignoring this
aspect?

Yes, more or less. I am asking you how you determined that he ignored it. I
have given you many examples of scenarios where one does not acknowledge or
"state" something yet one does not ignore that very thing - you have of
course ignored these examples and snipped them away since they don't fit
your preconcieved agenda.

If nospam is ignoring something, that's a choice he has made. I am asking
you to provide support for your claim that such a choice was made by him,
and I can think of no other way for you to make that claim than to have
first-hand account from nospam himself.

As I said before - absence of action does not provide proof of action. You
can't point to him "not acknowledging X" as to be proof that "he ignores
X".

If he said anything about this aspect that could be quoted, he
wouldn't be said to have ignored it, would he?

Then how would you know he ignored it? Remember that ludicrous quote from
you?

Tony Cooper
03/25/2014 08:09:46 PM

"If it isn't stated, it's ignored."

Since I have shown you how incorrect this is - you have to work better to
support your absolute claims.

You claim he has ignored it, but there is nothing you have provided that
shows just how you would have arrived at that conclusion. It's just a claim
from you, based on apparently nothing.


--
Sandman[.net]

"PeterN" wrote in message On 3/26/2014 9:04
AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
the Constitution is not to be read literally. e.g. Freedom of speech
does
not give anyone ot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion
does not give the right to use illegal drugs, or commit bigamy, etc.

The bailout is legal under the Commerce clause. If you fell the
government
has actd illegally, you have a right to bring an action to stop the
action, provided you are harmed by it.

IMO, it is a ridiculous stretch to interpret the Commerce clause as
giving
the power to the federal government to take taxpayer money and invest in
businesses. The Commerce clause is for regulation, not investing. Yes,
we
were all harmed by the unconstitutional action - the taxpayers lost over
10
billion in the GM bailout.

fortunately, the vast majority of our elected officials, and multiple
decisions of the Supreme Court, with judges appointed by both parties,
think otherwise.


I don't recall the bailouts being challenged in the Supreme Court.

On 3/27/2014 9:04 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message On 3/26/2014 9:04
AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
the Constitution is not to be read literally. e.g. Freedom of speech
does
not give anyone ot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion
does not give the right to use illegal drugs, or commit bigamy, etc.

The bailout is legal under the Commerce clause. If you fell the
government
has actd illegally, you have a right to bring an action to stop the
action, provided you are harmed by it.

IMO, it is a ridiculous stretch to interpret the Commerce clause as
giving
the power to the federal government to take taxpayer money and invest in
businesses. The Commerce clause is for regulation, not investing. Yes,
we
were all harmed by the unconstitutional action - the taxpayers lost over
10
billion in the GM bailout.

fortunately, the vast majority of our elected officials, and multiple
decisions of the Supreme Court, with judges appointed by both parties,
think otherwise.


I don't recall the bailouts being challenged in the Supreme Court.

The concept has been.


You bring up an interesting point. What would have happened had the
bailout not happened. the loss we took on GM was due to the inability to
manage money. I have heard that GM is now sitting with over twenty
Billion cash, and may soon restore its dividends. In sociological terms,
the GM bailout is not much different than the Corps of Engineers
rebuilding beaches so that the folks who own beach front housing can
continue to live there. Beach access to folks like you and I is severely
limited despite the fact that you and I paid for it.
(Remember the Moriches Inlet?)

--
PeterN

"PeterN" wrote in message
On 3/27/2014 9:04 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message On 3/26/2014
9:04
AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
the Constitution is not to be read literally. e.g. Freedom of speech
does
not give anyone ot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of
religion
does not give the right to use illegal drugs, or commit bigamy, etc.

The bailout is legal under the Commerce clause. If you fell the
government
has actd illegally, you have a right to bring an action to stop the
action, provided you are harmed by it.

IMO, it is a ridiculous stretch to interpret the Commerce clause as
giving
the power to the federal government to take taxpayer money and invest
in
businesses. The Commerce clause is for regulation, not investing.
Yes,
we
were all harmed by the unconstitutional action - the taxpayers lost
over
10
billion in the GM bailout.

fortunately, the vast majority of our elected officials, and multiple
decisions of the Supreme Court, with judges appointed by both parties,
think otherwise.


I don't recall the bailouts being challenged in the Supreme Court.

The concept has been.


You bring up an interesting point. What would have happened had the
bailout not happened. the loss we took on GM was due to the inability to
manage money. I have heard that GM is now sitting with over twenty Billion
cash, and may soon restore its dividends. In sociological terms, the GM
bailout is not much different than the Corps of Engineers rebuilding
beaches so that the folks who own beach front housing can continue to live
there. Beach access to folks like you and I is severely limited despite
the fact that you and I paid for it.
(Remember the Moriches Inlet?)

I certainly remember the Moriches Inlet.

Some would argue the point that we didn't lose 10 billion, we would have
lost more in social program spending if GM went bust when GM workers became
uinemployed, as well as suppliers losing money and workers, etc., etc.
There is a point to it. But I think you know how I think about this, it's
more in terms of black & white. I don't see where the government has any
Constitutional authority to give any business taxpayer money. By doing so,
the federal government became a stockholder, something else I don't see the
Constitution giving them authority to do. Then we have the millions thrown
at companies like Solyndra...

As much as something may benefit us, if the federal government has no
Constitutional authority to do it, then they simply should not do it.

On 3/27/2014 12:56 PM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
On 3/27/2014 9:04 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message On 3/26/2014
9:04
AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
the Constitution is not to be read literally. e.g. Freedom of speech
does
not give anyone ot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of
religion
does not give the right to use illegal drugs, or commit bigamy, etc.

The bailout is legal under the Commerce clause. If you fell the
government
has actd illegally, you have a right to bring an action to stop the
action, provided you are harmed by it.

IMO, it is a ridiculous stretch to interpret the Commerce clause as
giving
the power to the federal government to take taxpayer money and invest
in
businesses. The Commerce clause is for regulation, not investing.
Yes,
we
were all harmed by the unconstitutional action - the taxpayers lost
over
10
billion in the GM bailout.

fortunately, the vast majority of our elected officials, and multiple
decisions of the Supreme Court, with judges appointed by both parties,
think otherwise.


I don't recall the bailouts being challenged in the Supreme Court.

The concept has been.


You bring up an interesting point. What would have happened had the
bailout not happened. the loss we took on GM was due to the inability to
manage money. I have heard that GM is now sitting with over twenty Billion
cash, and may soon restore its dividends. In sociological terms, the GM
bailout is not much different than the Corps of Engineers rebuilding
beaches so that the folks who own beach front housing can continue to live
there. Beach access to folks like you and I is severely limited despite
the fact that you and I paid for it.
(Remember the Moriches Inlet?)

I certainly remember the Moriches Inlet.

Some would argue the point that we didn't lose 10 billion, we would have
lost more in social program spending if GM went bust when GM workers became
uinemployed, as well as suppliers losing money and workers, etc., etc.
There is a point to it. But I think you know how I think about this, it's
more in terms of black & white. I don't see where the government has any
Constitutional authority to give any business taxpayer money. By doing so,
the federal government became a stockholder, something else I don't see the
Constitution giving them authority to do. Then we have the millions thrown
at companies like Solyndra...

As much as something may benefit us, if the federal government has no
Constitutional authority to do it, then they simply should not do it.

Yup! Except that there is clear Constitutional authority. Indeed the
prime reason for a government is to provide for the welfare of the
people. Where you and I differ is that you are relying on your church to
provide for well being. Not very long ago each ethnic group took care
of its own. e.g. If you were Jewish and needed a job, there were some
Jewish owned companies that would hire you. If you were not Jewish, that
company would only hire you if they really needed your services, and no
Jewish person could be found to fill that position. Similarly, most
ethnic group took care of its own. Once we rightly determined that
refusal to hire because of race or religion, etc., it became the duty of
the government to provide for the general welfare.
I commend Article I Section 8 to your reading.
I also recognize that you do not agree with my interpretation of the
Welfare Clause, and call it a redistribution of wealth. To paraphrase
Madison, the Constitution must be interpreted using common sense.

I will be happy to discuss the further offline.
BTW are you going to the PFLI Spring Spectacular?

http://www.pflionline.com/Spring_Spectacular_2014.html



--
PeterN