Most stores I go to (which admittedly arent a lot anymore) do have them posted at the customer service area.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Stores Use Database To Track And Decline Returns
Most stores I go to (which admittedly arent a lot anymore) do have them posted at the customer service area.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
My point is that the "worst offenders" as you say happen EVERY FUCKING DAY!
I never attempted to refuse a return for what I perceived as a genuine issue.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
But do they have the rejection policy for returns posted? Ever see a sign that says "Return 3 things in a 3 month timeframe and have your return ability revoked"? That's the problem here. Just read a few posts back about some people's experience with returns as of late.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
I never attempted to dispute your account of how often it happens. My entire premise is that punishing those who aren't trying to commit fraud isn't a good business model and seeming arbitrary rules that govern the ability to return items when there's no clear cut policies that govern that are bound to get retail stores in trouble.
You seem to believe that i made a claim that people have the right to return items or commit fraud with return policies or that it never happens and everyone is abiding by the spirit of the policies. I never stated any such thing. What i stated is that if a store sells you something, they should abide by their sales policies and not change it after the fact. If you find people committing fraud against your company you just stop doing business with them instead of changing the sales policies that they found loopholes with.
Let me ask you this, when someone is found stealing from the store, do you allow them to come back and buy stuff? So when someone is found abusing/committing fraud with the return policy why is it any different?
Its covered by the fine print that reads "We reserve the right to reject..."
collegeboy69us
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
- Messages
- 5,255
Think about auto insurance -- the price you pay is highly dependent on what type of driver you are, how educated you are, what your credit rating is. And the company can change this price based on the decisions you make. A lot of data modeling goes into how they calculate a rate based on what kind of person is trying to buy insurance. Because it's all a risk game.
If a store can be 90% sure a certain customer is what's commonly referred to as "a piece of shit" - and returns items regularly and predictably, they should be able to say "we have no problem selling this to you, but we will not accept a return from you" and just put it out in the open on why.
Retail fraud/abuse has been around forever, if retailers can minimize that element of risk having to constantly deal with a shady person, I say good for them. If at the time of purchase the customer is made fully aware of the restrictions placed on their purchase... it's still up tot hem whether or not they go through with it. Anyone who's intentionally gaming the system will think twice when it's in black and white where they click the box "I understand I can't return this". Assuming the repeat offender uses the same methods of payment on all their shenanigans it's not hard to pop up a box on the payment screen once detected that says "I understand X Y and Z are not returnable and wish to continue"
I'm not suggesting that the customer never be informed but once they are, it's still their call on whether to go through with it or not. Generous return policies are great and work very well as long as you don't have to many clingy pieces of shit dragging the bottom line down to unsustainable levels.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
I'm not even talking about this. If the customer is informed before hand, then it's really a non issue.
If the customer isn't informed beforehand and the store unilaterally changes the sale agreement after the sale because of some unwritten policy then no, I'm not ok with that.
How many customers are told at the point of sale that the item isn't returnable? I'm thinking close to zero.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
There's usually a continuation of this statement:
Ex: "We reserve the right to reject any clothing item that has clearly been worn and is not a re-saleable condition" etc.
Any store that reserves the right to reject returns for any reason clearly is an all sales final store.
It wasn't encouraged at mine. I got banned from doing it after a bunch.
DangerIsGo
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 3,000
Correct me if I'm wrong, but why not simply pay cash for things if you are worried about being tracked/denied a return? Could they still get you with cash payments or only CC?
Take for example this guy that returned his 3 cell phone cases which cost in the $20s. Easy enough to pay cash without raising any eyebrows. A Nintendo Switch console thats $300, again, not bad. A new TV or fridge costing $2-$3k, OK that might raise an eyebrow or two. I know the payment method of choice now-a-days is CC which is certainly (and easily) trackable and identifiable, but what ever happened to cold hard cash? When my mom goes X-mas shopping, 9 times out of 10, she pays with cash. Maybe she's just old fashioned that way or maybe she secretly knows a thing or two about the system. (Certainly the former)
Take for example this guy that returned his 3 cell phone cases which cost in the $20s. Easy enough to pay cash without raising any eyebrows. A Nintendo Switch console thats $300, again, not bad. A new TV or fridge costing $2-$3k, OK that might raise an eyebrow or two. I know the payment method of choice now-a-days is CC which is certainly (and easily) trackable and identifiable, but what ever happened to cold hard cash? When my mom goes X-mas shopping, 9 times out of 10, she pays with cash. Maybe she's just old fashioned that way or maybe she secretly knows a thing or two about the system. (Certainly the former)
Exactly. People posting that are using their retail experience from decades ago. This is *new* policy regarding returns with receipts. As is the story with Lowe's and also the case with Home Depot.
Just remember to buy all your important stuff on a credit card. I don't even mess with the idiots doing customer service at places like Best Buy. I bought two cooktops because we weren't sure which one would fit in the hole left behind by our Bosch cooktop when we sold our condo, and the return policy explicitly states that cooktops are subject to a 15% restocking fee ***unless returned unopened***. I took it to the store, they wouldn't waive the restock fee, then I returned it online and they refunded me everything except the restocking fee. I read them the policy, they read me the policy, the difference between our "interpretations" was that I read the complete sentence, "cooktops are subject to restocking fee, EXCEPT..." whereas they kept stopping at the comma! I said screw it and contested the charge. Chase called me up and explained to me very politely that it was clear in black and white that the restocking fee wouldn't apply since the item was returned unopened. Then they refunded me a few days later. Seriously, don't even argue with these people. Better yet, don't even shop there
If they won't accept your return, dispute it with your CC company.
The sad part is that for a small amount Chase would have paid you out of pocket. Not worth the $75 fee and labor costs to file a dispute. If the dispute is won the fee is switched to the merchant, still not worth the time and hassle.
When I was a supervisor at the BOFA debit card claims dept (some years ago) the bank would just up and pay anything $50 and under out of pocket unless the person had a history of multiple low value claims making it suspicious.
Even with a receipt many places require a picture id to make a refund.
Do you know why?
It's because some scummy people out there buy shit like games and movies, take them out to their car or pass them to a friend outside the store, go back inside, pick up the same items again and try to refund them. So when you buy multiple small items like that and then bring several, or all of them right back, this is one of the flags they key on. Sure you have a receipt, but it also fits a profile and if you make a history of it then they will stop accepting returns from you because at best you are costing them more money than your business is worth and at worst you are cheating them.
My wife is terrible about this. She goes shopping at Target, buys what she wants, then goes to Walmart and shops for the same items and if any are much cheaper, she'll go right back to Target and return them. I've tried to break her of this, to convince her that the time she is wasting to save a couple bucks isn't worth it. Hell she drags me along which really makes it not worth it. But it also just helps drive up the costs of shopping.
What's more, I don't really like Walmart, my kid is on an Anti-Walmart crusade even, but after being with the wife enough times on her "shopping trips", I've come to realize that as hard as it is to admit, we usually either get a better price for the same thing at Walmart, and frequently we get a better price for a higher quality product as well. You all can choose who you want to buy from for your own reasons, I care not, but personally I don't want to waste my time in Target paying more for the same or lesser quality items.
I hate walmart with a passion but you know what? I still buy shit from them sometimes. Because its cheaper, available today, and at least the same quality as other stores.
I don't have the money to be able to pay more because I have a problem with a stores business practices. Thats a rich persons domain not mine.
Were are you drawing this assertion that it's "new policy" when these guys are saying it's been happening just like this for over a decade?
How does that compute?
Now it might be new policy for stores in given States where State Law has changed recently one way or another, or where fraudulent returns have spiked drastically forcing a change in policy to fight it.
Are you calling these guys liars intentionally, or do you not realize that that's what you are doing. I really wouldn't expect that of you so I just think you aren't thinking it all the way through.
Forty Nine States use the Federal Government's UCC Article 2, as a guide for their Laws regarding these issues, but it's not mandated and Louisiana didn't adopt the UCC at all. The Laws on this issue are not universal among the States, if you don't take this into account than you are taking great risk with general and unqualified statements, and that should have been clear when I mentioned it back on page one of this thread.
I figure that You should just known better.
Being a lawyer cuts both ways Mope54
Am I seeing this the wrong way or not?
Hell, Some people would call me rich and wonder why I would even worry about it. But If I am rich, I sure didn't get there by not worrying about it and I won't stay that way by abandoning proven practices
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
But there are ways for them to fix this.
Your wife is utilizing the store policies on returns to her advantage. It would be more disadvantageous for her to go around to the retails stores, figure out where the best prices are and then purchase the one at the lowest cost. It's easier for people to buy what they want and then return it later if they find it for less.
The solutions for the retail stores are to a) make sure their prices are the lowest or b) allow price corrections after the fact instead of returns. Places that have lowest price guarantees is exactly why they established these policies.
As for the problem with people scamming the system, here's a few ideas off the top of my head:
a) switch to a unique barcode system that can uniquely identify every item so if someone tries to return something that hasn't been purchased yet they can be caught and sent to jail for theft
b) add unique rfid tags to do something similar to above
c) have more security in the parking lots to detect when things like this happen and send these criminals to jail
Again, the reason why these abuses occur is that there's very little chance of getting caught and it's very easy to take advantage of.
Well I think she believes it's too her advantage, but that's because unlike me, she only sees the money, and does not value the time involved. She sees the time spent saving this money as free time spent saving money. I see all my time as valuable in that I could be working making more money, but I sacrifice some of my earning potential to entertainment and rest. I'm worth a certain amount of money every hour, using it to save chump change isn't a wise use of that time. She could do the same thing faster if she just looked up the items online first.
But the other issue is that even unopened products had to be processed for sale, now processed again for resale. She fails to recognize that when large percentages of customers do this that it actually works to increase the prices at the register. While she is trying to save a buck, she's driving up prices.
Tracking individual items uniquely adds costs too. You essentially have to serialize every item and track them as separate items in a database which is going to greatly increase the storage required for that database and impact search times against it. I can't say that it would be cheaper or not, but unless a business is certain that implementing individual item tracking would be beneficial, they are unlikely to risk it, I wouldn't.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
I'd say for high risk items that are used in fraudulent purchases and returns it would certainly solve a lot of problems. Serializing every item and tracking them separately isn't that hard to do. You could even have the manufacturer of the item do this for you before they ship it to your store. Maintaining the database isn't hard at all, that's a no brainier.
Wait a sec, right now I have one record in a database for a given model of TV, and say ten in stock. One record becomes ten records, the size of my database in storage just grew by 1000% for that item, the time to back the data up increased, time to restore increases, if I have to run additional storage wi6th additional maintenance contracts and more power with more heat. It doesn't come for free and it is expensive as hell. Furthermore, as I said it would impact search times so it will slow things down at the register without any doubt. Even if you aren't tracking pencils and sticky pads and socks and Mu-Mus, and just track the high dollar items or the items most likely to be fraudulently returned it will have an impact and it will cost. That cost has to be weighed against the cost of the current solution or the difference in loss with no solution.
So I do agree that focusing on the hot items is a way to mitigate that cost, it's still going to cost and it still has to be evaluated.
Most of the posts from people saying this has been stores' policies for decades were referring to returns without a receipt whereas the concern is regarding newer policies affecting returns with receipts.Were are you drawing this assertion that it's "new policy" when these guys are saying it's been happening just like this for over a decade?
How does that compute?
Now it might be new policy for stores in given States where State Law has changed recently one way or another, or where fraudulent returns have spiked drastically forcing a change in policy to fight it.
Are you calling these guys liars intentionally, or do you not realize that that's what you are doing. I really wouldn't expect that of you so I just think you aren't thinking it all the way through.
Forty Nine States use the Federal Government's UCC Article 2, as a guide for their Laws regarding these issues, but it's not mandated and Louisiana didn't adopt the UCC at all. The Laws on this issue are not universal among the States, if you don't take this into account than you are taking great risk with general and unqualified statements, and that should have been clear when I mentioned it back on page one of this thread.
I figure that You should just known better.
Being a lawyer cuts both ways Mope54
Am I seeing this the wrong way or not?
As for Home Depot, at least in my local HD in California, they literally just started requiring photo ID to match the store credit a couple weeks ago. My wife returned some items but didn't know the receipt was in my email, also didn't really care since we shop there weekly and knew we'd use the credit either that day or later that week, and then when she bought some things before she came home it was explained to her that she'd need to bring her ID (and only she could use the store credit). So she came home a little bothered by the new policy, just frustrated about the implications not that it particularly affected her yet, and I explained to her that it was because there has been an increase in people using stolen credit cards to buy merchandise and then return it without receipt for store credit and then sell those store credit cards on eBay, CL, etc.
Anyway, I didn't think it would be a big deal and when I went to the store they just waived me through even though the self checkout flagged my store card for manual verification. It wouldn't have been a problem anyway, one of my tenants works as a manager at the store and, like I said, they all know who I am by now but one day there might be a hard-nosed employee who wants to do it strictly by the books and I won't be able to use a gift card that has my wife's name on it. I get the reasoning, but I also understand that it'd be a frustrating change for a lot of people and especially if someone had a long drive to the store and didn't know the new policy beforehand.
One issue you don't seem to realize in your analysis of the laws regarding this subject is that although states can potentially govern return policies differently the stores are likely to have the same policies based on the most restrictive state. A national chain is not likely to have 50 different return policies, the policy will be set by corporate and comply with the most restrictive law the store operates. Training employees and standardizing corporate policy is much easier and less expensive than maintaining 50 different policies.
It might be worth it to politely point out to her that Target will price match to Walmart and that they pay their employees higher wages and provide better benefits so she can both save money *and* save time while ensuring a better customer service experience for herself as well as other shoppers (and she can get 5% off with their red card on top of the savings).
Last edited:
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
Come on man, did you seriously use an example where you went from 1 item to 10 as how databases will grow? That's like saying going from a stop in a car to 1mph is an increase of 9999999% acceleration. That kind of metric is meaningless.
If a store has 15 different types of tvs, instead of relying on a generic sku number to pull up the price, adding a rfid in the packaging that's tied to a unique number will not only allow you to track the exact quantity in the store, but allow your employees to find it in the warehouse/store floor a lot easier since things can be scanned at a distance.
The database parody might have been relevant 30 years ago, but a standard desktop computer has no problem hosting a database with 1 million records as it does for a database that has 10 million records. This stuff is child's play.
According to this publication: https://appriss.com/retail/wp-conte...mer-Returns-in-the-Retail-Industry-Report.pdf Return fraud returns is at a yearly cost of 17.6 Billion each year. Adopting RFID tags (1 cent per tag) and an additional cost for the database (1 cent per item), assuming there are 100 million items sold in a year in the US (probably overstating this, but i don't see anything detailed, adding 2 cents to each transaction would cost 2 billion, you'd have the opportunity to save 15.6 billion each year by preventing fraud.
Never had this issue, maybe I'm lucky or maybe I just don't return a lot of shit. It helps if you do your research beforehand and get the actual thing you want but if you have any doubt you may need to return it, at least link it to your store rewards account if you're not going to keep track of a receipt.
Most people don't have this issue, and I bet these problems go away once people stop being stupid.
Most people don't have this issue, and I bet these problems go away once people stop being stupid.
As much as I ask others to place some faith in my experiences regarding many things, I suppose I should be willing to entertain the same from others. I do with out lawyer, or our engineers, if this is something you are intimately familiar with I should relent.
But I am curious, do you know who produced that report you linked to?
I think you also need to make an allowance for those employees who are making such decisions but really are not following store policy. It happens all the time, people improperly applying store policy. If it's not right then it's time to look for higher management and if that still isn't right then you need to look for Regional Management. Now if that doesn't get you anywhere and you have given them all the chances in the world to sort it out without making them defensive or attacking them, than it's time to write the store off because it indeed does look like that's store policy and not just a poor application of that policy.
You are right, that no "sane" store would drive away good customers. But I think sometimes people don't give the "store" enough of an opportunity to make something right and correct problems.
I'm just wondering why it's an issue now when people are saying it's nothing new ?
https://hardforum.com/threads/store...-and-decline-returns.1956449/#post-1043535182
I mean look, unless you have specific examples, why bother with the hypothetical when every state is different?
It shouldn't be hard to look up any store's return policy online.
From the post above, this is the store website for a Las Vegas, NV Home Depot.
https://www.homedepot.com/l/Pecos/NV/Las-Vegas/89120/3316
And their Return Policy;
https://www.homedepot.com/c/Return_Policy
Last edited:
Are you trying to learn the answer to your question or are you simply being argumentative? You write that you want to defer to others when you don't know something entirely and that you are genuinely curious, but then after it's already been explained to you multiple times in this thread you repeat your initial point...
The problem that consumers are having now is that more stores are utilizing this system and some are doing it for returns with receipts. Some of the major retailers have been using this particular tracking system for years, even decades, for returns without receipts, some of them recently (in the past few years) have started implementing the system for returns with receipts. You quoted one person and he didn't say one way or there other whether his example was with or without receipts, other people posting in this thread stated that their stores and experiences were in regards to returns without receipts and some people incorrectly concluded that this article was old news because they thought the guy was trying to return the cases without a receipt.
The person in this news article tried to return three cases with a receipt.
They were, in fact, the only three items he had tried to return to Best Buy per the report from the 3rd party agency.
Best Buy banned him from returning anything else to the store for the next year--based only on the 3 returned cases he had his receipt for (it looks like he did receive his refund, but he is upset that he can't return anything else for a year after that return).
In the same article, Home Depot says they only use the system for returns without receipts. The store policy you linked doesn't say anything about the newest policy they implemented a few weeks ago, which is in order to *use* a store credit you must present an ID that matches the ID of the person who returned the merchandise on the store credit (card). It does say that for returns without receipts you must bring an ID.
The article also lists other retailers that are becoming more hard-lined about their return policies, such as, Victoria Secret and JCrew. These changes in policies and restrictions on the major benefit to retail shopping, ease of return, are catching consumers unaware. That's why it's news. If it's not news to you, then it doesn't really matter. The strange part is that you progressed from declaring you didn't even know much about the topic to correcting everyone else who is responding. That would imply this was news to you, as well, so questing how it qualified as newsworthy is strange in that context.
You have people who worked in retail saying this isn't news to them, and consumers saying it is news to them, and then you come along and think it's news, then conclude it wasn't news (even though it actually was new information to you), and wonder why everyone is talking about this non-news news article about a secret database that the retailers already knew they were using but consumers did not. Does that sufficiently satisfy your concern regarding the newsworthiness of this article?
Lastly, quit harping on the laws. You don't know what they are and they aren't relevant anyway. In addition to that, I already pointed out to you that a national (or multinational) chain is not going to maintain 50+ different policies, they are going to implement the strictest policy across the 50 states so they are certain all their staff members are in compliance with any of the laws on the books. Only in extremely edge cases will stores implement varying policies and they would only be implemented locally (for example, taxes in border towns).
I heard a couple proudly explaining to me (during the real-estate crash) they did something similar with their house.
They dug up enough credit to buy a new house for the same monthly payment, then they just let their old house go into into foreclosure. While they knew their credit would be trashed they said it was just 7 years to clear up and they had all the loans they needed at the time.
While risky and stupid for sure, it still was just wrong imo doubly so since they didn't appear to have an issue with their current house or payment they just wanted something "better" blah blah blah.
As for the main topic, I would think policies as time of purchase should be honored and if there is a problem customer then you inform them prior... big writing on the receipt etc. Assuming they have legit receipts etc.
States like CA have laws regulating refunds - Ca says you have 7 days to get a cash refund - so yes it is a right - at least in some places, unless the store has a posted policy which the store must follow.
In general you can be nicer and less restrictive then policy allows but not more so - though most consumers lack the clout to sue or make noise.
Ppl complain CA has too many laws yet we see why so many exist due to the Best Buys of the world.
That is tricky too.
If you open your doors to the general public you give up a lot of rights about who can enter your property and do business with you. If you do deny someone the ability to make a purchase you better be ready to go to court and prove you had a legit reason, they are a thief is not good enough. You can serve caught thieves with trespass notices though and ban them from your store. Good luck enforcing it if your a chain.
Last edited:
I got banned from returning from Best Buy. I had a receipt each time, credit card and 80% of the products were unopened. The retail equation does not track unopened from opened products. I got banned for returrning 2 Nvidia shields (1 at the beginning of the year, one at the end). Bought it, it was lacking amazon app (opened and installed to find this out) so it did not work for what I needed it for. I learned from Boxee Box to not listen to companies that "might" come out with an update in the future. So I returned it and at the end of the year they finally added Amazon App so I bought another one. Left it unopened, and researched all the forums to find that the new remote did IR like I needed but did not have the headphone jack anymore. Returned it and got denied. Had to call up Best Buy corporate and manager was able to do a one time "override" of the ban. I had to return a Roku before because of an audio bug that Roku ended up not fixing for 8 months. After I returned it, 2 months later they fixed and so then I rebought the Roku. Nowadays with how technology is, these products are shipped unifinished. I do not want to hope a company will come out with an update to fix issues only to find out they do not (Had this happen recently with 85 inch Le Eco tv).
Best Buy tells you on the POS terminal that future returns might not be returneable and have you sign. Problem with mine was the employee turned it around and signed it... and so I had no clue what that was (I only got to see it for a split second). Then got banned the next time.
I actually went through credit card dispute because of being denied return at best buy (had receipt, had credit card, unopened product). Mastercard Capital One denied it because I still "had the product". Once I talked to manager they said the merchant would still keep the money but I was refunded full amount from Mastercard instead.
Last edited:
The people they're actually trying to stop probably don't make purchases. This system catches "abusers" who technically follow store policy but in my experience that population is tiny compared to outright fraudsters.
Receipts aren't magic. You can just go buy a thermal printer, swipe some register tape from an unattended lane and dig a receipt out of the trash. Yeah the people who do that are idiots and they will probably do a shitty job, but enough will get through that they won't stop trying. You wouldn't believe the amount of Home Depot return cards I've seen people slinging, I used to wonder if those cash for gift card machines were even legal given that 99% of people who used them were obviously thieves.
They do this because it used to be a very common scam that people would steal items, return them for store credit, then sell the credit to other people for cash.
It's pretty frustrating that they do this when you buy things with gift cards and they give you store credit back, because store credit can't be used for online purchases.
Does nobody read someone's entire post before they get triggered on a single part of it?
I've had that first section of that post quoted like 5 times, everyone quotes the first part and ignores the rest of it, like States having different Laws, and no, it's still not a right.
US Citizens do have rights, strangely enough, store returns weren't listed in the Bill that explains them.
Last edited:
Mope54, I do argue, or discuss topics. I don't know everything so I try and leave room for that, meaning not only will I admit my errors but I will also sometimes argue a point as a method for gaining a better understanding of an issue. Sometimes people reply correctly and yet manage to leave out some defining piece of information that I actually need in order to understand why something is the way they say it is. It's not always enough for me to know the answer, sometimes I need to know why the answer is what it is.
Now I read a nice topic, on a site intended for retailers, that explains "The nine primary tactics" people use to abuse the Return Policies of most of the big retailers. Some of these tactics use receipts some do not. This business, (The Retail Equation), that the retailers are using to track returns info is in the business of helping companies deal with these "tactics".
https://www.chainstoreage.com/article/nine-tactics-consumers-use-make-fraudulent-returns/
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Wait, I was looking and reading through your post until I got to this;
Really? You are telling me to "stop harping on the laws" when it's in response to people who are claiming something is illegal. The lawyer says that "they aren't relevant anyway", now that's choice.
Mope54, you didn't have an argument when we started, but you got one now.
Every one of my posts where I talk about the State Laws is in response to someone who quoted part of one posts, while ignoring everything I posted after in that same post. I left the original comment unedited as I learned more about it. I edited the post because I was adjusting what I was saying as I was learning. I didn't want someone claiming I was going behind and editing things and "moving the goal posts" or something like that. But as long as people keep plucking out the one and ignoring what was stated in the rest of the post I will continue to reply with what I added that is pertinent.
I really want to make this clear, as long as I am within the rules of this forum, I'll say what I damned well please in this discussion.
Now if you don't like it, you can bitch to the Boss. Who knows, maybe he'll coddle your sensibilities.
EDITED: Oh, and BTW, the guy that bought the three phone cases so he could get some different colors for his kids to choose from ....... all three cases were Black, I looked up the SKUs.
Last edited:
Everyone knows that Bill is just used as TP these days and rights are fungible
Fungible ?
Dug deep for that one ...lol
That’s the most interesting thing I’ve read on this thread.
Sorry to cut your message, I hate it when people do it to me— but this is the only relevant part to what I want to discuss; he said different colors in his original defense of his returns. He could have been less than truthful. Interesting.
Edit: also removed the extra W in your post from BTW cause it was bothering the shit out of me.