| |
Main
Date: 26 Mar 2007 14:31:27
From:
Subject: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
Walking through W-S yesterday, my fiance noticed a very pretty Elektra
Sixties Model T1 on the shelf (like what's available through Chris'
Coffee). "Oooh, pretty -- hey, it's hot!". I was quite surprised to
see it on and totally warmed up in the show room there. The way the
steam and hot water valves work, and the fact that it is competely out
in the open on a side wall, mean that it's ripe for some 8 year old
(or adult for that matter) to grab a handle and get dowsed with
scalding water or steam. I wonder if they're concerned about possible
lawsuits.
Still, it was a very beautiful and striking machine to see in
person... and big!
Anthony.
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 03:16:14
From: CrackAddict
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
BTW - the retailer's website still contains the offending (to me)
claim:
"The documentation that comes with the roaster is very good. The price
is set (it will not go down, and it is a set price among retailers so
you need not fear seeing it for less later)."
|
| | |
Date: 01 Apr 2007 09:36:09
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 03:11:08
From: CrackAddict
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
>Can you show me the quote where Reagan actually said this?
Of course not - Reagan was never specific about anything - detail
eluded him. It was not a "quote" - it was his stated intention to
reduce consumer protection in general and allow the ketplace to
sort it out. No doubt Reagan didn't know the CPSC from UL from Dunkin
Donuts but that doesn't make my statement invalid. Since he was always
vague on specifics you can easily extrapolate - maybe he would have
made it part of Star Wars :-)
> Was that thread on this forum? I can't find it.
No - it was private e-mail between myself and them. I mentioned it in
an attempt to save them from possible prosecution (although I suspect
it is unlikely action would be taken against such a small fish).
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 09:03:23
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
Sometimes I wake up in the morning and my wife is mad at me. I ask her why,
and she tells me it's something I did in a dream that she had overnight. I
protest that I didn't actually do that deed, it was she who put me in her
dream. She replies "but it's just like you to do that.".
"CrackAddict" <smppix@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175335867.995309.241900@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >Can you show me the quote where Reagan actually said this?
>
> Of course not - Reagan was never specific about anything - detail
> eluded him. It was not a "quote" - it was his stated intention to
> reduce consumer protection in general and allow the ketplace to
> sort it out. No doubt Reagan didn't know the CPSC from UL from Dunkin
> Donuts but that doesn't make my statement invalid. Since he was always
> vague on specifics you can easily extrapolate - maybe he would have
> made it part of Star Wars :-)
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 05:51:49
From: Roger Shoaf
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
"CrackAddict" <smppix@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175335867.995309.241900@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>Reminds me of Reagan suggesting we didn't need UL testing as bad
>>>products would be naturally rejected by consumers - "Let the
>>>ketplace decide". Yup - them electrocuted moms ain't never >>>gonna
buy THAT toaster again.
> >Can you show me the quote where Reagan actually said this?
>
> Of course not - Reagan was never specific about anything - detail
> eluded him. It was not a "quote" - it was his stated intention to
> reduce consumer protection in general and allow the ketplace to
> sort it out. No doubt Reagan didn't know the CPSC from UL from Dunkin
> Donuts but that doesn't make my statement invalid. Since he was always
> vague on specifics you can easily extrapolate - maybe he would have
> made it part of Star Wars :-)
So what was it that Reagan actually said that you extrapolated his
suggestion from?
--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 06:58:37
From: J. Clarke
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
CrackAddict wrote:
>> Can you show me the quote where Reagan actually said this?
>
> Of course not - Reagan was never specific about anything - detail
> eluded him. It was not a "quote" - it was his stated intention to
> reduce consumer protection in general and allow the ketplace to
> sort it out. No doubt Reagan didn't know the CPSC from UL from Dunkin
> Donuts but that doesn't make my statement invalid. Since he was always
> vague on specifics you can easily extrapolate - maybe he would have
> made it part of Star Wars :-)
UL _is_ "the keplace sorting it out".
On the other hand we have the government getting into the approval of
motorcycle helmets and thus sabotaging the well known and well respected
Snell Foundation that was already in that business and holding the
industry to higher standards than the government.
Fortunately most motorcyclists don't trust the goverment. Unfortunately
some of the noobs don't know any better and buy government but not Snell
approved helmets.
>> Was that thread on this forum? I can't find it.
>
> No - it was private e-mail between myself and them. I mentioned it in
> an attempt to save them from possible prosecution (although I suspect
> it is unlikely action would be taken against such a small fish).
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 03:38:17
From: CrackAddict
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
>
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 00:44:11
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
|
| | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 11:19:17
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
Can you show me the quote where Reagan actually said this? I'm not familiar
with the allegation at all, but this doesn't sound right. UL is a private
agency, not part of the government so I don't know why Reagan would have had
anything to say about them in the first place? Perhaps the CPSC? Even
then, I'm guessing it was some kind of distortion/urban legend - the media
and political oppenents love to grab onto "let them eat cake" type quotes
that make people look bad by quoting them out of context, but I'll bet he
wasn't talking about UL at all.
"CrackAddict" <smppix@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175251097.656825.210320@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> L.
>
> Reminds me of Reagan suggesting we didn't need UL testing as bad
> products would be naturally rejected by consumers - "Let the
> ketplace decide". Yup - them electrocuted moms ain't never gonna
> buy THAT toaster again.
>
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 02:20:42
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
Izz,
they do not need to change the rule -- it is already widely ignored.
dave
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 23:36:51
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
"daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com > wrote:
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 17:36:20
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
On 27, 8:19 pm, r...@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu (D. Ross) wrote:
>
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 12:20:02
From: Travesso
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
On 26, 5:31 pm, Anthony.Alti...@gmail.com wrote:
> Walking through W-S yesterday, my fiance noticed a very pretty Elektra
> Sixties Model T1 on the shelf (like what's available through Chris'
> Coffee). "Oooh, pretty -- hey, it's hot!". I was quite surprised to
> see it on and totally warmed up in the show room there. The way the
> steam and hot water valves work, and the fact that it is competely out
> in the open on a side wall, mean that it's ripe for some 8 year old
> (or adult for that matter) to grab a handle and get dowsed with
> scalding water or steam. I wonder if they're concerned about possible
> lawsuits.
>
> Still, it was a very beautiful and striking machine to see in
> person... and big!
>
> Anthony.
The only bummer is no one will let you actually use it. And, nobody
knows how to do anything but put in a nespresso cartridge. I pulled
out the portafilter, spun it, and made 6 women gasp -- imagine if I
would have pulled one, right there in the store; I am sure they would
have fainted if I would have dirtied a grinder.
I felt like such a naughty little boy that I almost purchased a easter
colored egg poacher for $16 to make up for it.
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 03:37:55
From: Chris Staley
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
On 27, 12:02 am, r...@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu (D. Ross) wrote:
>
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 21:09:53
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
On 26, 9:22 pm, r...@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu (D. Ross) wrote:
>
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 07:02:46
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 08:39:24
From: Roger Shoaf
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
"D. Ross" <ross@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu > wrote in message
news:4608bfbd.18359599@localhost...
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 00:19:41
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 12:40:01
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
You're doing a good job explaining this. Currently, "resale price
maintenance" (requiring retailers to charge a minimum price) is a "per se"
(automatic) violation of the anti-trust laws (there are various tricks
around it, such as withholding coop advertising money unless you do not
advertise a lower price, but in the end the manufacturer cannot legally
dictate what a retailer charges a consumer). In the current case, the
defendant is arguing that the "rule of reason" standard should apply - that
sometimes such schemes can be justified because they result in better
service to the customer and you should have to prove that there were actual
anti-competitive effects in each case vs. nowadays where such cases are a
slam-dunk - all you have to prove is the existence of the resale price
maintenance scheme - the anti-competitive (and therefore illegal)
consequences are assumed to exist. The argument is that "per se" rules
should only exist when the conduct almost always tends to lead to the result
(in this case reduced competition). For example, in automobile cases, it is
"negligence per se" if you drive thru a red light. You don't have to provide
expert testimony in each case that driving thru a red light is not a good
idea. The argument for changing the rule is that modern economic research
shows that in some cases resale price maintenance has good (competition
enhancing) effects - for example it can lead to better customer service - if
retailers can compete freely on price, there is a race to the bottom as the
retailer who provides better service cannot charge for it - people will use
his "free" services - visit his showroom, pick his salespeople's brains, go
to him for after sale-support and then order from the discounter if the
discounter charges one nickel less, so everyone ends up providing no
services (the result has been that you could die before you find
knowledgeable sales help on the floor of most modern American retailers).
The leather goods retailer wants to be able to prove in this particular case
the good effects outweighed the bad but under current law the jury can't
consider this at all - again it's just assumed to be automatic bad.
I am betting that they will not change the rule. You have 2 blocs on the
court that are against this for different reasons - the "left" bloc
considers the current system as something that generally saves poor people
money (and it does, at the expense of service). The "conservative" block
thinks that this rule has been around for almost 100 years and believes that
S. Court precedents should rarely be overturned, or that it should be up to
Congress to mess with such long standing rules (also right IMHO). So that
all that is left is the economic libertarian argument, which is basically
that the government should not mess with privately reached agreements or
take sides in the fight between manuf. and retailers and consumers but let
the free ket set the balance of where this fight comes out. This
argument has a certain theoretical appeal but we really don't have a true
free ket system in this country - the left likes to mess with the ket
for redistributionist reasons, the right likes to mess with the ket for
moralistic/ religious reasons, so the constituency for a pure libertarian
system is rather small and usually less than 5 votes on the SC.
"D. Ross" <ross@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu > wrote in message
news:4609b29e.80536635@localhost...
>
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 23:20:38
From: BATMAN
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
>in the open on a side wall, mean that it's ripe for some 8 year old
>(or adult for that matter) to grab a handle and get dowsed with
>scalding water or steam.
That would be too funny. Maybe the store's camera would capture it and
we could watch it on Youtube!
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 01:22:02
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: Suprised to see at Williams-Sonoma
|
|
|
