Promoting coffee discussion.
|
|
coffee-forum.net Promoting coffee discussion. |
I used to regularly visit and sometimes contribute to this newsgroup. Five years ago, I purchased a new Starbucks Barista Conical Burr Grinder. I understood that it was manufactured by Solis for Starbucks. Other than some static problems, the grinder worked fine until two weeks ago. My husband and I are quite dismayed that Starbucks is unwilling to anything about it nor are they aware of replacement motor assemblies. My husband has taken the grinder apart [he is extremely handy] and believes the motor is just dead. Is anyone here aware of parts for the Barista [Solis] grinder? BTW, I have already contacted Baratza in Oregon. Amanda there told me that they do not support the Barista grinder and have not had parts available for the comparable Solis model n probably at least two years. Please e-mail me privately if you have any suggestions. I am so opposed to just throwing this grinder in the dump! Thank you. Leslie in California |
> Hello, > > I used to regularly visit and sometimes contribute to this newsgroup. > Five years ago, I purchased a new Starbucks Barista Conical Burr > Grinder. I understood that it was manufactured by Solis for Starbucks. > Other than some static problems, the grinder worked fine until two weeks > ago. My husband and I are quite dismayed that Starbucks is unwilling to > anything about it nor are they aware of replacement motor assemblies. My > husband has taken the grinder apart [he is extremely handy] and believes > the motor is just dead. > > Is anyone here aware of parts for the Barista [Solis] grinder? BTW, I > have already contacted Baratza in Oregon. Amanda there told me that they > do not support the Barista grinder and have not had parts available for > the comparable Solis model n probably at least two years. > > Please e-mail me privately if you have any suggestions. I am so opposed > to just throwing this grinder in the dump! > > Thank you. > Leslie in California > After five years, I think any warantee you had is long gone and you need to look over your paperwork to see what the repair policy was at the time and to where you need to send the unit. Chances are it will cost more to repair than to buy. jim |
>Hello, > >I used to regularly visit and sometimes contribute to this newsgroup. >Five years ago, I purchased a new Starbucks Barista Conical Burr >Grinder. I understood that it was manufactured by Solis for Starbucks. >Other than some static problems, the grinder worked fine until two weeks >ago. My husband and I are quite dismayed that Starbucks is unwilling to >anything about it nor are they aware of replacement motor assemblies. My >husband has taken the grinder apart [he is extremely handy] and believes >the motor is just dead. > >Is anyone here aware of parts for the Barista [Solis] grinder? BTW, I >have already contacted Baratza in Oregon. Amanda there told me that they >do not support the Barista grinder and have not had parts available for >the comparable Solis model n probably at least two years. > >Please e-mail me privately if you have any suggestions. I am so opposed >to just throwing this grinder in the dump! > I would consider that grinder as a mid-range device- if used for espresso, not even that. I would have to guess that the burrs are well worn anyway, and with the motor shot then it is well past its serviceability. Unfortunately, many of the affordable goods we get today cost way more to fix than they are worth. WOuld you send a $69 DVD player into the shop? No. Two hours labor would be WAY more than it is worth, not to mention parts. I have a 17" Sony monitor that cost $1000 sitting in the laundry room ready to go to the recycler. It's the nature of today's technology. Trash the thing and get a good grinder- for what that one cost plus the cost of its replacement you could get an MDF with change, or for a little more have a Rocky. Sure, for what I paid for my used BMW motorcycle in '81 I could have had a new Kawasaki. But nearly 100,000 miles later I'm still riding the BMW. Randy "</late night rant >" G. http://www.quiknet.com/~frcn/Coffee/Coffee.html |
<Snip > > Sure, for what I paid for my used BMW motorcycle in '81 I could have > had a new Kawasaki. But nearly 100,000 miles later I'm still riding > the BMW. > > > Randy "</late night rant>" G. > http://www.quiknet.com/~frcn/Coffee/Coffee.html > Hi Randy, Sounds like an extract from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Got to be some synergy with that line of thought and the quest for the elusive "God" shot. Cheers, Dimal. |
>Sure, for what I paid for my used BMW motorcycle in '81 I could have >had a new Kawasaki. But nearly 100,000 miles later I'm still riding >the BMW. > Well, in all fairness, the Kawasaki probably would have been still going too... :D Chris |
|
purchase the same model again from Starbucks (pay cash) switch the old motor for the new one, then return it to the shop as a dud and get you're money back. depends how much of a cheek you have. |
>just a suggestion, but if you're husband is handy, you could always >purchase the same model again from Starbucks (pay cash) switch the old >motor for the new one, then return it to the shop as a dud and get >you're money back. > >depends how much of a cheek you have. > if you want to be really cheeky, say it was a duplicated gift, so the box goes back on display!! OOh I am naughty!! Daniel Roach Colindale, London, England Music lover, Simpsons fan, Hopeless net addict |
nm250nospam@hotmail.com says... > just a suggestion, but if you're husband is handy, you could always > purchase the same model again from Starbucks (pay cash) switch the old > motor for the new one, then return it to the shop as a dud and get > you're money back. > > depends how much of a cheek you have. > And how dishonest you are. Rick |
wrote: >just a suggestion, but if you're husband is handy, you could always >purchase the same model again from Starbucks (pay cash) switch the old >motor for the new one, then return it to the shop as a dud and get >you're money back. > >depends how much of a cheek you have. Or how much of a thief you are. bubba |
<bubbamike_01@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:jvivo0hb404gqer8s81ls8q59jssblpv67@4ax.com... > On 7 Nov 2004 12:45:27 -0800, nm250nospam@hotmail.com (Mr Murphy) > wrote: > > >just a suggestion, but if you're husband is handy, you could always > >purchase the same model again from Starbucks (pay cash) switch the old > >motor for the new one, then return it to the shop as a dud and get > >you're money back. > > > >depends how much of a cheek you have. > > Or how much of a thief you are. > > bubba > Discretion is the key when it comes to dishonesty, in my book that is. I wouldn't think twice of ripping off a Starbucks, but wouldn't dream of doing this same stunt on say a family owned small business. To have a blanket rule of ripping no one at all off though, hmm...too honest for me. I'd say go for it, to the OP. |
says... > > <bubbamike_01@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:jvivo0hb404gqer8s81ls8q59jssblpv67@4ax.com... > > On 7 Nov 2004 12:45:27 -0800, nm250nospam@hotmail.com (Mr Murphy) > > wrote: > > > > >just a suggestion, but if you're husband is handy, you could always > > >purchase the same model again from Starbucks (pay cash) switch the old > > >motor for the new one, then return it to the shop as a dud and get > > >you're money back. > > > > > >depends how much of a cheek you have. > > > > Or how much of a thief you are. > > > > bubba > > > > Discretion is the key when it comes to dishonesty, in my book that is. I > wouldn't think twice of ripping off a Starbucks, but wouldn't dream of doing > this same stunt on say a family owned small business. To have a blanket rule > of ripping no one at all off though, hmm...too honest for me. > > I'd say go for it, to the OP. > I guess it depends on your point of view. Every business exists to make a profit, and if they have to raise prices, reduce service, reduce product quality, toughen return policies, lay off staff, etc. to meet their profit goals, that's what they'll do (as long as it works). When you rip off big businesses, you're doing your bit to ensure all of these things occur. Generous return policies usually mean higher prices, with the increase paid for by honest people. But what the hell, honest people are just suckers, right? Some will say Starbucks is going to do all of these things anyway, so what's the harm? But that's a little like saying "what's the harm in pouring used motor oil down the drain, because what the hell, I'm only one person and even if I don't, a lot of other people will anyway." We're all collectively responsible. OR maybe you could just extend your discretion by saying "it's OK to rip off anyone I don't know personally." After all, once you're on the slippery slope, what difference does it make? Rick |
> I guess it depends on your point of view. Every business exists to make > a profit, and if they have to raise prices, reduce service, reduce > product quality, toughen return policies, lay off staff, etc. to meet > their profit goals, that's what they'll do (as long as it works). > > When you rip off big businesses, you're doing your bit to ensure all of > these things occur. Generous return policies usually mean higher > prices, with the increase paid for by honest people. But what the hell, > honest people are just suckers, right? > > Some will say Starbucks is going to do all of these things anyway, so > what's the harm? > > But that's a little like saying "what's the harm in pouring used motor > oil down the drain, because what the hell, I'm only one person and even > if I don't, a lot of other people will anyway." > > We're all collectively responsible. > > OR maybe you could just extend your discretion by saying "it's OK to rip > off anyone I don't know personally." After all, once you're on the > slippery slope, what difference does it make? > > Rick I take the point about collective responsibility, and am never particularly dishonest myself. However, you need to consider the chicken and the egg. Look at Starbucks. What came first - the high prices, well-documented loathsome corporate attitude and distasteful business practices, or them being ripped off occasionally by customers? Starbucks charge high prices for their fairly average coffee, which ain't really that expensive to produce - taking advantage of their customers, creaming a massive profit. I can't accept that they were once had lovely morals, and were cheap, but were forced into this pricing strategy by cheating from consumers - the suits in their head office chose to act as they do. They could afford to lower prices, but choose not to. They will have set their prices very carefully, relative to what they think the market will accept. They won't raise their prices, even if everyone takes advatage of them with hardware returns, for this reason. In response, they might alter their returns policy, but from what I've read, it sounds like they already are, to an extent. |
nospam@thankyou.com expressed moral confusion: > Java Man preached: > > I guess it depends on your point of view. Every business exists to make > > a profit, and if they have to raise prices, reduce service, reduce > > product quality, toughen return policies, lay off staff, etc. to meet > > their profit goals, that's what they'll do (as long as it works). > > > > When you rip off big businesses, you're doing your bit to ensure all of > > these things occur. Generous return policies usually mean higher > > prices, with the increase paid for by honest people. But what the hell, > > honest people are just suckers, right? > > > > Some will say Starbucks is going to do all of these things anyway, so > > what's the harm? > > > > But that's a little like saying "what's the harm in pouring used motor > > oil down the drain, because what the hell, I'm only one person and even > > if I don't, a lot of other people will anyway." > > > > We're all collectively responsible. > > > > OR maybe you could just extend your discretion by saying "it's OK to rip > > off anyone I don't know personally." After all, once you're on the > > slippery slope, what difference does it make? > > > > Rick > > I take the point about collective responsibility, and am never > particularly dishonest myself. However, you need to consider the > chicken and the egg. Don't we first have to define whose egg it is, and whether their unethical behaviour has extinguished their right to own property? ;-) > > Look at Starbucks. What came first - the high prices, well-documented > loathsome corporate attitude and distasteful business practices, or them > being ripped off occasionally by customers? > > Starbucks charge high prices for their fairly average coffee, which > ain't really that expensive to produce - taking advantage of their > customers, creaming a massive profit. I can't accept that they were > once had lovely morals, and were cheap, but were forced into this > pricing strategy by cheating from consumers - the suits in their head > office chose to act as they do. > > They could afford to lower prices, but choose not to. They will have > set their prices very carefully, relative to what they think the market > will accept. They won't raise their prices, even if everyone takes > advatage of them with hardware returns, for this reason. In response, > they might alter their returns policy, but from what I've read, it > sounds like they already are, to an extent. > Maybe I'm confused, but I am unconvinced by people who would steal from corporations, thus benefiting personally from an illegal act, to protest lax corporate ethics. If you don't like Starbucks, don't do business with them. Persuade your friends not to do business with them. Picket them. Write letters to the editor criticizing their practices. But when the previous poster advocated cheating them on merchandise returns (presumably because they're big, have deep pockets, and he doesn't agree with their ethics) he was simply rationalizing theft. Following his logic, since I disagree his ethics, I guess that entitles me to steal from him? Where does that lead? Everyone makes up their own laws, based on whether or not they agree with the ethics of others? Sounds like a very confusing and ultimately uncivilized society. I'd like to see the previous poster draw a clear ethical line between "OK" (stealing from Starbucks), and "bad" (stealing from a family-owned small business). What if the family owned small business is abusing its workers? Are they now fair game? Where does acceptable behaviour end and theft begin? If advocating honesty is "preaching", what do you call advocating theft? Rick |
> I take the point about collective responsibility, > and am never particularly dishonest myself. > However, you need to consider the chicken > and the egg. > > Look at Starbucks. What came first - the > high prices, well-documented loathsome corporate > attitude and distasteful business practices, or them > being ripped off occasionally by customers? > > Starbucks charge high prices for their fairly > average coffee, which ain't really that expensive > to produce - taking advantage of their customers, > creaming a massive profit. I can't accept that they > were once had lovely morals, and were cheap, > but were forced into this pricing strategy by cheating > from consumers - the suits in their head office chose > to act as they do. > > They could afford to lower prices, but choose not to. > They will have set their prices very carefully, relative > to what they think the market will accept. They won't > raise their prices, even if everyone takes advatage of > them with hardware returns, for this reason. In response, > they might alter their returns policy, but from what I've > read, it sounds like they already are, to an extent. I've watched *$ from a price-point perspective for a long time. True, they set their prices based on marketing strategies that go beyond mere cost of production. But I have a problem characterizing that as a loathsome choice. Their goal is to make money from an upscale consumer who chooses their location for ambience and élan as well as product. Their goal is not to provide an inexpensive cuppa, but to maximize profit while remaining within their corporate strategic profile. This profile might include some facets some people find greedy or globally destructive. I don't find them so, myself. Most of the arguments that I've seen devolve to: 1) they investigate current coffee shop locations and set up nearby, piggy-backing on existing marketing from smaller competitors; 2) they are huge, and smaller shops can't compete with their ability to leverage the advantages of scale; 3) they cater to wealthy people who can afford expensive beverages; 4) they standardize their stores, eliminating local variation and creating a homogenization of culture. None of these arguments, IMHO, go beyond standard competitive retail business practice into a realm I would call loathsome. I don't patronize *$ much anymore, though I did have my grande latte period and was grateful for their presence in places I needed a respite while on the road. Stealing from anyone, however, is a practice I do consider loathsome. Justifying it on the basis of ad hoc vigilantism is not only morally corrupt but egoistically equivalent to appointing oneself judge and prescribing punishment for "corporate" sins. I prefer to simply exercise the citizen's right to vote with my feet. If I don't like *$ or Wal-Mart, I don't shop there. As for the grinder, if I had one of their *$-branded Solis 166s that failed past warranty, I'd toss it and save up to replace it with a Rocky or a Mazzer. |
> Stealing from anyone, however, is a practice > I do consider loathsome. Justifying it on > the basis of ad hoc vigilantism is not only > morally corrupt but egoistically equivalent > to appointing oneself judge and prescribing > punishment for "corporate" sins. I prefer to > simply exercise the citizen's right to vote with > my feet. If I don't like *$ or Wal-Mart, I don't > shop there. I think you've extrapolated a little too far from my posting. I wasn't trying to justify stealing from Starbucks (although I would like to add that I do enjoy appointing myself judge, jury, and indeed executioner, on a regular basis). I was merely refuting JavaMan's pean to the corporate, in which he suggested that Starbucks' business practices are a result of their treatment by unscrupulous consumers, rather than a *self-determined strategy* to maximise profits, and that our collective responsibility is to avoid mistreating them so cruelly, for fear of worsening the situation. He then compounded things with an ridiculous comparison to ruining the environment with used motor oil (something in which we are indeed all directly, and collectively, responsible). > As for the grinder, if I had one of their *$-branded > Solis 166s that failed past warranty, I'd toss it and > save up to replace it with a Rocky or a Mazzer. Something that we can agree on :-) |
nospam@thankyou.com says... > I was merely refuting JavaMan's pean to the corporate, in which he > suggested that Starbucks' business practices are a result of their > treatment by unscrupulous consumers, rather than a *self-determined > strategy* to maximise profits, and that our collective responsibility is > to avoid mistreating them so cruelly, for fear of worsening the situation. People's propensity to cheat affects corporate decision-making. I can tell you for a fact that large companies track breakage and return costs, and prices are set to ensure acceptable margins are achieved. You'll never find liberal return policies in countries in which most people consider it acceptable to cheat. If we adopt the consumer philosophy common in parts of Asia, where the cultural value is much closer to "get away with whatever they can", you can kiss liberal return policies goodbye. Try taking back a malfunctioning product in Hong Kong, for example. I've done it. I can tell you, it isn't like Starbucks! You will probably be treated very rudely and accused of breaking it purposely. Without a receipt, forget it! If you have a receipt, it will be closely scrutinized, held up to the light, turned over and over, and several of the sales staff will join in, all suggesting reasons why a return should not be allowed. Is that what you want? I certainly don't. > > He then compounded things with an ridiculous comparison to ruining the > environment with used motor oil (something in which we are indeed all > directly, and collectively, responsible). > Glad to hear it. The economy and the environment have a lot more in common than most people assume. A good way to predict competitive behaviour among corporations is to use a biological metaphor -- treat the competitive environment as an "ecosystem". It yields remarkably accurate parallels. When there are enough people who steal from and otherwise cheat corporations, liberal return policies will disappear. Rick |
> People's propensity to cheat affects corporate decision-making. I can > tell you for a fact that large companies track breakage and return > costs, and prices are set to ensure acceptable margins are achieved. That's as maybe, but let's apply reality to the theory. Hardware sales make up a tiny sliver of Starbucks' business. Certainly based on the UK, I seriously doubt that they sell sufficient grinders to enable them to have a serious return problem appear noticeably on the balance sheet. Even if they did find it a small problem, I suspect their overall pricing strategy would take priority, as this is how they make their (vast) profit. > When there are enough people who steal from and otherwise cheat > corporations, liberal return policies will disappear. In the UK, our 'Statutory Rights' as consumers are specified by Sale of Goods Act, 1979, so return policies won't disappear. Agreed, retailers might well get a little more argumentative, but our rights are set down clearly, and thus can be enforced. See: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1428.asp Again, I'm not arguing (and have not argued) for dishonesty towards Starbucks, but I would certainly adopt a less benevolent strategy towards them (and other unpleasant large unscrupulous capitalist monoliths) than I would towards small, independent retailers. T |
nospam@thankyou.com says... > JavaMan again: > > People's propensity to cheat affects corporate decision-making. I can > > tell you for a fact that large companies track breakage and return > > costs, and prices are set to ensure acceptable margins are achieved. > That's as maybe, but let's apply reality to the theory. Hardware sales > make up a tiny sliver of Starbucks' business. Certainly based on the > UK, I seriously doubt that they sell sufficient grinders to enable them > to have a serious return problem appear noticeably on the balance sheet. Yes, let's do that. Starbucks undoubtedly has a business unit responsible for hardware sales -- with a business unit manager who is required to track and report all revenues and costs for his business unit. His/her bonus is based on whether or not he/she meets the "contribution" targets set by HQ for merchandise sales. What drives managerial behaviour in big corporations is usually the structure of their incentives. Incentives can easily make up 25 to 50% of the total compensation of senior managers. > > Even if they did find it a small problem, I suspect their overall > pricing strategy would take priority, as this is how they make their > (vast) profit. See above. They seldom have an "overall pricing strategy". What they probably have are contribution targets from various business units. They undoubtedly price to achieve a variety of targets, including market share, contribution margin, growth rate, and competitive positioning. > > > When there are enough people who steal from and otherwise cheat > > corporations, liberal return policies will disappear. > In the UK, our 'Statutory Rights' as consumers are specified by Sale of > Goods Act, 1979, so return policies won't disappear. Agreed, retailers > might well get a little more argumentative, but our rights are set down > clearly, and thus can be enforced. > > See: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1428.asp If the returns don't disappear, the prices will certainly increase. Business unit managers hate to cross-subsidize one another. > > > Again, I'm not arguing (and have not argued) for dishonesty towards > Starbucks, but I would certainly adopt a less benevolent strategy > towards them (and other unpleasant large unscrupulous capitalist > monoliths) than I would towards small, independent retailers. > I appreciate your eschewing dishonesty towards Starbucks, and I understand your feelings of benevolence towards small independents. Sometimes, the deck seems stacked against them. What bothers me most about those who advocate ripping off corporations (not you, thanks) is that, due to the fact that prices ARE related to costs, those who steal from corporations are stealing as much from other CUSTOMERS as they are from the shareholders. Like those who cheat on their taxes, they're not stealing from "the government" -- they're stealing from their neighbours. Rick |
"mft" <nospam@thankyou.com > wrote in message news:1531c$419272ea$5397cda0$32620@nf2.news-service.com... > Java Man preached: > > I guess it depends on your point of view. Every business exists to make > > a profit, and if they have to raise prices, reduce service, reduce > > product quality, toughen return policies, lay off staff, etc. to meet > > their profit goals, that's what they'll do (as long as it works). > > > > When you rip off big businesses, you're doing your bit to ensure all of > > these things occur. Generous return policies usually mean higher > > prices, with the increase paid for by honest people. But what the hell, > > honest people are just suckers, right? > > > > Some will say Starbucks is going to do all of these things anyway, so > > what's the harm? > > > > But that's a little like saying "what's the harm in pouring used motor > > oil down the drain, because what the hell, I'm only one person and even > > if I don't, a lot of other people will anyway." > > > > We're all collectively responsible. > > > > OR maybe you could just extend your discretion by saying "it's OK to rip > > off anyone I don't know personally." After all, once you're on the > > slippery slope, what difference does it make? > > > > Rick > > I take the point about collective responsibility, and am never > particularly dishonest myself. However, you need to consider the > chicken and the egg. > > Look at Starbucks. What came first - the high prices, well-documented > loathsome corporate attitude and distasteful business practices, or them > being ripped off occasionally by customers? > > Starbucks charge high prices for their fairly average coffee, which > ain't really that expensive to produce - taking advantage of their > customers, creaming a massive profit. I can't accept that they were > once had lovely morals, and were cheap, but were forced into this > pricing strategy by cheating from consumers - the suits in their head > office chose to act as they do. > > They could afford to lower prices, but choose not to. They will have > set their prices very carefully, relative to what they think the market > will accept. They won't raise their prices, even if everyone takes > advatage of them with hardware returns, for this reason. In response, > they might alter their returns policy, but from what I've read, it > sounds like they already are, to an extent. Exactly. Perhaps the geezer advising me to "buy a big box of morals" would like to come shopping with me and see if he can get himself a big box of BRAINS...to try and understand this excellent post of yours. [which explains perfectly why I would consider taking advantage of a Starbucks warranty. Just like their lawyers took advantage of Baratza with the Solis grinder 'episode'. Starbucks are corporate monsters, I have no qualms in diddling them.] Excellent post, a good point well made. |
says... > > "mft" <nospam@thankyou.com> wrote in message > news:1531c$419272ea$5397cda0$32620@nf2.news-service.com... > > Java Man preached: > > > I guess it depends on your point of view. Every business exists to make > > > a profit, and if they have to raise prices, reduce service, reduce > > > product quality, toughen return policies, lay off staff, etc. to meet > > > their profit goals, that's what they'll do (as long as it works). > > > > > > When you rip off big businesses, you're doing your bit to ensure all of > > > these things occur. Generous return policies usually mean higher > > > prices, with the increase paid for by honest people. But what the hell, > > > honest people are just suckers, right? > > > > > > Some will say Starbucks is going to do all of these things anyway, so > > > what's the harm? > > > > > > But that's a little like saying "what's the harm in pouring used motor > > > oil down the drain, because what the hell, I'm only one person and even > > > if I don't, a lot of other people will anyway." > > > > > > We're all collectively responsible. > > > > > > OR maybe you could just extend your discretion by saying "it's OK to rip > > > off anyone I don't know personally." After all, once you're on the > > > slippery slope, what difference does it make? > > > > > > Rick > > > > I take the point about collective responsibility, and am never > > particularly dishonest myself. However, you need to consider the > > chicken and the egg. > > > > Look at Starbucks. What came first - the high prices, well-documented > > loathsome corporate attitude and distasteful business practices, or them > > being ripped off occasionally by customers? > > > > Starbucks charge high prices for their fairly average coffee, which > > ain't really that expensive to produce - taking advantage of their > > customers, creaming a massive profit. I can't accept that they were > > once had lovely morals, and were cheap, but were forced into this > > pricing strategy by cheating from consumers - the suits in their head > > office chose to act as they do. > > > > They could afford to lower prices, but choose not to. They will have > > set their prices very carefully, relative to what they think the market > > will accept. They won't raise their prices, even if everyone takes > > advatage of them with hardware returns, for this reason. In response, > > they might alter their returns policy, but from what I've read, it > > sounds like they already are, to an extent. > > Exactly. Perhaps the geezer advising me to "buy a big box of morals" would > like to come shopping with me and see if he can get himself a big box of > BRAINS...to try and understand this excellent post of yours. [which explains > perfectly why I would consider taking advantage of a Starbucks warranty. > Just like their lawyers took advantage of Baratza with the Solis grinder > 'episode'. Starbucks are corporate monsters, I have no qualms in diddling > them.] > > Excellent post, a good point well made. > Unfortunately, it ignores the reality of how corporations actually work, and the effect of consumer behaviour on return policies. But for those who are bent on taking advantage, logic is wasted. Rick |
> ><bubbamike_01@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:jvivo0hb404gqer8s81ls8q59jssblpv67@4ax.com... >> On 7 Nov 2004 12:45:27 -0800, nm250nospam@hotmail.com (Mr Murphy) >> wrote: >> >> >just a suggestion, but if you're husband is handy, you could always >> >purchase the same model again from Starbucks (pay cash) switch the old >> >motor for the new one, then return it to the shop as a dud and get >> >you're money back. >> > >> >depends how much of a cheek you have. >> >> Or how much of a thief you are. >> >> bubba >> > >Discretion is the key when it comes to dishonesty, in my book that is. I >wouldn't think twice of ripping off a Starbucks, but wouldn't dream of doing >this same stunt on say a family owned small business. Maybe during the coming holiday season you can go into a big store somewhere and steal a big box of morals. Randy "how can you shave without looking in the mirror" G. http://www.quiknet.com/~frcn/Coffee/Coffee.html |
> MrChiversRegal wrote: >> I wouldn't think twice of ripping off a Starbucks, >> but wouldn't dream of doing this same stunt on >> say a family owned small business. > Maybe during the coming holiday season you can > go into a big store somewhere and steal a big box > of morals. Hmm. That may pose a conundrum. He won't steal from small stores, and according to his logic, big stores don't have morals. That leaves only middle- sized stores, and his rule book doesn't seem to specify what to do about them. Perhaps if they are chains or franchises, he could gleep a medium- sized box of mass-produced morals. Unless, of course, the franchise were family-owned, in which case he'd pass. If the chain were eco-friendly, he'd need to pass as well, or his box of morals would be tainted with bad karma. It's tough out there, being a desperado these days. |
> Maybe during the coming holiday season you can go into a big store > somewhere and steal a big box of morals. > OK how about this as an alternative - go into your local Starbucks store, explain to the guy on the counter, that you bought this grinder from them 5 years ago - It's a quality product that has seen only domestic use, due to a defect in the manufacturing process the motor has failed. Ask the guy on the counter to either replace it, fix it free of charge or refund you the amount for a new one say -25% for depreciation. I'm sure they'll make a reasonable offer to you - after all they didn't specify it would only last five years when you bought it. |
wrote: >> >> Maybe during the coming holiday season you can go into a big store >> somewhere and steal a big box of morals. >> >OK how about this as an alternative - go into your local Starbucks >store, explain to the guy on the counter, that you bought this grinder >from them 5 years ago - It's a quality product that has seen only >domestic use, due to a defect in the manufacturing process the motor >has failed. > >Ask the guy on the counter to either replace it, fix it free of charge >or refund you the amount for a new one say -25% for depreciation. > >I'm sure they'll make a reasonable offer to you - after all they >didn't specify it would only last five years when you bought it. Why don't you try this with your 5 year old auto. See if the dealer will give you a new one because you blew the engine in the old one. Bubba |
1. grin and bear it, take it on the chin, stiff upper lip - the damn things broke, you can't get a new part and you can't repair the old part, Starbucks have taken your money and are invoking the samll print- they would'nt throw bad coffee on you if you were on fire. Swallow the frustration until it makes a tight little ball in your stomach and gives you an ulcer by the time you're 45. 2. fight fire with fire, look after number one, I'm alright Jack - swap the motor and let Starbucks take the rap. Bask in the glory of your deviousness - Assuage your nagging conscience by giving to charity, voting Democrat (next time), smiling at ugly strangers. 3. smash the state, rage against the machine, anarchy rules, burn it all down. Join your local anti-capitalist cell, firebomb the corporate machine. Live the dream as a modern day Che Guavera - Come the revolution..... 4. Get political, the enemy within. Join your local part apparatus, run for governor, senator, lobby the supreme court, win the presidency - log cabin to whitehouse. Oh say can you see..... When you're ruler of the world the universe and everything, change the laws so that consumers are protected from shoddy goods and services. |
>it's just that your only options are as follows... > >1. grin and bear it, take it on the chin, stiff upper lip - the damn >things broke, you can't get a new part and you can't repair the old >part, Starbucks have taken your money and are invoking the samll >print- they would'nt throw bad coffee on you if you were on fire. >Swallow the frustration until it makes a tight little ball in your >stomach and gives you an ulcer by the time you're 45. > >2. fight fire with fire, look after number one, I'm alright Jack - >swap the motor and let Starbucks take the rap. Bask in the glory of >your deviousness - Assuage your nagging conscience by giving to >charity, voting Democrat (next time), smiling at ugly strangers. > >3. smash the state, rage against the machine, anarchy rules, burn it >all down. Join your local anti-capitalist cell, firebomb the corporate >machine. Live the dream as a modern day Che Guavera - Come the >revolution..... > >4. Get political, the enemy within. Join your local part apparatus, >run for governor, senator, lobby the supreme court, win the presidency >- log cabin to whitehouse. Oh say can you see..... When you're ruler >of the world the universe and everything, change the laws so that >consumers are protected from shoddy goods and services. > I came up with yet another laternative- after reading some of his other posts, I kill-filtered him. Now the problem no longer exists! ;-) Randy "this sand feels good around my head" G. http://www.quiknet.com/~frcn/Coffee/Coffee.html |
> other posts, I kill-filtered him. Now the problem no longer exists! > ;-) > > Randy "this sand feels good around my head" G. > http://www.quiknet.com/~frcn/Coffee/Coffee.html blimey, bit drastic. To all and sundry... If any of my comments on this thread, or any other, have truly offended, then I offer my sincere apologies and will humbly retract my statements. I was not aware that I had posted anything other than (in my eyes) light-hearted banter. It has been said before now that my brand of humour can be deadpan and sometimes caustic, but please do not take my posts to heart. In truth, I am aware that the suggestion I made to steal a new motor from Starbucks is wrong, the fact that it was an ill-considered throwaway comment does not excuse me. |
"Mr Murphy" <nm250nospam@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:ddc0c20f.0411130943.2ba51edd@posting.google.com... > > I came up with yet another laternative- after reading some of his > > other posts, I kill-filtered him. Now the problem no longer exists! > > ;-) > > > > Randy "this sand feels good around my head" G. > > http://www.quiknet.com/~frcn/Coffee/Coffee.html > > blimey, bit drastic. > > To all and sundry... > > If any of my comments on this thread, or any other, have truly > offended, then I offer my sincere apologies and will humbly retract my > statements. I was not aware that I had posted anything other than (in > my eyes) light-hearted banter. You never. You can't, and shouldn't be held responsible for the lack of SOH in other posters. You have *no* apology to make....you certainly owe no one here one anyway. > > It has been said before now that my brand of humour can be deadpan and > sometimes caustic, but please do not take my posts to heart. Don't worry, *some* of us get the humour. LOL. :-) > > In truth, I am aware that the suggestion I made to steal a new motor > from Starbucks is wrong, the fact that it was an ill-considered > throwaway comment does not excuse me. Nah, say as you see. I don't doubt you see it as wrong, I in fact wouldn't have any qualm with doing it....but I respect your opinions all the same. You are far from my killfile for holding opinions contrary to my own. Jesus, if we all thought alike it would be a bit bloody boring wouldn't it? My sincere regards. |
nm250nospam@hotmail.com says... > It has been said before now that my brand of humour can be deadpan and > sometimes caustic, but please do not take my posts to heart. > Bare type is a poor medium for communicating humour unless the context makes the humourous intent abundantly. That's why so many people use emoticons. :-) Rick |
> I came up with yet another laternative- after reading some of his > other posts, I kill-filtered him. Now the problem no longer exists! > ;-) > > Randy "this sand feels good around my head" G. Why do Randy's awkward posts keep disappearing from Google? This's the second post of his that I've noticed beeing quoted by people, but then mysteriously has disappeared. Has he ingeniously managed to kill-filter himself, for our benefit? ;-) T |
> My husband has taken the grinder apart > [he is extremely handy] and believes the motor is just dead. You didn't say how it died, but if you were grinding a bunch of coffee all at once, it may have overheated and popped the thermal fuse. This is a non-replaceable part, although you might be able to bypass it. |