Best Buy freezing false advertising bait switch liar lie misrepresentation laptop monday ripoff Paramus New Jersey

I am the author. While the first rebutter appears to have understood the situation, the second barely read my account of the incident. Had he read my account, he would have realized that the complaint was not about a store having sufficient laptops for everyone; rather, it was about the misrepresentations and subsequent refusals by another store to honor an advertised price. I am uncertain how, without properly reading my account, he can expect to persuade readers to side with Best Buy in this situation. Conclusory words and phrases are not persuasive absent expressed reasoning. Such words and phrases include: "same stupid item," "just an embellishment," and "false-principled side." Clearly, the second rebutter has, without properly reading my account, formulated his own conclusions that possibly stem from some underlying personal bias. In addition, he attacks the "credibility" of my account when he probably meant to attack its "persuasiveness." "Credibility" refers to my recollection of the incident being an accurate reflection of what transpired. In his haste to recite his own conclusions, the second rebutter obviously selected the wrong word, and ironically made his own argument less persuasive in doing so. He further undermined it by, again, jumping to conclusions when he cited an outlandish analogy such as a Great depression food line. I can contemplate many situations where the baby's mother can financially benefit from the savings gained from a laptop purchase (e.g. resale, value in education, value in an unemployed husband's small business upstart, etc.) A food line during the Depression isn't the only justification for waiting in cold weather. The first rebutter was much more positive and persuasive. I would like to point out that the lines at each store were comparable, as was the stock on hand. The Garden State Plaza store had 12 laptops on hand, so it would only have meant 3 angry customers, if any. I think everyone was more angry with the way the situation actually unfolded.

I am the author. While the first rebutter appears to have understood the situation, the second barely read my account of the incident. Had he read my account, he would have realized that the complaint was not about a store having sufficient laptops for everyone; rather, it was about the misrepresentations and subsequent refusals by another store to honor an advertised price. I am uncertain how, without properly reading my account, he can expect to persuade readers to side with Best Buy in this situation. Conclusory words and phrases are not persuasive absent expressed reasoning. Such words and phrases include: "same stupid item," "just an embellishment," and "false-principled side." Clearly, the second rebutter has, without properly reading my account, formulated his own conclusions that possibly stem from some underlying personal bias. In addition, he attacks the "credibility" of my account when he probably meant to attack its "persuasiveness." "Credibility" refers to my recollection of the incident being an accurate reflection of what transpired. In his haste to recite his own conclusions, the second rebutter obviously selected the wrong word, and ironically made his own argument less persuasive in doing so. He further undermined it by, again, jumping to conclusions when he cited an outlandish analogy such as a Great depression food line. I can contemplate many situations where the baby's mother can financially benefit from the savings gained from a laptop purchase (e.g. resale, value in education, value in an unemployed husband's small business upstart, etc.) A food line during the Depression isn't the only justification for waiting in cold weather. The first rebutter was much more positive and persuasive. I would like to point out that the lines at each store were comparable, as was the stock on hand. The Garden State Plaza store had 12 laptops on hand, so it would only have meant 3 angry customers, if any. I think everyone was more angry with the way the situation actually unfolded.

I am the author. While the first rebutter appears to have understood the situation, the second barely read my account of the incident. Had he read my account, he would have realized that the complaint was not about a store having sufficient laptops for everyone; rather, it was about the misrepresentations and subsequent refusals by another store to honor an advertised price. I am uncertain how, without properly reading my account, he can expect to persuade readers to side with Best Buy in this situation. Conclusory words and phrases are not persuasive absent expressed reasoning. Such words and phrases include: "same stupid item," "just an embellishment," and "false-principled side." Clearly, the second rebutter has, without properly reading my account, formulated his own conclusions that possibly stem from some underlying personal bias. In addition, he attacks the "credibility" of my account when he probably meant to attack its "persuasiveness." "Credibility" refers to my recollection of the incident being an accurate reflection of what transpired. In his haste to recite his own conclusions, the second rebutter obviously selected the wrong word, and ironically made his own argument less persuasive in doing so. He further undermined it by, again, jumping to conclusions when he cited an outlandish analogy such as a Great depression food line. I can contemplate many situations where the baby's mother can financially benefit from the savings gained from a laptop purchase (e.g. resale, value in education, value in an unemployed husband's small business upstart, etc.) A food line during the Depression isn't the only justification for waiting in cold weather. The first rebutter was much more positive and persuasive. I would like to point out that the lines at each store were comparable, as was the stock on hand. The Garden State Plaza store had 12 laptops on hand, so it would only have meant 3 angry customers, if any. I think everyone was more angry with the way the situation actually unfolded.

I am the author. While the first rebutter appears to have understood the situation, the second barely read my account of the incident. Had he read my account, he would have realized that the complaint was not about a store having sufficient laptops for everyone; rather, it was about the misrepresentations and subsequent refusals by another store to honor an advertised price. I am uncertain how, without properly reading my account, he can expect to persuade readers to side with Best Buy in this situation. Conclusory words and phrases are not persuasive absent expressed reasoning. Such words and phrases include: "same stupid item," "just an embellishment," and "false-principled side." Clearly, the second rebutter has, without properly reading my account, formulated his own conclusions that possibly stem from some underlying personal bias. In addition, he attacks the "credibility" of my account when he probably meant to attack its "persuasiveness." "Credibility" refers to my recollection of the incident being an accurate reflection of what transpired. In his haste to recite his own conclusions, the second rebutter obviously selected the wrong word, and ironically made his own argument less persuasive in doing so. He further undermined it by, again, jumping to conclusions when he cited an outlandish analogy such as a Great depression food line. I can contemplate many situations where the baby's mother can financially benefit from the savings gained from a laptop purchase (e.g. resale, value in education, value in an unemployed husband's small business upstart, etc.) A food line during the Depression isn't the only justification for waiting in cold weather. The first rebutter was much more positive and persuasive. I would like to point out that the lines at each store were comparable, as was the stock on hand. The Garden State Plaza store had 12 laptops on hand, so it would only have meant 3 angry customers, if any. I think everyone was more angry with the way the situation actually unfolded.

that you're ore worried about the store not having an item rather than someone endangering the welfare of a child allegedly over this same stupid item.

"Since the store opened at 10 am, they waited for an hour in 8 degree weather. The store personnel refused to allow them to remain in the heated vestibule. Although one customer cradled a baby in her arms, the personnel showed no sympathy for her."

Why would anyone show sympathy for her? It wasn't a food line during the depression, and why didn't you call DYFS for the endangerment? No one made her bring a baby out in 8 degree weather. Or, is this just an embellishment to try and get others on your false-principled side? Your story certainly lost any credibility with that detail as part of it.

I work in the retail sales industry and have a few thoughts. I disagree with the idea that this was a bait and switch. Basically, bait and switch means that they advertise one thing only to get you to the store to push another pricier item. This doesn't seem to be the case here.

In my experience, advertisements are run regionally, and different stores have different #'s on hands of any given item. Basically, items advertised are, for the most part, while supplies last.

Stores also run individually, and no one store can dictate what another will do. While i might not fully agree with the manager at the 2nd store blaming the computers, I might have done the same thing honestly. Look at it this way: did you expect him to honor the price for 15 people? 15 laptops? He was probably trying to avoid a line of angry people if he just flatly refused. What would the loss be to the store on that day, if it was a Sunday only price? If the manager had honored the price for only a couple of people, how angry would you be?

The store that did honor the price that monday...how many people were there? Probably not 15. just my 2 cents.