Walmart - Company Run By Morons for My Benefit

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Oh and one last thing s far as ggw no one is getting anyone drunk!!! I see it is apparent that you have never attended a spring break at a beach. These idiot girls do that for attention. They aint being taken advatage of and if u think so i suggest you attend the next spring break in florida! There is always a girl that is willing, as well as a guy, so cut the oh my god they are taken advantage of cause they were drinking.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I amnot sure what ur idea of entertainment is but when u got a group of folks watchin a video and they are cheering and laughing or even crying id call that entertaiment.

If they are crying during masturbation, I'd say they have some greater problems .

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Id say so .... Unless it hurt so good they had to cry

[Ben Kenobi]

They aint being taken advatage of and if u think so i suggest you attend the next spring break in florida! There is always a girl that is willing, as well as a guy, so cut the oh my god they are taken advantage of cause they were drinking.

Yep, they go out of their way to have fun at spring break and this is considered part of the package. Elok, it's fine if you don't like these movies, but you have to come up with a better case other then that you don't like the guy who films them for why they shouldn't be sold.

[Ben Kenobi]

Id say so .... Unless it hurt so good they had to cry

Sheer joy?

It could happen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yep, they go out of their way to have fun at spring break and this is considered part of the package. Elok, it's fine if you don't like these movies, but you have to come up with a better case other then that you don't like the guy who films them for why they shouldn't be sold.

Elok wanted to ban Girls Gone Wild? Where did he say that?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Dauphin
All I want to know is can you commit a fraud without commiting theft. No-one has yet given me a straight answer. Can you?

Fraud is a theft that utilises deception. It would take one hell of a stretch to avoid what would be recognised as a theft occurring.

If I give away counterfeit money to a person I don't like, with the hope of them getting caught using it, then I am commiting a deception. It is a fraudulent act. It is not, however a theft. In laymans terms that is. But what about the legal status?

It's clear-cut theft, even though you are making no actual physical gain from it. Through your deception, you are depriving the other party of the benefits extending from the legitimate possession of legal funds.

[Elok]

Yeah, I don't want to ban them, I just consider them sick, depraved and unethical. Banning them is not feasible and would probably cause more (first amendment-related) problems than it solved.

But, while I've never watched people viewing GGW, I always assumed that the typical viewer, at whom the videos are marketed, is jerking off to them, not laughing and clapping. Unless the typical viewer derives sexual pleasure from laughing and clapping, which I guess wouldn't surprise me much.

I know that drinking and acting slutty is SOP at spring break, at least by reputation. However, it's not quite as common or raunchy as implied, and girls tend to not spontaneously act out lesbian fantasies just as the camera's on them. Nor are the majority of young girls who do such things super-attractive; my college has a tradition of public nudity, and lemme tell you, maybe five percent of the attractive girls choose to participate. Thank goodness I was tipsy the one time I attended. I saw exactly one nice, jiggling pair, and the girl was holding her arms over them (though I have a friend who's got a good figure and claims she was also participating). Attractive girls don't need to flaunt it for free to feel desirable. It's the scrawny, the overweight and the curiously-shaped who feel the urge to get hammered and get naked.

Anyway, GGW is elaborately staged, the girls picked out beforehand and "encouraged" by various means. Typically they'll hop the bars looking for someone who's hot, already fairly tipsy and randy, talk her onto the set, have her sign some release papers and then photograph her "spontaneously" frenching another such recuit while they're both topless. They're selling an image, that's all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with Elok that it's probably VERY rare for someone to be laughing and clapping at the girls in GGW. They are wacking off. That's it.

[DinoDoc]

This is a really wierd jack attempt.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
i suggest you attend the next spring break in florida!

I'm going!

[David Floyd]

I'll go through this one more time. Laz, no disrespect intended, but the business you are in and business I am in are completely different - what may look like fraud to you may also just be a company's voluntary business model. That said...

In money laundering, the launderers are expecting to gain a financial advantage through funds they have no legal entitlement too. Therefore even though they lose some along the way, they are still gaining an overall pecuniary advantage through deception. It would still fall under the fraud categories of the Theft Act and under common law, but as there is specific anti-money laundering legislation, there's no need to follow that course.

As this applies (well, doesn't apply) to my situation, no fraud was committed, because no party was deprived of what was rightfully theirs. Yes, the Ipod in question belonged to Walmart originally. However, they made a business decision to transfer it to me, in exchange for another product - a defective Ipod. If they are making that decision, they are doing it for a reason.

From my perspective, I would not make that decision unless I was getting credit for the Ipod, or if there was another compelling reason to do so - for example, a salesperson lied to the customer, an employee of my store broke the product, or the customer made the exchange the decision point upon which they would either purchase or not purchase a very significant amount of products from me. I did not represent any of those facts, or anything else of the sort, to the manager in question. I guess on that you'll just have to accept my word. What I DID do was tell him it was a defective Ipod for which I had no receipt. If he was not getting some form of credit for the Ipod, then why make the exchange?

I can only assume he was making what is a common business decision, something that every other person in America is able to take advantage of. Granted, it was outside of their printed, posted policy, but then again, at Best Buy, making an exchange for a defective product under manufacturer's warranty but outside of 30 days is outside of the printed, posted policy, yet we still do it. When customers ask us to do it, they are not committing fraud. Yes, we pay a minute shipping charge back to the manufacturer in most cases, as I'm sure Walmart did, but that is accounted for in the business model - it's "the cost of doing business", so to speak. Again, a customer getting a retail store to make an exception to their printed policy, which causes the store to incur a charge, is not fraudulent, unless the customer lies in the process. I did not lie, or even misrepresent anything, therefore, I did not commit fraud.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
As this applies (well, doesn't apply) to my situation, no fraud was committed, because no party was deprived of what was rightfully theirs.

Really? So the Wal-Mart staff who handled your deception at each step of the way were working for free, were they?

Yes, the Ipod in question belonged to Walmart originally. However, they made a business decision to transfer it to me, in exchange for another product - a defective Ipod. If they are making that decision, they are doing it for a reason.

Namely the belief that they were replacing an Ipod you bought from Wal-Mart.

From my perspective, I would not make that decision unless I was getting credit for the Ipod, or if there was another compelling reason to do so - for example, a salesperson lied to the customer, an employee of my store broke the product, or the customer made the exchange the decision point upon which they would either purchase or not purchase a very significant amount of products from me. I did not represent any of those facts, or anything else of the sort, to the manager in question. I guess on that you'll just have to accept my word. What I DID do was tell him it was a defective Ipod for which I had no receipt. If he was not getting some form of credit for the Ipod, then why make the exchange?

I can only assume he was making what is a common business decision, something that every other person in America is able to take advantage of. Granted, it was outside of their printed, posted policy, but then again, at Best Buy, making an exchange for a defective product under manufacturer's warranty but outside of 30 days is outside of the printed, posted policy, yet we still do it. When customers ask us to do it, they are not committing fraud. Yes, we pay a minute shipping charge back to the manufacturer in most cases, as I'm sure Walmart did, but that is accounted for in the business model - it's "the cost of doing business", so to speak. Again, a customer getting a retail store to make an exception to their printed policy, which causes the store to incur a charge, is not fraudulent, unless the customer lies in the process. I did not lie, or even misrepresent anything, therefore, I did not commit fraud.

Yes you did.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Here's a suggestion, Floydie. Since you're so rock-solid convinced that this isn't fraud, toddle off to your nearest police station and make a signed statement exactly as you've described here, adding "but since this isn't fraud there's nothing you can do about it. MWAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!".

[Elok]

Don't waste police time with this piddly crap.