| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 117028 | 2011-03-30 22:36:00 | Auctioneer scumbag | Zippity (58) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1190660 | 2011-03-31 03:40:00 | Gee. I wonder why Stuff pulled that story. Maybe there is some truth in my original comments after all :) |
Zippity (58) | ||
| 1190661 | 2011-03-31 03:48:00 | This is the problem with online stuff, they can delete it at a moment's notice Can't do that with a real newspaper |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1190662 | 2011-03-31 03:51:00 | This is the problem with online stuff, they can delete it at a moment's notice Can't do that with a real newspaper It isn't cached anywhere is it? |
robbyp (2751) | ||
| 1190663 | 2011-03-31 04:01:00 | I saw it on the news last night and I had that impression too. Must have been the way they worded it. Still, they took some commission, whatever, doesn't make them scum. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1190664 | 2011-03-31 04:24:00 | Gee. I wonder why Stuff pulled that story.I was curious when it vanished, so I called them around 2pm to find out. They said that it hadn't been pulled (and assured me that they don't do things like that), and should still be live on the web, but that the article was being updated to more accurately take the facts into account. I assume the link changed when the story was updated, hence why it appears to be missing. My interpretation of that was "We're rewriting it, because we felt it was not sufficiently objective and that it pushed the writer's own opinions." Gee. I wonder why Stuff pulled that story. Maybe there is some truth in my original comments after all :)Hang on... so you're now implying that Stuff is in collusion with the auction house, and pulled the story to help the auction house avoid the bad press? That's the only scenario I can come up with that fits your comment above. I'm also quite curious what your position on this actually is... you seem to have changed it a few times. Your original post labels the auction house a 'scumbag auctioneer'. Your follow-up post clarifies this, and implies that they are scumbags for charging any fee at all. Next, you claim that you were simply passing on your workmates' views, and had not stated any opinion of your own. You also implied that anyone not understanding your earlier posts to mean this was a "slow reader", despite never mentioning earlier that you were simply passing on somebody else's views rather than your own. Your latest post combines a sarcastic comment denigrating Stuff's journalistic integrity, followed by an assertion that you agree with your original post (namely that the auction house is a scumbag). I'm sure I'm not the only one who is confused... |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1190665 | 2011-03-31 05:05:00 | Wow - trial by Erayd. Who cares what you think? I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it :) |
Zippity (58) | ||
| 1190666 | 2011-03-31 05:15:00 | Wow - trial by Erayd. Who cares what you think? I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it :) I'm reasonably sure that that the Auction house won't worry that you have already posted a baseless opinion and tried them all by yourself and also they were found guilty as your title says they are scumbags in your opinion. Wait. You only posted what your workmates said so therefore they were found guilty by them. And you were elected to be foreman of the Kangaroo Court and so therefore announced the verdict. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1190667 | 2011-03-31 05:33:00 | I was curious when it vanished, so I called them around 2pm to find out. They said that it hadn't been pulled (and assured me that they don't do things like that), and should still be live on the web, but that the article was being updated to more accurately take the facts into account. I assume the link changed when the story was updated, hence why it appears to be missing. My interpretation of that was "We're rewriting it, because we felt it was not sufficiently objective and that it pushed the writer's own opinions." Hang on... so you're now implying that Stuff is in collusion with the auction house, and pulled the story to help the auction house avoid the bad press? That's the only scenario I can come up with that fits your comment above. I'm also quite curious what your position on this actually is... you seem to have changed it a few times. Your original post labels the auction house a 'scumbag auctioneer'. Your follow-up post clarifies this, and implies that they are scumbags for charging any fee at all. Next, you claim that you were simply passing on your workmates' views, and had not stated any opinion of your own. You also implied that anyone not understanding your earlier posts to mean this was a "slow reader", despite never mentioning earlier that you were simply passing on somebody else's views rather than your own. Your latest post combines a sarcastic comment denigrating Stuff's journalistic integrity, followed by an assertion that you agree with your original post (namely that the auction house is a scumbag). I'm sure I'm not the only one who is confused... :thumbs: |
plod (107) | ||
| 1190668 | 2011-03-31 06:10:00 | Thumped.:lol: | Metla (12) | ||
| 1190669 | 2011-03-31 07:14:00 | they reduced their commission, therefore they contributed to the earthquake fund, or whatever it is. end of story |
GameJunkie (72) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||