Ethical Query

In article <[email hidden]>,

Goomba38 said:

Melba's Jammin said:

Quoted message said:

I am happy to learn that I am "entitled" to think that hitting you on
the head and taking your money is "right."

The courts would take exception to that; there are laws prohibiting
assault. Terri's question doesn't address the law; she's asking about
ethical behavior and if respondents here concur with hers.

I would feel bad taking advantage of a mistake (assuming it was a
mistake?) Perhaps one bottle is tolerable to me, if a posted price must
be given at that value? And my buying that bottle would then give them
the chance to correct their error but I wouldn't feel right then taking
the other three bottles.
It is not unlike some people here who in the past have said they would
keep the cash if the cashier mistakenly over paid them while making
change. I don't. I can't "enjoy" that sort of windfall. <shrug>

I've never kept change from over-pays.
I've been a cashier. It hurts them at the end of the day if they make
mistakes.

Cashier errors, again, are not the same as taking advantage of a
published price in a menu.

Personally, I'd question a possible mis-print with the manager before
making a purchase, but that's just me.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

"Puester" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Comes down to "I want the big house and I want it NOW." Can work in a
rising market, can screw you in a falling one.

I guess people thought, well, if the bank thinks it's okay, then it'll
work out. Then a lot of people are young enough not to understand house
prices didn't
always go up 30% every year. Ditto the stock market. Sad to see so many
people hurting.

Quoted message said:

Yes, they will be hurting, but did they ever stop to think that the
carousel might stop some day?

Seems not. I just feel bad that people are learning such a hard
lesson. Even worse, it's affecting everyone, not just the people
who over-extended themselves.

Quoted message said:

These aren't millionaires I'm talking about. Just recently I overheard a
ramp (baggage) worker on the bus to the employee parking lot at the
airport complain (brag?) that his family's cell phones cost him over $500
a MONTH!

That would put a crimp in my style. That's a car payment right there,
and you don't even wind up with a car to show for it.

Quoted message said:

EZ credit has made everyone think he can live like the independently
wealthy. Dependence on a VISA card or home equity loan is NOT independent
wealth. Eventually the piper must be paid.

Ever catch that show, Big Spender? The guy called one of his
couples $30,000 millionaires. In other words, looking like
millionaires with all the stuff they own, but only making 30G.

We've come a long way, it seems, from my parents who refused
to have a credit card because they heard it could get you into
trouble. They only got one when they found out it helped with
making hotel reservations when they traveled.

nancy

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Certainly not the vast majority, but many of the people in trouble made bad
decisions.

Why "certainly?" How do you know this? It may well be true - I don't
know any better than you do - but you are making claims without support.
Like so many people, you think that what you believe must be supported
by facts, even if you don't have those facts.

--
Peter Aitken

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Your reaction is neither right not wrong, you are entitled to your own sense
of
right and wrong.

Dimitri

Dimitri, you are a flaming leftist! Who would have guessed?

I am happy to learn that I am "entitled" to think that hitting you on
the head and taking your money is "right."

--
Peter Aitken

Apparently you need to learn the distinction between feelings and action. True
feelings have no mortality, it is the actions we take based upon the feelings
that have morality.

Don't worry some day you'll grow up.

Dimitri

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dimitri, you are a flaming leftist! Who would have guessed?

I am happy to learn that I am "entitled" to think that hitting you on
the head and taking your money is "right."

--
Peter Aitken

Apparently you need to learn the distinction between feelings and action. True
feelings have no mortality, it is the actions we take based upon the feelings
that have morality.

In general I agree with you. But people's actions are usually based on
their feelings, so you cannot completely separate the two. They way they
judge others is also based on their feelings.

Quoted message said:

Don't worry some day you'll grow up.

And become a rigid, fossilized, frightened, closed-minded old man? I
sure as hell hope not.

--
Peter Aitken

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Certainly not the vast majority, but many of the people in trouble made
bad
decisions.

Why "certainly?" How do you know this? It may well be true - I don't
know any better than you do - but you are making claims without support.
Like so many people, you think that what you believe must be supported
by facts, even if you don't have those facts.

--
Peter Aitken

How do you know I don't have the facts?
I've read enough to know that the word applies. Read up and find out for
yourself. Lots of facts available if you check out the newspaper business
section, Forbes, talk to mortgage lenders, bankers, etc.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:58:22 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]>
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

Quoted message said:

"Terry Pulliam Burd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

We do civil law (constitutional law, primarily First and Fifth
Amendment). As clean as hands get in law.

Fifth Amendment? As in "I'm not talking because I can say the wrong thing
(like the truth) and get my ass in trouble?" Yeah, that's clean.

No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

"Terry Pulliam Burd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
turning it over to developers.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:57:16 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"blake murphy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

edwin obviously thinks the constitution is for wimps, and people
should be forced to testify against themselves. that's why torture is
such a good thing.

your pal,
blake

Torture is a good thing at times. I'd like to see a slug like you tortured
for stating what I "obviously think" with no sustaining facts.

OTOH, the First Amendment gives me the right to state that I think you are a
jackass.

it sure does.

i'm not sure what wanting to see a stranger tortured for making
assumptions says about you, but i don't think it's good. and it does
indicate you think torture can be a good thing, so evidently i was
correct in my assumption.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:26:01 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Terry Pulliam Burd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
turning it over to developers.

well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
your second sentence doesn't make any sense.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:26:01 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Terry Pulliam Burd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
turning it over to developers.

Quoted message said:

well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
your second sentence doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps they haven't been confiscating people's homes so that
developers can build condos where you live. Supreme court seems
to think it's a great idea. Oh, yeah, they give you some money, but
say goodbye to your neighborhood.

nancy

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"blake murphy" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:26:01 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Terry Pulliam Burd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>
> No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
> private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
turning it over to developers.

Quoted message said:

well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
your second sentence doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps they haven't been confiscating people's homes so that
developers can build condos where you live. Supreme court seems
to think it's a great idea. Oh, yeah, they give you some money, but
say goodbye to your neighborhood.

nancy

I agree that the government taking private property and turning it over
to developers is wrong, wrong, wrong. But you folks seem unaware of what
the Supreme Court's job is. It is not to make moral decisions about what
is right and wrong. Rather, it is to decide what is permitted and what
is not permitted by the constitution. In terms of state law, anything
goes unless it is prohibited by the constitution.

--
Peter Aitken

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government
>is
>turning it over to developers.

Quoted message said:

well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
your second sentence doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps they haven't been confiscating people's homes so that
developers can build condos where you live. Supreme court seems
to think it's a great idea. Oh, yeah, they give you some money, but
say goodbye to your neighborhood.

Quoted message said:

I agree that the government taking private property and turning it over
to developers is wrong, wrong, wrong. But you folks seem unaware of what
the Supreme Court's job is.

Us folks? I was pointing out what Ed was probably talking about, I
didn't say anything about morality.

Quoted message said:

It is not to make moral decisions about what
is right and wrong. Rather, it is to decide what is permitted and what
is not permitted by the constitution. In terms of state law, anything
goes unless it is prohibited by the constitution.

Apparently some of the justices don't understand that since the
decision wasn't unanimous.

nancy.

"blake murphy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
turning it over to developers.

well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
your second sentence doesn't make any sense.

your pal,
blake

It does if you know that has been done. Most recently here in CT where
condos are going in where they are tearing down people's homes. The condos
will generate more tax income so it is "for the good of the people". It
made national news so please, try to keep up.

As for "parts of the constitution" you should read the entire thread to
realize I never said I disagreed with any part of it. Context matters. It
was not the constitution I was referring to, but the law firm's practice.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Edwin Pawlowski said:

"blake murphy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
turning it over to developers.

well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
your second sentence doesn't make any sense.

your pal,
blake

It does if you know that has been done. Most recently here in CT where
condos are going in where they are tearing down people's homes. The condos
will generate more tax income so it is "for the good of the people". It
made national news so please, try to keep up.

As for "parts of the constitution" you should read the entire thread to
realize I never said I disagreed with any part of it. Context matters. It
was not the constitution I was referring to, but the law firm's practice.

What they are doing is wrong and I don't understand how they are getting
away with it as it IS unconstitutional:

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."

The problem is, property being taken is NOT being "justly" compensated
for...

"Eminent domain"?
Give me a break.

But, the constitution is just "A god damned piece of paper" according to
president Shrub, (his words overheard) and he who has the gold makes the
rules...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dimitri, you are a flaming leftist! Who would have guessed?

I am happy to learn that I am "entitled" to think that hitting you on
the head and taking your money is "right."

--
Peter Aitken

Apparently you need to learn the distinction between feelings and action.
True
feelings have no mortality, it is the actions we take based upon the feelings
that have morality.

In general I agree with you. But people's actions are usually based on
their feelings, so you cannot completely separate the two. They way they
judge others is also based on their feelings.

See once again you forget an important part of the equation. If the "feeling
" word is proceeded by the word THAT, as in I feel that you should give
yourself a whirly, then it not a feeling but a judgment. If you can substitute
the word THINK for the word FEEL and the statement makes sense then it is a
judgment, as in I feel Peter is s putz, makes sense. I think Peter is a Putz,
once again the sentence makes sense ergo both are judgments and not true
feelings.

The separation of the concepts of feeling and judgments is difficult for most
people.

Dimitri

;-)

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:13:16 -0400, "Nancy Young" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"blake murphy" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:26:01 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Terry Pulliam Burd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>
> No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
> private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
turning it over to developers.

Quoted message said:

well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
your second sentence doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps they haven't been confiscating people's homes so that
developers can build condos where you live. Supreme court seems
to think it's a great idea. Oh, yeah, they give you some money, but
say goodbye to your neighborhood.

nancy

i understood what he meant. i meant his sentence, as written, didn't
make any sense.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 03:02:19 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"blake murphy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
turning it over to developers.

well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
your second sentence doesn't make any sense.

your pal,
blake

It does if you know that has been done. Most recently here in CT where
condos are going in where they are tearing down people's homes. The condos
will generate more tax income so it is "for the good of the people". It
made national news so please, try to keep up.

i know what you meant. i meant your sentence made no sense as
written.

Quoted message said:

As for "parts of the constitution" you should read the entire thread to
realize I never said I disagreed with any part of it. Context matters. It
was not the constitution I was referring to, but the law firm's practice.

i guess i was confused by your attitude that the prohibition against
forced self-incrimation was wrong. so the law firm is o.k. as long as
it only concerns itself with the parts of the constitution you like?

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

i guess i was confused by your attitude that the prohibition against
forced self-incrimation was wrong. so the law firm is o.k. as long as
it only concerns itself with the parts of the constitution you like?

your pal,
blake

There you go, making up stuff again. I never said it was wrong, but I do
think that most people that invoke the 5th are hiding something.

As for law first, some are OK, but the ones advertising and trolling for
victims on TV are about as sleazy as you can get. They don't care about
justice, only a percentage of the settlement.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Edwin Pawlowski said:

"blake murphy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

i guess i was confused by your attitude that the prohibition against
forced self-incrimation was wrong. so the law firm is o.k. as long as
it only concerns itself with the parts of the constitution you like?

your pal,
blake

There you go, making up stuff again. I never said it was wrong, but I do
think that most people that invoke the 5th are hiding something.

Seen a lot of fictional tv shows, have you?

Quoted message said:

As for law first, some are OK, but the ones advertising and trolling for
victims on TV are about as sleazy as you can get. They don't care about
justice, only a percentage of the settlement.

I haven't seen a lot of tv ads that weren't sleazy.