Registered: Apr 2000
Location: Madison,AL
Posts: 25

I received a Visor Platinum as a gift today (was purchase via Web, not retail) and I wanted to spend the extra money to upgrade to a Prism. According to Handspring this simply isn't possible. I want to give them MORE money and send back a new factory sealed Platinum in exchange for a Prism. They said I could return and unit and the would CREDIT the original purchaser and then charge me the $449. I told them that is was a GIFT and that wasn't possible and they said no way. What ever happend to customer service?

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1683

How can you prove that it was a gift? Just ask the gift giver where they got it from and take it back yourself.

I understand where they are coming from...whose to say you didn't rip it off? They can't just take everyone's word for things.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Posts: 222

handspring's not the one who's "retarded" in this case....

ok, sorry, that was mean. what handspring is doing is completely correct and is necessary to prevent any kind of fraud. besides, what's wrong with telling the giver what you're doing and have them give you the money and then you buy the prism yourself?

[Edited by Nhatman on 11-17-2000 at 12:36 AM]

Registered: Feb 2000
Location:
Posts: 1571

Huh?

I think handspring would be retarded if they had agreed to the exchange. You just can't run a business like that.

Registered: Mar 2000
Location:
Posts: 98

Well, one of my sisters works at a Walmart distro center. She was telling me once about how Walmart will take back ANYTHING. She told me about a store that took back something only sold at Kmart! How's THAT for retarded?

__________________
Visor Enthusiast and Innogear/Geodiscovery basher.

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 443

quote:

---

Originally posted by as bunch of different people
retarded?

---

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:

---

Originally posted by mensachicken

quote:

---

Originally posted by as bunch of different people
retarded?

---

(no doubt i'll get flamed up the wazoo for this one but reading mulitple posts with this insulting phrase forced me to post.)

---

Registered: Dec 1999
Location:
Posts: 26

"As my grandmother used to say, 'F*** 'em if they can't take a joke.'" I love that line.

Here's to freedom of speech.

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 443

quote:

---

Originally posted by JEBaldwin
"As my grandmother used to say, 'F*** 'em if they can't take a joke.'" I love that line.

Here's to freedom of speech.

---

Registered: Dec 1999
Location:
Posts: 26

quote:

---

Originally posted by mensachicken

quote:

---

Originally posted by JEBaldwin
"As my grandmother used to say, 'F*** 'em if they can't take a joke.'" I love that line.

Here's to freedom of speech.

---

perhaps i'm dense, but where exactly is the joke you're referring to?

here's to common decency.

mc.

---

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: McLean, VA USA
Posts: 216

quote:

---

Originally posted by JEBaldwin

Common decency?

Common decency is respecting the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which guarantees freedom of speech, not freedom of speech that doesn't upset others. "Retarded" is a perfectly acceptable word. So is "gay". Just because you infer some insult in it is *your* problem, no one else's.

George Carlin has a routine about "shell shock". In World War I, the stress and subsequent freak-out by soldiers was called "shell shock". By WWII, it was referred to as "battle fatigue". Since Vietnam, it's been termed "post-traumatic stress disorder". It takes all the meaning out of the very real problems these soldiers suffered by giving it a polite, friendly name that doesn't upset anyone.

If you don't like what someone says, ignore it. But don't tell me or anyone else that it can't be said.

---

__________________
What the Heck! It's what I want!

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 85

Just because you can say something, doesn't mean it is the correct thing to say. Yes, our constitution grants us a variety of freedoms, but that doesn't mean it doesn't absolve you of responsibility. Want to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or public gathering? Chances are you will be arrested. Want to say something insulting or derogatory about someone? Do that in a work environment and you will be unemployed and your company will be paying out a severe settlement. I guess JEBaldwin could ignore it if I called him a boorish oaf who speaks without thinking, or he might get mad. With freedom comes responsibility. Think what others might feel about what you say and it will be a nicer world to live in.

I don't think using George Carlin as an example is really valid in this case. Firemen or policemen rarely are exposed to shelling, but can suffer from post traumatic stress. A child watching his parents killed in Rwanda or Kosovo is going to suffer from traumatic stress. I think the definition just got broader and more inclusive of other forms of adverse reaction to stress.

And to the critics, yes, I have been in combat, yes I have been shelled, and yes, it is stressful.

__________________
The following space intentionally left blank...

RadarGreg

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1683

quote:

---

She told me about a store that took back something only sold at Kmart! How's THAT for retarded?

---

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Registered: Dec 1999
Location:
Posts: 26

I do, in fact, think before I speak (or, in this case, type). I don't hold the Constitution up to some unreachable level - no one with half a brain [and I'm speaking about a couple of *wacko* Libertarians (no, not all Libertarians are wackos - just these two) I encountered this weekend] would think it's right to shout "Fire!" in a movie theater. I never said that someone shouldn't be held accountable for what they say; in fact, that's my problem with this type of argument to begin with: People can't seem to separate that there is a difference in the freedom to say something and the responsibility for saying it.

I can say whatever I want. I can be (and am) held responsible for what I say. I realize that *when I am saying it*. Call me a boorish oaf if you must; I don't really care. I don't know you, nor am I going to waste any time worrying about what others think of me. I don't care if someone feels the need to call me a name if I use a word that he doesn't like to describe something.

I don't use euphemisms to describe things that there are perfectly good words already in the English language to describe. "Retarded" is fine by me, as is "crippled". I don't go around calling people who are mentally or physically "handicapped" "retards" or "cripples" because I wouldn't have a very high opinion of myself for calling names, especially at someone who has no control over the circumstance in which he finds himself. That's childish and uncivil. My opinion of myself is the only one that really matters to me; I don't get off on putting people down.

Only in rather unique instances can a person be held responsible for someone else's reaction to his speech, i.e. "Fire!"

It's not my fault nor my problem if someone else dislikes the usage of the words "retarded," "gay," "fag," or "cripple," which I don't hold in any special regard. I don't use them to hurt others intentionally, and my time on this earth is too short to worry too much about overly sensitive indirect reactions.

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan USA
Posts: 790

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Nowak
And, of course Handspring refused the exchange. The money goes back to the original purchaser whenever you exchange a gift without a receipt. Welcome to the real world, kid.

---

__________________
Jeff

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Posts: 222

i believe with amazon.com, if you return a gift, you will get a gift certificate that is sent to the same address the gift was originally sent to. which makes sense.

if i bought a present for little johnny and had it delivered to HIS address, then when he returns the gift at his own discretion, they will send the gift certificate to HIS address. that way, it's legit and my feelings aren't hurt when i find out that he doesn't like that singing bass/trout/catfish plaque thing.

i'm sure if i had bought a gift from amazon, had it shipped to me, then i gave it to little johnny, amazon would not allow the gift certificate to be sent to little johnny, but only to me (the original addressee).

it makes good business sense and it helps to prevent fraud, which keeps the prices low...


[Edited by Nhatman on 11-20-2000 at 04:37 PM]

Registered: Apr 2000
Location: Birmingham, AL, USA
Posts: 32

using the correct terms

quote:

---

I don't use euphemisms to describe things that there are perfectly good words already in the English language to describe. "Retarded" is fine by me, as is "crippled". I don't go around calling people who are mentally or physically "handicapped" "retards" or "cripples" because I wouldn't have a very high opinion of myself for calling names, especially at someone who has no control over the circumstance in which he finds himself. That's childish and uncivil. My opinion of myself is the only one that really matters to me; I don't get off on putting people down.

---

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

Moving to off-topic.

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 517

I certainly wouldn't call someone that was mentally incapacitated "retarded." Like it or not the word has come to have a derogatory meaning. If I were talking about someone that was "retarded" I would call them something nicer, maybe "handicapped" or if I needed to be specific "mentally/physically handicapped."

I don't think there was anything wrong with what the poster(s) said. On the other hand, I also don't think there is anything wrong with asking people to refrain from using terms that are offensive. I'm not quite sure how this should work in such an open environment, with 5000+ members. Usually you do not say words that offend certain people when you are around them. Here there is no way to tell which posts he/she will read. I suppose the best way is to just not use them at all, or not make it so obvious as to include them in the subject line.

By the way I like that grandmother quote .

__________________
<A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 35

i think you all are socially "retarded" as well as possibly "gay" (in both meanings). leave it to you idiots to turn someone's perfectly legitimate beef into some "fouled" up first amendment vs PC issue. btw, i wonder if mensa chicken is offended that i used the word "foul" to mean "f*ck"in this instance.