The Off Topic Topic

[Sheilbh]

(and probably good to delete and avoid the social media intern at Penguin having an even worse day):

James Marriott
@j_amesmarriott
Deleting this as a lot of people are now very angry on my behalf and I feel bad for whichever hapless intern was responsible. I mostly just thought it was amusing!

Reminds me of the Edinburgh Fringe show that turned a one star review from the Observer into "A Star! The Observer" on the poster

[PDH]

Incredible...odyssey...will...recommend.




I think that's the gist, boss.

[Syt]

 

[DGuller]

To be fair, there are no birds in that picture, so for the individuals depicted, DDT may have indeed been quite good for them.

[HVC]

The beef one is funny. 50lbs on a 1300 lb animal? Woopty do


DDT was great for areas prone to malaria though. Well, except for the birds living in those areas. But you know what they say about eggs and omelettes

[DGuller]

DDT was great for areas prone to malaria though. Well, except for the birds living in those areas. But you know what they say about eggs and omelettes

Too soon.

[Syt]

I knew that there was some controversy over Georgia (U.S. state, ont Caucasus country ) having the old confederate battleflag on it.



I was not aware that their solution was to take the Confederate Stars & Bars and copy/paste their state seal onto it ....



13 star S&B for comparison:



  

[Josquius]

I mean, I guess it works as a bit of a compromise?
Keeps the Confederate stuff to keep the shit eaters happy but its less in your face and militaristic about it.
The stars and bars has the CSA associations but it does lack the post-ACW racist bollocks associations.
Still, shame they couldn't do better and actually put that period behind them.

[Valmy]

Yes it was a compromise to make the change palatable to conservatives.

[Valmy]

I mean, I guess it works as a bit of a compromise?
Keeps the Confederate stuff to keep the shit eaters happy but its less in your face and militaristic about it.
The stars and bars has the CSA associations but it does lack the post-ACW racist bollocks associations.
Still, shame they couldn't do better and actually put that period behind them.

And let political correctness win?

[mongers]

Saw an item on ebay from a seller with only 81.8% feedback, so had to look at their profile.

Near the top was this negative one:

I bid for the item, I won the item, the seller asked for payment, I paid immediately, with no discussion after a number of days I received a refund. The seller entered into a contract with the buyer, was paid for the goods and then reneged on the deal, under UK law I am now in a position to find a similar product buy it and claim from the seller for any loss + any additional expense, the matter can be settled in a small claims court.
Crucial RAM 64GB Kit (2x32GB) DDR4 3200MHz CL22 (or 2933MHz or 2666MHz)

So lawtalkers, what do you think?

Would that hold water?

[crazy canuck]

Not sure about UK law, but under BC law that might be a valid claim.  The uncertainty is created when they say they will look for a "similar" product.  If it was exactly the same product there would be no problem - they could claim the difference in price as damages (assuming they could prove it was the best price they could reasonably get).

But by getting a similar product, they are introducing the possibility that the increased price is due to the fact that the other unit is that much better and so no damage is suffered.

One other uncertainty is the terms on which the deal is made.  If the terms allow the seller to back out, then no claim would exist.

[viper37]

The beef one is funny. 50lbs on a 1300 lb animal? Woopty do


DDT was great for areas prone to malaria though. Well, except for the birds living in those areas. But you know what they say about eggs and omelettes

I remember my grandfather spraying anti-fly stuff in his stables when I was very young.  I think it was DDT. We used to spray this everywhere in the stables including on the cows to eliminate the flies.

Might have been some other insecticide too.  I 4 or 5 years old a the time when he sold his last cows.

[Barrister]

Saw an item on ebay from a seller with only 81.8% feedback, so had to look at their profile.

Near the top was this negative one:

I bid for the item, I won the item, the seller asked for payment, I paid immediately, with no discussion after a number of days I received a refund. The seller entered into a contract with the buyer, was paid for the goods and then reneged on the deal, under UK law I am now in a position to find a similar product buy it and claim from the seller for any loss + any additional expense, the matter can be settled in a small claims court.
Crucial RAM 64GB Kit (2x32GB) DDR4 3200MHz CL22 (or 2933MHz or 2666MHz)

So lawtalkers, what do you think?

Would that hold water?

It's going to turn largely on the terms of service you agree to when you use eBay.

Plus the reality of - do you really want to sue in small claims court?  When you have no out-of-pocket losses?

[grumbler]

Not sure about UK law, but under BC law that might be a valid claim.  The uncertainty is created when they say they will look for a "similar" product.  If it was exactly the same product there would be no problem - they could claim the difference in price as damages (assuming they could prove it was the best price they could reasonably get).

But by getting a similar product, they are introducing the possibility that the increased price is due to the fact that the other unit is that much better and so no damage is suffered.

One other uncertainty is the terms on which the deal is made.  If the terms allow the seller to back out, then no claim would exist.

Haven't sold anything on eBay for a long time, but in the day the seller liability was limited to a refund plus shipping costs.  No one would sell if they were vulnerable to this kind of manipulation.