Another fun fact: Intoxication is a "condition" on par with cardiac disease and pregnancy.
For the purposes of this game, yes, absolutely. It makes perfect sense. The term condition, in this context, refers to the state of health or fitness. All of these conditions are equal - or on par - in the sense that they're all conditions that would make this game too dangerous for you.
In general, when people refuse to use the reply function, it looks like they're attempting to hide their (usually) lame response from the person to which they're responding. Just FYI there, Scote.
Anyway, as I previously pasted, this is from Groupon's spokesperson:
A Groupon is good until its expiration date; at that time, the merchant will still have to honor what you PAID (NOT face value), for five years or in accordance with state law. It's five years in Illinois, and that's the most strict in the country, so that's what we ask merchants to abide by.
In short, they ask merchants to abide by the law in the strictest state.
Again, there is a much lengthier and more detailed summary of their policies printed on every Groupon. I suggest that you find a copy and read it in full, instead of relying on a small FAQ blurb.
...they only do that to the extent required by state law--and not all states have gift card laws.
No, Groupon extends the same protections to users in all states, according to what's required in the strictest state. In addition, they provide additional protections if a business closes or refuses to provide service.
...maybe they are vulnerable to a federal class actions suit.
Of course they're vulnerable to a lawsuit. That doesn't mean that the plaintiffs have a leg to stand on, just that they paid a filing fee.
Since I have to pay for the services in advance, I don't see how it could be called a coupon.
In marketing, a coupon is a ticket or document that can be exchanged for a financial discount or rebate when purchasing a product.
Ergo, a coupon.
Its a *pre-paid* gift certificate or card.
Yes, it's that, as well. Isn't it grand how items can be multiple things at once?
A coupon implies that you only pay for the services at the time those services are rendered.
No, it doesn't.
Groupon offers *prepaid* services and they should be held to the laws that govern such things.
No one has said that they shouldn't be.
The question at hand is whether or not they've broken the law, since the portion that you pay for expires just like a gift certificate, according to the law. If you pay $20 for the Groupon, you keep that $20 as long as the law requires.
In fact, better than the law requires, because if the business closes, Groupon refunds you. If you purchased that certificate directly from the business, you'd be SOL.
Groupon's policies are clear and seem to be within the law. From a spokesperson:
"A Groupon is good until its expiration date; at that time, the merchant will still have to honor what you PAID (NOT face value), for five years or in accordance with state law. It's five years in Illinois, and that's the most strict in the country, so that's what we ask merchants to abide by.
So if I spend $20 to buy a $40 Groupon for one dozen roses at Flower Shop, when it expires the merchant owes me a $20 credit to their store. They don't have to give it to me in one dozen roses, but they do have to give me a credit (not cash) for what I paid."
I'm a big fan of Groupon and this policy was made clear when I joined. In addition, a similar statement prints on the Groupon itself so I don't really see that this guy does (or should) have a leg to stand on.
As one commenter put it, it's a good way to find out if your friends are closet swingers.
Anyway, I think it's hilarious that the Wii has a sex game before the other platforms. I thought for sure that the Kinect would shepherd in the first sex games.
The fact that you bring up a Nazi analogy completely negates any credibility you may have had.
Yes, because no one can ever be like Nazis, ever. /sarcasm
Congrats, stupid.
The fact that you called me stupid for making a particularly apt analogy completely negates any chance you had at gaining credibility.
I'm saying that most of you are attempting to paint TSA agents with a single broad brush as if they have a say in the final outcome of the law.
We're not discussing the law. We're discussing TSA policies.
Should they simply just up and leave their jobs?
That's one option. Striking is another. If most TSA agents refused to complete unconstitutional searches for a day, that would pretty much lay this shit to bed right there.
How about a TSA officer with 12 years into a 20 year career after which he draws a pension?
What about a career soldier with no other marketable skills or options? Should he have refused to loan Jews onto trains? I mean, it's not exactly directing people into fucking gas chambers and, dammit, a man needs to feed his family! /sarcasm
Best quit now to appease the rich suburban white-breads who have time to monday-morning quarterback.
Wow, so you're upset that I made a Nazi analogy and yet you think it's okay to spew racism and classicism all over the thread? What was that you said about credibility earlier?
This whole thread reminds me of the level discourse you'll see on a youtube video comment thread when a cop does something construed as invading someones rights.
Yes, your comment is reminiscent of that level of discourse.
For site that usually has reasonable intelligent people frequenting the comments, some of you seem to lose all sense of logic.
It's not logical to ask that TSA workers - who hate these policies just as much as we do - fucking do something? When they're in the best position to effect a change? Seriously?
I see this frequently. I homeschool my children, and they complete alot of modules on their netbooks. In addition to that, my children take kung-fu and ballet (and soon to be gymnastics), ride bikes, do hands-on experiments proving almost every science lesson, go to museums and exhibits at least twice a month, and have a shit-ton of engineering toys.
Despite the wonderful variety in my kiddos educations, people get really hung up on the 'netbook' part. The silliest part is that if you replaced the word 'netbook' with 'chalkboard, 'whiteboard', or 'projector screen' (the things that public-school children look at all day), people wouldn't blink an eye.
Can you guys PLEASE avoid that kind of analogy? I thought Godwin created his law so people would stop doing that. It only serves to polarize the debate further.
Wow, lots of things wrong here.
1. Sure, we can. We probably won't, though. Did you mean to ask if we would?
2. So far as I know, there is no eponymous group of people who use Nazi analogies, so it's no use asking if 'us guys' can stop.
3. If there is a group, I'm obviously not in it, because I'm not a guy.
4. Godwin didn't create a rule. He made an observation. There's a difference.
5. Godwin did ask that people only use Nazi references appropriately and in context so that those references don't lose impact through overuse. However, I made a good point, using the Holocaust reference in an appropriate and contextual manner, so I don't see the problem there.
6. However, Godwin's Law does not apply to discussion of totalitarian regimes or actions, like the one we're discussing, so even if my analogy was not appropriate or contextual, it wouldn't matter. In short, Godwin's Law doesn't apply to this thread.
7. I didn't focus on a minor point. The entire point is that ICE took down 80,000 sites because it had a problem with a handful of them, and did so illegally. This was a totalitarian move. Pointing that out, even with satire, isn't trolling. End of story.
8. If we change what we say or do because of trolls, then the trolls have won, and I simply can't be a part of that.
On the post: Groupon Sued For Having Short Expirations On Coupons
Re: Yeah, every time I'm out 50 bucks...
For the purposes of this game, yes, absolutely. It makes perfect sense. The term condition, in this context, refers to the state of health or fitness. All of these conditions are equal - or on par - in the sense that they're all conditions that would make this game too dangerous for you.
On the post: Groupon Sued For Having Short Expirations On Coupons
Re: Then again, maybe not...
Anyway, as I previously pasted, this is from Groupon's spokesperson:
A Groupon is good until its expiration date; at that time, the merchant will still have to honor what you PAID (NOT face value), for five years or in accordance with state law. It's five years in Illinois, and that's the most strict in the country, so that's what we ask merchants to abide by.
In short, they ask merchants to abide by the law in the strictest state.
Again, there is a much lengthier and more detailed summary of their policies printed on every Groupon. I suggest that you find a copy and read it in full, instead of relying on a small FAQ blurb.
On the post: Groupon Sued For Having Short Expirations On Coupons
Re:
No, Groupon extends the same protections to users in all states, according to what's required in the strictest state. In addition, they provide additional protections if a business closes or refuses to provide service.
...maybe they are vulnerable to a federal class actions suit.
Of course they're vulnerable to a lawsuit. That doesn't mean that the plaintiffs have a leg to stand on, just that they paid a filing fee.
On the post: Groupon Sued For Having Short Expirations On Coupons
Re: Not a coupon
In marketing, a coupon is a ticket or document that can be exchanged for a financial discount or rebate when purchasing a product.
Ergo, a coupon.
Its a *pre-paid* gift certificate or card.
Yes, it's that, as well. Isn't it grand how items can be multiple things at once?
A coupon implies that you only pay for the services at the time those services are rendered.
No, it doesn't.
Groupon offers *prepaid* services and they should be held to the laws that govern such things.
No one has said that they shouldn't be.
The question at hand is whether or not they've broken the law, since the portion that you pay for expires just like a gift certificate, according to the law. If you pay $20 for the Groupon, you keep that $20 as long as the law requires.
In fact, better than the law requires, because if the business closes, Groupon refunds you. If you purchased that certificate directly from the business, you'd be SOL.
Any questions?
On the post: Groupon Sued For Having Short Expirations On Coupons
Mountain/Molehill.
"A Groupon is good until its expiration date; at that time, the merchant will still have to honor what you PAID (NOT face value), for five years or in accordance with state law. It's five years in Illinois, and that's the most strict in the country, so that's what we ask merchants to abide by.
So if I spend $20 to buy a $40 Groupon for one dozen roses at Flower Shop, when it expires the merchant owes me a $20 credit to their store. They don't have to give it to me in one dozen roses, but they do have to give me a credit (not cash) for what I paid."
I'm a big fan of Groupon and this policy was made clear when I joined. In addition, a similar statement prints on the Groupon itself so I don't really see that this guy does (or should) have a leg to stand on.
On the post: DailyDirt: Chemistry Isn't Just A Class Everyone Hated In High School....
On the post: Moby Says The Major Record Labels 'Should Die'
Re:
On the post: Ubisoft Uses 'Copyright' Claim To Block Americans From Seeing Its Own Ad For Ridiculous 'Adult' Wii Game
Re: Looks like fun to me
On the post: Ubisoft Uses 'Copyright' Claim To Block Americans From Seeing Its Own Ad For Ridiculous 'Adult' Wii Game
Re: hilarious!
On the post: Ubisoft Uses 'Copyright' Claim To Block Americans From Seeing Its Own Ad For Ridiculous 'Adult' Wii Game
Ridiculous?
Anyway, I think it's hilarious that the Wii has a sex game before the other platforms. I thought for sure that the Kinect would shepherd in the first sex games.
On the post: Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents
Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
No, it's amazing that no matter how often it's explained, you still don't get the analogy.
TSA agents are just following orders, even though those orders are unlawful and contribute to a police state.
Nazis were just following orders, even thought those orders were unlawful and contributed to a police state.
If you still don't understand how TSA agents are like Nazis, then you need to sign up for literacy classes.
wow.
My sentiments exactly.
On the post: Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents
Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
Yes, because no one can ever be like Nazis, ever. /sarcasm
Congrats, stupid.
The fact that you called me stupid for making a particularly apt analogy completely negates any chance you had at gaining credibility.
I'm saying that most of you are attempting to paint TSA agents with a single broad brush as if they have a say in the final outcome of the law.
We're not discussing the law. We're discussing TSA policies.
Should they simply just up and leave their jobs?
That's one option. Striking is another. If most TSA agents refused to complete unconstitutional searches for a day, that would pretty much lay this shit to bed right there.
How about a TSA officer with 12 years into a 20 year career after which he draws a pension?
What about a career soldier with no other marketable skills or options? Should he have refused to loan Jews onto trains? I mean, it's not exactly directing people into fucking gas chambers and, dammit, a man needs to feed his family! /sarcasm
Best quit now to appease the rich suburban white-breads who have time to monday-morning quarterback.
Wow, so you're upset that I made a Nazi analogy and yet you think it's okay to spew racism and classicism all over the thread? What was that you said about credibility earlier?
This whole thread reminds me of the level discourse you'll see on a youtube video comment thread when a cop does something construed as invading someones rights.
Yes, your comment is reminiscent of that level of discourse.
For site that usually has reasonable intelligent people frequenting the comments, some of you seem to lose all sense of logic.
It's not logical to ask that TSA workers - who hate these policies just as much as we do - fucking do something? When they're in the best position to effect a change? Seriously?
And you think I'm stupid? Wow.
On the post: Some Discussion Around Children And Tablet Computing
Screen vs. Board?
Despite the wonderful variety in my kiddos educations, people get really hung up on the 'netbook' part. The silliest part is that if you replaced the word 'netbook' with 'chalkboard, 'whiteboard', or 'projector screen' (the things that public-school children look at all day), people wouldn't blink an eye.
People are silly. :P
On the post: Some Discussion Around Children And Tablet Computing
Re: Re: What's up with the final paragraph?
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re:
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, lots of things wrong here.
1. Sure, we can. We probably won't, though. Did you mean to ask if we would?
2. So far as I know, there is no eponymous group of people who use Nazi analogies, so it's no use asking if 'us guys' can stop.
3. If there is a group, I'm obviously not in it, because I'm not a guy.
4. Godwin didn't create a rule. He made an observation. There's a difference.
5. Godwin did ask that people only use Nazi references appropriately and in context so that those references don't lose impact through overuse. However, I made a good point, using the Holocaust reference in an appropriate and contextual manner, so I don't see the problem there.
6. However, Godwin's Law does not apply to discussion of totalitarian regimes or actions, like the one we're discussing, so even if my analogy was not appropriate or contextual, it wouldn't matter. In short, Godwin's Law doesn't apply to this thread.
7. I didn't focus on a minor point. The entire point is that ICE took down 80,000 sites because it had a problem with a handful of them, and did so illegally. This was a totalitarian move. Pointing that out, even with satire, isn't trolling. End of story.
8. If we change what we say or do because of trolls, then the trolls have won, and I simply can't be a part of that.
Next >>