3 ms·

The comment chain is too deep, so I'll reply here. > You claim it's a personal attack, and then you do exactly what I said you would; take the evidence, and do

The comment chain is too deep, so I'll reply here. > You claim it's a personal attack, and then you do exactly what I said you would; take the evidence, and do your best to dismiss it. I claimed your specific statements were personal attacks, because they were. > My favorite part of your post is how you acknowledge that you knew about court cases related to predatory pricing (Arkansas Supreme Court), while simultaneously pretending you didn't know about Wal-Mart being accused of it, and demanding evidence to prove it anyway. There's a big difference between an accusation and a proven fact. > Combined with your clearly detailed knowledge of the history of Wal-Mart, you can't even properly accuse me of throwing out an ad-hominem without contradicting yourself. My father-in-law retired from WalMart after working there for thirty years - as a sales clerk, basically. My knowledge of the history stems from my being close to it and having been interested in the topic for a long time. In fact, my interest in the topic is why I asked if you had evidence of their driving competitors out of business and raising prices, because that's something I'd love to have. I also seriously considered suing WalMart a few years ago. I worked there as a freight unloader in 2002. They had a policy of not allowing employees to wear steel-toe boots and I was injured on the job as a result of it when a furniture box was dropped on my foot. The nail on my right big toe is permanently disfigured as a result. I went as far as paying an attorney for a few hours' time to prepare a case, but in the end it became clear that pursuing it would have been a bad financial decision. > Thanks for the laughs. I had karma to burn. :) Again, I didn't downvote you.

anonbanker 10y ago
So, now you divulge that your spouse's family has ties of dependency to Wal-Mart (what kind of retirement plan does Wal-Mart give after 30 years?). And you admit that Wal-mart as a topic is something that held your interest for years, so you're not exactly unbiased when you're asking for evidence, which explains why you were so quick to discount all evidence provided with such hand-wavey statements as "it was settled out of court without admission of fault", as if that meant something. And despite your own personal injuries caused by their policies, you like the company enough to not bother with financial recompensation you are entitled to. Keep pretending that your "debunking" posts didn't lead to the burning of my karma, and people downvoting my posting history. I'm now curious about how far it can go!
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  > So, now you divulge that your spouse's family has ties of dependency to Wal-Mart (what kind of retirement plan does Wal-Mart give after 30 years?). I'm not privy to my father-in-law's financial details, and if I was, I wouldn't share them with strangers online. This is exactly what I mean by "personal attack". You're attempting to discredit me instead of addressing my argument. > And you admit that Wal-mart as a topic is something that held your interest for years, so you're not exactly unbiased when you're asking for evidence, which explains why you were so quick to discount all evidence provided with such hand-wavey statements as "it was settled out of court without admission of fault", as if that meant something. I never claimed to be unbiased, I asked you to provide sources for claims. The fact that "it was settled out of court without admission of fault" doesn't mean anything is exactly my point. It does not support your position. > And despite your own personal injuries caused by their policies, you like the company enough to not bother with financial recompensation you are entitled to. Who said I liked WalMart? I have several issues with them, mostly around how they treat their suppliers. I didn't sue them because it would have cost me a lot of money with very little chance of success. > Keep pretending that your "debunking" posts didn't lead to the burning of my karma, and people downvoting my posting history. I'm now curious about how far it can go! My posts have nothing to do with people downvoting you. Your attitude and refusal to support your claims are responsible for that.
  - anonbanker 10y ago
    Grey posts look good on you. Have a nice week!

anonbanker 10y ago

So, now you divulge that your spouse's family has ties of dependency to Wal-Mart (what kind of retirement plan does Wal-Mart give after 30 years?). And you admit that Wal-mart as a topic is something that held your interest for years, so you're not exactly unbiased when you're asking for evidence, which explains why you were so quick to discount all evidence provided with such hand-wavey statements as "it was settled out of court without admission of fault", as if that meant something. And despite your own personal injuries caused by their policies, you like the company enough to not bother with financial recompensation you are entitled to. Keep pretending that your "debunking" posts didn't lead to the burning of my karma, and people downvoting my posting history. I'm now curious about how far it can go!

LyndsySimon 10y ago
> So, now you divulge that your spouse's family has ties of dependency to Wal-Mart (what kind of retirement plan does Wal-Mart give after 30 years?). I'm not privy to my father-in-law's financial details, and if I was, I wouldn't share them with strangers online. This is exactly what I mean by "personal attack". You're attempting to discredit me instead of addressing my argument. > And you admit that Wal-mart as a topic is something that held your interest for years, so you're not exactly unbiased when you're asking for evidence, which explains why you were so quick to discount all evidence provided with such hand-wavey statements as "it was settled out of court without admission of fault", as if that meant something. I never claimed to be unbiased, I asked you to provide sources for claims. The fact that "it was settled out of court without admission of fault" doesn't mean anything is exactly my point. It does not support your position. > And despite your own personal injuries caused by their policies, you like the company enough to not bother with financial recompensation you are entitled to. Who said I liked WalMart? I have several issues with them, mostly around how they treat their suppliers. I didn't sue them because it would have cost me a lot of money with very little chance of success. > Keep pretending that your "debunking" posts didn't lead to the burning of my karma, and people downvoting my posting history. I'm now curious about how far it can go! My posts have nothing to do with people downvoting you. Your attitude and refusal to support your claims are responsible for that.
- anonbanker 10y ago
  Grey posts look good on you. Have a nice week!