GHL On Sale - BRS

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaddyP
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None
Status
Not open for further replies.
I didnt place an order..so no moral superiority there. I bought all of my holiday gifties from SaltwaterAquarium. If that was aimed at others..yes, you had to place an order with BRS and not a smaller vendor. Kinda made my point.

I was not suggesting anything like that, but I think I need to be careful with my language or I could potentially end up in hot water!
 
Now BRS can't give away swag or anything else without being hated for it....LOL

Amazing world we live in these days
Brs should definitly be able to give away swag. I just wish they would send me some but won’t because I am wholesale.
 
BRS won't lose enough sales to worry about. 99.9% of reefers will never know about any of this.
Are you sure? How many unhappy posts about this are going to hit Facebook, twitter, R2R, etc.?
 
Now we can have 20 more GHL connection problem threads to wade through
I will gladly help them as best as I can. :)

That's all we GHL users can do to help future GHL users, AND, help GHL become better. ;) :)
 
Are you sure? How many unhappy posts about this are going to hit Facebook, twitter, R2R, etc.?

A few from people who likely already didn't like BRS and wanted to screw them over.

Any rational human being will understand if BRS doesn't follow through here
 
A few from people who likely already didn't like BRS and wanted to screw them over.

Any rational human being will understand if BRS doesn't follow through here
You highly overrate rational people…
 
If someone here actually tries to sue brs for this they should be kicked from r2r jk but seriously that would be lame
No one with a brain - unless from MN - woudl sue for this. Its a stupid argument - it was (PROBABLY - no one knows) a mistake. You're assuming BRS is going to not send the equipment they have lol. Its way premature
 
No one with a brain - unless from MN - woudl sue for this. Its a stupid argument - it was (PROBABLY - no one knows) a mistake. You're assuming BRS is going to not send the equipment they have lol. Its way premature
Who here is from mn:)
 
No, it's establishing precedent for service orientated websites. Not retail cites. Its saying that if you use a website and get a benefit just by using the website (as distinguished from buying things on a website)--you can be agreeing the to the terms of the website.

BRS's website is akin to newspaper ads. Not service orientated websites. This case does little for this situation IMO>
Wrong. This is not about establishing a precedent. This is one specific company. Which has not even responded. Precedent woudl be established if there was a trial. - right? You're wrong IMHO
 
Did you see the new california law trying to eliminate 'unconscious bias'? Gonna make voir dire a lot more interesting.
Oh my god, funny story.

At a jury trial, the judge asked both attorneys to stand up and recognize particular jury pool members (this was outside the presence of the jury) that we might be, or could be, subjected to such "unconscious bias" . In other words, the judge asked each attorney (one of which was me) to identify minorities i might be subjectively discriminating against! LOL

I said i had no information to provide and that i was not seeing any juror in a racial context at all. I said the only thing i was examining was their answers to questions. I said, first, i don't know who is a minority and who is not. I gave the example that i had minority blood in my DNA but someone may or may not know that by appearance. I said that trying to determine if someone was a minority--i had a problem with in the first place. Not only would i not do it, but i don't think it could be accurately done. The other attorney followed my lead, as neither of us were going to create an issue on appeal admitting we might have "unconscious bias" towards any juror.

The judge was ticked. LOL.

She said she was not being racist by asking us to identify minority jury pool members, if that was what i was implying. I said i was not implying anything, just that i did not have the ability, motive, or desire to care anything about the jurors except their answers to questions. Which was the truth. I could careless a person's ethnicity and take offense to anyone suggesting i have subjective unbconsias bias. The whole notion is ridiculous BS and make work for people selling CLE's on it.

Anyway, the judge then identified minority jury members herself. LOL. I was stunned. She was like juror # blah, blah, appears to be a miniority, etc. She then asked us if either attorney thought those jurors were subjected to unconscious bias during voir dire. Both attorneys just said "no."

It was really awkward and the whole affair was ridiculous.
 
My days some people are like vultures.... you can well see the problems in society, I'm just glad we don't have the "I will sue you for looking at me" in the UK. This is good entertainment.
 
Nah.

This will cost BRS few, if any, future sales. It honestly may get them more future sales. All publicity is good publicity, right?
That’s what I think. How many people seen this thread already did not post anything and went straight to brs to look and buy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top