Wal-Mart Customers Trick Stores to Match a Fake $90 Price for PS4 - Update

[Something Amyss]

[

Well obviously the butt hurt and embarrased big company is calling it fraud, unless someone is convicted of the crime Walmart calling it fraud is as meaningless as you calling it fraud. So far no-one has even reported even a complaint to the police, let alone even a single arrest or charges.

That says more about the allegations of fraud than anything else.

Oh, I see. Your argument is that a crime has to be reported to be real, then? At least that would be consistent with you ignoring evidence.

But my point was less to validate myself and more to help you. I expect you're going to camp out in front of Wal-Marts and offer the "nuh uh" defense to them, too.

 

[J Tyran]

[

Well obviously the butt hurt and embarrased big company is calling it fraud, unless someone is convicted of the crime Walmart calling it fraud is as meaningless as you calling it fraud. So far no-one has even reported even a complaint to the police, let alone even a single arrest or charges.

That says more about the allegations of fraud than anything else.

Oh, I see. Your argument is that a crime has to be reported to be real, then? At least that would be consistent with you ignoring evidence.

There has been no "evidence" apart from some people taking advantage of it, you would also think that if Walmart really believed they where the victims of fraud they would have filed a complaint.

 

[FalloutJack]

[

Well obviously the butt hurt and embarrased big company is calling it fraud, unless someone is convicted of the crime Walmart calling it fraud is as meaningless as you calling it fraud. So far no-one has even reported even a complaint to the police, let alone even a single arrest or charges.

That says more about the allegations of fraud than anything else.

Oh, I see. Your argument is that a crime has to be reported to be real, then? At least that would be consistent with you ignoring evidence.

There has been no "evidence" apart from some people taking advantage of it, you would also think that if Walmart really believed they where the victims of fraud they would have filed a complaint.

You just basically said that there's no evidence of people committing fraud except that people have been committing fraud.

Uhhh...what?

I couldn't care less about Walmart, of course, but all this stuff IS illegal. People can, have, and will continue to get away from outright stealing from the place. Walmart is terribly managed, which is why we apparently hear from the horse's mouth "Look what I did!" first. Crimes have been discovered and pursued via the idiots who brag about what they did online. When you admit to something which is actually a crime onliine, you have implicated yourself. What we see here in the OP and the provided links is the same as a recorded testimony.

 

[Something Amyss]

There has been no "evidence" apart from some people taking advantage of it, you would also think that if Walmart really believed they where the victims of fraud they would have filed a complaint.

I would think it's company policy to swallow such losses as it makes them look bad stomping on the little guy, even if they committed an act of fraud. And I'd be right. Well, I'd be right sans the editorialising as to why.

And you're right. We have no "evidence." I don't know what "evidence" is, but we have no quotemarkevidencequotemark. What we do have is evidence, in the form of someone who not only defrauded Wal-Mart but was telling other people how to to get around cashiers who wanted further proof.

What you're saying is tantamount to saying we have no evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been successful on US soil. Except that one. And the other one. And that other other one.

We have no evidence if you discount the evidence. And that's absurd. You can't be serious, can you?

 

[J Tyran]

There has been no "evidence" apart from some people taking advantage of it, you would also think that if Walmart really believed they where the victims of fraud they would have filed a complaint.

I would think it's company policy to swallow such losses as it makes them look bad stomping on the little guy, even if they committed an act of fraud. And I'd be right. Well, I'd be right sans the editorialising as to why.

And you're right. We have no "evidence." I don't know what "evidence" is, but we have no quotemarkevidencequotemark. What we do have is evidence, in the form of someone who not only defrauded Wal-Mart but was telling other people how to to get around cashiers who wanted further proof.

What you're saying is tantamount to saying we have no evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been successful on US soil. Except that one. And the other one. And that other other one.

We have no evidence if you discount the evidence. And that's absurd. You can't be serious, can you?

Yet throughout this you have not linked any, once. Clearly post some right here, something that cannot be refuted with common sense, reasonable doubt or by pointing out your misinterpretation of whats there.

 

[FalloutJack]

There has been no "evidence" apart from some people taking advantage of it, you would also think that if Walmart really believed they where the victims of fraud they would have filed a complaint.

I would think it's company policy to swallow such losses as it makes them look bad stomping on the little guy, even if they committed an act of fraud. And I'd be right. Well, I'd be right sans the editorialising as to why.

And you're right. We have no "evidence." I don't know what "evidence" is, but we have no quotemarkevidencequotemark. What we do have is evidence, in the form of someone who not only defrauded Wal-Mart but was telling other people how to to get around cashiers who wanted further proof.

What you're saying is tantamount to saying we have no evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been successful on US soil. Except that one. And the other one. And that other other one.

We have no evidence if you discount the evidence. And that's absurd. You can't be serious, can you?

Yet throughout this you have not linked any, once. Clearly post some right here, something that cannot be refuted with common sense, reasonable doubt or by pointing out your misinterpretation of whats there.

It would take more than common sense to discount the OP with links to both the twitter account where the bragging took place and the link to the source material, which is reporting actual news that happened. Common sense tells me that Walmart is exceptionally easy to put one over for reasons that have been listed throughout this thread, reasons that I can personally tell you are true by simply knowing Walmart employees. You are IN the link with the evidence, which proves it happened. Now that we have that out of the way, tell us exactly how it didn't happen. Where's YOUR evidence?

 

[J Tyran]

There has been no "evidence" apart from some people taking advantage of it, you would also think that if Walmart really believed they where the victims of fraud they would have filed a complaint.

I would think it's company policy to swallow such losses as it makes them look bad stomping on the little guy, even if they committed an act of fraud. And I'd be right. Well, I'd be right sans the editorialising as to why.

And you're right. We have no "evidence." I don't know what "evidence" is, but we have no quotemarkevidencequotemark. What we do have is evidence, in the form of someone who not only defrauded Wal-Mart but was telling other people how to to get around cashiers who wanted further proof.

What you're saying is tantamount to saying we have no evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been successful on US soil. Except that one. And the other one. And that other other one.

We have no evidence if you discount the evidence. And that's absurd. You can't be serious, can you?

Yet throughout this you have not linked any, once. Clearly post some right here, something that cannot be refuted with common sense, reasonable doubt or by pointing out your misinterpretation of whats there.

It would take more than common sense to discount the OP with links to both the twitter account where the bragging took place and the link to the source material, which is reporting actual news that happened. Common sense tells me that Walmart is exceptionally easy to put one over for reasons that have been listed throughout this thread, reasons that I can personally tell you are true by simply knowing Walmart employees. You are IN the link with the evidence, which proves it happened. Now that we have that out of the way, tell us exactly how it didn't happen. Where's YOUR evidence?

Right okay, thats pretty lame. If this "evidence" is so easy to find why can't you produce some? The article links and the source article just detail some people that just took advantage of Walmarts sloppy policy and nothing more.

 

[Something Amyss]

Right okay, thats pretty lame. If this "evidence" is so easy to find why can't you produce some? The article links and the source article just detail some people that just took advantage of Walmarts sloppy policy and nothing more.

I think a better question is why pretend that evidence you claim you read doesn't exist? If you've read his link, then you have evidence that he switched out the listings when challenged.

Jack is completely right. This is the source material, and no evidence of it should be required, no more so than the article itself.

However, since you're either playing make believe or refuse to actually follow the links:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=x58lj8&s=8#.VHIuO8np_w6

I took a screencap, which is a good thing, since you can no longer follow the link. In this picture, taahaa8 claims to do exactly what I said he did, what you claim there was no proof of, even though you claim you looked at the link. You could have easily verified this for yourself, but you didn't. And that was the problem.

 

[J Tyran]

Right okay, thats pretty lame. If this "evidence" is so easy to find why can't you produce some? The article links and the source article just detail some people that just took advantage of Walmarts sloppy policy and nothing more.

I think a better question is why pretend that evidence you claim you read doesn't exist? If you've read his link, then you have evidence that he switched out the listings when challenged.

Jack is completely right. This is the source material, and no evidence of it should be required, no more so than the article itself.

However, since you're either playing make believe or refuse to actually follow the links:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=x58lj8&s=8#.VHIuO8np_w6

I took a screencap, which is a good thing, since you can no longer follow the link. In this picture, taahaa8 claims to do exactly what I said he did, what you claim there was no proof of, even though you claim you looked at the link. You could have easily verified this for yourself, but you didn't. And that was the problem.

Exactly what I said, he just took advantage of Walmarts poor policy that didn't exclude third party sellers. He doesnt claim to have to created a false listing on Amazon, he doesnt claim to have colluding with someone that did. All he did was show them a price listing on Amazon and asked them to honour the price matching offer, "switching listings" was simply showing the cheapest one.

So well done, you provided the proof that backs up my point and does not support yours as he doesnt claim to have done anything apart from show the staff the cheapest price.

 

[Something Amyss]

Exactly what I said, he just took advantage of Walmarts poor policy that didn't exclude third party sellers.

Except he doesn't just take advantage of it, he shifts listings. You didn't read the image, did you?

He doesnt claim to have to created a false listing on Amazon, he doesnt claim to have colluding with someone that did.

Except I explicitly said I wasn't claiming otherwise. Are you intentionally pulling this, or did you not read what I wrote, either?

All he did was show them a price listing on Amazon and asked them to honour the price matching offer, "switching listings" was simply showing the cheapest one.

No, switching listings was switching to the description of a more expensive one when challenged. Which is what the link says. Which you'd know if you read it.

So well done, you provided the proof that backs up my point and does not support yours as he doesnt claim to have done anything apart from show the staff the cheapest price.

Maybe if you misrepresent me and/or don't read the link.

 

[J Tyran]

Exactly what I said, he just took advantage of Walmarts poor policy that didn't exclude third party sellers.

Except he doesn't just take advantage of it, he shifts listings. You didn't read the image, did you?

He doesnt claim to have to created a false listing on Amazon, he doesnt claim to have colluding with someone that did.

Except I explicitly said I wasn't claiming otherwise. Are you intentionally pulling this, or did you not read what I wrote, either?

All he did was show them a price listing on Amazon and asked them to honour the price matching offer, "switching listings" was simply showing the cheapest one.

No, switching listings was switching to the description of a more expensive one when challenged. Which is what the link says. Which you'd know if you read it.

So well done, you provided the proof that backs up my point and does not support yours as he doesnt claim to have done anything apart from show the staff the cheapest price.

Maybe if you misrepresent me and/or don't read the link.

Now you're making no sense, let me get this straight... You claim its fraud because he asked the staff to honour the price matching offer by "shifting" the listings to a full price $400 Amazon listing and this convinced them to sell him one for $90 and its fraud.

Right...

 

[Something Amyss]

Now you're making no sense, let me get this straight... You claim its fraud because he asked the staff to honour the price matching offer by "shifting" the listings to a full price $400 Amazon listing and this convinced them to sell him one for $90 and its fraud.

Right...

You mean, what he actually did? Which, your description counts as fraud?

Yeah, basically. Not sure what you don't understand here. He describes something that meets the federal statues for fraud. Is English not your first language or something?

 

[J Tyran]

Now you're making no sense, let me get this straight... You claim its fraud because he asked the staff to honour the price matching offer by "shifting" the listings to a full price $400 Amazon listing and this convinced them to sell him one for $90 and its fraud.

Right...

You mean, what he actually did? Which, your description counts as fraud?

Yeah, basically. Not sure what you don't understand here. He describes something that meets the federal statues for fraud. Is English not your first language or something?

Fraud is obtaining goods or services by deception provable beyond a reasonable doubt, not obtaining goods cheaply via a poorly thought out special offer. To qualify as fraud he would have to do have done the following,

-Personally placed a fake listing on Amazon to use during the deception
-Colluded with, before or after placing the people that did place it (this changes the charge to "conspiracy to defraud")
-Knowingly used the listings despite knowing they where faked

(I do admit that I don't know what the Federal Statues have to say about it, maybe one of the Washington memorials might shed further light on the issue? (yes you asked for that with the "is your first language even?"))

The two former points you have no knowledge of whether he did or not, neither do I but the difference between us happens to be I will avoid accusing people of serious crimes when I have no proof either way. The later is easily taken care of by reasonable doubt unless there is evidence otherwise (like electronic logs of him admitting it beforehand), neither of us can know for sure either but again you are comfortable throwing around serious accusations without any real basis.

This is what I'm talking about, you have nothing concrete and just want to accuse people "just because". You have talked around in circles and come no closer to proving your point.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoop

Tryng to underliine the tragedy of my pointing out the tragedy of you not reading the article doesn't make mine tragic. It doubles yours. The tragedy is that the man has admitted to it, period, and you don't want to listen. Self-implication of an act which was willful and not legal, and it is NOT legal, is a confession, an admittance of guilt. You're trying to say it does not. You don't want to believe it 'just because'. You have been arguing with two people who know about things like this going on in Walmarts and a reasonable understanding of the law. You have not changed the facts of the case nor anything else with your arguments. I will ask you again: Evidence. Provide it. I demand proof that what was reported didn't happen. If you do not show any, your statement will be proven false and at last this argument can end.

 

[Something Amyss]

-Personally placed a fake listing on Amazon to use during the deception
-Colluded with, before or after placing the people that did place it (this changes the charge to "conspiracy to defraud")
-Knowingly used the listings despite knowing they where faked

And he admits to the third. Therefore, he meets your definitiuon.

(yes you asked for that with the "is your first language even?"))

A typo versus an inability to read and understand the source material you're discussing. I mean, it was a sweet zinger, but probably not tit for tat.

The two former points you have no knowledge of whether he did or not, neither do I but the difference between us happens to be I will avoid accusing people of serious crimes when I have no proof either way.

Right, you just dishonestly accuse people of not having evidence even after it's provided to you.

Incidentally, as I've said before, I make no claim as to the first two. You keep harping on them despite no relevance.

The later is easily taken care of by reasonable doubt unless there is evidence otherwise (like electronic logs of him admitting it beforehand), neither of us can know for sure either but again you are comfortable throwing around serious accusations without any real basis.

Except his own word. You keep leaving out the important bit. There's no "reasonable doubt" here. He actually claimed this was how he acquired the product.

This is what I'm talking about, you have nothing concrete and just want to accuse people "just because". You have talked around in circles and come no closer to proving your point.

No, you what to ignore evidence "just because." You're being dishonest "just because."

 

[J Tyran]

Right, you just dishonestly accuse people of not having evidence even after it's provided to you.

Except that you have provided nothing except his admission to taking advantage of the offer which with reasonable doubt isn't illegal, no admission of actual fraud, no admission of placing a fake listing, no admission of getting someone to placing one or being contacted by someone that did place one.

The things you have said make no sense, like he apparently conned them into matching a $90 fake listing by showing them a $400 listing. Don't you see whats wrong with that?

Why would the manager of the store match a $90 price after being shown a $400 listing?!? In which ass backwards world would a scam like that work?

Except his own word. You keep leaving out the important bit. There's no "reasonable doubt" here. He actually claimed this was how he acquired the product.

Yet you still cannot link it for some reason.

Incidentally, as I've said before, I make no claim as to the first two. You keep harping on them despite no relevance.

Here we are, now this is where you really begin to show your ignorance for the law. Its extremely relevant, because of Walmarts lax policy just about any innocent member of the public could have realised "hey Walmart match any price listing on Amazon, cool!" and showed them the cheapest listing on the website.

Without proving that either:-

A, the purchaser placed a fake listing
B, the purchaser colluded with those that placed a fake listing
C, the purchaser knew beyond a reasonable doubt the listing was fake before making the purchase (which without the first two is damn hard to prove without an evidential quality confession)

There is no fraud, you have no idea if any of those three apply.

The tragedy is that the man has admitted to it and it is NOT legal, and it is NOT legal, is a confession, an admittance of guilt.

Except that he didn't admit to a crime, he admitted taking advantage of a special offer which is total legal. The burden of proof is on you here, yet despite all your claims you have backed it up with nothing.

Why?

Because we don't have access to the knowledge that proves it either way, all we have is the admission to getting a PS4 for $90 after showing the manager a listing on a website Walmart would accept for price matching and nothing more.

 

[Something Amyss]

Except that you have provided nothing except his admission to taking advantage of the offer which with reasonable doubt isn't illegal, no admission of actual fraud, no admission of placing a fake listing, no admission of getting someone to placing one or being contacted by someone that did place one.

I can't help but notice you keep adding things to my burden of proof that aren't necessary.

We have his word.

The things you have said make no sense, like he apparently conned them into matching a $90 fake listing by showing them a $400 listing. Don't you see whats wrong with that?

He showed them the 90 dollar price and the 400 dollar listing. I'm still not sure what you don't comprehend here.

Why would the manager of the store match a $90 price after being shown a $400 listing?!? In which ass backwards world would a scam like that work?

Or, you know, since that's the opposite of what I claimed and what he said....

The funny thing is, for it to be anything but fraud, that would have to be your claimed series of events. Any legitimate reading of Taahaa's tweets would indicate he presented the fake ad and then pulled up the listing (not the price) for the 400 dollar version. The only way you could possibly think this wasn't fraud is if he showed them the 400 dollar price tag and they gave him the 90 dollar price out of...I don't know, charity. Or ponies. Yeah, we'll go with ponies.

Yet you still cannot link it for some reason.

The statement that's linked to in the original article, which I screencapped and showed you previously?

Here it is again [http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=x58lj8&s=8#.VHLDE8np_w7]. It's quite easy to link to.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoop

Really? Well, I don't see it that way. The only one saying there isn't proof our way is you. Seems like most of this thread swings the other way. I'm gonna have to ask you to let this one go. Walmart may deserve this in spades, but it is not actually the right thing to do. I'm sure you'd like the people doing this to get off scott-free, but the truth of the matter is that if they were pursued, they would be found guilty and made to pay for it in some manner.

 

[J Tyran]

The statement that's linked to in the original article, which I screencapped and showed you previously?

Here it is again [http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=x58lj8&s=8#.VHLDE8np_w7]. It's quite easy to link to.

Exactly, he showed her the listing and she asked to see the description so he pulled up the description from presumably what happens to be the Amazon official listing. Only the official listing has a description (the others take you too the 3rd party storefront), when you use the market place it takes you to what is essentially a list of prices. When she wanted to see a description he showed her one.

Still not an admission of fraud, still no admission he knew the cheaper listing was faked or that he placed it or worked with the people that placed it

This is the kicker though Walmarts own policy allowed 3rd parties on the Amazon website, If it didn't and he pulled this to trick the manager into matching it it would unquestionably be fraud as the special offer didn't include them but as it did all he did was show a cheaper price and the product description that was asked for.

I'm gonna have to ask you to let this one go. Walmart may deserve this in spades, but it is not actually the right thing to do.

Sorry going to have to refuse, I know you're on the back foot after being unable to back even a single one of your claims and you did ask nicely so sorry about that.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

I did, you didn't. You're arguing fruitlessly with people who have shown you the evidence and you will get precisely nowhere, because you haven't done anything at all to dissuade that. So, basically, you're mistaken. Your interpretation is wrong and you haven't proven otherwise.