Jolt Country

Billy Mays wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:48 pm All of the data you provided here is old and no longer relevant.

You wanna run that by me again? The Sherman Anti-Trust act, while first passed in 1890, has been regularly updated and as recentlly as 2007 the U.S. Supreme court heard an antitrust case. Please explain to me what is no longer relevant, as from what I can see the law is still in force and effect. According to this page the Justice Department has filed 33 Antitrust lawsuits in 2020 alone - civil and criminal - and over 100 since 2018, not counting consent decrees.

Tdarcos wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:58 amPlease explain to me what is no longer relevant...

Well, if you take a good hard look at that link I posted in this thread a few replies back it would break it all down for you.

Billy Mays wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:50 am Made you look.

Or you weren't counting on someone actually calling you out on your bullshit.

uruzrune wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:03 pm

Billy Mays wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:50 am Made you look.

Or you weren't counting on someone actually calling you out on your bullshit.

No, it's something I do quite often. Take for example:

Tdarcos wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:51 am

Billy Mays wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:00 pm

Tdarcos wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:20 amI am not legless; I still have one.

I just looked it up to confirm it, and according to Merriam-Webster the word "legless" is used to describe someone or something with fewer than the expected standard amount of legs making pinback's original insult accurate.

I looked up Merriam-Webster and there are only two definitions. 1. having no legs; 2. British slang for extremely drunk.

Billy Mays wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:46 am madeyoulook

uruzrune wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:51 am

Billy Mays wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:00 pm https://www.wegmans.com/wp-content/uplo ... istory.pdf

I went through the document twice, and I did not see an image with the "Wegmans" name using an apostrophe.

There is text referring to "the Wegman's" -- meaning, possessive of someone with the name "Wegman". But that's not what I was calling into question.

So, did Billy self-own? Or am I blind?

The family name of the founder is Wegmans, thus the name of the store.

uruzrune wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:51 am

Billy Mays wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:00 pm https://www.wegmans.com/wp-content/uplo ... istory.pdf

I went through the document twice, and I did not see an image with the "Wegmans" name using an apostrophe.

There is text referring to "the Wegman's" -- meaning, possessive of someone with the name "Wegman". But that's not what I was calling into question.

So, did Billy self-own? Or am I blind?

The family name of the founder is Wegmans, thus the name of the store. Not sure where is the confusion.

I looked it up, there's no apostrophe in the name. There should be.

It's a shortening of Wegman Brothers. Not "possessive of Wegman". And if it was "possessive of the Wegmans" the apostrophe would come at the end.

Can we stop being make-believe English scholars and just agree that Billy is a moron?

Billy Mays wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:03 pm

AArdvark wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:18 pmSecretly manipulating the manufacturer sounds like a conspiracy theory and I'm not believing it.

Yeah, I know, a grocery store that's been in business for more than a hundred years just stops selling stuff people want to buy and their biggest competitor starts selling that same stuff. Crazy tin hat stuff right there I tell ya.

"Correlation does not imply causation." A really big logical fallacy. You have no idea why this happened, and presuming it was illegal collusion by Wal-Mart is sheer conjecture on your part.

There are lots of other possible (innocent) reasons that don't require an illegal conspiracy.

Maybe the supplier raised minimum orders to get a bigger discount and Wal-Mart buys so much at a big enough discount they can sell it for less than it costs Wegmans to buy it. (This happens a lot with small local stores.) Maybe the product does not sell as well as other products. Maybe, in line with Wegmans commitment for sustainable production Wegmans requires suppliers to engage in significant recycling commitments and the supplier would not commit, while Wal-Mart doesn't care. (I did read the Wegmans book.)

What I find even more interesting is Wegmans has no registration(s) with the Patent and Trademark Office. Only some German company selling auto parts under its own name of Wegman. The goods would not compete, and since Wegmans operates in multiple states I would think a trademark registration would be a no-brainer.

Tdarcos wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:44 amYou have no idea why this happened

I do know why this happened, here is the link that explains it all, just check it out for yourself and you will come to the conclusion that I am right:

https://www.wegmans.com/wp-content/uplo ... istory.pdf

"made you look" HURR HURR DURR

Billy gave up on abortions and is now trying to insult Danny Wegman's cocaine stash? This is just getting sad.

Billy Mays wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:07 am

Tdarcos wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:58 amPlease explain to me what is no longer relevant...

Well, if you take a good hard look at that link I posted in this thread a few replies back it would break it all down for you.

If that's the case, cite the page number. Or cite the quote from the page.

I specifically did read Wegmans book. There is not one mention of being denied access to supplies or that they plan to sue anyone over an antitrust violation. I read it several days ago when I was challenging you on another of your regular deliveries of extra-strength bullshit. Or should I say, "Trump-level bullshit."

Personally I'd be shocked if Walmart was preventing other stores from offering a diverse variety of brands considering they don't offer variety or even bother re-stocking most of the time.

Tdarcos wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:10 am

Billy Mays wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:07 am

Tdarcos wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:58 amPlease explain to me what is no longer relevant...

Well, if you take a good hard look at that link I posted in this thread a few replies back it would break it all down for you.

If that's the case, cite the page number.

It's on the seventh page about three-quarters of the way down in the part about overcoming obstacles moving forward. It's easy to miss because it is off in the margin a little bit next to a picture of one of the newer Wegmans signs, the ones without the apostrophe in them.

We got Wegmans last night via Instacart. Aww yeah.

Addendum: We were in the area and picked up some stuff. Such a nice, clean, well-organized supermarket. Puts most others to shame.

Billy Mays wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:56 pm

Tdarcos wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:10 amIf that's the case, cite the page number.

It's on the seventh page about three-quarters of the way down in the part about overcoming obstacles moving forward.

I call bullshit. I examined both numbered page 7 and the 7th page image, and there is no "moving forward" section, text about being denied supplies, or suing anyone, on either.

Tdarcos wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:04 pm I examined both numbered page 7 and the 7th page image

Made you look.