I don't believe the system is noble - it is just responding to the human element. If we don't teach and strive for nobility, what do we become?
I would have a real hard time taking my 13 year old son with me to return something in those circumstances because I know darn well what I would be teaching him. I could justify up and down all the reasons why it was ok, but in the end, I am trying to justify something I know is inherently wrong. To say the product was inferior is only a problem of buying the wrong product. To say the product should have handled it, then fine, exercise the warranty. If you feel the manufacturer is screwing you, then don't buy from them anymore, but don't intentionally lower your morals and convictions. I realize we all (myself included) and not perfect and have many issues and faults, but we should at least strive to be our best. Condoning behavior which we know to be less than what it should be is worse than the behavior itself. -- Bruce Friday, May 21, 2010, 11:33:25 AM, you wrote: TC> Fine Bruce... don't start out though believing the system itself is noble. TC> You can read it as justification if you want to. I read it as an TC> accident occurred and the camera should not have stopped working. TC> Tom C. TC> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bruce Dayton TC> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Everything I read indicates justification for that which you >> inherently know is wrong - doesn't make it right, just allows you to >> go with the flow so you can take advantage as the next guy. >> >> I'm saying this is part of what is wrong with our society - instead >> of teaching morals and values we end up teaching how to beat and >> manipulate the system. I think this is a slow downward spiral that >> leads to a bad ending. As everyone becomes savvy to what you know, >> then they all start screwing the system and then the >> retailers/manufacturers pad the products even more. It becomes a >> viscous cycle. The only loser is us - the retailer and manufacturer >> just pass it on. Society goes downhill and we all learn how to >> mistrust each other and pay more for stealing from each other. Much >> a long term no-win scenario. >> >> Go back to think about what you would want to teach your own children. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> >> Friday, May 21, 2010, 10:20:53 AM, you wrote: >> >> TC> Bruce, >> >> TC> The question in my mind became in this instance: >> >> TC> Did spilling a single drink on the camera make the owner at fault for >> TC> the subsequent failure of the object? My wife has a G9 and I have a >> TC> G10, the predecessors to the G11. Knowing their build quality and >> TC> that I use the G10 in wet and windy conditions when skiing, I would >> TC> not think that spilling something on any modern camera should >> TC> immediately make it inoperative. >> >> TC> Back to the moral issues since that seems to be what we're talking >> TC> about. I'll say what I think and am willing to take the brunt of it. >> >> TC> Big picture, not just this incident - Does being honest *always* >> TC> require telling everything you know? If the answer is yes, then I'm >> TC> afraid one will find themselves at a severe disadvantage as there are >> TC> certain types of people who will capitalize on that to their own >> TC> advantage and to other's disadvantage. There is honesty but there's >> TC> also discretion, both are admirable attributes and serve one well. >> >> TC> If it were me with the G11 drink spill, I would have likely done the >> TC> same as occurred. If asked, I would have told the truth that I spilled >> TC> something on it. If not asked, I would figure they did not deem the >> TC> reason important and were simply happy to give me a replacement. Had >> TC> I been asked, I'd have made the claim that I certainly wouldn't expect >> TC> a spill to cause the camera to immediately become non-functional. >> TC> Let's see, will it work at SeaWorld when splashed? What about at >> TC> Yosemite in the spray of Bridal Veil Falls, a rainy day? >> >> TC> Do you know how many extended warranties are purchased to cover this >> TC> sort of thing that are never used? Now there is a scam. The majority >> TC> of them, never utilized, goes straight to the bottom line. A hugh >> TC> profit center preying on people's insecurities. >> >> TC> A little story. >> >> TC> About eight years ago, through a totally stupid act of my own doing, I >> TC> accidentally set off the fire suppression system in my hotel room (I >> TC> could make this story very funny if I gave you all the details). >> TC> Though buck naked at the time... No... >> >> TC> I pulled on some pants, threw my laptop bag out into the hallway, and >> TC> bounded down two flights of stairs to the office, just as those >> TC> nauseating alarms and flashing lights started going off all over the >> TC> hotel. >> >> TC> I told them what I'd done that set the sprinklers off. >> >> TC> Guess what? >> >> TC> They did not know how to turn the fire supression system off. >> TC> They did not have a procedure manual at the hotel. >> TC> They called another hotel in the same chain to see if they knew how. >> TC> Yes, but different system. >> TC> Fire department calls to see if there's a fire. No there's a flood, >> TC> so you needn't come. >> >> TC> I go back to my room and the maintenance guy is standing in two inches >> TC> of water with a shop vac trying to vacum up the water while it's still >> TC> coming out of the ceiling. >> >> TC> I immediately told him to get out of there before he gets himself >> electrocuted. >> >> TC> Still trying to figure out the suppression system, I am running and >> TC> relaying information from the office to the maintenance guy back at >> TC> the control panel which is in the basement/pool level of the hotel. >> TC> Still bare chest, pair of pants, bare feet. >> >> TC> As I'm running past the pool I see water dripping out of the ceiling >> TC> into the pool! From 3 floors above! Oh crap and a bunch of other >> TC> things! >> >> TC> The local Fire Department finally shows up sirens blaring. >> >> TC> They go down and just as they're about to stem the flow of water, the >> TC> system exhausts itself. Apparently, it's a finite pressurized supply. >> >> TC> So all the water that would have been used for the entire hotel, went >> TC> out into my room, over a period of about 30 minutes. Oh crap and a >> TC> bunch of other things! >> >> TC> The hotel graciously assigned me another room. I went and bought dry >> TC> clothes and went into work. >> >> TC> I lurked back in through the side door that evening around 8:00. >> TC> Carpets were pulled up all over the place with big blowers running. >> >> TC> Wow I think, several weeks later, they haven't sued me. >> >> TC> Not quite that lucky. >> >> TC> Months later, after having stayed at the hotel for the next four >> TC> months, out of a misplaced sense of guilt, I receive a letter. >> >> TC> It's from the hotel chain's, insurance company's, risk management >> company. >> >> TC> They're demanding payment of $27,000 in damages, including my room, >> TC> the 3 floors below, and lost income because other hotel residents left >> TC> (the alarm system kept malfunctioning and going off intermittently for >> TC> the next 8 - 10 hours). >> >> TC> I finally got some advice and called my home owners insurance to see >> TC> if I was in some way covered through it. Yes. So they took up the >> TC> litigation in my defense. >> >> TC> My argument was, that while I was indeed responsible for having set >> TC> the system off, I was not responsible for the hotel not knowing how to >> TC> control it and turn it off. I would have thought they should be able >> TC> to turn it off in under 5 minutes. So I figured I was responsible for >> TC> no more than 1/6 of the damages. >> >> TC> Under Washington State law, a tenant is only responsible for their >> TC> room. The arbitrator also agreed with the argument that the hotel >> TC> itself was to blame for their incompetence and that the vast majority >> TC> of the damage was directly related to that. >> >> TC> I ended up paying $350. >> >> TC> Now here's what really gets me. The hotel chain had insurance. We >> TC> all know that insurance is just another form of gambling. They take >> TC> your money, betting that in the majority of instances, they'll never >> TC> have to pay out. In this case they did. But then, instead of figuring >> TC> this was one the times they lost the bet, the insurance company used a >> TC> risk management firm to try and recover the money. What the heck? They >> TC> wanted it both ways. >> >> TC> How does this story relate to the G11 incident? I guess it showed me >> TC> that everything is not always so black and white as some would like to >> TC> believe. >> >> TC> Owner was responsible for spilling a drink. Was he totally responsible >> TC> for the camera no longer working? From my viewpoint no. I'd have >> TC> thunk the camera was little more impervious than that. >> >> TC> Tom C. >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
