"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Vox Humana"
Almost anything sold by any of these crap-o-mats can be found to have a
parallel product vastly better from Seers. I'm no huge fan of Seers, but
I'm far less a fan of products that break easily or don't even work, which
is what you get at (in order of crappiness) Home Depot & its ilk. And all
too often, the illusion of having saved a dollar by paying $10 at Home
Depot for what costs $11 at Seers, since the Lowes product breaks right
away it's actually $10 too much, & since the Seers version lasts for years
& years, it's the real bargain.

I would add to that you will never get a ration of crap trying to return
something to Sears. I bought a fairly expensive expensive self propelled mower a
while back and I just didn't like the way it operated.

After using it twice I took it back to the store. The guy asked me why I was
returning it and I told him exactly why. They gave me a full refund without
batting an eye.


Tyler

"Tyler Hopper" wrote in message
...

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Vox Humana"
Almost anything sold by any of these crap-o-mats can be found to have a
parallel product vastly better from Seers. I'm no huge fan of Seers, but
I'm far less a fan of products that break easily or don't even work,
which
is what you get at (in order of crappiness) Home Depot & its ilk. And
all
too often, the illusion of having saved a dollar by paying $10 at Home
Depot for what costs $11 at Seers, since the Lowes product breaks right
away it's actually $10 too much, & since the Seers version lasts for
years
& years, it's the real bargain.

I would add to that you will never get a ration of crap trying to return
something to Sears. I bought a fairly expensive expensive self propelled
mower a
while back and I just didn't like the way it operated.

After using it twice I took it back to the store. The guy asked me why I
was
returning it and I told him exactly why. They gave me a full refund
without
batting an eye.

Apparently the new CEO of HD is quite proud of the new return policy. Of
course, he blamed, I mean credited it to some low level employee who said it
wasn't fair to take stuff back and give people cash while she could hardly
pay her bills. The logic escaped me and Wolf Blitzer didn't seem to be
troubled by the nonsense.

"Tyler Hopper" wrote in message
...

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Vox Humana"
Almost anything sold by any of these crap-o-mats can be found to have a
parallel product vastly better from Seers. I'm no huge fan of Seers, but
I'm far less a fan of products that break easily or don't even work,
which
is what you get at (in order of crappiness) Home Depot & its ilk. And
all
too often, the illusion of having saved a dollar by paying $10 at Home
Depot for what costs $11 at Seers, since the Lowes product breaks right
away it's actually $10 too much, & since the Seers version lasts for
years
& years, it's the real bargain.

I would add to that you will never get a ration of crap trying to return
something to Sears. I bought a fairly expensive expensive self propelled
mower a
while back and I just didn't like the way it operated.

After using it twice I took it back to the store. The guy asked me why I
was
returning it and I told him exactly why. They gave me a full refund
without
batting an eye.

Apparently the new CEO of HD is quite proud of the new return policy. Of
course, he blamed, I mean credited it to some low level employee who said it
wasn't fair to take stuff back and give people cash while she could hardly
pay her bills. The logic escaped me and Wolf Blitzer didn't seem to be
troubled by the nonsense.

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

Apparently the new CEO of HD is quite proud of the new return policy. Of
course, he blamed, I mean credited it to some low level employee who said it
wasn't fair to take stuff back and give people cash while she could hardly
pay her bills. The logic escaped me and Wolf Blitzer didn't seem to be
troubled by the nonsense.

I'm afraid I don't exactly follow that logic either. So what is their new return
policy?


Tyler

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

Apparently the new CEO of HD is quite proud of the new return policy. Of
course, he blamed, I mean credited it to some low level employee who said it
wasn't fair to take stuff back and give people cash while she could hardly
pay her bills. The logic escaped me and Wolf Blitzer didn't seem to be
troubled by the nonsense.

I'm afraid I don't exactly follow that logic either. So what is their new return
policy?


Tyler

"Tyler Hopper" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

Apparently the new CEO of HD is quite proud of the new return policy.
Of
course, he blamed, I mean credited it to some low level employee who
said it
wasn't fair to take stuff back and give people cash while she could
hardly
pay her bills. The logic escaped me and Wolf Blitzer didn't seem to be
troubled by the nonsense.

I'm afraid I don't exactly follow that logic either. So what is their new
return
policy?

I'm not entirely sure. Blitzer mentioned that people always remarked that
"Home Depot will take anything back." That lead to the discussion about how
it wasn't fair to take things back and they were cracking down on people who
were abusive. Frankly, there are times that I don't know if I will need ten
pipe fittings or 18. I might need six of these and seven of those and
perhaps four of another. I don't want to run out of supplies and have to
drive to the hardware store in the middle of a project. I tend to buy more
than I need and return the rest. I haven't had a problem so far at Lowe's
or HD, but if there is some new stringent return policy at HD, that is yet
another reason to shop elsewhere. There have been time that I have had to
return things to HD because there were parts missing from the box. Once I
got a toilet and the take and bowl didn't match because someone switched
them in the box. Once I got a bunch of plumbing components recommended by
an employee that were the wrong parts and I had to return them.

"Tyler Hopper" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

Apparently the new CEO of HD is quite proud of the new return policy.
Of
course, he blamed, I mean credited it to some low level employee who
said it
wasn't fair to take stuff back and give people cash while she could
hardly
pay her bills. The logic escaped me and Wolf Blitzer didn't seem to be
troubled by the nonsense.

I'm afraid I don't exactly follow that logic either. So what is their new
return
policy?

I'm not entirely sure. Blitzer mentioned that people always remarked that
"Home Depot will take anything back." That lead to the discussion about how
it wasn't fair to take things back and they were cracking down on people who
were abusive. Frankly, there are times that I don't know if I will need ten
pipe fittings or 18. I might need six of these and seven of those and
perhaps four of another. I don't want to run out of supplies and have to
drive to the hardware store in the middle of a project. I tend to buy more
than I need and return the rest. I haven't had a problem so far at Lowe's
or HD, but if there is some new stringent return policy at HD, that is yet
another reason to shop elsewhere. There have been time that I have had to
return things to HD because there were parts missing from the box. Once I
got a toilet and the take and bowl didn't match because someone switched
them in the box. Once I got a bunch of plumbing components recommended by
an employee that were the wrong parts and I had to return them.

I suppose 'same sex' marriage is the cause of over 50% divorce rate? Needn't
worry about same sex marriage, those 'legally married' are doing a better job
of tainting the meaning of 'marriage'.

I suppose 'same sex' marriage is the cause of over 50% divorce rate? Needn't
worry about same sex marriage, those 'legally married' are doing a better job
of tainting the meaning of 'marriage'.

"Wishy13764" wrote in message
...
I suppose 'same sex' marriage is the cause of over 50% divorce rate?
Needn't
worry about same sex marriage, those 'legally married' are doing a better
job
of tainting the meaning of 'marriage'.

Agreed. I think that marriage is an institution that has changed with time
and will continue to change. The religious right will tell you that for
5000 years, marriage has been between one man and one woman. However, the
Bible details how people like David had many wives and even more concubines.
Marriage wasn't even adopted as a sacrament of the Catholic Church until the
Council of Trent in 1563. That makes it a rather new institution. The
ultimate challenge to the stability of marriage is easy divorce, but no one
proposes to prohibit divorce in the Constitution.

"Wishy13764" wrote in message
...
I suppose 'same sex' marriage is the cause of over 50% divorce rate?
Needn't
worry about same sex marriage, those 'legally married' are doing a better
job
of tainting the meaning of 'marriage'.

Agreed. I think that marriage is an institution that has changed with time
and will continue to change. The religious right will tell you that for
5000 years, marriage has been between one man and one woman. However, the
Bible details how people like David had many wives and even more concubines.
Marriage wasn't even adopted as a sacrament of the Catholic Church until the
Council of Trent in 1563. That makes it a rather new institution. The
ultimate challenge to the stability of marriage is easy divorce, but no one
proposes to prohibit divorce in the Constitution.

Vox Humana wrote:
I think that marriage is an institution that has changed with time
and will continue to change. The religious right will tell you that
for
5000 years, marriage has been between one man and one woman. However,
the
Bible details how people like David had many wives and even more
concubines.
Marriage wasn't even adopted as a sacrament of the Catholic Church
until the
Council of Trent in 1563. That makes it a rather new institution.
The
ultimate challenge to the stability of marriage is easy divorce, but
no one
proposes to prohibit divorce in the Constitution.

Marriage has changed even over the past 100 years. A century ago many
churches wouldn't recognize marriages with partners outside the faith.
Some allowed a conversion of sorts, but they still would look down on
the folks who dared to challenge the sanctity of marriage.

Of course many ethnic groups still prefer marriages within their own
ethnic group, but it wasn't that long ago that if the ethnic group was
of another race, in some states it wasn't just shunned -- it was
illegal.

Whatever happens with the legal view of same-sex marriages, it's not
going to make a lick of difference to who lives with who, and who loves
who. There always has been love across the boundaries, and always will
be.

The problem is that marriage is more than what happens after a
certificate is obtained at the courthouse. Marriage is a legal contract
much like a business partnership. And marriage is the foundation of a
"traditional" family. Partners in marriage sometimes love each other.
Sometimes they don't -- or they stop loving each other. And some
marriages (common law marriages) never had a legal piece of paper
signifying the start of the union.

Before we can have a rational dialog as to whether same-sex marriage is
appropriate, we have to define what marriage really is, and what is the
state's roll in marriage.

If one believes in the separation of church and state, then a marriage
is simply a partnership with certain rights given to each partner. It's
only when religious definitions of marriage are brought into the picture
that we start seeing restrictions on which adults may enter into these
contracts, and with who they may enter into those contracts.

Ultimately, church and state need to be separated. Churches have no
business imposing their narrow view upon everyone else, and states have
no business imposing broader guidelines upon churches than what the
churches will accept. And the only way to do this is for one or the
other to get out of the whole marriage thing.

Since churches seem to be grabbing onto the term "marriage" as being
something defined in the eyes of their God (or the guy who says he's
God's voice on Earth), let's go ahead and let the churches have whatever
they want to call a "marriage". Take "marriage" entirely out of the
secular law. Replace it with some other term for purposes of the state,
and legal issues, and then look solely to the constitution and the state
constitutions to decide what kind of discrimination is allowed, if any.
Churches would be free to recognize or not recognize whatever they want,
and to make those choices independent of any state intrusion.

This needs to be done for the protection of the churches, and the
protection of people who choose not to belong to a church. Separation of
church and state. I know it's a new concept that some folks won't be
able to accept, but I think it's a good idea. It almost rolls off the
tongue: "separation of church and state."

And since I can't spin this back to anything to do with Home Depot, I've
changed the subject line, and people not interested can easily skip the
rest of this thread.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Books for the Pacific Northwest gardener:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/nwgardener/index.html

Vox Humana wrote:
I think that marriage is an institution that has changed with time
and will continue to change. The religious right will tell you that
for
5000 years, marriage has been between one man and one woman. However,
the
Bible details how people like David had many wives and even more
concubines.
Marriage wasn't even adopted as a sacrament of the Catholic Church
until the
Council of Trent in 1563. That makes it a rather new institution.
The
ultimate challenge to the stability of marriage is easy divorce, but
no one
proposes to prohibit divorce in the Constitution.

Marriage has changed even over the past 100 years. A century ago many
churches wouldn't recognize marriages with partners outside the faith.
Some allowed a conversion of sorts, but they still would look down on
the folks who dared to challenge the sanctity of marriage.

Of course many ethnic groups still prefer marriages within their own
ethnic group, but it wasn't that long ago that if the ethnic group was
of another race, in some states it wasn't just shunned -- it was
illegal.

Whatever happens with the legal view of same-sex marriages, it's not
going to make a lick of difference to who lives with who, and who loves
who. There always has been love across the boundaries, and always will
be.

The problem is that marriage is more than what happens after a
certificate is obtained at the courthouse. Marriage is a legal contract
much like a business partnership. And marriage is the foundation of a
"traditional" family. Partners in marriage sometimes love each other.
Sometimes they don't -- or they stop loving each other. And some
marriages (common law marriages) never had a legal piece of paper
signifying the start of the union.

Before we can have a rational dialog as to whether same-sex marriage is
appropriate, we have to define what marriage really is, and what is the
state's roll in marriage.

If one believes in the separation of church and state, then a marriage
is simply a partnership with certain rights given to each partner. It's
only when religious definitions of marriage are brought into the picture
that we start seeing restrictions on which adults may enter into these
contracts, and with who they may enter into those contracts.

Ultimately, church and state need to be separated. Churches have no
business imposing their narrow view upon everyone else, and states have
no business imposing broader guidelines upon churches than what the
churches will accept. And the only way to do this is for one or the
other to get out of the whole marriage thing.

Since churches seem to be grabbing onto the term "marriage" as being
something defined in the eyes of their God (or the guy who says he's
God's voice on Earth), let's go ahead and let the churches have whatever
they want to call a "marriage". Take "marriage" entirely out of the
secular law. Replace it with some other term for purposes of the state,
and legal issues, and then look solely to the constitution and the state
constitutions to decide what kind of discrimination is allowed, if any.
Churches would be free to recognize or not recognize whatever they want,
and to make those choices independent of any state intrusion.

This needs to be done for the protection of the churches, and the
protection of people who choose not to belong to a church. Separation of
church and state. I know it's a new concept that some folks won't be
able to accept, but I think it's a good idea. It almost rolls off the
tongue: "separation of church and state."

And since I can't spin this back to anything to do with Home Depot, I've
changed the subject line, and people not interested can easily skip the
rest of this thread.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Books for the Pacific Northwest gardener:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/nwgardener/index.html

Vox Humana wrote:
"Zemedelec" wrote in message
...

Maybe this is much too off topic, but a friend of mine who is much
more of a political animal than I am told me HD is heavily
supported by rich Republicans such as Arthur Blank, the president
of Home Depot, who hosted a dinner in Atlanta that gave Bush $2.5
million. So any of you whose whole lives, including gardening, are
permeated with their political convictions might want to go to
Loew's, etc. if you need to buy at a big chain store. zemedelec


I wouldn't doubt this. I saw an interview with him a few days ago.
The guy came from the division of GE that made (bad) appliances and
other hard goods. He didn't know a nut from a bolt. I wanted to
throw a brick through the TV because everything that came out of his
mouth sounded like the hypnotic jargon that you would hear from a
sales seminar. I guess he never visits the stores, otherwise he
might see that all the feel-good "team building" bull shit and new
computer systems he promotes are worthless because the stores look
like a tornado hit them and the employees know less about the
products than he does. I seldom go to HD because I can get the same
thing for a little less in a better organized and maintained Lowe's
store across the street. I don't want to leave people with the
impression that Lowe's doesn't have their own set of problems. They
treated my mother very badly when she had them remodel her kitchen,
but that is another story.

For people interested in tracking contributions to political
campaigns, you might want to look at this site:
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php You can enter a street or a zip
code and see the contributions of the people around you. You can
also enter names. If you click on the name, it will show the
contributions of everyone with that name. If you click on the
address, it will show people in that area. There is interesting
mapping system that shows how red, blue, or purple an are is.



Since everyone is having so much fun yacking political BS that doesn't
belong here, rather than start an argument about moderating the group
and censorship and all that, why don't we just open the barn door and
see what comes in.

It'll be loads of fun.

Bob

Vox Humana wrote:
"Zemedelec" wrote in message
...

Maybe this is much too off topic, but a friend of mine who is much
more of a political animal than I am told me HD is heavily
supported by rich Republicans such as Arthur Blank, the president
of Home Depot, who hosted a dinner in Atlanta that gave Bush $2.5
million. So any of you whose whole lives, including gardening, are
permeated with their political convictions might want to go to
Loew's, etc. if you need to buy at a big chain store. zemedelec


I wouldn't doubt this. I saw an interview with him a few days ago.
The guy came from the division of GE that made (bad) appliances and
other hard goods. He didn't know a nut from a bolt. I wanted to
throw a brick through the TV because everything that came out of his
mouth sounded like the hypnotic jargon that you would hear from a
sales seminar. I guess he never visits the stores, otherwise he
might see that all the feel-good "team building" bull shit and new
computer systems he promotes are worthless because the stores look
like a tornado hit them and the employees know less about the
products than he does. I seldom go to HD because I can get the same
thing for a little less in a better organized and maintained Lowe's
store across the street. I don't want to leave people with the
impression that Lowe's doesn't have their own set of problems. They
treated my mother very badly when she had them remodel her kitchen,
but that is another story.

For people interested in tracking contributions to political
campaigns, you might want to look at this site:
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php You can enter a street or a zip
code and see the contributions of the people around you. You can
also enter names. If you click on the name, it will show the
contributions of everyone with that name. If you click on the
address, it will show people in that area. There is interesting
mapping system that shows how red, blue, or purple an are is.



Since everyone is having so much fun yacking political BS that doesn't
belong here, rather than start an argument about moderating the group
and censorship and all that, why don't we just open the barn door and
see what comes in.

It'll be loads of fun.

Bob