From: Jack Weigand Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:38 PM Subject: To all of my friends
I am writing this because I feel every Firearms owner should know this story.
I placed an order for a Dell notebook computer on February 13 on line with Dell. I was given a tentative delivery date of February 21st. I was watching the order through the Dell on line tracking system; I also opted for the automatic email notification of when the machine was to be shipped.
Well the 21st came and went, I am a Pistolsmith I know things can happen. I made a phone call on the 25th, did a voice mail message for my salesman to get back to me and I was looking for the delivery date.
The 25th came and went with no callback. On the 26th I placed another call this time to cancel the order. After a few hours I got a call back, with this amazing reason for the delay. It seems someone in Dell had already canceled my order, when I asked why I was told Dell was afraid I was going to use the machine for illegal purposes.
When I asked why someone would think that I was told it was because of the name of my business "Weigand Combat Handguns Inc.". Because I am involved in firearms I might be doing something illegal. Now keep in mind I was never called or informed of this decision the order was just canceled.
Many of you know me personally and know I run my business about as squeaky clean as possible. In addition being the President of the American Pistolsmiths Guild I am under additional scrutiny as to how I run my business, if I am not clean how can I be the President of an organization that promotes just that! I was informed by a Dell supervisor not long after all of this the reason I was refused was because of their post September 11th policy of screening buyers.
I would like to respectfully ask the firearms community to do the following. If you intended to buy a Dell and because of this letter you do not, email Dell and let them know why. Feel free to distribute this account to all you know in the Firearms community, I think they need to know.
I for one am sick and tired of people assuming just because we are involved with firearms that we are doing something illegal. I also do not believe Dell deserves our business if this is how they intend to treat us.
#1. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 0) Wed Feb-27-02 05:56 PM
Not that i would ever buy a ready made computer, but were i going to, this would most assuredly keep ME from even considering a DELL. I DO have people asking me from time to time about buying a ready built, and as of now, DELL's name will NEVER be mentioned by me.
Card carrying NRA member, ATA ( Amateur Trap Shooting Association ), and Combat Handgun competitor.
#3. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 0)
Im surprised to hear they handled the situation this way. However the term "Combat" which is used in your buisness name "Weigand Combat Handguns Inc." Does imply aggression. From the dictionary >To engage in fighting; contend or struggle. Fighting, especially armed battle< You certainly have the right to deal in firearms and certanly have the right to use the term Combat in your buisness title, but the word combat and handguns used together is going to conjure up aggresive behaivor in the minds of somepeople. I bet that if your company name was "Weigand Professional Handguns Inc." they would not have had a problem. You might want to rethink the title of your buisness. It certainly is up to you, but you have to consider that some people may get the wrong idea and may choose not to do buisness with you. Is it really necessary to have the word combat in there?
I suggest you look up the IPSC, NRA, and take a look into "combat shooting" and "combat competition". The gentleman who owns that shop has a specific trade that he deals with. They are competitors in a very specific sport.
#25. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 7)
I didnt mean to offend you Al. I know and most people know that just because you have the word combat in your buisness title does not mean that you are in any way condoning violence, but there are some people who might. Especially when it comes to big buisness the big corporations have to maintain a very PUBLIC FRIENDLY image, so they have to go the Politically Correct Route. Thats all I was tryin to get at. Corporations that deal with the general public will go a little further to keep the Politically correct image and in turn might shy away from things that may not totally agree with the Public Friendly Image.
#10. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to garbru (Reply # 3)
Your suggestion of replacing the word "combat" with "professional" would certainlty seem to be the path of least resistance in todays 911 climate. However, consider that whenever a firearm is used to defend oneself, one is engaged in combat. Furthermore, what if Weigand Combat Handguns was sold primarily to law enforcement. One could provide endless justifications for the use of the word combat.
More importantly is what Dell's behavior suggests. The presumption by Dell, that the mere use of a word, taken out of context, implies subversive activity warranting a refusal to sell products to a law abiding consumer. This kind of reactionary behavior is chilling.
The pressumption of innocense is the spine concept of our criminal justice system. Weigand Combat Handguns has already secured federal licensing, background checks, and fingerprints from the government or they would not be able to sell firearms to begin with. For Dell to take such extreme measures reflects a wave of simple minded reactionary behavior sweeping the country. It's just another example of how law abiding citizens are denied their rights under the guise of protection. Where does it end?
When an event like this occurs one has three choices, do nothing, alter your image to accommodate the current politically correct mind set, or take a stand. This country was built by people who took a stand.
Your absolutely right. And Al certainly has the right to use the word combat. You just have to look at things from the standpoint of Dell a Company that is large enought to have a PUBLIC IMAGE so it is their best interest to maintain a Politcally correct policy when doing buisness. Most people would not have a problem with the word combat handguns and I dont either. But I understand that some people might, and in turn dropping the word from the business name will avoid certain problems such as this one. I dont believe in always doing what is exspected to please others, but also sometimes bending a little can be beneficial. Thats where you have to decide how important it is to use the word combat in there. If its very important to you, use it. If you can get along as you always have and funtion with ought the word then its at least something to consider to drop the word. Thats why I posed it as a question do you really need it?
#30. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to garbru (Reply # 26) Thu Feb-28-02 12:46 AM
My dear Garbru:
Dell's actions represent the restriction of free trade to an American Citizen based on the use of a polictically charged word and the absurd assumption that the word itself implies Anti-American activities. By altering the use of a word to placate the narrow minded ignorance of even one person is to relinguish your right to think and speak freely as well as be presumed a law abiding citizen without having to rearrange your vocabulary.
If you're concerned with the preservation of a company's image or even your own image and would forfeit your right to speak and think freely to sympathize with those that would deny you and others that right, then you do not deserve the privilege of the protection of that right and haven't the faintest idea what freedom means.
Dell's actions are no less that Anti-American, don't you get that! If you bend to Dell, it brings the rest of us down and erodes freedom.
It's unbelievable to me that anyone would give up their FREEDOM for money and be polictically correct to avoid problems.
>Dell's actions represent the restriction of free trade to an >American Citizen based on the use of a polictically charged >word and the absurd assumption that the word itself implies >Anti-American activities
To this, I disagree. Dell is a corporation, in business to make a profit. To whom they choose to sell their products to is for them to decide, not you nor anyone else. Dell is excersizing their FREE TRADE rights by not selling him a laptop and this person is free to buy a computer from anybody else, Dell's not stopping him.
Could Dell have handled this better? Yes. Should they have called him back to explain themselves and their new policy? Yes. Are Dell's actions illegal? No.
> >If you're concerned with the preservation of a company's >image or even your own image and would forfeit your right to >speak and think freely to sympathize with those that would >deny you and others that right, then you do not deserve the >privilege of the protection of that right and haven't the >faintest idea what freedom means. > >Dell's actions are no less that Anti-American, don't you get >that! If you bend to Dell, it brings the rest of us down >and erodes freedom. > I think you're the one missing the point. Freedom of choice runs both ways. Dell is in the business of selling computers, not providing shelter, food or medical treatment.
>It's unbelievable to me that anyone would give up their >FREEDOM for money and be polictically correct to avoid >problems.
#67. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to LazyLinus (Reply # 42) Thu Feb-28-02 08:11 AM
>To this, I disagree. Dell is a corporation, in business to >make a profit. To whom they choose to sell their products to >is for them to decide, not you nor anyone else. Dell is >excersizing their FREE TRADE rights by not selling him a >laptop and this person is free to buy a computer from >anybody else, Dell's not stopping him.
Of course it's for Dell to decide. It still constitutes a restriction of free trade to a consumer based on a Dell's subjective decision of an implied security threat for the use of a word. Tolerating this level of unsophisticated screening is what perpetuates simple minded stereotypical generalizations that ultimately affect everyone.
>Are Dell's actions illegal? No. Did I say illegal? No
>I think you're the one missing the point. Freedom of choice >runs both ways. Dell is in the business of selling >computers, not providing shelter, food or medical treatment.
I never said or implied that freedom of choice doesn't run both ways. It would seem Dell is in the business of selling computers to those consumers that are qualified based on their politically correct word usage. My comment was addressed to what is implied in changing one's words to accommodate a seller's irrational discriminatory prerequisites, whether it be induced by government guidelines or not. There have been or possibly are companies that discriminate against women or blacks as well, but as a woman or a black, I certainly would not change my color or gender to accommodate them.
>>It's unbelievable to me that anyone would give up their >>FREEDOM for money and be polictically correct to avoid >>problems. > >Talk to a citizen of Singapore.
Well fortunately for me I don't live in Singapore, do you?
I agree its all about freedom. There are 2 sides of the coin here. Al's freedom and Dell's freedom. I think what Dell has done is pretty silly. hey should have sold him the PC with ought any problems, but they have used their freedom to stand up for their beliefs. I dont agree in their descision, but I applaud them for doing what they feel is right. I also applaud Al for standing up for his right to sell firearms and to call his buisness what he choises. Everybody has to make choices in life, buisness and so on. In buisness we deal with the public. Ive learnt from life that some people can take things the wrong way so in chosing a business title or poilcy I am careful to stay away from terminology that might allow some to get the wrong idea. Every action we take brings forth a reaction. Ultimately we all have to do what we think is best.
Dell's decision illustrates an attempt to dictate one's use of the english language in order to qualify as a consumer. And sure they have the right to do so. But do you realize what that implies?
The implication seems to escape you because you're so busy defending Dell's right to express themselves. Can't you see the contradiction? Dell's exercise in free speech is aimed at depriving the free speech of another. While you're busy cheering and applauding Dell, Dell is attempting to define what words your fellow patriot can use in naming his business.
Has the whole concept of freedom lost it's meaning or what? Of course if your afraid that standing up for your rights might mean that someone would get the wrong idea of you then... well... we couldn't have that now, could we.
>Dell's decision illustrates an attempt to dictate one's use >of the english language in order to qualify as a consumer. >And sure they have the right to do so. But do you realize >what that implies?
Dell has not dictated what Al calls his company they simply have decided not to sell him a product. Im not exactly sure how the laws are written but I dont think that a company is required to sell a product to everybody, but maybe you are right. Does a company that opens its buisness to the public have to sell to everybody?? Im not sure....I thought they reserved the right to choose or not choose who they do buisness with. Im not sure exactly how that works. > >The implication seems to escape you because you're so busy >defending Dell's right to express themselves. Can't you see >the contradiction? Dell's exercise in free speech is aimed >at depriving the free speech of another. While you're busy >cheering and applauding Dell, Dell is attempting to define >what words your fellow patriot can use in naming his >business.
Im not sure how the laws go. What exactly constitutes discrimination is what this is all about I guess. Im no expert. >
>Everybody has to >make choices in life, buisness and so on. In buisness we >deal with the public. Ive learnt from life that some people >can take things the wrong way so in chosing a business title >or poilcy I am careful to stay away from terminology that >might allow some to get the wrong idea.
An excellent point Garbru. Of the ~60 members of the American Pistolsmiths Guild listed on their site, only the business owned by Jack W., uses the word "Combat" in its name. If I had seen his business in the yellow pages, "crazy 2nd Amendment-waving gatdealer" would be my first impression, not the custom fabrication and precision gunsmithy he offers. Sure, Dell has made a huge mistake in the way they handled this, but I can't see why Jack should expect his company to avoid the increased scrunity caused by the recent events. It's a damned shame this has been blown out of proportion.
>Every action we >take brings forth a reaction. Ultimately we all have to do >what we think is best.
>An excellent point Garbru. Of the ~60 members of the >American Pistolsmiths Guild listed on their site, only the >business owned by Jack W., uses the word "Combat" in its >name.
Well isn't that special. How terribly dull it would be if we lived in a world where everyone was the same. Don't you understand what a republic is? In a constitutional republic you preserve the rights of the minority.
>If I had seen his business in the yellow pages, "crazy >2nd Amendment-waving gatdealer" would be my first >impression
Your judgmental first impressions are your problem, not ours.
>I can't see why Jack should >expect his company to avoid the increased scrunity caused by >the recent events
When you begin to see, you will understand FREEDOM!
<It's a damned shame this has been blown >out of proportion.
You percieve this as blown out of proportion because you don't grasp the meaning of the event. For you it's just another day in paradise.
First. Reread the first post. Pay attention to detail. Might help.
Second. Dell can do what they like. And customers can choose not to buy from them because they wrongfully discriminate.
Personally, I choose not to buy Pepsi products because of their business practices. And now I also choose not to buy Dell. And I'll bet a few million Americans agree with me in not buying, or recommending, Dell.
#117. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 92)
>Garbu, > >First. Reread the first post. Pay attention to detail. Might >help. > >Second. Dell can do what they like. And customers can choose >not to buy from them because they wrongfully discriminate. > >Personally, I choose not to buy Pepsi products because of >their business practices. And now I also choose not to buy >Dell. And I'll bet a few million Americans agree with me in >not buying, or recommending, Dell.
Thats great Al it really is. You are unhappy with Dell and the choices they make and now you have choices to make of your own. Posting your situation here and your dealing with Dell is a very cool thing, expressing your self and voiceing your opinion. I applaud you for shareing the situation and others here are glad to here about this situation too. I never intend to buy a Dell computer anyway because I dont buy prefab's but I have recomened Dell computers to people in the market for a store bought PC because I think they make the best prefab systems. I will still continute to recomend them to people, as I dont really think their stance is totally dark. I will however bring this situation with people from time to time and that might persuade other not to by from Dell. In my opinion they did you wrong by how they handled things. But their policy about staying clear from certain things does not give the a huge black mark in my Book.
>First. Reread the first post. Pay attention to detail. Might >help.
What Al is trying to tell you is that this whole thing had nothing to do with him! It was about what happened to a friend of his named Jack. Al is not in the gun business!
Reading this thread is unbelievable. People expressing opinions that have little to do with Al's post. You all might try reading the post before using it to promote your pet prejudices
Sorry there, the thread got started yesterday and yes I slipped up with the names.
> >Reading this thread is unbelievable. People expressing >opinions that have little to do with Al's post. You all >might try reading the post before using it to promote >your pet prejudices
I dont believe there a predjudice here. WORDS DO HAVE MEANING. Let me illustrate my point: Lets say that me and my next door neighbor have a disagreement about a parking space. If I say to you ,"Shelly Im going over to my neighbors house to engage in a debate obver the parking space." does that imply aggresion. NO Now If I said ,"Shelly Im going over to my neighbors house to engage in Combat over the parking space." Does that imply aggression YES.
See words do have meaning!!
Lets say I own a hardware store. I happen to sell crow bars, they are a usefull tool its common for hardware stores to sell crowbars. If a guy walks into my store with army fatigues and I PREJUDGE him and assume that because he is in army fatigues that he is going to use the crowbar for violence and refuse to sell him a crow bar because of his clothes then I would in fact be prejudgeing him. That would be wrong.
I would not do that, I would sell the crowbar to anybody regaurdless of how they are dressed, or look or race or color etc. However if somebody comes into my store and says to me with words, "Can you sell me a crowbar so I can engage in Combat with my next door neighboor?" I would refuse to sell him the crowbar. Because he has given me implication that he is going to harm somebody with it. That is NOT PREJUDGEING him at that point. I am not assuming anything at that point, he has told me what his intentions are. I did not assume he is viloent he has told me that he intends to do harm.
WORDS HAVE MEANING.
Look this is from the origanal post: "I for one am sick and tired of people assuming just because we are involved with firearms that we are doing something illegal. I also do not believe Dell deserves our business if this is how they intend to treat us."
I dissagree that they refused to sell him the PC because he sells firearms. They refused to sell him the PC because the word Combat implies aggression. WORDS HAVE MEANING. "Weigand Combat Handguns Inc." The word Combat means to engage with force. there is a difference between,""Weigand Combat Handguns Inc." and "Weigand Handguns Inc." Just like the cases I proposed above....adding the word Combat implies what following actions may be. The word Combat implies agression, if you dont want people to think that your company stands for agression then dont use Combat in the title."
WORDS HAVE MEANING... they clue us in on our intentions.
If it was "Weigand Handguns Inc." there would not have been a problem
What if I owned the only food store in town and I refused to sell you food because of your last name. What if I told you that everyone knows that people with your last name share a nationality that is known to rob and steal from people and I simply cannot contribute to the town's crime problem by selling you food.
The meaning of a name or word may vary greatly between one person and the next. It's best to withhold judgment based only on a name or word and examine situations more completely.
>What if I owned the only food store in town and I refused to >sell you food because of your last name. What if I told you >that everyone knows that people with your last name share a >nationality that is known to rob and steal from people and I >simply cannot contribute to the town's crime problem by >selling you food.
I agree that would be wrong; Just because some people with a last name have done wrong does not mean evreybody who has that name should suffer consequences. That is discrimination. However we are compareing apples and oranges here. A Last Name is used to identify somebody where as a regular words in our launguages have definitions and meaning. If my last name was Kill well that is just a distinguisher. However the word kill takes on a completely different meaning in everyday conversation that obvioulsy can have a completely differnt use. Things need to be analyized acccording to use within a given context. > >The meaning of a name or word may vary greatly between one >person and the next. It's best to withhold judgment based >only on a name or word and examine situations more >completely.
I absouletly agree, and also we have to consider that people have different points of view also. This is the basis that lawyers go to town with. What exactly is the truth? Whos truth? We have a launguage that we all use to communicate but different variables come into play that can alter meaning. When I look at a situation I try to look at it impartially....not give in to my own predjudices but what is actually happening and how it can be preceived by people on different sides of the situation. What actually happened? how was it perceived? was the reactions of people acurate to what actually happened or did they bend things to suit them? DO we have all the facts? Im I or we prone to certain stereo types? so on and so forth. Being a judge in a court of law must really be difficult. Everybody has a tnedency to stretch truth their way. I sometimes like to debate a subject from differnet points of view just because I like to debate. I enjoy debating I just hope that no hard feelings come from differnet points of view. I like the challenge of grabbing the other side of the popular view at times. hahah
Well said Gargru, my thoughts exactly on your last paragraph. The trouble with these type of posts is that they always generate too much heat, and closed minds and prejudices unfortunately surface. I'm sure others would like to contribute, but feel inhibited because of the flak that can be created. In saying that, this particular thread has been surprisingly civilised, given it has developed into such contentious areas.
To presume possible evidence of terrorism based on a single word, a word that is directly related to the profession for which it is linked, is as short sighted as assuming an individual is a member of the mob because they used their Italian last name on the business license of their Italian restaurant.
#4. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 0)
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
That may be enough to get that crazy old fart off his obsession with Dell, he was an FFL holder and "kitchen table gun dealer". I'm printing it out and it will get taken to the nursing home ASAP.
But then again, Dell did turn down his credit (that he applied for without the power of attorney's permission). Maybe the real reason for that was because he recently had an FFL.
It really doesn't matter to me what this guy gets, in fact getting branded will keep the headaches from coming my way. I just hate to see someone who won't use the computer get ripped off buying what ever "top of the line" system the salesperson tells him he "needs".
But if this does get him off his obsession there are two sons, a grandson and daughter and many many nursing home workers who will thank you.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
#6. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 0)
Thanks Al. If Dell is going to "Screen" their customers you would think they would use a better system than just not liking the name of the buyer. If they would have actually checked it would have been clear that the gentleman was on the up and up. I would think that any one who was on the shady side would use a name that would draw as little attention as possible, thus negating Dell's "Sceening" policy anyway.
#8. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to MSU (Reply # 6)
For what its worth, Dells are not all they are cracked up to be anyway. I have worked on 2 of them in the past few weeks. They use the same junk as Gateway,Comcrap etc. There is very little difference. If you pay for a cheap computer thats exactly what you will get, from any of them. As far as them canning that order because of the name of his business, that was really stupid of them, Do they also not sell to Arabs and anyone with a mid east name? It must be nice to be so big rich and powerful to just not sell to someone because you don't like their name. I would never buy one anyway but now I have another reason. That is sooooooooo un American.
#11. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to jmc (Reply # 8)
I have no experience with Dell, but I've always wondered why people bought Computers, or anything for that matter, without looking at the product. Call me old fashioned but I like seeing something before I buy. Also the hassle involved in returning, if dissatisfied.
Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.
#16. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to jmc (Reply # 8)
Yes, if you order the $700 special you're going to get cheap crap, with integrated components on the motherboad. What do you expect? The same dollar value as when you build your own?
#12. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 0) Wed Feb-27-02 07:32 PM
That was an unbelievably dumb business move by Dell! Not only was there no probable cause for their decision, it was compounded by their failure to communicate with the customer to either justify their action or to inform the customer of the cancellation. I had the feeling Dell mamagenent was deteriorating when they hired "Steven".
I would think Mr. Wiegand has cause to file a legal action against Dell for a variety of reasons.
Shelly...although the "Steven" commercials may seem silly, according to Dell's own news releases, they credit the ads for a 100% increase in sales. A two-fold increase in a business of that size is unheard of...and you can bet, made someone on the management team look very smart.
#14. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 0)
That would be just some idiot employee spinning his or her wheels. That employee ("Dell Supervisor"?) probably will get dragged across the table when his supervisors find out.
Of all the responses I've read here so far I think you've hit it on the head Grogan.
Someone has goofed at Dell probably without the knowledge of supervisory staff and someone else has blown this all out of proportion. Often times it's as simple as that.
#15. "RE: While your attention is here" In response to Al (Reply # 0)
Since everyone who cares is probably going to be checking out this thread for a while...
Have you checked the NRA's webpage recently? The new change is much better than the last one, and you can get a @mynra.com email address. And you can set Google up as your search engine from there.
If you are into the portal type homepages it's definitely worth checking out. If I was into homepages I'd use it.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
#23. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Myk (Reply # 18)
We have been warned for years that this was coming. That it may not happen overnight, but over the the long term. Just like the moles in the gov. and the terrorist cells that is in the news right now. It comes from within our own.
I think a lot of people don't have a clue of what is going on in the background, to bring their changes to this country. Too many people refuse to think that what happened to other countries in the past could happen here.
AOL & DELL are two of the most well known names in the PC industry and we have seen what is on their minds as far as law abiding gun owners. With these, we have a choice. What if Intel and AMD takes on the same position? Hopefully the letters would fly.
History tells us that people will do to other people ONLY what they allow to be done to them. And the good people of this, and other great nations are allowing it to happen by putting up with this. We are being led down a road that we do not want to see what's at the end. But we don't need to see it, just look at history.
#19. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 0)
If anyone learns of any follow up information on this, please post. I enjoy guns as well and won't hesitate to recommend something else besides Dell to people if this is their policy.
If you go to his site he's keeping an update on his Dell situation. He says that he doesn't want anything from (or to do with) them but would accept and appreciate an appology to the law abiding gun owners.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
#29. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Myk (Reply # 24)
I went there and had a read. I saw an update dated yesterday, where he got a response from Dell saying it was automatically refused based on keywords ("combat" in this case).
So that is very stupid. Worse than I had originally commented about it being some dumb assed employee. Dell has software that automatically refuses sales based on keywords in the order form? Bwaahaaha! That is absolutely ridiculous. I scoff and sneer at them.
#20. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 0) Wed Feb-27-02 08:36 PM
Al, I am still a big gun advocate, however I had to really reexamine my position and outlook after my oldest daughter committed suicide last December with a 38 Llama I received on a deal and gave to her. I blamed my self for a long time but then I realized she could have cut her wrist, jumped off a building, had a head-on car crash and killed others too. With the other ways she would have suffered immeasurably.
Pistols still make it too easy to take one selves out of the big picture. People who are contemplating suicide should stop and think that it is a permanent solution to a temporary problem and that this too shall pass. And then let someone else keep their guns.
I am still on the guilt trip and "what if" routine, but "what if" the pilots on the American Airline Flights had a pocket piston on Sept. 11th?
But still more family members than bad guys are killed with firearms.
I am taking a neutral position on this but do believe, as in most instances, both parties should look at their parts in the deal.
they definately should not have handled it in this way. They certainly have the right to choise their company policies when doing buisness, and have the right to not do buisness with certain persons or companies. But they could handle things in a more respectable manner. To just drop an order like that is not cool.
Don't know if anyone has posted this, but it looks like a website for a message board for Dell. And yes, they are catching some flak for there anti-gun stance.
Dell are most definitely in the wrong here, but after seeing the september 11 atrocity I find it hard to believe the American obsession with guns. Every day I pick up a newspaper and another american has taken it out on his neighbour, or a bullied schoolkid gets his revenge.
You guys don't need Bin Laden, you do OK by yourselves, & yet you get mad when ppl get killed by factions from other countries whilst it is happening all the time on your own doorstep by your own countrymen & yet you all STILL support guns. Bloody madness!!!
Yeah so I'm controversial, but that how I see it from this side of the water.
It never ceases to amaze me how the UK newspapers have to focus on the bad things that happen in the US just so they can feel good about themselves. Our gun ownership is going up, yet our crime rates are going down. Like it or not those are the facts backed up by both of our countries' official govt sources.
So who are the real madmen here? The one's who say you can defend yourself or the one's who lock someone up in prison for defending themselves?
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
The real issue here is not about firearms. The issue is about the RIGHT to own a firearm. What will it take to make people understand that the "gun" isn't doing the killing. The root of the problem is in the belief in violence. Removing guns from the scenario would not eliminate the belief in violence as a remedy for conflict. A person's weapon of choice is secondary.
You simply fail to understand or are not familiar with our nation's history. Firearms have are indelible in the American Psyche as being synonymous with freedom. The right to bear arms was fundemental to securing our nation's sovereignty from the British.
If the RIGHT to own a firearm is taken away it would symbolically represent an infringement on American freedom since our freedom was originally based on personally having to defend ouselves and our families against attack on our soil by the British. You see, we the people WERE the militia.
In a dictatorship, one of the first steps taken to seize control is to disarm the people and neutralize their ability to revolt.
Regarding: >You guys don't need Bin Laden, you do OK by yourselves, & yet you get mad when ppl get killed by factions from other countries whilst it is happening all the time on your own doorstep by your own countrymen & yet you all STILL support guns. Bloody madness!!!
You have to remember the press you are getting your news from has a definite bias. You seldom if ever hear about guns saving people. Someone shoots someone--lots of coverage. Old lady defends herself from filthy creep-- local paper only. That's the program.
By that logic, i must be a terroist because i shoot in Combat Handgun Tournaments???? I may have heard more convoluted logic in my life, but i'll be damned if i can remember when. I have 2 comments, 1: my idea of gun control is being able to hit what i aim at, and 2: they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers !! ( all 37 of them )
By this posting, are you suggesting, sir, that we DESERVED what happened September 11th? You have no idea of the horror that was experienced and there are people on this forum that were there, and for them, I am sorry that someone like you has voiced such an opinion. And, please, allow me to be politically correct--you, I believe are from Scotland, not a Brit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the story of "Braveheart" not based on fact? Did the Scots not rise up against oppression from the British by taking up arms and slaughtering the bastards that were invoking 'first rights' (sleeping with their brides on the wedding night)?
Thank God for our American men! Bin Laden and his men won't get far enough in their campaign against us to make half of our nation 'his children' like the English king did to your country before you did something about it.
I'm sure that wasn't his intent. I disagree with what he said too, but let's not start injecting our own words to be pissed off about. He meant, that with all the killing that goes on, "we don't need terrorists", we'll kill ourselves off all on our own. Not that we "deserve" to be killed. There is a big difference in the thought processes behind that comment.
He does not deserve this kind of reaction.
>By this posting, are you suggesting, sir, that we DESERVED >what happened September 11th?
#74. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Grogan (Reply # 71) Thu Feb-28-02 09:35 AM
Mr. Grogan, I was not 'pissed off' as you call it, and, I asked a question that I felt was done in a respectful manner. Perhaps he meant, as you said, that we kill ourselves off and don't need terrorists, but the case he cited was Sept. 11.
"& yet you get mad when ppl get killed by factions from other countries"--did that faction from other countries slamming into to the twin towers not make you mad? It did me, what is wrong with that? Why does he say "and yet" as if we shouldn't get mad?
I care not so much about the "respecful manner" (hey, I rant and rave all the time) rather, the implication. Not being one to mince words, I say that has potential for picking a fight (I believe unintentionally). Making more out of what was said than necessary. That's all, I just didn't want Hardware Freek to come back to his comments to find it escalated far beyond his intent.
So I'm sorry I jumped the gun, (pun intended) but I had visions of where this was going to end up. No need for a crucifixion today (sort of thing) }>
It is still a heck of a lot easier to point & shoot, (even in self defence, if that the line you want to take) than to practise "self defence" with say fists, baseball bats or even blades, why do you guys feel the need to kill ppl in self defence? what next? tripwires & mines on your driveways, maybe a howitzer?
My point is if you dump the guns,violence should decrease in turn. Of course it is your sovereign right to own a gun, it is also that same right that created gun law in the first place that you need to defend yourselves from, and that same right that continues the madness, at least over here people usually survive incidents.
The issue is not that Americans feel they MUST own a firearm. The issue is in maintaining the RIGHT to own a firearm. If people were being killed by bows and arrows I suppose you'd argue in favor of banning bows and arrows.
The gun laws that you're referring to were created by (mostly liberal Democrats)those that refuse to acknowledge personal responsibility. Whatever happened to holding individuals accountable for their actions?
Do you realize how ludicrous it is to assign power to an inanimate object, as if the object itself had a mind of it's own. So following this reasoning, since there are alcoholics who kill others because of alcohol, we must ban alcohol, since there are reckless drivers who kill others, we must ban automobiles, since there are obese people who kill themselves we must ban food. And if the coffee you just bought from McDonalds was too hot and you burned yourself, sue McDonalds and then ban coffee.
And that is complete and utter bullshit. There's plenty of gun related violence here, despite much stricter gun laws. Gunmen can run wild in Toronto, shooting up Chinese restaurants and donut shops. Where did they get these guns? Certainly not legitimately.
Even the cops here only carry 38 Special revolvers, and if they follow regulations, have the hammer resting on an empty chamber. Not that they'd ever want to draw that gun, they'll be tied up for days being investigated. I sure would hate to be a cop in this country, or yours for that matter.
Dead is dead, whether the instrument is a firearm, broken bottle, bludgeon, knife or fists. I challenge anyone to survive a good crack in the skull with a bat, when the intent is to kill. You might fare better surviving a bullet.
>My point is if you dump the guns,violence should decrease in >turn. >Of course it is your sovereign right to own a gun, it is >also that same right that created gun law in the first place >that you need to defend yourselves from, and that same right >that continues the madness, at least over here people >usually survive incidents.
If people in this country(USA) would quit trying to blame guns on everything we would be better off.Guns do not kill,people do. Go ahead and get guns banned,I am sure the criminals will turn theirs right in(Duh).If you want to stop violence look at your judiciary system,thats the way.Come on people,dont blame guns,blame people who our letting these people go with light fines and short jail time. To me blaming guns is absolutely stupid,Example:My neighbor beat his wife to death with a stick,lets get rid of all sticks,its bulls***. Let responsibility lie on the person causing the crime. If someone kills another person with a car, I guess we should get rid of all cars..Wise up people.OK done ranting. And by the way Al,that is bull with dell and I will never buy one.I guess if my last name was Black that makes me a negro,dont think so. They can have my gun when they pull it out of my cold dead hands.
If we "dumped" our guns in the first place, we'd still be under British rule <gagging>. First, the bullsh*t that if we outlawed guns it would reduce crime is absurd. All that would do is take guns away from law abiding citizens, not the criminals. By the very name criminal, they break the law, so you don't think they would break the one about having guns????
"My point is if you dump the guns,violence should decrease in turn."
Did you read the link to the Telegraph article I posted? Obviously not. The gun crimes alone in the UK are trippling. Read the Home Office reports and you will see that many of your crimes are going up since your gun bans and the ones going up the most are the violent ones. You have tried it and it's not working. We (the US) on the other hand have tried the opposite and it is working. Almost everywhere that has enacted more lenient carry laws has seen their crime rates drop.
I realize that this is a very basic equation and other factors are involved but that same thing applies to your even more basic assumption ("My point is...") that are not proven out in real life.
The British royals even think that the gun control in the UK is absurd. But the liberals (I'm not sure if that's what you call them) over their take their words speaking about the absurdity and claim that they are making "cock ups". It's not healthy to put your head in the sand to ignore what you don't want to see. I know it's easy to put your head in the sand when it applies to a politician's words but you also have your own Home Office's statistics telling you that gun control of the law abiding is having the exact opposite effect of what was claimed it would have.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
#37. "Not entirely as it seems...." In response to Al (Reply # 0)
This incident is not exactly as it seems. Dell has posted a response which, to me, sounds perfectly plausible. I don't think this has anything whatsoever to do with being anti-gun, politically correct or any of the other comments being bandied about. I think this was simply a glitch that occurred in a very large organization processsing an order while at the same time, trying to be diligent in fulfilling their obligation under federal guidelines to extract minimal information as to the purpose and background of the purchaser.
In this instance, they screwed up which they freely admit. I have no problem overlooking this since erring on the side of caution is not necessarily a bad thing. Jeez...these people are in the computer selling business. They couldn't care less whether you are a card-carrying member of PETA, Greenpeace or...the NRA. If you are not excluded from possessing the technology by federal guidelines, you can bet you can have one coming faster than you can say, "Dude, you're getting a Dell". I think they just made a simple processing error trying to do the right thing and in this case, it proved a mistake. To think this was some sort of political statement is nonsense.
The post you referred to clearly states that US LAW only applies to Exports. So wouldn't it make sense to screen all orders by shipping address, first?
They are using the law as an excuse here. The law has specific guidelines which should have been applied systematically. If the computer is not for export, the rest of the criteria do not matter.
Simple, basic Logic 101.
Do you really want to deal with a computer company that can't write a simple screening process that sorts by shipping address?
#58. "RE: Not entirely as it seems...." In response to Al (Reply # 43)
This reminds me of the old saw, "my mind's made up, don't try to confuse me with the facts". Guys, this is NOT a *gun* or *gun ownership* issue.
If you note in Michael Dell's response, the mention of the word "combat" merely flagged the order for follow-up. It was this (lack of) follow-up that created the stir...the customer should have been (according to policy) contacted for additional information. He was not and therefore, the issue. Had he been contacted, no doubt the order would have sailed through and this thread would be non-existent. Somebody simply failed to make the call and this is the result.
You certainly have the right to any opinion you wish including, one based on assumption. On this one, I have trouble being too critical over a low-level slip-up...especially, when it was both fully acknowledged (and, aplologized for) by the president of the company. In fact, I think this speaks rather well of them...lesser companies would have ignored and buried the whole matter.
One final comment...would anyone care to guess how many Dell computers are presently in use in sporting goods outlets, gun shops and, other gun-related enterprise with more being ordered every day? Some of the comments herein are the expected but for others, I am flabergasted that you really believe that Dell has an anti-gun posture.
Believe what you will but, IMHO, this was simply a screw-up where somebody dropped the ball and didn't call the customer for followup...nothing more, nothing less. I'm afraid I see the makings of a conspiracy theory though and I expect this will be winding up in our "In-Boxes" on the email circuit for some time.
Funny, you reply to my post, but you fail to address it.
Yeah, Michael Dell apologized for their failure to follow-up. What he should have apologized for was them applying their screening procedures to computers sold within the United States.
You're right, it isn't about guns. It's about the rights of citizens of the United States, including the right to not buy from someone who discriminates against those citizens.
D.Manley, According to Google, it took me 0.18 seconds to pull up the web site to Mr. "Combat". The orders on his guns are back logged by a YEAR--HELLO! How many terrorists and criminals are going to wait a year for a hand gun? Now, if you BELIEVE the response by DELL, how much time did they need to check out the order? I am not a proponent of the NRA nor do I own a handgun (yet) and I am telling you because I think you don't know, that DELL was just plain wrong and they are lying even now. They owe this man an apology and their policies are no more effective than if they had no policies if this is the manner in which they carry them out--no research, suspicion, etc. Hell, we in America certainly don't need that crap NOW!
"...How many terrorists and criminals are going to wait a year for a hand gun? Now, if you BELIEVE the response by DELL, how much time did they need to check out the order?"
Did you perhaps miss the point, here? They didn't check out the order. They should have but, they didn't...the man was wasn't called for additional information after the "flag" popped up and therein, the whole deal. If that sales clerk had done his job and simply called the man for the additional information, it would have been a routine transaction.
"I am not a proponent of the NRA nor do I own a handgun (yet)..."
I do own guns...quite a few. I was also compensated pretty well to carry one for 20 years until I retired.
"...and I am telling you because I think you don't know, that DELL was just plain wrong and they are lying even now. They owe this man an apology..."
He got one...open, sincere and public...from the President of the company, no less. They were clear that he has every reason to be upset and, that they are taking pro-active steps to ensure the indident cannot be repeated. If this had been denied, concealed or otherwise defended then, we would have reason to wonder.
"...and their policies are no more effective than if they had no policies if this is the manner in which they carry them out--no research, suspicion, etc. Hell, we in America certainly don't need that crap NOW!"
I agree that the minimal checks they perform to comply with anti-terrorism and export laws are of limited value. They are, however, required. I find it difficult to see how you can criticize them (or, any other company) for trying to perform their responsibility and in the same sentence, complain what they're doing is not enough. Considering the flap over this act of omission, I hate to think of the hew and cry if any company actually performed "research" on you before a sale. Conversly, if this company had ignored it's responsibility altogether, the gun shop owner would have his new computer, Dell would have another notch in it's belt and, we wouldn't be here.
About all I'd like to add is that in a computer forum I just think it's a bit premature to bash a company before all the facts are in. Knee jerk reaction to partial facts is not a preferred response at the best of times.
This is nothing more than a stupid mistake in the long run and we should all be so perfect as to not have made one of those now and then. If only those who so like to stir the pot were able to live up to their own expectations of perfection.
I plan to build my next computer but you can bet your sweet bippy if I wanted a ready made I would get another Dell in an instant. That decision would be solely based on the quality of the product as well as the service they have provided me with, nothing more nothing less.
#76. "RE: Not entirely as it seems...." In response to Spezi (Reply # 72)
Thanks...
You know, I've been around this forum a long time and never once before now have I responded to anything that wasn't a tech-related post. Although I enjoy reading some of the OT stuff, it's not my nature to engage in the editorial vein especially, when I don't have a dog in the fight.
The only reason I proffered an opinion on this one is that it is (to me) so ridiculously off target I guess I couldn't resist. This has no more to do with guns & gun control issues than I do piloting the space shuttle. I am and have always been a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment and enjoy both collecting and, shooting sports (old age has diminished the hunting, though). That said, I must say I am embarassed by the venom and misinformation being spouted on other forums, including some gun/shooting forums about this silly deal by what I thought, were like-minded individuals. You would think Dell is pumping it's millions into the anti-gun lobby. This garbage is being touted and accepted as fact by my fellow firearm owners without so much as hint of clear thinking and facts have been relegated to the back seat.
These people are foaming at the mouth, unquestioning in their belief that Dell refused to sell a computer to this guy (who, I'm sure is a nice man) because he likes | sells | customizes guns. These people will believe what they want to and I seriously doubt that the intended customer himself could put out the flames if he tried. Hopefully, the misplaced anger felt by some of these people will subside enough to allow intellect to return.
I'm done with it and have said all I am going to say...except, this. All the talk of making Dell another KMart, putting them out of business, etc. has a very real chance of a backlash. The response by the overwhelming majority of posts I've read on this is not exactly the voice of reasonable people and is certainly not the image responsible gun owners would like to convey.
I don't see any negative backlash. Giving the benefit of doubt that it was an honest mistake and Dell doesn't flag legal gun shops for even more background checks and harassment than they already go through. This will let other businesses and politicians know that if they want to come up against the gun owners of America we will not stand for it.
Gun owners are already looked at by some as insane criminals who deserve to be locked up for merely owning a gun. How much worse could it get?
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
>This has no more to do with guns & gun control >issues than I do piloting the space shuttle.
So what! The post segued from it's original post to gun control as a natural flow of conversation.
>always been a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment and >enjoy both collecting and, shooting sports (old age has >diminished the hunting, though). That said, I must say I am >embarassed by the venom and misinformation being spouted on >other forums, including some gun/shooting forums about this >silly deal by what I thought, were like-minded individuals.
Where did you develop this Chip and Dale view of America where everybody is suppose to politely agree? After you get through stroking yourself with your admiration of the 2nd Amendment, ponder as to your confusion about the 1st Amendment. There is nothing healthier than dissent, which by the way is a by-product of the 1st Amendment. This is a vigorous discussion where people are expressing their views on things that are important to them. People learn from such discussions and some may walk away with an entirely different point of view.
>The only reason I proffered an opinion on this one is that >it is (to me) so ridiculously off target I guess I couldn't >resist.
You expressed an opinion because you disagree. Hallelujah! What do you think everyone else is doing?
They are flagging words like "gun" and "combat". If they did the same thing applying names like "Muhammad" they would be in violation of civil rights. Even making someone with that name sign a waiver would be discrimination.
This is why vigilante justice is not the correct thing to do. If they thought WCH was a threat they should've notified the FBI. If they think someone named Muhammad is a threat they should do the same. But it is not their place to deny the sale or to run their own background checks for the good of the rest of us.
Yes, it was a simple screw up. But that screw up was caused by their fear of the words that THEY entered into their program that flags. This is the same assumptions that are pissing gun owners all around this country off, that if you own a gun you must be up to something. That simple screw up just brought their policy to light.
What will Dell think up next, because I have a FOID card or someone else has a CW permit that I/they should be banned until further checking? Don't you think that to have an FFL and run a business or to get a FOID card or to get a CWP that the person has already been checked out enough by the FBI and if anyone needs to be flagged it should be the ones who don't own legal guns because they HAVEN'T been checked out by any govt body?
If it was Remington who made the order do you think Dell would've messed up? If so did you buy Citibank's claims that they didn't do business with businesses who deal in arms yet they are willing to do business with one's that make fighter jets? It's all spin control as the others have said. They discriminate against a small dealer/owner because it doesn't hurt them as much, well now they are going to find that 3 million+ small timers will have an effect.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
#38. "RE: I Still Recommend Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 0)
I certainly feel that Dell did not handle this situation correctly but I would like to report when my hard drive went out for a second time on my almost 1 year old Dell, Dell not only replaced the hard drive but upgraded it from a 60 Gig drive to an 80 Gig drive. Needless to say I am very happy with the service I have received from Dell. I don't plan to purchase a new system for away but if this system continues to perform as it does now I am sure I will buy Dell in the future.
I truly am a FOR GUN advocate and I also am a member of the NRA and I own a rifle. As far as Im concerned more people should own guns, "good people" the problem with lawmakers is they keep making it tougher to get a gun legally but all they are doing is taking guns away from good people. Criminals and murders dont care about the laws anyway; they get guns on the streets or the black market and use them against good people. What the hell are the law makers doing making it tougher for good honest law abideing citicens to get a gun legally for. It dosnt make sense. Were gonna wind up sitting ducks for the scum of the world. How many times have you read in the paper that some scum bag opened fire on a crowd of people and killed many of them, or held them hostage and so on. If more good people had guns lots of innocent lives would be saved. Good law abideing people should be able to own a gun and carry a gun if they can pass training. What they should do is really crack down on those who carry guns illegally.
I hope you did not mis-understand my reply. I am a Life Member of the NRA and have a gun safe full of just about every kind of gun you can think of. I was just reporting my personal experience and the support I have received as a Dell customer.
I'm reminded of an old "All in the Family" episode,where Mike is siting statistics on the amount of people that are killed by handguns and Archie's reply was: "Would it make you feel any better if they was pushed outta Windas". I totally agree with Garbru's last statement,but I guess it's easier to pass new laws then to actually enforce existing ones, ie:taking the guns away from criminals.
No Bob, I was just adding my 2 cents about guns....only appear like I applied diectly to your post because you happened to be at the end of the thread at that tim
"You just have to look at things from the standpoint of Dell a Company that is large enought to have a PUBLIC IMAGE so it is their best interest to maintain a Politcally correct policy when doing buisness. " Since when is discrimination politcally correct?
"Are Dell's actions illegal? No." Actually I could see Al winning a discrimination lawsuit over this matter, if he wanted to pursue it.
As far as gun control in general, it has been proven that it doesn't work. Ever noticed that the major cities in the US with the strictest gun laws also have the highest crime rates? (ie: DC, New York, LA, Detroit) Some people will argue that crime will always be a part of big cities. So look at Austraila, a few years ago they confiscated every modern handgun in the nation, yet crime rate has sky rocketed. Rumor has it that Austraila is considering new policies dealing with firearms. Vice versa works too with gun laws. Within the last 15 years most states in the US have started issueing concealed weapons permits. In virtually EVERY one of those states crime has dropped. I believe it is Switzerland that has the law that every adult MUST own a gun, and their crimerate is unbelievably low.
The facts are that there is no crime that cannot be done without a gun. Governments will NEVER get rid of every gun. Making laws against guns really only effects those who were going to use them legally anyway.
And yes, I am an NRA member.
Rosewill Thor V2 Case ASUS P8Z77-V Intel I-5 3570 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 XFX Core Edition FX-7870 60GB SSD Corsair Force Series GT 2TB Seagate Barracuda Rosewill Hive-750W
>I certainly feel that Dell did not handle this situation >correctly but I would like to report when my hard drive went >out for a second time on my almost 1 year old Dell, Dell not >only replaced the hard drive but upgraded it from a 60 Gig >drive to an 80 Gig drive. Needless to say I am very happy >with the service I have received from Dell. I don't plan to >purchase a new system for away but if this system continues >to perform as it does now I am sure I will buy Dell in the >future. >
Do you realize how inane this post is? If I sold any one of my clients a PC that suffered not one but two hard disk drive failures within its first year, that client would certainly buy elsewhere next time -- and I would not blame the client for doing so!
All things considered, there is absolutely no advantage to buying a PC from a company like Dell, as your post clearly indicates. If the company offered a superior product, and if the company followed exemplary business practices, then that company deserves kudos and customers. BUT... When a company builds, sells, and ships products that experience higher than average failure rates, AND when that company follows shoddy (or shady) business practices, then that company had better expect castigation!
Providing expedient replacement drives is the very least that Dell should do in your case. I'm sure that they did nothing at all to compensate you for the loss of use of your system while it was down. Likewise, they did nothing at all about any data loss you suffered. Of course, they will quite correctly state that it is your responsibility to back up your data. In the real world, though, drives don't often fail immediately after the most recent backup was made, do they?
A truly reputable company would not be building PC's using hard disk drives with such a short life expectancy.
Give me a break Chris what is this Dell bashing week?
You know full well Dell doesn't make hard drives in fact they use Maxtor most of the time which as I recall comes recommended here quite often. So do they deserve to be castigated for a manufacturing defect by a third party?
I think not, no more so than you should be if you build a computer for someone with what you believe to be quality components and they then fail. They fixed the problem the second time by upgrading to a different possibly better product leading a person to believe that perhaps 60GB Maxtor's had a glitch which I vaguely even recall reading about somewhere not too long ago.
Have you managed to find some secret method for determining what parts fail twice and what parts don't? If so please share because I'd sure be interested.
Getting less-than-first quality components is a widely recognized condition of many mass-produced machines today. Many of the off-the-shelf PC's sold are assembled using components that the OEM's can obtain from the various component manufacturers for considerably less than prevailing price. In many cases, these components are those that the component maker will not offer for sale in the retail channel because they are not first quality items.
Bear in mind that if Gateway, or Dell, or Compaq, or any other mass producer can obtain hard disk drives for say 20% of the prevailing price by (1) accepting second quality components, and by (2) assuming all responsibility for failed part warranty, it's a win-win situation for both the PC builder and the component maker.
The PC builder gets the advantage of deeply discounted component pricing. This translates directly into lower retail price to the consumer. The PC builder does not care if the consumer experiences multiple failures -- after all, the consumer bears all responsibility for all data and for any apps installed post-shipment of the unit. The PC builder can afford to replace multiple drives (or CPU's, or modems, etc.) lergely because he bought those components so cheaply to begin with. Of course, it is that same circumstance that leads to increased failures to begin with...
The component makers get the benefit of a greater number of salable units from a given production run. Those that meet first quality standards will go into the retail channel. Those that don't will largely either be sold to a mass producer or will get scrapped.
My post was not meant to be a Dell bashing post. Rather, it was intended to point out the absurdity of considering two HDD failures within the first year to be acceptable! It is just that attitude of consumer acceptance that allows mass produced products to decay in quality. If the PC buyer doesn't care that the product isn't what it should be, why should the seller care! And so it continues... ad infinitum.
Point well taken. Sorry if I seem a bit touchy but with posts that appear to want Dell hung out to dry approaching the 200+ mark I just thought a company that really does build a decent ready made PC was getting another unfair shot.
As I've only owned their top of the line product I suppose it is entirely possible that they would have some low end product as well but as with any item I guess that's the risk we as consumers take when buying lower end.
I know I've walked into an auto parts place to buy what was touted as quality parts as indicated by both hype and price just to bring the thing back three times before getting one that actually functioned. I say this only to illustrate that I certainly had no intention of purchasing an inferior item as I wanted reliability and no hassles yet I still ended up under the truck three times doing the same thing with none of the blame applicable to me.
Thanks for the great explanation and once again sorry for being over sensitive.
#54. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 0) Thu Feb-28-02 04:53 AM
Al, He didn't include the secret password "Dude"...Also the name Weigand is very suspicious....Anyone dealing in arms and ammunition named Weigand and not knowing the secret password is very suspicious. The name "Jack" is very suspicious too. I wouldn't sell a 22 short to anyone named Jack. He probably fits the profile of an American, ex GI, been overseas in the Military...that's VERY suspicious....He might even have pulled liberty in Yokohama or Brmerhaven. I've been there and I'm very suspicious. Don't know what to say Dude..........
#80. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to finnman (Reply # 75) Thu Feb-28-02 10:43 AM
OH, REALLY? As someone else (Dan, I think) said, I don't usually respond to OT topics. This one just really was irresistable.
If I can be so bold, I would also like to point out that Hardware Freek's posts issued the following negative responses: -post #35 from Hal9000 -post #57 from Fenster Karton -post #33 from Myk -post #59 from rhbowler -post #45 from Dr Midnight -post #47 from Al -post #50 from Grogan -post #60 from rhbowler -post #39 from Hal9000
Now, I would also like to point out that the one reply to him that Grogan took issue with was my post. Hmmmm, can't say that I blame my fellow female 911r's for not responding. S'okay. I can take the heat.
Edit: I would also like to say in response to the "voice of reason", I believe it was Dell who first went off half cocked (pun intended) without any facts. When I first saw the name of Mr. Weigand's company, I just assumed it meant 'military or police' professional equipment. I checked out the web site to find out. I don't think I would have flagged him in the first place, I mean, I don't think that terrorists or criminals would have a firearms business listing (do you?). Lots of catchy company names out there, they got their work cut out for them.
At risk of further adding fuel to the fire, I didn't state the you "deserved september 11th". my point is simply that, although you have the right to gun ownership & the right to self defence, does answering violence with violence solve anything or does it maybe cause more people to arm themselves. I seem to remember after the twin towers US gun stores were selling huge amounts of weapons, is this a normal response to terrorism?
What was the idea behind that, did you guys want to commit murder also, will that solve anything or will it just incense Bin Laden & his sleeper cells, did you expect the Al-queda members to appear in your street, did you expect to win another vietnam, or was it maybe simply to shoot all muslims or, more likely just a typical knee jerk reaction taken without considerate thought. I may be wrong but it does give me the chills to think that, today there are Americans going about their daily lives & some of them are thinking, who should I shoot today, & again some others are, "maybe I'll witness a crime & be able to "defend myself"?
As we saw, answering violence with violence, simply put guns in the hands of people that would not normally own a gun, hunt, or target shoot, unfortunately there is small percentage of people that are unstable & putting guns in their hands could mean that when they blow a fuse, it could be your kids getting shot, simply because, "he had a right to own" & use that gun, which incidentally has the capability to mass kill people in a way that most other weapons do not.
You cannot stop criminals owning guns and crime does become easy when you are armed, but I don't see how the genaral public being in gun ownership can solve anything, you have a major national problem that needs to be tackled by the US Government by a president with enough balls to tackle the Pro gun lobby & start taking guns out of the public sector.
What really scares me is when someone like you says something like, "I may be wrong but it does give me the chills to think that, today there are Americans going about their daily lives & some of them are thinking, who should I shoot today, & again some others are, "maybe I'll witness a crime & be able to "defend myself"?"
That says a lot more about how you would be than it says about how the average American gun owner is. I think psychologists call it projection, where someone can't think outside of their own frame of mind and assume that everyone is like them.
I didn't quite understand the increased gun sales after 9-11 either. But you don't see an increase in crime do you? I guess maybe people thought that we would have corner deli bombings like Israel has with their terrorism.
"you have a major national problem that needs to be tackled by the US Government by a president with enough balls to tackle the Pro gun lobby & start taking guns out of the public sector."
LOL, you are a joke. Do you always ignore every post that says what you don't want to hear? You have screwed up your own country with that thinking but that's not good enough for you. Now you want to screw up ours. Gun control doesn't work in your country and it doesn't work here either. Bullies (criminals) tend not to pick on people who can defend themselves. Your own gun ban laws are proving this. Please, screw up your own country and keep your nose out of the US's politics.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
#100. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Myk (Reply # 90)
Gun control doesn't >work in your country and it doesn't work here either. >Bullies (criminals) tend not to pick on people who can >defend themselves. Your own gun ban laws are proving this. >Please, screw up your own country and keep your nose out of >the US's politics.
So what you are saying is, that if you had the option, you would turn the UK into a police state too?
As I said earlier gun control for criminals will never work, particulary when countries like the USA is funding & supplying guns to the IRA & then filtered into the UK, maybe if your gun laws (& morals) were tightened up, we may see less guns in the UK. Unfortunately the USA's politics do affect us over here. I am not anti-gun as such but I reckon too many people have easy access to them.
I DO see your need to defend yourselves, but I think it is sad that you some of you guys feel the need to maim or kill people as a result of so many perps being able to arm themselves.
Please remember that, it is also british troops that is over in Agfhanistan risking their lives to clean up your mess.
If you feel that way, I suggest you ask for the troops to be recalled. Wouldn't want to have any help with our messes. And here I thought those troops were there because terrorism is a worldwide problem.
#104. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 102)
Al I agree with you that terrorism is a worldwide problem, and I don't share Freek concerns about British troops being in Afganistan. I think though, if you read his other posts, that his worry is that the US is deciding who should be classified as terrorists, and that the definition is confined to those who damage the US. He mentioned the IRA, which received some support in the US based on ignorance and myths. Similarly there is terrorist activity in many quarters of the world, but no action is intended there because it does not impinge on the US. Terrorism will never be defeated, and we kid ourselves if we think it will. Terrorism exists because certain countries (rightly or wrongly) feel they have a grievance, and either indulge in terrorist activities themselves, or do it cohertly, through others. This is in no way intended to condone terrorism, but rationally what can a country (such as Iraq) do that believes it has been treated unjustly? Please note....I am NOT saying Iraq has a just cause, but they believe they do, and that is the crux. It can no longer simply declare war on the US, that would last about 2 days at the most. The US has massive resources/technology/population which precludes an open declaration of war. This is a fact of life, the underdog will always try means other than an open confrontation. Something may be done this time to subdue terrorism, but it will re-appear.
I'm going to suggest you make some effort to get access to professional publications that have studied and categorized terrorists. Specifically, look into psychiatric journals, professional publications in the Intelligence fields, and professional Military publications.
It would take a great deal of time to detail and document the material to show how mistaken your concepts, and those of most of the general population are. Detail that is available in those sources. Cause has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Power has everything to do with terrorism.
#110. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 105)
Al, I'm sure you are right, there will be many textbooks which give that opinion, while others will profoundly disagree. If you don't feel that people can be motivated into action by a 'cause' then I too profoundly disagree. There are many examples from history which shows they are. The IRA for one, Basque terrorists for another.
People, yes. Leaders, no. Terrorism is a specific type of action and it requires leaders. The leaders who will take part in it are not the kind motivated by causes. They are motivated by power.
Consider that a Leader motivated by a cause must be idealistic and ethical. Terrorist leaders are not. Not even by their own standards.
I'm suggesting you learn what the expert's opinions and studies show. Not some journalist, or someone who has declared themself an expert based on their opinion, but those who have studied multiple cases of the situation.
It's even possible to trace when the "cause" became terrorism when you recognize the motivation of the leadership. It works.
#124. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 118)
So I take it that people like Mandela in South Africa didn't participate in what was then terrorist activity because he believed in concepts like justice, freedom and equal rights? He had other motives?
OUR MESS??? It's our FAULT some extremeists came over HERE and killed our people?? That is even more moronic than the LAST post like it you placed. I guess if they had done it in your country we should be sitting back saying "hey, it's YOUR mess" !! Speaking as one who lost loved ones in the Sept attack, i am just glad most of your countrymen, and most the world for that matter do NOT see this as you do. I'm going to stop at this, because i can feel my blood pressure rising, and i know anything else i type will be extremely rude and nasty, because my temper is about gone on your idiotic reasoning.
By the way, i have an FFL ( Federal Firearms License ) I carry a gun 90% of the time, and my thoughts have NEVER been who can i kill today, as a matter of fact, i pray to GOD i NEVER have to use it in self defense, or the defense of others, but i do have the peace of mind, that if some idiot trys to attack me or mine, i can defend myself, and them. Your view of the American gun owner is so skewed it's hard to believe any rational ( yes, i know i'm assuming facts not in evidence here ) human beng could spout them.
Citizens having arms is not a police state. Find me one instance of a true police state that allowed private ownership of arms. Police states tend to disallow private arms and only trust their govt employees with legal arms. It seems that the UK is doing a fine job on it's own of becoming a police state.
Actually if you would read the article I posted you would find that the illegal guns in the UK are coming from Europe. I would like you to supply some facts that the US is supplying arms to the IRA. (There may be private citizens who support the IRA but they are not working on behalf of the US.)
It's convenient for you to blame the US for your problems but you don't have anything to back that up with. The only time you have proof that it is the US who was supplying you with arms is before we entered WWII and our citizens sent their private arms over to you because you were already in the process of removing arms from your populace. I doubt that will happen again. My ancestors didn't have the internet and didn't know the general feeling of the British subject on the issue of private arms. I won't be willing to send my $800 hunting rifle over so you can melt it down like you did the last time we sent you arms.
Maybe we should pull our aid in stopping the IRA (I do have proof for that claim) since that seems to be your mess.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
Why do you think that is? Because they don't want it to come to a city near you! It's not only America's mess. Think back to Hitler. His regime was a threat to the entire civilized world.
It feels good when you finally pull your head out of your arse and gasp those first few breaths of fresh air. Try it }>
>Please remember that, it is also british troops that is over >in Agfhanistan risking their lives to clean up your mess.
>you have a >major national problem that needs to be tackled by the US >Government by a president with enough balls to tackle the >Pro gun lobby & start taking guns out of the public sector.
Your points are appreciated and violence certainly doesn't solve violence. But in the mean time you might ask yourself this question. If it came down to it, would you rather shoot or be shot, or stabbed or bludgeoned?
Now, over coffee and donuts with the nice folk in my neighborhood, I may agree violence is not a solution to violence and owning a gun may be a risk in the home. But If later that same evening I caught a man holding my wife at gun point in our bedroom, ready to rape her, I'd be glad I owned a gun.
Until one has aspired to the spiritual heights of Ghandi or Christ, there are many who would rather shoot first before witnessing the violation or execution of their husbands, wives, sons or daughters.
The laws regarding the use of a firearm for self defense in this country are clear. Shooting someone in self defense is only justified if there is no avenue of escape for the victim.
#103. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to hal9000 (Reply # 99) Thu Feb-28-02 05:46 PM
Speaking of Ghandi:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Ghandi in Ghandi,An Autobiography
#107. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 103)
Al, got to take issue with you there;- "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." N.B.: This quote refers to the British disarmament of the Indian Army. Gandhi never advocated the individual right to bear arms. -Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography
No, it doesn't. There is an assumption among many people that Ghandi was non-violent by ideology. In fact, he chose the particular route he did as the best choice available. Btw, who do you think serve in the Army? Non-people?
Would DELL have sold Al a computer had he only used his real name? That question has not been asked or answered.
As to "guns": (a savvy) "gun" owner should (always) refer to his "guns" as "firearms." Don't think it make a difference"? Take a poll in your own neighborhood: ask your neighbors on one side of the street if they would object to a "gun dealer" living in their neighborhood. Then ask the other side if they would object to a "firearms dealer"? The "firearms" side would be least likely to object.
About "firearms." I own seven (7) firearms, three of them .45 cal IPSC "Brown" guns, a ported .44 Magnum S&W Model 629, A Remington .12 gauge Wingmaster shotgun, a 38/44 S&W "Outdoorsman" and a 2 1/2 inch S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum. At no time have I been threatened by law enforcement or legislators with "confiscation" or "Registration." I know of no one (without a criminal record) who has been turned down for a firearms purchase since March 1, 1994. Any person who told any of you they were turned down or were unfairly treated probably didn't tell the truth about why they were turned down.
In short, all this hulabaloo over "The government taking our guns" is just NRA propaganda, a means to get more of we firearms owner's money to keep themselves (the NRA) in business.
As a Libertarian, the last thing I need in my life is an out-of-work Liberal Democrat-turned-Republican "Moses" telling me what to do while he and the NRA continue to scare the peanuts out of most American's M&Ms.
"At no time have I been threatened by law enforcement or legislators with "confiscation" or "Registration.""
You don't pay attention. You have been threatened with both by both. Most Libertarians I know pay more attention to bills being put before Congress and the States.
"I know of no one (without a criminal record) who has been turned down for a firearms purchase since March 1, 1994."
You must not know many people or read much then. I know of one person who was denied a FOID because his name was the same as a kidnapper's in a different state.
I realize that this was just another chance for you to bash the NRA for whatever reason you have for bashing them though. I'm a Libertarian also and I believe in everyone's right to remain as ignorant as they want to be about any issue they chose to remain ignorant about. Believe it's just propaganda if you wish, but if you ever want to learn the truth take a cruise around some of the anti-gun senator's websites to see the bills that have been proposed.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
#98. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Myk (Reply # 91)
Just a few points, this thread has developed into a comparison of US V UK gun policy, but I can't think of ANY other country in the First World which allows citizens to carry handguns. I don't know about Canada, maybe they do, but Switzerland (or was it Sweden?) imposed the legal obligation to have MILITARY arms ( not hand guns)in the home. The Telegraph recently carried an article in favour of liberalising gun laws, making the UK something similar to the US. This was brought about by the increased use of guns by criminals, and the ineffectiveness of the police in preventing it. Their failure has much to do with who uses the guns, and political correctness in failing to target that particular group. Enough said there, I think. I personally am rethinking my position. I'm not as opposed as I may have been at one time, (brought about entirely by lack of confidence in the police), nor do I live in one of the English inner cities where these outrages occur, but if I lived there, I just might be more positive in wanting gun ownership. Fortunately there is no problem where I am, nor can I forsee one. Regarding Hollywoods version of 'Braveheart'...a bit of a giggle when compared to actual history. It is amazing the power of film to rewrite history. Scotland is (unfortunately from my viewpoint) part of Britain, but when Braveheart (William Wallace) was having his problems, it was with England. The UK or Great Britain was an entity which had to wait several hundred years to be politically created. The crowns were united in 1603 (same monarch for both countries, but still politically independent), with political alliance having to wait until 1707.
It's only a UK vs US comparison because Hardware Freek is from the UK which has a gun ban in place and their crime rates are tripling (see the Telegraph article I posted) and in the US where citizens are allowed to carry guns the crime rates are falling. HF is ignoring the facts and telling those of us in the US that we are the ones who have the problem.
Normally I don't like comparisons on this issue between countries because there are many other factors involved. But one thing we can see with Australia, UK and what Grogan has just told us about Canada, is that gun bans on the law abiding do not stop crime, in fact they seem to increase it.
The problems countries have with violence runs much deeper than the weapons that are preferred in those countries. It's the violence that needs addressed, not the weapons.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
>> but I can't think of ANY >>other country in the First World which allows citizens to >>carry handguns. > >And I can't think of any other country that is more free!
I'm not going to get into the gun/anti-gun thing. I'm not even going to take Dell to task for sloppy business practices. I just want to know how the hell POLLUTION just became part of this discussion! Some people just have to have something to criticize us for, I guess, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion(s) already going on.
Send US$25 and a stamped self-addressed envelope and I'll mail you a bleeping clue.
Keep reaching for that straw HF, now your saying guns are what's causing the polluton?? LMFAO!!! Or maybe your looking for a subject you might know a little bit about, since you obviously know nothing about this one.
Well, would everyone agree with that. I wonder? As I said, I'm not absolutely opposed to guns, I'm half way to believing that homeowners deserve better protection than the law is currently able to provide. But,when I see the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens opposed to them, and every civilised country in the world (apart from US), then I for one, question if I'm right.
#162. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Al (Reply # 161)
BTW, I doubt that Brazil, Thailand, Mexico, Cambodia, Indonesia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Israel would take well to being called uncivilized. Especially as a number of them host civilizations far older than those of Europe.
No, we're absolutely not allowed to carry guns, other than transporting them. (trigger locks and shit required). The only lawful use of a handgun (by ordinary citizens) in Canada is for target shooting; we're not even allowed to hunt with them. Self defence isn't legal with any weapon. You're supposed to wait until someone does something to you, then call the police. (You can't call them and say "I think someone is about to do something to me" either, because they'll tell you they can't do anything unless laws have been broken).
If you mention the words self defence, they'd confiscate everything but your kitchen knives.
Try looking at it from this point of view. When you live in a country where you have the right to own a handgun you have the freedom to make a choice. You don't have to own a handgun but you have a choice.
I don't think anyone has questioned the right of US citizens to bear arms. I certainly haven't. Of course it is legal and a matter then of personal choice.
>I don't think anyone has questioned the right of US >citizens to bear arms. I certainly haven't. Of course it is >legal and a matter then of personal choice.
I wasn't referring to only US citizens. My reference is Universal. And my point is that it's a matter of personal choice for US citizens ONLY because it IS legal.
>>I don't think anyone has questioned the right of US >>citizens to bear arms. I certainly haven't. Of course it is >>legal and a matter then of personal choice. > >I wasn't referring to only US citizens. My reference is >Universal. And my point is that it's a matter of personal >choice for US citizens ONLY because it IS legal. > >If it were illegal you would not have a choice. > >Freedom is about having the choice.
If I'm not mistaken, and I can't quite quote it, but, dosen't the US constitition say something like...
the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a MILITIA!!!
Dosen't say anything about for personal protection?
Who do you think the militia originally was? We, the people. The American Revolution invloved people like you and me, grabbing weapons from our homes to battle the invading British Soldiers.
Granted, now we have an organized military to provide for our defense. In keeping with the true spirit of the American Revolution, the militia still includes each one of us with regard to the RIGHT to bear arms. If you relinquish the RIGHT to bear arms, I say again, the RIGHT to bear arms, you forfeit personal freedom of the right itself. Why is that so hard to understand. I don't even own a gun. But I'll be damned if I let anyone attempt to take away that right!
The concept of freedom has become so intangled in rhetoric and structure that people have lost sight of what freedom is.
Freedom is something you're born with. No country or political system gives it to you, you're born with it. This country fosters preserving that God given freedom.
I don't need anyone's permission to be free! I was born free.
Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That seems pretty self explainatory to me but it seems to give some people troubles. The claim is that "Militia" means the National Guard. But in the Constitution, Article 1, section 8, it says; "To raise and support Armies,"; "To provide and maintain a Navy"; "To provide for calling forth the Militia" and in Article 1 section 10, "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ...keep Troops". There in the first article we have the terms, Army, Navy, Militia and Troops...the State's Troops. Four separate entities. Any person who is not trying to twist the meanings to suit their needs would agree that the Troops the states need the consent of Congress to keep would fill the role of the National Guard. None of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights amends the main body, why would that one? Since the Constitution wasn't signed into law yet if they needed it amended they could've rewrote the article or section they wanted changed.
If the National Guard was necessary to the security of a free State, why would they need the consent of Congress to be kept? Why would the National Guard need the "right" to keep and bear arms spelled out later? It wouldn't make sense to have troops that weren't allowed to keep and bear arms would it? By the way, it is illegal for the Guardsmen to use privately owned arms in their professional duties.
Who then is this Militia who is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms? Let's look at what the Founding Fathers had to say. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson "The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it...The great object is , that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry "Arms in the hands of citizens be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense." John Adams "...and that the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams "To disarm the people the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." George Mason "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people," George Mason
Back when we used militia, they were expected to bring their privately owned arms when they were called forth. It didn't matter if they kept those arms for self-defense, hunting, collecting or for express purpose of fighting in a war. The fact is that they can have them no matter what their reason is. And the fact is that the people are the militia, ALL of the people.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
Point taken, but freedom has to do with perceptions as well. A citizen of Holland has the freedom to smoke a joint, does this mean he is free and Americans aren't? You can't base freedom simply on the right to bear arms.
Good point! The right to bear arms somehow has more value to me with respect to it's relationship to freedom than being able to legally smoke a joint. But your point is certainly valid. Choices. Again choices.
Interestingly, Some 4 years ago California voters legalized pot for medicinal purposes. The federal government refused to recognize the will of the voting people in California and still consider the use of pot for medicinal purposes illegal, regardless of the state's decision. I haven't followed it. By this time things may have changed.
Thanks hal for your considerate reply. The position in the UK is changing regarding pot. Now you won't be done for carrying or smoking, only for supplying. It is not actual law as yet but has been encouraged by government, which possibly lacks the courage to make changes until they see how the voters react to their soft peddle approach.
That has been the law in many states in the US for at least 5 years. Possessions of small amounts are not crimes, possession with the intent to deal is...
On the other hand, every American has the freedom to smoke pot, recognizing that the consequence may be loss of their freedom of movement because of being jailed.
Hmm..i don't think my post was negative, i just said that he hadn't seen Casca's house, and made an aside regarding my views on breaking and entering...but you know what they say "If it's not one thing, it's your mother"
>Interesting to note that no woman have responded to this >post. > >finnman
Here's my response - maybe the first from a female.
My position on handguns is I would never have one in my house, but will fight for the right of citizens to have them.
When I read the original post regarding Dell's actions I was appalled at their business practices, and even after reading all of your replies, I still am. For a company to cancel an order and not notify the buyer is in itself unacceptable. To arbitrarily set keywords to deny sales is bordering on what used to be referred to as "redlining". I am still shaking my head that any company can refuse to sell to someone because of the name of their business. I doubt that I could refuse to rent to someone using the same criteria.
I don't even feel that they could have handled the situation in a better way, other than calling the buyer immediately and explaining that he did not meet their "politically correct" profile and that they would not sell to him.
Guess the terrorists have to buy off the shelf and remain anonymous.
Well guys, it's been an interesting & at times heated discussion, I'm going to opt out of it at this time, lest things get nasty & damage relations, this thread is getting to be a bit of a hot potato & I just remembered that this is a computer forum & not a political one, in defererence to the admins (who are quietly watching this) I rest my case.
I don't know if this has been mentioned. But during WW2 the British Government was begging for firearms for their citizenry. As they were in terrible fear that the Germans were going to invade their country, and they didn't have the arms to defend it.
In other words, they had no militia! I think they had a Home Guard of sorts, but what weapons they had, were government issue.
Also, getting back to part of the original posts, I have always maintained that, if one would look up the definition of a criminal. They would find out that they are, by definiton, a law breaker. So therefore, laws are not really made for the crimnal, as he will not obey laws. Gun laws are only made to stifle the law abiding citizen.
Apparently our law makers cannot think this through. Everytime someone commits a crime, they rush to pass new laws, ignoring the fact that the criminal will not obey the laws we have, much less new ones.
But, it buys them VOTES! This is why they do it. It is wrong, but that is the way it seems to work.
Hauxfan, what you say is almost accurate. Actually the arms were for the armed forces which was then standing alone with the Commonwealth in fighting nazism. They were not for the citizenry. The Home Guard was formed during the war and had not been part of the scene prior to it.I believe that most of the arms were later shipped to the Soviet Union.
And the homeguard was armed with donated weapons from private citizens in the United States. The weapons weren't sent to the USSR, they were dropped into the ocean.
#153. "RE: No longer recommending Dell" In response to Myk (Reply # 148)
You're right Myk. We have never failed to help anyone because of differences that may arise in discussions. Most of us know how to disagree without rancor. It is sad to see however that some people can't seem to argue beliefs without resorting to personal attacks.
There was no need for people to attack each other, and especially each other's countries in this discussion. I love to argue with intelligent people. It's stimulating intellectually. I remember in college arguing a position for hours and then deliberately switching sides and arguing the other points of view much to the dismay of those who had agreed with or opposed my original argument.
What Dell did was wrong, but they acknowledged their error and apologized. That closes the issue for me. They are not perfect, but neither am I. It was apparent that many who posted had not bothered to read Al's original post, or worse, were not able to understand it.
I think it is time to let this thread die the quiet death it deserves.
Yes, it's been heated. We don't have to let it damage relations though. I forgive all differences of opinion and attitudes, in addition to emotional outbursts. I hope you will do the same for me.
>Well guys, it's been an interesting & at times heated >discussion, I'm going to opt out of it at this time, lest >things get nasty & damage relations, this thread is getting >to be a bit of a hot potato & I just remembered that this is >a computer forum & not a political one, in defererence to >the admins (who are quietly watching this) I rest my case. > >
After fielding hundreds of emails and dozens of phone calls today my heart felt thanks to all who responded.
I was contacted by a Dell representative this morning a Mr. John Hood. John made the following remarks. He extended Dells sincerest apologies for the incident.
He said Dell would review and possibly change the screening policies to prevent this from happening again.
Dell offered to ship the machine I ordered to me at no charge, I respectfully declined the offer.
John told me he would have a statement sent to me sometime Thursday morning the 28th stating Dells position on this issue for me to post here for all to see.
I will post the statement as soon as I receive it.
I thank the Firearms community as a family for being so willing to come to my aid.
God Bless Jack Weigand President Weigand Combat Handguns Inc.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
#169. "Uh-oh" In response to Al (Reply # 0) Fri Mar-01-02 06:57 AM
Here's the new update (the worse news will follow)
"2/28/02 Update Statement from Dell
To Our Valued Customers and Friends: U.S. export laws restrict the sale of technology to terrorists and to people in countries that support terrorism. These laws also prohibit computer sales to people who will use the technology in developing biological or nuclear weapons. Dell strictly complies with our country's export laws in order to ensure the safety of our customers and citizens around the world. When there is reasonable cause for concern, we carefully review customer orders for prohibited destinations and activities. When additional follow-up on an order is required, our sales representatives ask our customers four basic questions: 1. Who is the end-user? 2. Where will the product be used? 3. What will the product be used for? 4. What type of business or industry is involved? The answers to these questions, like all customer information we gather, are confidential and are not shared outside of Dell. We recently received an order from Mr. Jack Weigand, whose company name, "Weigand's Combat Handguns Inc." included the word "combat." We cancelled the order to give us enough time to follow up with the customer and be assured that the sale would be in compliance with U.S. export law. However, we failed to contact Mr. Weigand, and as a result, we did not deliver the order as promised, and the customer did not know why. Once we discovered our error, we apologized to Mr. Weigand for this misunderstanding, as well as the inconvenience caused by the delay. This is not the service standard that we hold ourselves to at Dell. We at Dell feel a strong obligation to uphold our federal law, but we have just as strong an obligation to be responsive to the needs of all our customers. We want to assure you that the company does not discriminate against any business, regardless of the products or services they sell, nor do we discriminate against individual consumers. We do, however, sometimes make mistakes - as we did in this case. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Dell Computer Corporation"
Sounds to me like Dell is going back to what was originally said for their "appology" and hiding in their non-applicable law. And that they are anti-gun, anti-gun owner and anti-gun dealer.
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
#170. "And now the worse news" In response to Myk (Reply # 169) Fri Mar-01-02 08:05 PM
This is at the top of his update page (and I also saw this at a hunting forum today)
"Please read the following I have been informed of the following link http://www.progressivefunds.com/hci/ I ask all to view what is written and that it is related to Handgun Control Inc. Please scroll down the page to the Computer section You will see Dell, please come to your own conclusion I was not aware of this when I placed my order with Dell"
Go to that link and scroll down like he says, but don't bother looking for Dell. Look for the name Crucial Technology. I guess the gun owners at PC911 need to do a little letter writing campaign ourselves.
(edit)The link there for Crucial is dead. In other words, it's been pulled for one reason or another.(/edit)
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
MYK I just saw that about Crucial and I agree with you. As I said earlier, as long as we are willing to put up with that kind of stuff, nothing will be done to change it.
#174. "RE: And now the worse news" In response to Al (Reply # 172)
The link for Crucial is dead there.
Although writing to Crucial and letting them know that you appreciate their support for this site but that that appreciation would end if they were supporting someone against constitutional rights may not be a bad idea.
I think my letter to them will go something like,
"I saw that you had an ad that was sending money to Handgun Control Inc. That link has been pulled already so that particular ad is really a non-issue.
I was writing to thank you for your support of www.pcnineoneone.com and to let you know that your memory is highly recommended there. But that there are also many at that site who value their Constitutional freedoms. I would fear that if you were to go back to supporting groups like HCI that those same people would not be able to recommend your product in good conscience. Please save the politics for your personal lives and keep them out of your business. I would hate not to be able to use your product.
Again, thank you for making an excellent product and supporting sites like pcnineoneone."
-------------- History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.
#178. "RE: And now the worse news.. Crucial's reply" In response to Myk (Reply # 174) Sat Mar-02-02 01:22 AM
Subj: RE: Anti gun ownership ? Date: 03/01 14:59 From: emhurley <emhurley@mi ... ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hello Mr. **********,
I appreciate your concern and your effort to bring this to our attention. We visited the link you provided and found it to be a dead link from a cancelled affiliate program. The site has been contacted and we have requested that the dead link be removed from their listings.
Affiliate links, unlike advertisements, are not chosen by Crucial. Rather, the site chooses to join our affiliate program--much like PC911 has.
Again, thank you for bringing this to our attention. We hope you will continue to count on Crucial for your memory upgrade needs in the future.
That link has been pulled already so that particular ad is really a non-issue.
I'm writing to thank you for your support of www.pcnineoneone.com and to let you know that your memory is highly recommended there, and that there are also many at that site who value their Constitutional freedoms. I would fear that if you were to go back to supporting groups like HCI that those same people would not be able to recommend your product in good conscience.
Thank you for making an excellent product and supporting sites like pcnineoneone.
I totally agree with Garbru's last statement,but I guess it's easier to pass new laws then to actually enforce existing ones, ie:taking the guns away from criminals.
