Page 22 of 25 First ... 122021222324 ... Last
Results 211 to 220 of 249

Thread: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

  1. #211

    Re: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    Well, consumers, the CT liar has been busy again.

    Mostly just lies about what consumers wrote, and with vague claims that consumers tell "lies", when they actually didn't. As usual, no valid evidence is offered, either.

    We are also seeing the same lies about laws being repeated.

    The CT Liar really only has 2 web sites to support their false claim that consumers aren't entitled to a refund or exchange.

    Both fall under this lie:

    CT Lie #23 – Credible evidence is available online to prove Ontario consumers are not entitled to a refund or exchange for a defective item.

    For details: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?


    The claims about the London BBB site also falls under this lie:

    Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    #11 – There’s a BBB site that references the Business Practices Act, and it says that it’s OK for a store to repair an item instead of giving a refund.

    "The site in question references out-dated information. The BPA was replaced by the CPA in 2005. See CanLII - Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.18 for details."

    In fact, there's a second aspect to this lie: the outdated information at this site doesn't say who decides on exchange vs. repair. Many other retailers have policies that say "refund or exchange", and it has been confirmed that it's the customer's choice.

    The government site is actually about the return of "unwanted" products, which isn't applicable to defective products.

    This really should become an official CT lies:

    CT Lie #25 – There’s not law requiring stores to provide refunds or exchanges when the customer changes their mind, so stores don’t have to accept returns of defective items.

    It’s true that retailers do not have to have a policy to provide returns for ‘unwanted’ products (although they should follow their written policy).

    However, there are separate laws for defective products, and those that are not fit for their intended purpose.

    See Sale of Goods Act for details.

  2. #212
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    Faker Advocate doesn't like it when people call him on his lies. He goes into super liar mode and says that only he is right and everyone else is wrong (hear the feet stomping). Now, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs on their own updated site is wrong....haha...no proof, no letter to them, just faker advocates opinion...too funny
    You lose, loser, you lose.

  3. #213

    Re: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    Once more, the CT reps failed to provide specific on what these so-called "lies' actually are, let alone provide any evidence to back up their bogus claim.

    Of course, there are no examples of any consumer saying "only I am right" and "everyone else is wrong". So, another lie about consumers.

    Also, a typical CT lie regarding the Ministry site. Nobody said it was "wrong" - only that it covered unwanted goods, not defective goods.

    More lies to add to the growing list ...

  4. #214

    Re: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    It's amusing how the CT people say consumers with legitimate beefs against this awful store are just "whiners".

    But at least the consumers have something specific they are unhappy about.

    And if they call the CT people liars, it's because of something specific that CT wrote.

    But somehow, when the CT people complain about consumers telling "lies", there's usually not anything specific. Just a lot of vagues accusations.

    You'd think they'd be less hypocritical, when they represent their own store in such a public way.

  5. #215
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    It's amusing how the CT people say consumers with legitimate beefs against this awful store are just "whiners".

    But at least the consumers have something specific they are unhappy about.

    And if they call the CT people liars, it's because of something specific that CT wrote.

    But somehow, when the CT people complain about consumers telling "lies", there's usually not anything specific. Just a lot of vagues accusations.

    You'd think they'd be less hypocritical, when they represent their own store in such a public way.
    You think that's funny? How about not one credible source EVER saying Canadian Tire or ANY other retailer has illegal policies.....yet here you are, day after day lying that they do....that's down right hilarious!
    You want to shut me up and keep from calling you on this lie, each and every day, then by all means find any credible source that mentions CT's or ANY other retailer's illegal return policy.
    How you making out with getting the Ministry to update their own site?
    How goes the letter to Ellen Roseman to expose these illegal policies?
    When can I watch the W5 program that goes after these illegal policies?
    Which lawyer will be handling the class action suit?
    When will the local member of parliament be contacting CT to correct their illegal policies?
    It's only been 6 years since the last CPA change and yet you are the ONLY one to recognize the illegal policy?...LOL...gimme a break.

  6. #216

    Re: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    How about not one credible source EVER saying Canadian Tire or ANY other retailer has illegal policies.....yet here you are, day after day lying that they do.
    Well, consumers, here we have some more CT lies, I'm afraid.

    No, there's been no statements from any consumer claiming that there's any "source" that says "Canadian Tire has an illegal policy".

    And there's no reason to believe that the lack of such a source somehow "proves" that CT does not have an illegal policy. That's just a ridiculous claim that the self-appointed CT Rep has made up on their own.

    And this "day after day thing"? The CT rep seems to be the only one bringing up "illegal" on a regular basis. They really do seem to have a bee in their bonnet about that one, LOL!

    Besides, didn't the consumers who post here concede months ago that everyone is entitled to form their own opinion on this matter? What does the CT Rep want? It seems like they think the world owes them, LOL!

    This has been going on for months, and the self-appointed CT rep just can't seem to drop it. Sort of like a small-time terrorist: no demands - just a lot of complaining.

    It's a lot like this absurd "600.sucks.com" thing, and the childish "loser loses lose" mantra.

    Oh, well. Consumers can decide for themselves whether they think CT has an illegal policy, based on CT's own definition: "against a law, is illegal", and based on all the evidence already provided from over a dozen reputable source that CT's policy is indeed against the CPA: Sale of Goods Act

    Anyway, what does it matter if a self-appointed CT Rep can or can't be convinced that a policy is "illegal"? They rarely admit they are wrong, no matter how much evidence is presented.

    And it sure doesn't seem to matter much to consumers - they just want the refund (or even an exchange) they are entitled to under the law!

    And luckily, there seems to be more than enough information already provided for consumers who want to persue that.

    But clearly, the self-appointed CT rep wants more. Well, that's nice. We can all hope they have an enjoyable search. I'm sure they'll be quick to post their results, once they find them. Or, post a bunch more lies, if the search failes.

    (And it hasn't been going too well for them, though, now has it? Just one site that's not about defective products, and another that's about out-dated legislation.)

    It is kind of funny, though that the self-appointed CT rep is trying so, so, so hard to find even one lie on the part of consumers.

    And even funnier that, day after day, the self-appointed CT rep posts lie after self-serving lie.

    Lies about what consumers wrote, lies about CTs policies, lies about other stores' policies, and so on.

    So many lies, yet so much trouble finding someone else's lies! Absolutely hilarious!

    And all of this is taking place on a site that the CT rep says has "little impact". Even more hilarious!

    I think I'll be laughing myself to sleep tonight ...

  7. #217
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    So you admit it's only your opinion? You have no credible source that will state that CT or ANY other retailer has an illegal policy? Then you admit that you are a loser and that you indeed lose?
    When called on your lies, it becomes so, so, so evident that you are a faker advocate, only posting your own opinions...no proof, no evidence, just rantings and ravings.....good luck with that....LMAO!

  8. #218

    Re: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    When someone states a logical conclusion based on definitions and evidence, that is not a "lie".

    It wasn't a lie back in May on the "Repair Only Warranty" thread, and it isn't a lie now on this thread.

    There is evidence - but it seems there will never be enough to prove something to a CT defender.

    The only 'rantings and ravings' (isn't that label really just an 'opinion'?) are from the CT defender, who has nothing more than a lot of guess-work and misrepresentations to combate all the competing evidence.

  9. #219
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    When someone states a logical conclusion based on definitions and evidence, that is not a "lie".

    It wasn't a lie back in May on the "Repair Only Warranty" thread, and it isn't a lie now on this thread.

    There is evidence - but it seems there will never be enough to prove something to a CT defender.

    The only 'rantings and ravings' (isn't that label really just an 'opinion'?) are from the CT defender, who has nothing more than a lot of guess-work and misrepresentations to combate all the competing evidence.
    Really? Where is the "evidence" that some credible source has said CT or ANY retailer has policies that are illegal?
    I can't find even one.
    Yes, when there is not even one, and you draw your conclusions from your interpretations, then it is a lie to state it as fact. It isn't a fact, you have no one that has said it's a fact; therefore it's a lie.
    Nice try though....people can figure you out easy enough. Care to stamp your feet again.

  10. #220

    Re: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

    Consumers who are interested in the laws requiring retailers to provide a refunds (or even just an exchange, if the customer wants one) can see links to the evidence on this thread: Sale of Goods Act

    Non-consumers are also welcome to review the evidence .... but it appears they already have their minds made up, regardless of what the evidence shows.

Page 22 of 25 First ... 122021222324 ... Last

Similar Threads

  1. How to post a new thread Tutorial
    By Admin in forum New to this site?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 27th, 2010, 03:39 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 31st, 2008, 12:00 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions