How was that disproven again? Long ago you say?
The saga of Sucks.com - Salon.com
Why? Because you say so?
You obviously have a high opinion of your opinions. Too bad people aren't that stupid.
Nice try though, I hope you donated today....it's quite the e-commerce venture.
Angry crappy guy is pissed, I think due to his false facade quickly unraveling. He's maybe up to the hilt in credit, and maybe overextended and overdue on everything else. How long can he hold out till the banks start calling in those loans? What's next after that I wonder?
Could be why he's lashing out at everybody.
Stating the obvious is "lashing" out in faker advocates world of multiple personalities. But as fakers go, this persona has nothing of value to add. Yep, he proves that any wacko can post here. Luckily, we can see his wackoness with all the fake dribble he posts.Originally Posted by Unregistered
It's nice of Angry CT Guy to post directly to this thread. It makes it easier to see into this weird view of the world.
He lives in a strange world of “fakers”, “multiple personalities” and “wackos”.
He is obsessed with Dan Parisi and porn sites, even though there’s not evidence that they are in any way connected with this site (except that they both have “suck” somewhere in the URL).
His hostility towards consumers is both disturbing, and disturbed.
He calls web sites that don’t sell products “e-commerce” sites.
He accuses people of “fraud”, without there being any evidence that the activities described are even a crime.
And, when he uses the term “dribble”, I do believe he means “drivel” – which is something he obsessively posts almost daily.
Any progress on that diagnosis?
https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/co...s-service.html
I particularly like the disclaimer on this site. "as is". No guarantee that anything faker advocate says is truthful. That'swhy he's a faker. Too bad he doesn't try a real outlet for his opinions , such as a better business bureau or the ministry of consumer affairs. Then he wouldn't be such a faker. Wonder why he doesn't do that though?
Very bizarre.
Comparing an open internet forum to a retailer. Strange, indeed.
For sure, no content that is provided for free by anonymous volunteers comes with a guarantee.
It's standard, and perfectly reasonable, for sites such state all material is provided "as-is".
Is this an "e-commmence" site? No, not if it has nothing to sell, LOL!
But what of a retailer store, that charges for the goods and services it provides? There are laws governing their operations, and they cannot just create any policy they like, to attempt to circumvent those laws.
Does any of this make the site a 'fake' site? Not at all - just like other internet forums.
Are consumers who post here automatically 'fakers'? Not at all - just ordinary people trying to help one-another.
Do consumers have any obligation to do research for the Crappy People who post here? Of course not. They can provide whatever they feel is worth their time and effort, and individual consumers can take it from there.
Very strange ideas bounce around in the noggin of the Angry CT Guy.
That's right, there is no admission of truth on any open Internet forum, where anyone (wacko or otherwise) can post whatever they want. They can state their opinion as facts, they can outright lie, and they can assume whatever they want. That makes them fakers through and through. Real advocates go to credible sources to clarify or have changed the wrongs of the world. Anyone here make the effort to contact the BBB to correct their outdated posting on returns (so say the fakers)? Nope. Anyone contact the Ministry for clarification like I did on repair only items? Nope.
We all know why that is, but call black is white as often as you want....it doesn't make it any more true.
And you would have to be pretty gullible if you don't think Parisi's sucks.com venture wasn't a "for profit" e-commerce ideal.
No one said everyone here was a faker advocate, but they're are a few....and easy to spot.
No need to 'diagnose' Angry CT Guy.
He's just a persistent Troll.
Have a look at the Wikipedia definition - he fits it to a tee:
Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- inflammatory (insulting consumers who post here)
- off-topic (TTC bus drivers, Dan Parisi, porn)
- disrupting discussion (repetitive posts)
Probably the best approach is to not bother responding in the other threads.
As the saying goes, "Please Don't Feed the Troll".
Faker advocates don't like being exposed for the fakers they are....not one little bit. LOL!
Please remember: don't 'feed' the Angry CT Troll!
STUPID TERMS used on this site!!!!!!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks