Thread: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Once all their so-called facts were disproven, the CT defenders resorted to lies, but at least they were plausible lies.

When the plausible lies ran out, they just starting posting obvious lies, easily disproven.

Now that they've run out of even the feeble lies, they are just posting insults.

They've basically admitted defeat, and can't disprove anything that's been written.

I'm guessing that won't stop them from posting crap, and claiming that it's ok because they are 'challenging' people in unspecified ways.

Kind of sad, really.

The deperation is palpable.

You post your opinion as fact.....that in itself is a lie.

You offer no credible proof, only your opinion.....that is bs

Offer something credible to the lie that CT's return policy is illegal....prove it....you made the accusation and then provided your interpretations. Every time, and there have been many, that you were challenged on your facts, you either ignored the questions, or tried to deflect the obvious by calling them liars.

You are a faker advocate, the same as those on the other 600 sucks.com sites....you have an agenda and I'm still guessing it's e-commerce related.

That's my opinion...loser.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Let's review YOUR version of how a lie is "disproven"

That's a lie
Liar Liar Canadian Tire
You're a moron
All you do is lie
Why can't you tell the truth?

I think you have me confused with someone else.

When I say someone lied, I give the explanation.

If Person A says "X", and we've already seen adequate evidence that proves "Y", then Person A is a liar. Pretty simple.

If Person A offers some explanation as to why they are claiming "Y", then we'd have something to discuss. But that almost never happens with the CT Defenders who post here.

Now, if Person A happened to write, "Oops, sorry. You're right, it really is 'Y'", then I would say they were simply mistaken.

But I don't ever remember any CT Defendes doing that. Not once that I can recall.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think you have me confused with someone else.

When I say someone lied, I give the explanation.

If Person A says "X", and we've already seen adequate evidence that proves "Y", then Person A is a liar. Pretty simple.

If Person A offers some explanation as to why they are claiming "Y", then we'd have something to discuss. But that almost never happens with the CT Defenders who post here.

Now, if Person A happened to write, "Oops, sorry. You're right, it really is 'Y'", then I would say they were simply mistaken.

But I don't ever remember any CT Defendes doing that. Not once that I can recall.

With so many unregistereds posting, it's getting impossible to discern if it is anyone new or someone posting as multiple personalties.

Opinions are posted as facts based on personal interpretations of various online articles, people's interpretation of the law and acts in the province of Ontario, and other (maybe the same person) posts on this site.

If the return policy at CT is illegal....prove it without bias. Give examples of it actually been proven to be illegal.....there isn't any proof. Every time that fact is brought forward, that's when the faker advocates bring out the liar comment or ignore it completely.

That proves to me there is another agenda.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You post your opinion as fact.....that in itself is a lie.

You have some very strange views on the meaning of ‘opinion’, ‘fact’ and ‘lie’.

If I have an honest and informed belief that something is true, then in normal human interactions it is acceptable to say things such as, “It rained in my back yard today”, without having to qualify every such statement with "In my opinion ..."

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You offer no credible proof, only your opinion.....that is bs

Offer something credible to the lie that CT's return policy is illegal....prove it....you made the accusation and then provided your interpretations.

Numerous explanations have been provided on various threads on this site. They are all credible (in my opinion, anyway).

I believe that further details will be forthcoming in the “Sale of Goods Act” thread. I’m sure it will be enlightening.

(But if I understand correctly, the only proof you will accept is a judge’s legal opinion stating that CT’s ‘repair only’ (no refund) policy is illegal. Good luck waiting for someone to dig that up for you.)

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Every time, and there have been many, that you were challenged on your facts, you either ignored the questions, or tried to deflect the obvious by calling them liars.

This is simply untrue. You like challenges? Well here’s a challeng that keeps being ignored:

Show some proof of these claims against me. What "challenges" were made, and to what facts?

Is this 'challenge' all about your theory that, if nobody can provide an example of a lawsuit that was won because a retailer sold a defective product, then the opinions of all the experts who have been quoted here, and the wording of the Act itself, must be wrong. Is that the "challenge"?

Or is the 'challenge' your guessing game about the "600 sucks.com sites"?

To me, a lie is when someone makes a statement that they aren’t convinced is true. Pretty straight-forward. The only time I've called people liars is when I've provided the evidence to prove it, i.e., proof that their statement wasn't true.

But never to evade compelling evidence that something I have written is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Let's review YOUR version of how a lie is "disproven"

That's a lie
Liar Liar Canadian Tire
You're a moron
All you do is lie
Why can't you tell the truth?

Talk about credible. Ranks right up there with yacht boy and his fleet of boats and bikini clad supermodels.

I can be equally as creative all day long, however I can't because i'm too busy maintaining my Lear Jet, my houses in Europe, Australia and Florida, my stable of thoroughbread race horses and rare vintage automobiles.
See how easy that was? cool. Pardon me while I run along. I have a meeting with Prince William and his lovely bride to be to wish them well before their wedding. I'm unable to attend due to prior commitments and thought it best I send my love in person.

CT realities are so overwhelmingly sad that CT dealer had to take another afternoon off work for more nacho and diet coke therapy to come up with more (lame) insults. And Crappy Triangles wondering why and how new retail entrants into canada are repeatedly leap frogging CT so easily in all these performance surveys. While CT returns desk guys shore up policy shitiness, other new companies are asking "help me help you!" and doing things better. Like I pointed out, there's a reason why the big box americans are adding stores in Canada, they're making money! All CT dealer boss hog can do is stuff her face some more, try to insult smarter people, and lie through her cheezy stained teeth between bites. Just look at how dismissive she was with the Target vs CT debate and the expansion failures of CT.

That is all, i'm a millionaire and that's not an opinion because I said that's a fact, black is white, get off your meds, you're irrelevant, union middle class sucks, we didn't break your car that was already broken when you drove it in without oil, 50000 protectors of policy returns from millions and millions of whiners, we didn't kill the customer, he just didn't survive our 5 or 6 good ole boys that's all and that's more fact, we don't rip you off, we just offer less than what we said we would, and that's not a lie, it's a fact!

Customers do you want to keep supporting this loser?

Police file charges when people get murdered. It's the law. No charges laid against the CT guys involved in that Hamilton incident. Why is that?

CT realities are so overwhelmingly sad that CT dealer had to take another afternoon off work for more nacho and diet coke therapy to come up with more (lame) insults. And Crappy Triangles wondering why and how new retail entrants into canada are repeatedly leap frogging CT so easily in all these performance surveys.

lame insults? oh you mean like hey you must be fat because you own a canadian tire? That's a good one, and oh so hurtful. Being called fat by a clown on the internet who hasn't seen me! oooh take it back
again with your claimed reports and surveys. Still haven't seen the top 20 canadian retailers report you claim canadian tire is not on, and now there's performance surveys ranking us against others? when you post the top 20 canadian retailers report, be sure to include the performance reports. Or will you dodge this request and ramble about some crap about how i can't find the survey myself? cough it up, what do you have to show?

Why do US retailers come to Canada, because we have a strong economy here. Yes they are making money here, that's why they are in business,. We are making money here too, that's why we are in business. Complex theory

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You have some very strange views on the meaning of ‘opinion’, ‘fact’ and ‘lie’.

If I have an honest and informed belief that something is true, then in normal human interactions it is acceptable to say things such as, “It rained in my back yard today”, without having to qualify every such statement with "In my opinion ..."



Numerous explanations have been provided on various threads on this site. They are all credible (in my opinion, anyway).

I believe that further details will be forthcoming in the “Sale of Goods Act” thread. I’m sure it will be enlightening.

(But if I understand correctly, the only proof you will accept is a judge’s legal opinion stating that CT’s ‘repair only’ (no refund) policy is illegal. Good luck waiting for someone to dig that up for you.)



This is simply untrue. You like challenges? Well here’s a challeng that keeps being ignored:

Show some proof of these claims against me. What "challenges" were made, and to what facts?

Is this 'challenge' all about your theory that, if nobody can provide an example of a lawsuit that was won because a retailer sold a defective product, then the opinions of all the experts who have been quoted here, and the wording of the Act itself, must be wrong. Is that the "challenge"?

Or is the 'challenge' your guessing game about the "600 sucks.com sites"?

To me, a lie is when someone makes a statement that they aren’t convinced is true. Pretty straight-forward. The only time I've called people liars is when I've provided the evidence to prove it, i.e., proof that their statement wasn't true.

But never to evade compelling evidence that something I have written is incorrect.

Actually.....I'll take any credible source that puts Canadian Tire's name and illegal return policy in the same sentence. It doesn't have to be a judge. How about a lawyer, Ellen Roseman, W5, any BBB from any city in Canada, consumer affairs and on and on.
You won't find it because it isn't true.

And there is over 600 sucks.com sites, not just Canadian Tire and Parisi is definitely looking to profit from the venture.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Police file charges when people get murdered. It's the law. No charges laid against the CT guys involved in that Hamilton incident. Why is that?

Are you suggesting the owner and the corp got off scot-free? LOL Hilarious! Let's see, there's the premium increase in the stores liability insurance, changes in loss prevention policies nationally, and lets not forget the private settlement to the family. After all, the police may have not charged the good ole boys with wrong doing, but we all know what a personal injury lawyer can do with a wrongful death suits. Maybe a few rich kids might want to do the same thing at your store for kicks. Give it another Upper James go on the next 'thief' and see what happens?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

again with your claimed reports and surveys. Still haven't seen the top 20 canadian retailers report you claim canadian tire is not on, and now there's performance surveys ranking us against others? when you post the top 20 canadian retailers report, be sure to include the performance reports.

LOL hilarious. Are you the same retailer who denied the "hoist fee", the dealer "conviction", and Ct didn't try to get out of paying "rent"? Oh that's right, you're still waiting and waiting. Get off your fat ass and look it up yourself. It's all there, metrics, customers, trends etc CT is falling and falling in all kinds of ways.I see you're ignoring those journals as easily as you ignore facts and links to proof that has been generously supplied to Criminal Tubby 'Tard.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why do US retailers come to Canada, because we have a strong economy here. Yes they are making money here, that's why they are in business,. We are making money here too, that's why we are in business. Complex theory

No you 'tard. That was to refute your claims that HomeDepot and Lowes was doing worse off than you were because you based that all on their store openings in the last few years. Which by the way, they each opened more stores than Crappy Tires during the same time. Oh by the way, they kept those stores in Canada and making money, money that you won't make because it's already in their pockets lol. How's your international expansion going? Then shut the f up. Complex theory all right, for Can't Think.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Are you suggesting the owner and the corp got off scot-free? LOL Hilarious! Let's see, there's the premium increase in the stores liability insurance, changes in loss prevention policies nationally, and lets not forget the private settlement to the family. After all, the police may have not charged the good ole boys with wrong doing, but we all know what a personal injury lawyer can do with a wrongful death suits. Maybe a few rich kids might want to do the same thing at your store for kicks. Give it another Upper James go on the next 'thief' and see what happens?

So you're speculating that there was a wrongful death suit? an insurance increase? OR you know this for sure? Speculation will not do. sorry

LOL hilarious. Are you the same retailer who denied the "hoist fee", the dealer "conviction", and Ct didn't try to get out of paying "rent"? Oh that's right, you're still waiting and waiting. Get off your fat ass and look it up yourself. It's all there, metrics, customers, trends etc CT is falling and falling in all kinds of ways.I see you're ignoring those journals as easily as you ignore facts and links to proof that has been generously supplied to Criminal Tubby 'Tard.

Different dealer, but i'll back up what i can. I know nothing about a dealer conviction so no comment. i did read here about the rent thing, and unfortunately you're wrong. Dealers do NOT, i repeat DO NOT pay rent to land and building owners. dealers pay corp, corp looks after leases, rents and in most cases corporation owns the building and land themselves. the only time a dealer pays rent directly to a building is if he chooses to rent a second facility for storage. So your claim is bogus.

No you 'tard. That was to refute your claims that HomeDepot and Lowes was doing worse off than you were because you based that all on their store openings in the last few years. Which by the way, they each opened more stores than Crappy Tires during the same time. Oh by the way, they kept those stores in Canada and making money, money that you won't make because it's already in their pockets lol. How's your international expansion going? Then shut the f up. Complex theory all right, for Can't Think.[/QUOTE]

Oooh getting a little agitated? excellent. It's become a personal mission to get you riled up. Yes i'm aware Home depot and Lowes make money in Canada. Whats your point?
So look at the numbers of Depot and Lowes openings....worldwide. yah they opened a couple more (literally) then Canadian Tire. They weren't exactly blazing a trail.
For real what does this have to do with an international expansion 30 years ago? I bet you're one of those asshats who is still giving his wife a hard time because she did something stupid inthe 90's.

Ha....there is no way that goober has a wife....can you imagine anyone wanting to spend more than 30 seconds listening to him? It's hilarious alright.