Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

Unregistered said:

Okay losers lets play a game. It's called YOU interpret the laws and regulations. You've been playing this game on your own accord, now i'm putting you to the challenge.

Future Shop & Best Buy return policy states No returns on DVD's, movies, CD's etc....
If defective, exchange only for the exact same title.

So explain to me which section of the Consumer Protection Act this falls under?
How does any of it apply?
Can't the consumer just demand a refund because they don't like the sellers terms?

Click to expand...

copyright law how do they know that u didnt copy and want a differant one to do the same thing copy it copyright law
lmfao dont understand, standunder. look it up refers to the law

Unregistered said:

There's at least one other dealer other than me that posts on this site and I don't feel bad for calling people losers when they try to pass their opinions off as truths, purposely mislead people and offer no value whatsoever on here. For the record 1042 customers today and an average sale of $44.27....do the math and see how rich I'm getting. I pay people to do the work, so I have lots of time to debunk faker advocates.

Click to expand...

for such a big store ur only bring in under 50k a day lol my family owns a auto shop green and ross and they bring in about 30 to 40 a day on a slow day busy days hes at 50-60 i seen 500k in one week many times in sales, and remember thats sales brfore all ur losses so lets do some real math i think ur walking awaythe 5k or less a week for yourself DEALER LOSER and why u on here, i think that u want to see if ur store comes up on here and to ensure no problems from head office as u have issues there will be a fine for the dealer, so lets always inform head office of whats going on and always say I would like to file a compliant ect......

Unregistered said:

for such a big store ur only bring in under 50k a day lol my family owns a auto shop green and ross and they bring in about 30 to 40 a day on a slow day busy days hes at 50-60 i seen 500k in one week many times in sales, and remember thats sales brfore all ur losses so lets do some real math i think ur walking awaythe 5k or less a week for yourself DEALER LOSER and why u on here, i think that u want to see if ur store comes up on here and to ensure no problems from head office as u have issues there will be a fine for the dealer, so lets always inform head office of whats going on and always say I would like to file a compliant ect......

Click to expand...

LMAO. Nice run on sentence. Might want to work on an education.

Unregistered said:

for such a big store ur only bring in under 50k a day lol my family owns a auto shop green and ross and they bring in about 30 to 40 a day on a slow day busy days hes at 50-60 i seen 500k in one week many times in sales, and remember thats sales brfore all ur losses so lets do some real math i think ur walking awaythe 5k or less a week for yourself DEALER LOSER and why u on here, i think that u want to see if ur store comes up on here and to ensure no problems from head office as u have issues there will be a fine for the dealer, so lets always inform head office of whats going on and always say I would like to file a compliant ect......

Click to expand...

....and your auto shop family will always own the same auto shop. Check out Canadian Tire, where a 6- 8 million dollar store is for a guy who's been at it for only 3 or 4 years, and is making by your guess a quarter million a year.
He then moves up and up and up to bigger and better stores.

Clearly I see ANOTHER CT hater lie. A fine from head office of there's problems? FAIL - no such thing exists sir. The corporation does not financially penalize owners for complaints or problems or anything along that lines. Making up lies. liar liar, making up shit about canadian tire

Isn't it funny how upset the self-appointed CT Rep has become, when a consumer pointed out that their beloved "Jump Start" sites falls under their own definition of a "Faker Advocate" site? Ha-ha!

It's also interesting that the self-appointed CT rep can't resist this opportunity to post more lies about what consumers wrote, by saying:

"you're a real winner still attempting to poke holes in an amazing charitable organization".

It's important to realize that nothing of the sort has taken place.

No, the consumers have not at all "attempted to poke holes" in any charitable organization - not even Jump Start.

For those of you who haven't been following along, the CT Rep previously defined "Faker advocates on fake advocate sites" as those that are "looking for donations".

Actually, the consumers gave the CT Rep an 'out', by listing various worth-while charties that also have a "Donate" button on their sites. Advocacy sites for cleft palates, literacy, anti-poverty, and affordable housing.

However, the CT Rep chose not to modify their stance, and continued to claim that CT Sucks is a "Faker advocate" site, simply because of the "Donate button" at the top.

We were then treated to month after month of postings repeating the mantra, "Donate Button".

So, if the self-appointed CT Rep wants to set an artibrary standard for "faker advocacy", then so be it.

But let's have no double standards. Fair is fair.

If the Autism Family Alliance were all "faker advocates" back in May, just because of their button, then so is "Jump Start" in June.

Seems pretty fair, if you think about it for 20 seconds.

So, don't forget to check out the Jump Start site (Jumpstart - Homepage)!

There's a "Donate" button, right there at the top!

Donate button at the top of Jump Start! Faker CT Advocates!
Donate button at the top of Jump Start! Faker CT Advocates!
Donate button at the top of Jump Start! Faker CT Advocates!
Donate button at the top of Jump Start! Faker CT Advocates!
Donate button at the top of Jump Start! Faker CT Advocates!
Donate button at the top of Jump Start! Faker CT Advocates!
Donate button at the top of Jump Start! Faker CT Advocates!
Donate button at the top of Jump Start! Faker CT Advocates!

(Soon, I'll be all caught up, LOL!)

Close but no cigar

The claim was actually that the Donate Button goes to a private website owner.... not to a charity

big difference sir, monumental even

Unregistered said:

The claim was actually that the Donate Button goes to a private website owner.... not to a charity

Click to expand...

BZZZZZT

The Faker CT Advocate sure is a sleazy one!

Sleazy, but still wrong, as usual.

Yes, it's a little too late for them to try re-defining things to their liking now.

Were we treated to weeks and weeks on repetitive "not a charity" posts??

No!

We got to enjoy weeks on end of "Donate Button! Right there at the top".

No, they can't just go back and re-write history now.

The boat has long since sailed on any self-serving re-definition, whose only purpose is to suddenly exclude "Jump Start" from the Faker Advocate list.

And the self-appointed Rep has been given many opportunities to recant. And refused them all.

But, maybe we can make some allowances.

Maybe give the self-appointed CT Rep one final chance at forgiveness.

I say, if the CT Rep apologizes once for each "Donate" posting, we let them re-define "faker advocate".

What do the other consumers say?

Of course, someone will have to count the many, many "donate button" posts ...

Unregistered said:

BZZZZZT

The Faker CT Advocate sure is a sleazy one!

Sleazy, but still wrong, as usual.

Yes, it's a little too late for them to try re-defining things to their liking now.

Were we treated to weeks and weeks on repetitive "not a charity" posts??

No!

We got to enjoy weeks on end of "Donate Button! Right there at the top".

No, they can't just go back and re-write history now.

The boat has long since sailed on any self-serving re-definition, whose only purpose is to suddenly exclude "Jump Start" from the Faker Advocate list.

And the self-appointed Rep has been given many opportunities to recant. And refused them all.

But, maybe we can make some allowances.

Maybe give the self-appointed CT Rep one final chance at forgiveness.

I say, if the CT Rep apologizes once for each "Donate" posting, we let them re-define "faker advocate".

What do the other consumers say?

Of course, someone will have to count the many, many "donate button" posts ...

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what the other consumers say.... they vote with their actions and guess what.... on a crappy weather Monday, 500 customers (so far) have chosen to shop at my store. I could hit a pitching wedge to Walmart and atleast two other competitors and i'm maybe a par 4 away from another.... they came here.

That's what the consumers say

It may not be you and it may not be everyone, but much to your personal pain and anguish, millions of Canadians love Canadian Tire. We are happy to welcome and serve those customers to the best of our ability 7 days a week. So despite your many many claims of how bad things are, they really aren't . Millions agree, canadian tire is the place to be.

Liar Liar knows nothing about Canadian Tire - you lose

Unregistered said:

Liar Liar

Click to expand...

Sorry - did any consumers out there catch exactly what are those lies are?

You know, the ones the self-appointed CT rep is referring to in that prior post?

Any idea at all???

I mean, has any specific accusation been named, that we can refute?

Has any proof been offered to back any of that up?

Because all I see are more unsubstantiated "liar" statements.

Yup, it looks like yet another mud-slinging attempt, which is all the self-appointed CT Rep really has.

"All hat and no cattle", as the saying goes.

But there sure is a lot of proof here, day after day, of what a liar the self-appointed CT rep is.

I guess that's because the consumers just keep posting the truth.

Yes, the CT lies just keep coming.

Lately, they've been confining themselves mostly to mis-quoting what consumers have been posting.

Oh, and now they are lying about what THEY wrote, LOL!

As in, 'Yeah, when I wrote "Donate Button" 75 days in a row, what I really meant was "not a charity". See?'

Yeah, I see.

I see what liars the self-appointed CT Rep is.

Unregistered said:

Sorry - did any consumers out there catch exactly what are those lies are?

You know, the ones the self-appointed CT rep is referring to in that prior post?

Any idea at all???

I mean, has any specific accusation been named, that we can refute?

Has any proof been offered to back any of that up?

Because all I see are more unsubstantiated "liar" statements.

Yup, it looks like yet another mud-slinging attempt, which is all the self-appointed CT Rep really has.

"All hat and no cattle", as the saying goes.

But there sure is a lot of proof here, day after day, of what a liar the self-appointed CT rep is.

I guess that's because the consumers just keep posting the truth.

Yes, the CT lies just keep coming.

Lately, they've been confining themselves mostly to mis-quoting what consumers have been posting.

Oh, and now they are lying about what THEY wrote, LOL!

As in, 'Yeah, when I wrote "Donate Button" 75 days in a row, what I really meant was "not a charity". See?'

Yeah, I see.

I see what liars the self-appointed CT Rep is.

Click to expand...

Actually the saying is BIG hat no cattle..... but I wouldn't expect you to get it right. You're the guy with the hat

Unregistered said:

Actually the saying is BIG hat no cattle..... but I wouldn't expect you to get it right. You're the guy with the hat

Click to expand...

all hat and no cattle - Wiktionary

"big hat" is listed as an "alternative" - you are probably thinking of the Randy Newman song.

you seem to think you know a lot - any idea what all these "lies" are that the consumers are supposedly posting?

any evidence to back any of that up?

or will it turn out to be just a bunch of crap that can be disprove with a quick Google search, too?

I have been following these threads for awhile now and have searched google as well, but I can't find a reference to Canadian Tire havkng a illegal return policy. Are there no examples?

Unregistered said:

I have been following these threads for awhile now and have searched google as well, but I can't find a reference to Canadian Tire havkng a illegal return policy. Are there no examples?

Click to expand...

wrong thread

try here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...pair-only-warranty-no-refund-no-exchange.html

keep that in mind for next time

Unregistered said:

wrong thread

try here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...pair-only-warranty-no-refund-no-exchange.html

keep that in mind for next time

Click to expand...

So no examples?

OK, the self-appointed CT Rep is now offering a new explanation, for why they post so many lies here:

Unregistered said:

We're just tired of arguing …

Click to expand...

Huh! It's because they are simply tired!

But not too tired to stop posting lies, LOL!

Gee, do you think if they took a day off from posting lies, the CT Rep would be rested up enough to start posting the truth for a change?

Actually, the full explanation from the self-appointed CT Rep, as to why they "Post So Many Lies Here", was:

Unregistered said:

We're just tired of arguing with a loser.

Click to expand...

Is the CT Rep saying that it's OK to tell lies, as long as they also say that a consumer is "a loser"?

Would they think it's morallly wrong to tell lies if the self-appointed CT Rep had not included "with a loser" in their statement?

Or do they think it's OK to tell any lie, about anyone, as long as the liar is sufficiently "tired"?

I supposed the person they are lying about must also be deemed "a loser" for this escape clause to work.

Yes, it does seem that the CT Rep simply chose to call a consumer "a loser", in order to justify their own dishonesty.

Another example of blaming the victim - demonize consumers to justify the self-appointed CT rep's own bad actions.

Not a new strategy - we see this from CT all the time.

And what about the logic: 'I'm tired, so it's OK for me to post lies'.

How does that form a defense?

It would be far better for the fatigued writer to take a break, and come back when you can tell the truth, don't you think, fellow consumers?

Or how about the self-appointed CT Rep taking some personal responsibility?

It seems to me the CT Rep has utterly failed to prove that the consumers who post here have erred in any way.

But instead of graciously admitting defeat, they resort to flat-out lying. (Oh, and petty insults, too.)

And this is the fault of the consumers???

Maybe the CT Rep could be more persuasive.

Maybe they could form better arguments.

Or provide more compelling facts.

But instead, they just lie.

Sounds more lazy than tired.

Unregistered said:

Actually, the full explanation from the self-appointed CT Rep, as to why they "Post So Many Lies Here", was:



Is the CT Rep saying that it's OK to tell lies, as long as they also say that a consumer is "a loser"?

Would they think it's morallly wrong to tell lies if the self-appointed CT Rep had not included "with a loser" in their statement?

Or do they think it's OK to tell any lie, about anyone, as long as the liar is sufficiently "tired"?

I supposed the person they are lying about must also be deemed "a loser" for this escape clause to work.

Yes, it does seem that the CT Rep simply chose to call a consumer "a loser", in order to justify their own dishonesty.

Another example of blaming the victim - demonize consumers to justify the self-appointed CT rep's own bad actions.

Not a new strategy - we see this from CT all the time.

And what about the logic: 'I'm tired, so it's OK for me to post lies'.

How does that form a defense?

It would be far better for the fatigued writer to take a break, and come back when you can tell the truth, don't you think, fellow consumers?

Or how about the self-appointed CT Rep taking some personal responsibility?

It seems to me the CT Rep has utterly failed to prove that the consumers who post here have erred in any way.

But instead of graciously admitting defeat, they resort to flat-out lying. (Oh, and petty insults, too.)

And this is the fault of the consumers???

Maybe the CT Rep could be more persuasive.

Maybe they could form better arguments.

Or provide more compelling facts.

But instead, they just lie.

Sounds more lazy than tired.

Click to expand...

Sounds like someone's meds aren't kicking in this morning. Try to be relevant rather than ranting.

The CT Liar has been extremely busy, lately.

Apparently this is in retaliation for losing the debate on their 'we need a court case' theory.

Most of the recent lies have already been enumerated in this post:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...rranty-no-refund-no-exchange-49.html#post4377

To summarize, we’ve heard the following CT Lies in the last day or two:

CT Lie #3 – All other retailers have the “same damn” policy (i.e., no refund for defective items) as Canadian Tire.

CT Lie #8 – A customer is not entitled to an exchange on a “Repair Only” product.

CT Lie #9 - A customer is not entitled to a refund for a “Repair Only” or “Exchange Only” product.

CT Lie #12 – A manufacturer’s warranty is the same thing as a return policy.

The explanation for why the above are "lies" can be found earlier in this thread.



I think it’s now time to add a couple of more oft-repeated lies to the list (with the evidence to show that they are lies):

CT Lie #22 – There are only a few people who have the opinion and interpretation that Ontario consumers are entitled to a refund or exchange for a defective item. None of those people are reliable.

Numerous, credible sources state that Ontario laws entitles consumers to a refund, or even just an exchange, if they prefer, for defective items. Some of those sources can be found here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613

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

No sites with complete, up-to-date information have been found that state an Ontario consumer is not entitled to a refund or exchange for defective items.

However, there appear to be additonal laws regarding specific products, such as swimwear, underwear, and electronic media, which may allow a retailer to refuse a refund on specific items.

CT Lie #24 – The CPA describes retailer obligations regarding the ‘express’ warranties provided by manufacturers.

The CPA does not mention the express warranties from the manufacturer for consumer goods (other than motor vehicles).

However, the Act does describe additional, “implied” warranties that apply to the retailer.

See Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A

CT Challenger said:

The CT Liar has been extremely busy, lately.

Apparently this is in retaliation for losing the debate on their 'we need a court case' theory.

Most of the recent lies have already been enumerated in this post:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...rranty-no-refund-no-exchange-49.html#post4377

To summarize, we’ve heard the following CT Lies in the last day or two:

CT Lie #3 – All other retailers have the “same damn” policy (i.e., no refund for defective items) as Canadian Tire.

CT Lie #8 – A customer is not entitled to an exchange on a “Repair Only” product.

CT Lie #9 - A customer is not entitled to a refund for a “Repair Only” or “Exchange Only” product.

CT Lie #12 – A manufacturer’s warranty is the same thing as a return policy.

The explanation for why the above are "lies" can be found earlier in this thread.



I think it’s now time to add a couple of more oft-repeated lies to the list (with the evidence to show that they are lies):

CT Lie #22 – There are only a few people who have the opinion and interpretation that Ontario consumers are entitled to a refund or exchange for a defective item. None of those people are reliable.

Numerous, credible sources state that Ontario laws entitles consumers to a refund, or even just an exchange, if they prefer, for defective items. Some of those sources can be found here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613

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

No sites with complete, up-to-date information have been found that state an Ontario consumer is not entitled to a refund or exchange for defective items.

However, there appear to be additonal laws regarding specific products, such as swimwear, underwear, and electronic media, which may allow a retailer to refuse a refund on specific items.

CT Lie #24 – The CPA describes retailer obligations regarding the ‘express’ warranties provided by manufacturers.

The CPA does not mention the express warranties from the manufacturer for consumer goods (other than motor vehicles).

However, the Act does describe additional, “implied” warranties that apply to the retailer.

See Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A

Click to expand...

So all this time, and still no examples? Tsk, tsk....faker advocate.

Unregistered said:

So all this time, and still no examples? Tsk, tsk....faker advocate.

Click to expand...

Nope, this isn't the right thread, either, CT moron.

Try this one instead, for the examples of "Repair Only" and "Exchange Only" - lots of convincing evidence to be found there:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/general-canadian-tire-complaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html

You might also be interest in the the Jump Start site - according to the CT Rep, it's also a "faker advocate" site - you might be interested in sharing your insights over there, too.