Grabbit While You Can

Jennifer_Jane

Lisyloo - you said this: "No difference in my mind between putting on a hoodie to steal something and using a false email address".

I agree with Money maker's comment on this being the "Fruitcake quote of the week".

Re your post above about doors being left open, I have previously given my view on that, in which I said that my back door is my private property, a website is an open public offer to shop and can be closed down immediately if a mistake is found. There is no stealing - just an offer to purchase which can be rejected if the retailer prefers. There are plenty of good deals - Debenhams at 70% off, but the comparison has been with the looters. Well, they smashed open Debenhams, stole the goods - not bought them at an offered price, but stole them. They trashed the stock so that the rest is no longer saleable and left a huge mess. Other places were razed to the ground including a business which had been in one family for 5 generations.

You ask what the level of morality is for people who have used the glitches (and I reiterate that I never have, although anneliza says she has). You asked if they would pretend to help a wounded boy and then steal out of his backpack?

I ask you.... really, lisyloo, really?

I am truly appalled at your comparison.

Anneliza - your thread is all about comparing glitchers with looters - and you did say they were 'Just looting' - so you cannot defend a misunderstanding of your words, they were very clear. If you wish to take them back, then fine, but you're not, you are defending them. That, I do not understand.

anneliza

I am guilty of not using clear language of course I did not mean to imply they were JUST looting. I was trying (not very cleverly) to differentiate between those people who went out to destroy property and set fires and those people who heard about "freestuff" and rushed out to take advantage of the situation.

I attempted in my first post to ask if there was any difference between the people who looted stuff because the circumstances were such that they could and the people who discover a website fault that mistakenly is giving away more that was intended and take advantage of that situation.

It was a point for discussion and I did not wish to imply that anyone on here equaled the rioters in any way.

I think the problem is that we write an opinion on here and do not always think how it might be misinterpreted.

I am just going to hide behind the couch. In future I will try not to post anything contentious!
anneliza

margin

anneliza wrote: »

I think the problem is that we write an opinion on here and do not always think how it might be misinterpreted.

I am just going to hide behind the couch. In future I will try not to post anything contentious!
anneliza

Anneliza - you said nothing that was not completely reasonable. Rightly or wrongly, the people that inhabit the 'Grabbit While You Can' board have a vested interest in the moral rectitude of grabbing bargains (through glitches or whatever.) Such people as these cannot allow your point any validity at all without undermining their own intellectual positions. Faced with such a threat, they must condemn not only your point of view, but even you as a person. I don't think you should self-censor. The virulence with which your point was addressed would seem to indicate that you had hit some sort of nail on the head!

lisyloo

Try putting all of your morals to use and get out on the streets of London, Birmingham etc and clean-up

Well I'm not involved in cleanups, but I will be doing voluntary work for the 3rd time this week tonight.
I don't want a medal (in fact I don't like mentioning it) just pointing out that I do try put it into practice as you rightly suggest.

or move on from the grabbits and ignore

I will take up the ones that I'm happy with thank you.
As I've said from the start I'm not totally agasint grabbits just the abuse.

or even better you could make notes of all the grabbits and feel it's your moral duty to contact each company and inform them of their glitch/errors online because YOU feel they are not protecting themselves.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've already made my mind up for myself.
Yes, I will report (both to MSE and the companies) where I see abuse.
I guess that's what people who want to put their morals into practice should do.
So we do at least agree that you should practice what you preach which is what I try to do.

lisyloo

Lisyloo - you said this: "No difference in my mind between putting on a hoodie to steal something and using a false email address".
I agree with Money maker's comment on this being the "Fruitcake quote of the week".

So you don't see a difference between stealing on-line and in person?
Or are we talking at cross purposes?

You asked if they would pretend to help a wounded boy and then steal out of his backpack?

Yes, because some people have given me the impression that they belive if something is unprotected then it's fair game and the fault of the person who left it' vulnerable.
I don't see a distinction between private, public, on-line, in-person etc.
I see it morally as the same.
Or perhaps you can clarify for me.
Are you saying it's ok to steal (when you know you aren't entitled to something) from a companies that left the "doors open" in the virtual world, but it's not OK on your private property?
Perhaps you can explain to me exactly where the dividing line is.

I am truly appalled at your comparison.

You are entitled to your views.
I am truly amazed how some people think it's different to steal on-line but not in person and can't see it's the same thing.

Just to clarify, I am not talking about genuine discount offers at debenhams which are genuinely offered.
I'm talking about offers where the people taking them know full well they are not entitled e.g. ONE per customer.

I love genuine grabbits and have benefitted from many.

lisyloo

Let me give you another example (just come to mind).
This is a true story.
I was at Florence ariport waiting for a hire car company to pick us up.
Hire car cmopany arrives to pick up two couples to take them to the downtown office.
My husband carefully places our luggage in the vehicle (he is a keen amateur photographer and would not let anyone else chuck around his bags).
The other couple are chatting and "let" a man dressed in a blue suit (like all the Italian hire car companies) take their bags and take it down the side of the van. They think he's putting it in the front our van. He's a con man and actually puts it in his own adjacent van and drives off with their passports, money and everything.

Now they allowed him to do it. He may have even said "May I take your bags" and they invited him to do so.

He knew what he was doing was wrong and theft.
So now we have a case where there was an invitation and agreement to take the bags.
Does that make it OK?

Please can someone explain the distinction to me.

For the sake of argument let's say there was an invitation in this case and agreement to proceed.
What's the difference?
Is it ok to steal off companies but not private individuals?
It's not the agreement/invitation because in this case that was in place albeit one party was being deceived.

jetty

lisyloo wrote: »

So you don't see a difference between stealing on-line and in person?
Or are we talking at cross purposes?

.

The email address thing is more like fraud imo

jetty

lisyloo wrote: »

Let me give you another example (just come to mind).
This is a true story.
I was at Florence ariport waiting for a hire car company to pick us up.
Hire car cmopany arrives to pick up two couples to take them to the downtown office.
My husband carefully places our luggage in the vehicle (he is a keen amateur photographer and would not let anyone else chuck around his bags).
The other couple are chatting and "let" a man dressed in a blue suit (like all the Italian hire car companies) take their bags and take it down the side of the van. They think he's putting it in the front our van. He's a con man and actually puts it in his own adjacent van and drives off with their passports, money and everything.

Now they allowed him to do it. He may have even said "May I take your bags" and they invited him to do so.

He knew what he was doing was wrong and theft.
So now we have a case where there was an invitation and agreement to take the bags.
Does that make it OK?

Please can someone explain the distinction to me.

For the sake of argument let's say there was an invitation in this case and agreement to proceed.
What's the difference?
Is it ok to steal off companies but not private individuals?
It's not the agreement/invitation because in this case that was in place albeit one party was being deceived.

I think we can all agree that stealing is wrong, no matter how it happens and i think it's sad in this day and age that people can't leave their windows open or even trust someone to put a bag in a car.

antrobus

lisyloo wrote: »

No difference in my mind between putting on a hoodie to steal something and using a false email address.

How can an email address be 'false'? It either exists or it doesn't.

coolcait

Money_maker wrote: »

.... I have used false email addresses (tesco dtd so I could submit more than 10 receipts in a month). Have no idea what the groupon discussion is about. But I would not put on a hoodie and steal something.

....

On a technical point.

What is the difference between using false email addresses to hide your real identity (so you can get something you're not entitled to) and putting on a hoodie to hide your real identity (so you can get something you're not entitled to)?