Mystique cream rip off

pulliptears

wary wrote: »

Did I say that you had strange morals? No! What I said was that if you disagree that being "an unethical business model" makes it indefensible then you have strange morals ... you really should practice what you preach and read things properly!!!

Colour me strange then. They have seen a way to get money out of people who don't read things properly and taken it. Fair play to them. Its not illegal and whilst I wouldnt do it myself I can't blame them. Call it a 'stupid tax'.

I was giving you the opportunity to categorically & clearly confirm or deny whether you believe the described business model to be defensible, something that you didn’t actually do.

Yes, its defensible. Its perfectly legal. People need to man up and take responsibility for their own actions. If they don't read T&C's before signing up to something that could potentially cost hundreds its not the company's fault. The T&C's are there for all to read, should they choose to bother to read them.

Incidentally, why do your last two posts assume that I personally have been had by this “scam”? Have I at any stage said anything to indicate this? No I haven’t ... and once again, you really should learn to read things properly!!! Or maybe you’re assuming that because I’m not laying 100% of the blame on the victims in the same way that you are, then I must be one myself?

But the victims are 100% to blame, they are victims of not reading before they sign. Who else's fault is it?
T&C's there? Check.
Bothered to read them? Well no.
Click here if you agree to our T&C's. Tick.

Its not a scam. Its a failure of the consumer to abide by T&C's listed by the company on the site.

wary

pulliptears wrote: »

But the victims are 100% to blame, they are victims of not reading before they sign. Who else's fault is it?
T&C's there? Check.
Bothered to read them? Well no.
Click here if you agree to our T&C's. Tick.

Its not a scam. Its a failure of the consumer to abide by T&C's listed by the company on the site.

So are you gonna categorically confirm whether or not you believe it to be defensible that a company should have an operating model that relies heavily on snaring people who don’t read the small print properly?

The implication of your statement that the victims are 100% to blame would imply that you believe that it is defensible & acceptable, but I’m giving you the chance to clearly and unequivocally state either way.

pulliptears

wary wrote: »

So are you gonna categorically confirm whether or not you believe it to be defensible that a company should have an operating model that relies heavily on snaring people who don’t read the small print properly?

The implication of your statement that the victims are 100% to blame would imply that you believe that it is defensible & acceptable, but I’m giving you the chance to clearly and unequivocally state either way.

Now who isn't reading properly then?

wary

pulliptears wrote: »

Now who isn't reading properly then?

Let's assume I'm thick and I need it spelling out to me more clearly.

So is the answer to my question:
- Yes, it is defensible
- No, it is not defensible

If you believe that you've already answered this in a clear, direct, categoric and unequivocal manner then you can back up this assertion by quoting the relevant extract from a previous post too, but being a bit thick, I'd also appreciate a straight yes/no.

pulliptears

wary wrote: »

Let's assume I'm thick and I need it spelling out to me more clearly.

So is the answer to my question:
- Yes, it is defensible
- No, it is not defensible

If you believe that you've already answered this in a clear, direct, categoric and unequivocal manner then you can back up this assertion by quoting the relevant extract from a previous post too, but being a bit thick, I'd also appreciate a straight yes/no.

Shall I give you a hint? Try post #12

wary

pulliptears wrote: »

Shall I give you a hint? Try post #12

Oh yes, how terrible of me to have missed that! Surely I hence deserve to be had by some despicable scam for committing the cardinal sin!

In response to my statement “In my book, that makes it at very least indefensible and all I can say that if you disagree, then you have strange morals.” ... you said “How on earth does that make me have strange morals? Did I say anywhere that I ran a company with similar ethics? Did I say I agreed with it? Nope.”

Clearly you do consider it to be defensible and so I’ll repeat what I said earlier ... that you really do have strange morals!!!

pulliptears

wary wrote: »

Oh yes, how terrible of me to have missed that! Surely I hence deserve to be had by some despicable scam for committing the cardinal sin!

In response to my statement “In my book, that makes it at very least indefensible and all I can say that if you disagree, then you have strange morals.” ... you said “How on earth does that make me have strange morals? Did I say anywhere that I ran a company with similar ethics? Did I say I agreed with it? Nope.”

Clearly you do consider it to be defensible and so I’ll repeat what I said earlier ... that you really do have strange morals!!!

Why thank you, nicest thing anyone has said to me all day.

wary

pulliptears wrote: »

Why thank you, nicest thing anyone has said to me all day.

Shame you just didn't say that in post #10; you could have saved us both a lot of time

Incidentally, have you posted your general stance to this kind of thing in the Shoppers Rewards & Discounts threads? If not, do make similar statements such as:
- "Unethical maybe but it works doesn't it."
- "They have seen a way to get money out of people who don't read things properly and taken it. Fair play to them."
- "Call it a 'stupid tax'."
- "Yes, its defensible."

It will be interesting to see what kind of response you get!
:rotfl:

pulliptears

wary wrote: »

Shame you just didn't say that in post #10; you could have saved us both a lot of time

Incidentally, have you posted your general stance to this kind of thing in the Shoppers Rewards & Discounts threads? If not, do make similar statements such as:
- "Unethical maybe but it works doesn't it."
- "They have seen a way to get money out of people who don't read things properly and taken it. Fair play to them."
- "Call it a 'stupid tax'."
- "Yes, its defensible."

It will be interesting to see what kind of response you get!
:rotfl:

I couldn't give a rats !!! what kind of response I got. I'm not going to change my views to suit you or anyone else.
At the end of the day I read what I'm signing up to in depth and have never found myself in this situation because of it. If others don't read what they are signing up to then ultimately the blame lies with themselves.

wary

pulliptears wrote: »

At the end of the day I read what I'm signing up to in depth and have never found myself in this situation because of it. If others don't read what they are signing up to then ultimately the blame lies with themselves.

Most scams can be avoided if people exercise due diligence, and I agree that they should take part of the blame for not doing so. Where we disagree is that you think they should take 100% of the blame whereas I think the perpetrator should take a significant amount of it, and this includes when it's a case of intentionally snaring the unwitting but staying on the right side of the law.