Re: WalMart customer service dept.

[Guest guest]

I'm glad you won, but I'd rather you and everyone else stay the heck

out of Walmart altogether.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Wow. You sure did win.

That's a great story.

I have been able to pull off doubtful returns but

nothing like what you did--and from a heartless, mega

company.

I will remember your incident for a future event.

~~Bonnie

> at WalMarts, ...

> I took it back this afternoon, but I had no receipt,

> ... sorry, they

> couldn't help

> me. So I said, " How 'bout if I stand out front and

> show people

> how cheaply this thing is made?

Talk about instantly changing their tune!

> The Manager...

> She gave me a gift card for $17.98,

> I won.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> I'm glad you won, but I'd rather you and everyone else stay the heck

> out of Walmart altogether.

Why? Walmart is a good corporate citizen. They donate lots to local

charities. Walmart has some of the best values of any retail stores.

They have generous return and exchange policies. In short it would be

stupid and financially irresponsible not to shop there.

Red

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>

> Not long ago, 2 - 3 - 4 months ago, I bought a new toilet seat

> at WalMarts, made of oak and brass.

> I took it back this afternoon, but I had no receipt, of course.

> Anyway, I won.

So to you if you can get what you want by bullying and or blackmail you

win????????????? Maybe you should have looked at it a little closer when

or before you bought it.

Remember what it felt like when you got bullied, did you feel like the

other guy won? Did it feel good?

Red

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

> > I'm glad you won, but I'd rather you and everyone else stay the heck

> > out of Walmart altogether.

and Red responded:

>Why? Walmart is a good corporate citizen. They donate lots to local

>charities. Walmart has some of the best values of any retail stores.

>They have generous return and exchange policies. In short it would be

>stupid and financially irresponsible not to shop there.

I see that in this case you prefer to believe what the corporation

propaganda wants you to believe. For an alternate view, see

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/205768_focus02.html

and

http://walmart.purpleocean.org/

Jane

[Guest guest]

redhottech wrote:

> Clay wrote:

> > Not long ago, 2 - 3 - 4 months ago, I bought a new toilet

> > seat at WalMarts, made of oak and brass.

> > I took it back this afternoon, but I had no receipt, of

> > course. Anyway, I won.

> So to you if you can get what you want by bullying and or

> blackmail you win?????????????

Red, why do you always seem to have your head up your ass,

looking at things the wrong way? You seem to like to argue,

but then take the most stupid positions. ME - bullying the

largest retail corporation in the world?

> Maybe you should have looked at it a little closer when or

> before you bought it.

Don't take my word for it, before you say another thing, I

demand that you GO TO WALMARTS, look at oak toilet seats, and

see how they're packaged. You'll see clear plastic in front,

and dark gray cardboard in back, covering the hardware that is

so cheaply made.

> Remember what it felt like when you got bullied, did you feel

> like the other guy won? Did it feel good?

So why do you come here trying to pick fights? Calling Jane

stupid was the dumbest thing you could have done, Mister.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> Red, why do you always seem to have your head up your ass,

> looking at things the wrong way? You seem to like to argue,

> but then take the most stupid positions. ME - bullying the

> largest retail corporation in the world?

> Don't take my word for it, before you say another thing, I

> demand that you GO TO WALMARTS, look at oak toilet seats, and

> see how they're packaged. You'll see clear plastic in front,

> and dark gray cardboard in back, covering the hardware that is

> so cheaply made.

> So why do you come here trying to pick fights? Calling Jane

> stupid was the dumbest thing you could have done, Mister.

I think it's you who has his head up his ass. Why is it that all

opinions are expected to be one sided only? I am not trying to pick a

fight. I just don't like to see lopsided opinions especially if they are

wrong. I did not call Jane stupid. I simply did not agree with her and

still don't. The first link she posted had far more positive about

Walmart than negative. The second was simply a biased bunch of people

choosing to pick a fight simply because Walmart is big.

Well I'm probably not going back to Walmart for another week or two as I

did my shopping there last night. There is a simple solution to

inadvertently buying cheap flimsy products. When you get it home and

unpackaged, look at it. If it looks like it might not stand up to your

expectations take it back right away along with the receipt or at least

keep the receipt in case it proves faulty. That way you will not have to

use bully tactics to get your money back. Walmart has one of the best

return policies of any stores which of course is another reason I buy

there.

Red

[Guest guest]

I can't stand WalMart for other reasons - it's the most

overload-inducing place I know of. Every time I go in, I walk out with

a headache.

And it seems like some of the dumbest people on earth work and shop at

the WalMart near where I used to live.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:27:38 -0000, Clay

wrote:

>

> redhottech wrote:

>

> > Clay wrote:

>

> > > Not long ago, 2 - 3 - 4 months ago, I bought a new toilet

> > > seat at WalMarts, made of oak and brass.

> > > I took it back this afternoon, but I had no receipt, of

> > > course. Anyway, I won.

>

> > So to you if you can get what you want by bullying and or

> > blackmail you win?????????????

>

> Red, why do you always seem to have your head up your ass,

> looking at things the wrong way? You seem to like to argue,

> but then take the most stupid positions. ME - bullying the

> largest retail corporation in the world?

>

> > Maybe you should have looked at it a little closer when or

> > before you bought it.

>

> Don't take my word for it, before you say another thing, I

> demand that you GO TO WALMARTS, look at oak toilet seats, and

> see how they're packaged. You'll see clear plastic in front,

> and dark gray cardboard in back, covering the hardware that is

> so cheaply made.

>

> > Remember what it felt like when you got bullied, did you feel

> > like the other guy won? Did it feel good?

>

> So why do you come here trying to pick fights? Calling Jane

> stupid was the dumbest thing you could have done, Mister.

>

> Clay

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> So to you if you can get what you want by bullying and or blackmail you

> win????????????? Maybe you should have looked at it a little closer when

> or before you bought it.

>

> Remember what it felt like when you got bullied, did you feel like the

> other guy won? Did it feel good?

>

> Red

>

I think that if someone is obviously and most definately in the right,

bullying the person who is in the wrong is justified.

--

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>So why do you come here trying to pick fights? Calling Jane

>stupid was the dumbest thing you could have done, Mister.

That's interesting. When I read that part of your message, Clay, I

thought, " Red called me stupid? " So I went back to look. What Red

actually wrote was:

>Why? Walmart is a good corporate citizen. They donate lots to local

>charities. Walmart has some of the best values of any retail stores.

>They have generous return and exchange policies. In short it would be

>stupid and financially irresponsible not to shop there.

When I read that, it didn't occur to me to take it as Red calling me

stupid. I assumed Red was giving an opinion about an ad hoc kind of

group (not a " real " group in most senses of the word " group, " but a

theoretical group posited by logical inference: There are people who

shop at WalMart; there are people who do not shop at WalMart; the

people in the second category can be referred to as a " group " even

though they may have nothing at all in common other than not shopping

at WalMart.

I don't take offense when comments are made about logical/theoretical

groups of that sort, even if I happen to be part of the category the

group is imagined to encompass. But I find it interesting that you,

Clay, saw me as " dissed " by my membership in that group (and thanks

for standing up for me), because the same thing (but without

involving me) happened recently on another list and I didn't really

understand it. Someone posted an article with a subject line about

" parents drugging their kids, " and a parent in the list was very

upset about being " dissed " for her parenting choices (whereas I had

not see the post of its subject line as referring to any real person

in particular).

Interesting.

Of course I disagree strongly with Red on this topic. I think it is

short-sighted and, in the long term, self-defeating for non-rich

people to shop at WalMart. That is my opinion, based on what I have

learned about the topic, and I state my opinion with no specific

reference to Red or to any other individual who chooses to make what

I consider a bad choice.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

a

> theoretical group posited by logical inference: There are people who

> shop at WalMart; there are people who do not shop at WalMart; the

> people in the second category can be referred to as a " group " even

> though they may have nothing at all in common other than not shopping

> at WalMart.

>

> I don't take offense when comments are made about logical/theoretical

> groups of that sort, even if I happen to be part of the category the

> group is imagined to encompass. But I find it interesting that you,

> Clay, saw me as " dissed " by my membership in that group

Thank You Jane. You have given me great insight into something I have

see happen on numerous occasions and could never understand the problem.

On the Walmart issue I really have no problem that you disagree with me.

Where I get upset is when someone assumes that everyone should just

naturally agree with them.

I am in support of any store, mega or otherwise, that can bring me the

same products at a lesser price. Sure Walmart has some cheap products,

so do most other stores I shop at. I would be willing to bet that the

same toilet seat is available at Home Depot, Lowes, and or K-Mart and at

many other stores. I am not aware that Walmart has any cheaper products

specifically manufactured for them. They simply sell what's already on

the market, just at a better price. I don't believe in unions, given a

choice I would always forgo a union product or service if non union

alternative is available.

Red

[Guest guest]

Holthaus wrote:

>

> I think that if someone is obviously and most definately in the right,

> bullying the person who is in the wrong is justified.

I certainly do not agree with that. However this was not about being in

the right. Beyond any of a shadow of a doubt in this case Walmart had

done nothing wrong. Clay was most definitely not in the right. The

bought a product, he took it home and used it a while. He threw the

receipt away. He had ample opportunity to return it. He could have done

so as soon as he unwrapped it and by his claim obviously saw that it was

not quality. He could have retained the receipt in case it failed. He

simply did not use due diligence and they were under no obligation to

return his money.

Red

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

>>Beyond any of a shadow of a doubt in this case Walmart had done nothing

>>wrong. Clay was most definitely not in the right.<<

I've often wondered why some people feel the need to defend the

powers-that-be against the little guy. I assume you have no financial

interest in Walmart. Walmart really doesn't need your defense. Do you feel

more powerful yourself identifying with Walmart? Do you feel safer -- that

the world is more fair -- when you think everyone gets what they deserve? I

don't understand.

- Debra

[Guest guest]

C B Bonham wrote:

> Wow. You sure did win. That's a great story. I have been able to pull

> off doubtful returns but nothing like what you did--and from a

> heartless, mega company.

A heartless, mega company [sic] athat has one of the best return

policies of any store chain anywhere. They will routinely take things

back without a receipt-- what Clay did was only unusual in that they

resisted at first. My mother shops almost exclusively at Wal-Mart for

that reason-- if anything goes wrong, they stand behind what they sell.

Only a " heartless, mega " company could afford to be as good on returns

as Wal-Mart. Go buy a stereo from Wal-Mart, one from Circuit City, and

one from Best Buy. Take them all back for a refund and see what

happens-- Wal-Mart is the only one that will not take 15% of your money

in the form of a restocking fee.

Wal-Mart also donates a lot of money to charities, most of which are in

the same area in which there is a store. Heartless indeed.

Wal-Mart helps the poor, by allowing them to buy more things for their

limited dollars than they otherwise would be able to do. This is good

for the economy as well, and the competition from Wal-Mart forces

competitors (like Best Buy and Circuit City) to reduce costs, broaden

their product lineup, or do other things to compete-- all of which are

good for consumers.

Wal-Mart is often the only place to buy the things I need at the hour I

need, which often has me going out for supplies late at night. No one

else can be bothered to take my money at 3 am.

Wal-Mart is an assault on the senses, but other than that, the place is

worth its weight in gold, and I will not live in a community that is not

proximate to a Wal-Mart. When I was considering moving to a rural city

about an hour north of here, the first question I had was whether they

had a Wal-Mart. Not having one would be a deal-breaker.

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> Jane Meyerding wrote:

> > I'm glad you won, but I'd rather you and everyone else stay the

> > heck out of Walmart altogether.

>

> Why? Walmart is a good corporate citizen. They donate lots to local

> charities. Walmart has some of the best values of any retail stores.

> They have generous return and exchange policies. In short it would

> be stupid and financially irresponsible not to shop there.

What? Red and agreeing on something? (I wouldn't say someone

was stupid for not shopping there, but other than the word used, I agree).

[Guest guest]

> Red wrote:

> >>Beyond any of a shadow of a doubt in this case Walmart had done nothing

> >>wrong. Clay was most definitely not in the right.<<

>

> I've often wondered why some people feel the need to defend the

> powers-that-be against the little guy. I assume you have no financial

> interest in Walmart. Walmart really doesn't need your defense. Do you feel

> more powerful yourself identifying with Walmart? Do you feel safer -- that

> the world is more fair -- when you think everyone gets what they deserve? I

> don't understand.

It is possible that Red simply feels that Wal-mart wasn't in the wrong and

it is unjust to accuse an organization of being wrong when they are not.

It may have nothing to do with who the little and big guys are. In fact,

it may be a lack of bias in favor of the the little guy, not a bias in

favor of large mega-corporations!

It's also possible for an evil corporation to not be wrong with everything

they do.

I personally try not to show favoritism to *either* the big or the little

guy. I don't always succeed, but someone doing so shouldn't be criticized

for not being biased! (I'm not saying that Red is or isn't biased in this

area)

(I'm not saying whether Clay is right or not, please don't read into

that).

--

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> and Red responded:

> > Why? Walmart is a good corporate citizen. They donate lots to local

> > charities. Walmart has some of the best values of any retail

> > stores. They have generous return and exchange policies. In short

> > it would be stupid and financially irresponsible not to shop there.

> >

>

> I see that in this case you prefer to believe what the corporation

> propaganda wants you to believe. For an alternate view, see

> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/205768_focus02.html and

> http://walmart.purpleocean.org/

I can't find anything wrong with Wal-Mart in either of those sources.

As for propaganda-- those citations you have certainly qualify as that.

I find it very odd that a retailer that helps the poor by giving them

more for their dollar, and locates in poor areas so they don't have far

to go, is a _bad_ thing. I am poor; I think Wal-Mart is wonderful

because they cater to people like me.

As for paying low wages-- if you don't want to work for what they offer,

don't take the job. It's really that simple. They offer you a job for

a certain amount, and you can decide whether to take it or not. They

don't make you work for a wage you do not like. What they do is offer

large numbers of jobs to people in poor neighborhoods... while some

people complain that $8.00 an hour is too little (which, btw, is more

than I have made in an hour during my entire life, and I have worked for

a lot of my life), it is certainly better than nothing at all, which is

the other choice that a lot of people have. Poor neighborhoods tend to

have a surplus of unskilled labor, and a shortage of jobs. Wal-Mart

provides work... maybe not the kind of work that people would want to

live on forever, but it is a job that they can get, right now, until

they find something more to their liking.

If Wal-Mart can get as many employees as it needs for $8 an hour, it

would be stupid to pay more. The price at which they can _just_ get

enough quality people in the door to match attrition _is_ the value of

their jobs, and they should not pay a cent more. That's capitalism.

Money is earned at a job; it is paid based on the market value of the

work, not awarded on the basis of need.

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>

> redhottech wrote:

>

> > Clay wrote:

>

> >> Not long ago, 2 - 3 - 4 months ago, I bought a new toilet seat at

> >> WalMarts, made of oak and brass. I took it back this afternoon,

> >> but I had no receipt, of course. Anyway, I won.

>

> > So to you if you can get what you want by bullying and or blackmail

> > you win?????????????

>

> Red, why do you always seem to have your head up your ass, looking at

> things the wrong way? You seem to like to argue, but then take the

> most stupid positions. ME - bullying the largest retail corporation

> in the world?

No, you bullying a single employee working for the largest retail

corporation in the world.

Personal insults are not necessary here.

> So why do you come here trying to pick fights? Calling Jane stupid

> was the dumbest thing you could have done, Mister.

No... there are a lot of dumber things. Throwing a hand grenade at a

cop might be a little dumber than that. I think he was speaking in the

generic when he said that people who do not shop at Wal-Mart were doing

a stupid thing.

[Guest guest]

Debra Bettis wrote:

> I've often wondered why some people feel the need to defend the

> powers-that-be against the little guy. Do you feel

> more powerful yourself identifying with Walmart? Do you feel safer -- that

> the world is more fair -- when you think everyone gets what they deserve? I

> don't understand.

It's not about defending Walmart against the little guy. It just really

pisses me off when people attack corporations without cause. Why do

people feel justified in attacking Walmart just because they are big?

Here's a question for Clay, with the animosity you obviously feel

towards Walmart, why do you shop there.

When people complain about Walmart I always suggest that the consumers

are the best judge. If people don't want Walmart in their neighborhood

vote against it by not shopping there. Obviously based on their success

the majority of people want them around. Why should the few have a right

to deny the majority what they want? I want Walmart in my neighborhood

because they have the best prices on the same products.

Just for health reasons along it makes no sense that any company would

take back a used toilet seat. You can bet your bottom dollar that the

only place it went after Clay got is refund was into the garbage. This

makes the next purchase at Walmart more expensive because someone has to

pay for that toilet seat.

Red

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> I certainly do not agree with that. However this was not about being

> in the right. Beyond any of a shadow of a doubt in this case Walmart

> had done nothing wrong. Clay was most definitely not in the right.

> The bought a product, he took it home and used it a while. He threw

> the receipt away. He had ample opportunity to return it. He could

> have done so as soon as he unwrapped it and by his claim obviously

> saw that it was not quality. He could have retained the receipt in

> case it failed. He simply did not use due diligence and they were

> under no obligation to return his money.

Now I disagree with you there. Intrinsic to any sale is an implied

warranty of merchantability-- that is, that the product is of adequate

quality to be sold. The product Clay purchased proved to be of poor

quality at the moment that it broke-- its poor quality was not evident

before that, and Clay was under no special obligation to validate that

the item was merchantable. He was well within his rights to take it

back... and if he had his receipt, I am reasonably confident that they

would have cheerfully refunded his money.

I would not have badgered anyone with belligerence or threats to picket

outside. I would simply continue to ask for the next higher-up, firmly

but not harshly, until I got satisfaction. Wal-Mart takes customer

satisfaction seriously; I recall when my boss at the newspaper delivery

place in California had something bad happen as a result of Wal-Mart's

oil change on his vehicle. He called the headquarters in Bentonville,

AR, and they ordered the store to make things right. When he got there,

they were all waiting for " Mr. Sullivan, " and they took care of

everything.

I forget what had happened (this was probably ten years ago), but I do

recall thinking that any other auto service place would not have tried

so hard to please him.

Part of what makes Wal-Mart great is that they stand behind their

products. Yes, some of their items are cheap crapola, like that toilet

seat-- but you need not fear buying them, because if you become unhappy

with your purchase later, Wal-Mart will take care of you (just save your

receipt-- it is only fair to let Wal-Mart know you got the item from

them and not someone else).

Low prices, the best return policy in the industry, a boost to the local

economy... what more could you want?

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> Now I disagree with you there. Intrinsic to any sale is an implied

> warranty of merchantability-- that is, that the product is of adequate

> quality to be sold. The product Clay purchased proved to be of poor

> quality at the moment that it broke-- its poor quality was not evident

> before that, and Clay was under no special obligation to validate that

> the item was merchantable. He was well within his rights to take it

Well I based my comments on the fact that Clay took great pains to tell

us that he could see that it was poor quality. At the price he appears

to have paid it is a wonder that there was any oak in it at all. It

lasted for a number of months proving that it was of adequate quality to

be sold at such a low price. There is an old saying about the price of

quality. Even Walmart can't supply top quality products at the price of

junk. Clay got what he paid for and he did not keep the receipt.

Red

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> No, you bullying a single employee working for the largest

> retail corporation in the world.

There really wasn't any " bullying " to it. Me saying " How 'bout

if I go stand outside and show people how cheaply this thing is

made? " just can't constitute bullying, as I understand it. I

left out that at one point, the first person I spoke to said,

" We just work here, y'know " , and I quickly said, " Oh no, I'm not

mad at you. I know You didn't decide how thick to make the hard-

ware. " There was no animosity in the conversation, on either side.

> Personal insults are not necessary here.

Right, and you know I'm not big on them. I've commented on Red's

continual rude and arrogant tone before, his seeming to think that

he knows everything, and everyone else is wrong. I was going to

check the archives this afternoon, but ran out of time.

> > So why do you come here trying to pick fights? Calling Jan

> > stupid was the dumbest thing you could have done, Mister.

> No... there are a lot of dumber things. Throwing a hand grenade

> at a cop might be a little dumber than that. I think he was

> speaking in the generic when he said that people who do not shop

> at Wal-Mart were doing a stupid thing.

Yes, I should have said " implying " that she was stupid was dumb.

I do think that Red tries to pick fights, intentionally taking

an indefensible position, and then sticking to it to be annoying,

rather like a troll. What did he say to you, something like

" that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. "

It seemed to me that he was bullying her, as he has in other posts,

and I'm not one to sit on the sidelines and say nothing.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> There really wasn't any " bullying " to it. Me saying " How 'bout if I

> go stand outside and show people how cheaply this thing is made? "

> just can't constitute bullying, as I understand it.

It was certainly belligerent, in my opinion, and probably not necessary,

given how good Wal-Mart is on returns.

> Right, and you know I'm not big on them. I've commented on Red's

> continual rude and arrogant tone before, his seeming to think that he

> knows everything, and everyone else is wrong. I was going to check

> the archives this afternoon, but ran out of time.

Yes, I have had the same perception, and I was tempted to say so during

my last debate with him.

> Yes, I should have said " implying " that she was stupid was dumb.

I did not get that, even after you said so, and neither did Jane. For

one thing, he implied that her action was dumb-- he said " not shopping

at Wal-Mart is stupid, " not " people who do not shop at Wal-Mart are

stupid. " He certainly is entitled to that opinion.

> I do

> think that Red tries to pick fights, intentionally taking an

> indefensible position, and then sticking to it to be annoying, rather

> like a troll. What did he say to you, something like " that's my

> story, and I'm sticking to it. "

Yes, he threw out that red herring, when it was quite clear that I was

writing about murder statistics from the beginning... and of course I

was going to stick with my story, because he tried to inflate the

statistics times ten, then times five, with statistics that would only

be true if talking about the whole of gun deaths-- which are mostly

suicides, and no rational person could claim that thirty-something

thousand suicidal people would simply decide never to try suicide if

there were no guns handy.

> It seemed to me that he was bullying her, as he has in other posts,

> and I'm not one to sit on the sidelines and say nothing.

If you must stand up against what you see as abusive behavior, please

don't do it with references to the transgressors' head being up his ass.

[Guest guest]

It was a faulty product. He deserved a refund.

redhottech@... wrote:

>

> Holthaus wrote:

> >

> > I think that if someone is obviously and most definately in the right,

> > bullying the person who is in the wrong is justified.

>

> I certainly do not agree with that. However this was not about being in

> the right. Beyond any of a shadow of a doubt in this case Walmart had

> done nothing wrong. Clay was most definitely not in the right. The

> bought a product, he took it home and used it a while. He threw the

> receipt away. He had ample opportunity to return it. He could have done

> so as soon as he unwrapped it and by his claim obviously saw that it was

> not quality. He could have retained the receipt in case it failed. He

> simply did not use due diligence and they were under no obligation to

> return his money.

>

> Red

>

>

>

>

> *

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

> It's not about defending Walmart against the little guy. It

> just really pisses me off when people attack corporations with-

> out cause. Why do people feel justified in attacking Walmart

> just because they are big? Here's a question for Clay, with

> the animosity you obviously feel towards Walmart, why do you

> shop there.

It should be obvious that *I* don't have any animosity towards

WalMarts. I go there maybe once a month, maybe buy clothes or

socks, usually get some Sam's peanut butter cups, once I got a

microwave oven for only about $30.00. No problems with that.

I turned around and spent the $18.00 I got back on coffee and

candy, I'll go back there sometime.

> When people complain about Walmart I always suggest that

> the consumers are the best judge. If people don't want

> Walmart in their neighborhood vote against it by not shop-

> ping there. Obviously based on their success the majority

> of people want them around. Why should the few have a right

> to deny the majority what they want? I want Walmart in my

> neighborhood because they have the best prices on the same

> products.

There are some good points to be made against WalMarts. They

have been found guilty of discriminating against women and

minorities who work for them, making it difficult for them to

get promotions. They DO drive out other businesses from areas,

and there are some communities who have successfully fought off

their building in those areas. And there's the fact that they

*used* to brag about their merchandise being American-made, but

for the last 10 years or so, 70% of their stuff is from China.

That's the thing that most triggers my guilt when I shop there,

knowing they use such cheap labor, but I don't know where to

find American or Canadian made clothing.

> Just for health reasons along it makes no sense that any company

> would take back a used toilet seat.

Well, of course they're not going to sell it again. They don't

resell most stuff that comes back either. Damaged goods. Was

that even worth saying?

> You can bet your bottom dollar that the only place it went after

> Clay got is refund was into the garbage. This makes the next

> purchase at Walmart more expensive because someone has to pay for

> that toilet seat.

Not my problem, nor my fault. The wood looked nice, too, but

someone else decided to put such cheap, narrow hardware on the

thing. If it were even real brass, it would have lasted longer,

but I think it was pot metal made to look like brass. The lady,

the Manager of the store, did not *have* to give me anything.

That toilet seat could have lasted 10 years if it had sturdier

hardware on it. When she saw just how puny it was, she decided

to give me a store credit card for that amount, just because it

was the *right* thing to do, not because I had " bullied " her.

(And there really wasn't any bullying, that was just you jumping

to conclusions.)

Clay