Bookshops could charge for browsing

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Ah, I see the source of your confusion and I think I can help.

I'm not confused. I see your passive/aggressive evasions quite clearly.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I (mistakenly it seems) thought our discussion was over.

Since you never really participated in it, it never really began.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

You expressed your opinion, I expressed mine, you then suggested I was too stupid to follow your points, at which point I posted a (fairly hilarious, IMHO) picture of Emperor Palpatine. I guess I just assumed that we'd have to agree to disagree about the issue,

And, as further evidence that you're not bothering to read what you're replying to, I will point out - again, for at least the third or fourth time in direct response to you - that we do not actually disagree. I've said several times, that I do not consider the windowshopping behavior in question to be unethical, and that I speak from 25+ years of experience in retail. You keep pretending that I've claimed otherwise, and I keep pointing out that we actually agree.

So let me explain, again, and I'll try to use small words this time:

What we disagree (that's three syllables, but you've used the word, so perhaps you can check with an adult to make sure it means what you think it means) on is not whether or not windowshopping is unethical (or immoral, as the original statement called it), but whether or not it is reasonable for anyone, ever, under any circumstances, to find it so. Your claim was that no, it's not ever, under any circumstances in any way reasonable for anyone to ever consider it unethical (I believe you used the word "bonkers", implying, in your passive/aggressive way, since you're not allowed to resort to actual namecalling, that anyone who disagrees with you must be insane). Since it was a broad, sweeping, univerally true claim, a single counterexample disproves it. I've provided a pretty common counterexample (one that doesn't particularly apply to book stores, true, but still very common in the retail world) in which, agree or not, the position is not unreasonable. You have refused to address that specific example, or even acknowlege it's been offered. You've tried to change the subject, you've argued with things I've never said (nor has anyone else), you've called me evil (in your passive/agressive, please don't ban me for namecalling) way, and now you pretend it was suppoed to be hilarious in a "I didn't mean to offend anyone" way.

In short, you have yet to actually discuss, in any way whatsoever, the point I've made.

And I predict you never, ever will.

(Further attempt to distract and change the subject with more passive/aggressive nattering about spelling snipped as irrelevant to the issue at hand - whether or not it is ever, under any circumstances, to consider windowshopping unethical.)

You may now reply about something completely different.

[Ninjalawyer]

Taustin, let's just agree to disagree (or agree to agree, or to both agree and disagree if you prefer) on this and all future agreements/disagreements between us.

My last post was meant to be facetious, but I'll be direct with this one: I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you; it's gotten more than tedious and I'm honestly starting to think that your continuous calling into question of my intelligence is meant to be less than friendly (I'm still willing to look past it though, on account of our friendship).

Edit

As suggested by taustin, I checked his post with several adults who, in addition to verifying what the word "disagree" meant, also said that his post was less than friendly.

Taustin, please be advised that I am strongly considering striking your name off my birthday list.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Taustin, let's just agree to disagree (or agree to agree, or to both agree and disagree if you prefer) on this and all future agreements/disagreements between us.

Can you even put in to words what you believe we disagree on? Seriously.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

My last post was meant to be facetious,

Passive/aggressive insults are usually claimed to be after the fact.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

but I'll be direct with this one: I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you;

Then perhaps you should stop replying to me.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

it's gotten more than tedious and I'm honestly starting to think that your continuous calling into question of my intelligence is meant to be less than friendly (I'm still willing to look past it though, on account of our friendship).

Plus, if you keep going much longer, you're not going to be able to continue to evade the actual issue I raised.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Edit

As suggested by taustin, I checked his post with several adults who, in addition to verifying what the word "disagree" meant, also said that his post was less than friendly.

Taustin, please be advised that I am strongly considering striking your name off my birthday list.

I'm crushed. No, really.

(BTW, I did point out that you're reply, and that you wouldn't - again - address, or even acknowledge the existence of, the issue I raised.)

[WT Sharpe]

Moderator Notice
The tone of this thread has shown that there are obviously differing viewpoints, and no one is going to persuade the other that they are wrong. If you are unable to remain polite, it is better to refrain from posting anything. Rather than engage in flame ways, when members are rude or insulting place them on your "Ignore" list and do not respond further to their provocations and derogatory comments.

There is a larger membership that prefers to NOT be subject to these posts and unfriendly behaviors by a certain small group of other members who do not know when to just "Ignore".

Posting Guidelines.

Please acknowledge that views do differ, and move on.

The MobileRead Moderation Team

[theinfamousj]

And for what it is worth, my label of dishonesty was given to a specific situation where a person goes to a store, fully intending yo buy online, and makes use of a salesperson's time and expertise to get his or her remaining questions on the product answered.

When I don't intend to buy that day or necessarily at that store, but have questions, I make sure to preface any salesperson conversation with, "I am just looking," or, "I am in the information gathering phase." If I planned - in a way that no one could change - to purchase from a different store or online, I would say, "I am not going to buy this from you, but would you mind answering some questions?"

That isn't so hard to do and keeps things above board. It also gives the, often on commission, salesperson the opportunity to decline to spend time with me and to better devote his or her time with paying customers.

I never said browsing where one is still open to being persuaded to purchase at the store was dishonest.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by theinfamousj

And for what it is worth, my label of dishonesty was given to a specific situation where a person goes to a store, fully intending yo buy online, and makes use of a salesperson's time and expertise to get his or her remaining questions on the product answered.

When I don't intend to buy that day or necessarily at that store, but have questions, I make sure to preface any salesperson conversation with, "I am just looking," or, "I am in the information gathering phase." If I planned - in a way that no one could change - to purchase from a different store or online, I would say, "I am not going to buy this from you, but would you mind answering some questions?"

That isn't so hard to do and keeps things above board. It also gives the, often on commission, salesperson the opportunity to decline to spend time with me and to better devote his or her time with paying customers.

I never said browsing where one is still open to being persuaded to purchase at the store was dishonest.

That's ridiculous. No one talks to sales people that way, and no one should. That's just being a jerk and boasting that you INTEND to waste his time, (even if you are really not doing so, because turning shoppers into buyers is his very job). If you insist on full-disclosure, you might want to say: "I've been considering getting this on Amazon because it's cheaper--can you give me a reason I should buy it here instead?" Same info, less jerkiness.

Everyone is quick to say "I'm just looking" and we who have worked in sales are trained get through that and try to close a sale.

If you are in the store, you have not made up your mind. If you had made up your mind, you would not have need to look or ask questions. Period.
You may be planning to buy elsewhere, but if you are in the store, the salesman has the chance to make you change your plans, or even to get you buy something else entirely.

[Geralt]

I think some people are taking this very seriously. Too serious for my taste.

Primary question was if browsing in online and physical shops makes you somehow immoral if you decide to buy online.

On the previous page, citac made a good point.
How is browsing several physical shops different from browsing online and physical shops. I'll ask another question how is browsing several online shops different then previous combinations. Did I did wrong to amazon, if I browsed amazon and BN and ultimately bought from BN.

In my view there is no difference between all these combinations.
The decision to buy is based on price and service. That's it.

You can mope around all you want, implying people are immoral for browsing several shops and then buying in one, but that doesn't cut it. Its shopping, not an moral act. Please get a grip on it already.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by theinfamousj

And for what it is worth, my label of dishonesty was given to a specific situation where a person goes to a store, fully intending yo buy online, and makes use of a salesperson's time and expertise to get his or her remaining questions on the product answered.

When I don't intend to buy that day or necessarily at that store, but have questions, I make sure to preface any salesperson conversation with, "I am just looking," or, "I am in the information gathering phase." If I planned - in a way that no one could change - to purchase from a different store or online, I would say, "I am not going to buy this from you, but would you mind answering some questions?"

That isn't so hard to do and keeps things above board. It also gives the, often on commission, salesperson the opportunity to decline to spend time with me and to better devote his or her time with paying customers.

I never said browsing where one is still open to being persuaded to purchase at the store was dishonest.

That's much more than I do (or would feel compelled to do), but I do appreciate your efforts to deal fairly with salespeople. I still don't think it's particularly dishonest to not disclose to the salesperson that you're just browsing or plan to buy online since there's probably a world of info they have that you would like to have, but at least you're acting consistently with your views.

[NickyWithNook]

I think shopping can be a moral act, but the specifics will vary from person to person based on what issue is important to them. Some people think it's important to buy from small, local shops. Some people think it's important to buy things made in a sustainable way. It's a moral issue, but it isn't immoral to not do it. I think this is similar. It is a moral choice to choose to buy from someplace after looking there and having a salesperson help you, but that doesn't mean it's immoral to not do it.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by NickyWithNook

I think shopping can be a moral act, but the specifics will vary from person to person based on what issue is important to them. Some people think it's important to buy from small, local shops. Some people think it's important to buy things made in a sustainable way. It's a moral issue, but it isn't immoral to not do it. I think this is similar. It is a moral choice to choose to buy from someplace after looking there and having a salesperson help you, but that doesn't mean it's immoral to not do it.

Interesting perspective.

[NickyWithNook]

Well if someone were showrooming at place A, and then thought, "Place A doesn't pay their workers well. Place B sells this as well, and they pay their workers well, plus are locally owned and I like to support local places. I'll go buy it from place B," would that be an immoral choice? People make shopping choices based on a number of factors, including how convenient it is and whether they can get it right away - which is where showrooming places can get sales, price, how comfortable they are in the shop, and whatever else. Is it wrong for me to look on Amazon but think, "I want to be able to get this immediately and not wait for shipping so I'll go to Best Buy" or "I would rather buy this from a local shop?"

It just seems like the moral argument here is a bit simplistic.

[meeera]

Interesting! For me, the environment is a pretty important part of the ethics of my decision-making. So now that I have an ereader anyway, and I'm happy to read on it, for me it would be more ethical to buy an ebook (or borrow a pbook) than buy a paper book. I only buy paper books when I have a really good reason, nowadays.

I don't shop from most of my local bookshops because they're inaccessible to wheelies like me. Is it ethical for others to support them, once they know that they're not providing accessibility to all members of the community? Yet more aspects to the question...

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by NickyWithNook

I think shopping can be a moral act, but the specifics will vary from person to person based on what issue is important to them. Some people think it's important to buy from small, local shops. Some people think it's important to buy things made in a sustainable way. It's a moral issue, but it isn't immoral to not do it. I think this is similar. It is a moral choice to choose to buy from someplace after looking there and having a salesperson help you, but that doesn't mean it's immoral to not do it.

I think that sums it up pretty nicely. There can be a ton of different issues though, like the example meeera has just pointed out. There can be people who won't buy from Amazon because of their tax record in the UK, but they'll buy from other places who do similar tax avoidance acts, but maybe just not as big as scale or as apparent. (Or maybe tax avoidance on any scale brings up a whole other argument).

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by NickyWithNook

I think shopping can be a moral act, but the specifics will vary from person to person based on what issue is important to them. Some people think it's important to buy from small, local shops. Some people think it's important to buy things made in a sustainable way. It's a moral issue, but it isn't immoral to not do it. I think this is similar. It is a moral choice to choose to buy from someplace after looking there and having a salesperson help you, but that doesn't mean it's immoral to not do it.

It doesn't sound like "moral" means anything other than "preference" in this context if all choices are moral choices.

[NickyWithNook]

Morals are individual based on our own specific ideas of what's important. But you can call it just a preference if you prefer to dismiss it.