Thanks, vballboy51, that is exactly what I meant. I could have elaborated with the fact that I wouldn't mind sending two of the orders back, but each has an opened item (which Amazon is unwilling to accept - which is BS IMO, considering how long it took for them to generate the email).

And yeah, I'd still be out the original shipping cost.

To answer you, cpgator. You may not think I'm a man of principals, but this Amazon issue has turned into a matter of principle for me. If they want to threaten me then I'll make it as difficult as possible for them to carry through on their threats. That was their choice.

Well said!

For what its worth, Amazon has said they will pay for all shipping that was paid to send them to you and for them to recieve the items back...

This was an open forum about the general issue that amazon had. It was never stated that this was ONLY to "discuss whether or not Amazon will charge people's cards again". While you may want all the other discussion to leave, those in that side of the discussion(which is the majority anyway) could ask you to do the same thing.

Unpaid taxes are NOT a form of credit. "In a weird way" is simply conjecture and has nothing to do with the legal definitions of lender, loan or credit.

There is a difference between credit and a court judgement. They are not the same. Under your theory, the court would legally be a creditor (which we both know they are not).

Let me explain how wrong your theory is with a playful example :

Under your scenario, a person who eats in a restaurant and then leaves without paying would have "technically" been granted an extension of credit by the restaurant owner. If this were true, the dash-and-dine patron could be reported to a credit agency for collections. Ha!

And finally...

Debts are not the only the only items to appear on your credit report. Take bankruptcy, for example. It is neither a debt nor an extension of credit. It's actually the exact opposite since your debts are completely washed away in some instances. But, as we all know, a bankruptcy will stay on your credit report and count against your credit score for years.

It is not exactly a "discussion" when some are openly attacking others viewpoints and questioning others ethics and morality.

debate is a form of discussion, difference of opinion and vocalization fall under that

...and it works both ways.

Oh, I agree this wasn't a "bargain". My point with the statement that you quoted was this... If Amazon wins this and can start retroactively charging, how will I know when something is just at a low price versus mispriced? If I buy a DVD set mis-priced by $5 (that I had assumed was simply a sale), will Amazon decide to ship it and then charge me the extra $5 a month later?

Hopefully my point is clear now.

Personal attacks do NOT fall under that!!

I have no problem if someone offers an opposing opinion to mine, but the way some have been insulting and attacking the opinions of others here shows a serious lack of repect to the opposing view, as well as the person.

Every single person who tried to place an order with this promotion were given the incorrect discount. It's not like only people with some inside knowledge received an improper discount. It's obvious some people did as you say, but many people likely did unknowingly receive the double-discount.

And don't forget that the Lowe's example includes a wish that he had bought more items using the incorrect discount.

isnt opposing someone's opinion also "attacking" it? (ex. that opinion is flawed and here's why)

I'm not speaking of those who say "you are a loser", but at first neither were you. That has changed.

You've gone from "no discussion here except for wether or not we are charged" to "i dont mind someone giving a difference of opinion" in a matter of 3 posts...

It is not even worth reponding to someone who obviously just WANTS to be argmentative!

Good choice.

If you are referring to Jah-Wren Ryel's comments to me, I have forgiven him - so all is good. I understand that those who are now dealing with the repercussions of placing so many orders might get a little testy from time to time. I find it best not to take their comments personally, and just realize there are going through some tough times.

Asked a question then stated a fact.
Just supporting my opinion, which you said you were fine with...

Fight the battles you can win...

Interesting thought ... unpaid taxes.

So, if the IRS is delinquent on my Tax Refund, can I send them to collections?

For those who are sick of the idiots who just want to argue, here is a new thread to (hopefully) keep things civil
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=491638

Hipocracy knows no bounds

Yes! So now we're arguing about how to argue. I said early in the first original thread, this glitch would be long remembered on DVD Talk...

As far as I can recall, that relates to nothing that I've said.

Is this, however, what you're arguing for court proceedings? That someone just runs out of the court room without paying? Or... is it rather that the court extends some sort of deadline by which to pay and that the person fails to meet that deadline?

Again, credit does not apply simply to situations with "loans" or "lendors [sic]", as both generally imply the transfer of cash from one party to the other, based on an agreement to repay those same assets, usually with interest. This is NOT an all-encompassing definition of credit, even legally.

Oh my eyes . . . the irony almost hurts here.

i quote wikipedia cause i'm lazy to type it myself.

commercial transactions are not an extension of credit whatsover in their own right. utility companies provide a service and you agree to pay it, (ie you pay after eating at a reasturant), you pay sometimes before sometimes after depending on what time of service is provided. however, any nonpayment is not a credit and you can be sent to collections
how come you didnt address the cancelation fees i keep reffering to?? wait does that example not go in your favor at all??
:P

amazon does have the RIGHT to send to collections

Because someone already addressed this. If you'd like me to add to their thoughts on it, here:

You are given certain discounts on phones and plans contingent on your meeting all of the terms of the contract, including length of service. Rather than requiring that you pay a deposit, which could then be refunded at the completion of your end of the agreement, the phone company, after assessing your creditworthiness, allows you, by default, not to pay this fee until the end, if required. And, provided your credit isn't awful, they allow you to pay for the usage of your phone after you use it rather than pre-paying. These are extensions of credit.

Additionally, if you are assessed such a fee, it will not immediately be reported on your credit report before your being billed/given a chance to pay.

Again, these are different. In one case, you pay the establishment providing the service at the time they provide the service before leaving the establishment, the other you don't.

I never said that they were. In fact, I said quite the opposite: AMAZON.COM TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT AN EXTENSION OF CREDIT.


Please... consider keeping your tongue inside of your mouth.

I understand that I am very broadly defining "credit," but there is a logic it to it. In terms of discussing debt collection agencies, such a logical understanding of credit seems to me to be far more applicable than a very narrow-- liquid asset, loan/lender-- definition.