More eXCIting Snark to Durp

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

So where's Barbie been? Last activity listed yesterday, but I don't see any recent posts.

Somebody bumped this, which reminded me:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=831541

We need a thread about marketing, cord-cutting, or safety razors to lure him out of hiding.

[Someone]

A rebate coupon from Weather-Tec might lure him out.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

We need a thread about marketing, cord-cutting, or safety razors to lure him out of hiding.

There was one a few days ago. He didn't show up for it.

Originally Posted by Someone

A rebate coupon from Weather-Tec might lure him out.

Their ads keep coming on the radio and people wonder what I'm laughing about.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

A rebate coupon from Weather-Tec might lure him out.

Just dismiss Starship Troopers as a fascist primer for pre-teens, which it kinda is.

[Someone]

Those two things are not mutually exclusive, you know.

[Someone]

I bet citing his "published articles" on the subject would lure him out.

[Someone]

Also Quasimodem is really not well.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Just dismiss Starship Troopers as a fascist primer for pre-teens, which it kinda is.

Then we'd get bot AB and Lissener out of hiding.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

This is the second most ridiculous exchange on the SDMB I've ever seen. It's like you guys are arguing over whether paying with a ten-dollar bill for an $8 item counts as giving the store $10 (the bill), $8 (bill minus the change), or $0 (the bill-change-item).

It's absurd.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...3&postcount=61

Only the second? I won't quit until I'm #1!

[Someone]

Holy fuck, how are they still arguing about that?

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Holy fuck, how are they still arguing about that?

It's the Durp.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Holy fuck, how are they still arguing about that?

If you look at the other thread where Cochrane got the idea from, you'll see that it's exactly what I predicted, because I've see them do it before on 'math problems' like this. They're too stupid to understand that it's not math they're disagreeing about, but interpretation of the meaning of the words in the problem.

[Someone]

I know. It's why I don't participate there anymore. But I guess it can still surprise me, how fundamentally retarded they are.

[Someone]

A couple of guys have seen through it and tried to make the durp see sense.
Epic

[Someone]

jturd88 is offering food advice again. This time on discoloration of cut fruits and veggies. He's blind, how would he notice?

[Someone]

Partially blind.
Not as it is normally understood, mind you. For him, partially means 20/20 vision on even dates and totally blind on odd dates. True fact.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

For him, partially means 20/20 vision on even dates and totally blind on odd dates. True fact.

Actually, I think it varies by 'which fits best with the lie he's telling right now', rather than the date he's telling it.

[Someone]

He's BigTurd sock

[Someone]

AI Proofreader hates fingerprint scanning and facial recognition on the iPhone because INVASION OF PRIVACY BY APPLE!

Despite the fact that he doesn't own one and has no idea how one works.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...0#post20582090

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Holy fuck, how are they still arguing about that?

begbert2 and k9bfriender are having the biggest in that thread.

Originally Posted by Someone

You know what? I just realized something.

We're in the middle of a hamfisted argument over how to determine the value of an item. You're making the philosophically and economically unsound claim that an item is never worth more than somebody is willing to pay for it, which is wrong, and I have an inborn temptation to fight wrongness.

But you know what you're not arguing? That the item's value is its inventory cost.

And do you know what that means? It means that in the original problem, we agree that when counting the "loss" to the store, the value of the items sold for $70. Not their inventory cost of $48.50 or whatever. Just straight $70, because that's the price they were last sold for. And similarly in your example the item in question is worth $1000, because that's what it was sold for. Sure, the buyer robbed somebody to get the money to pay for it, but the item was sold at full price.

Not that the value of the merchandise sold has anything to do with the amount of the loss anyway - the store didn't lose the merchandise, it sold it. But still, it's nice to dismiss the inventory cost factor.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...8&postcount=57

Originally Posted by Someone

I don't see your point. Why would I argue that an item's value is its inventory cost? I pointed out on several occasions that the cost to the store was the cost of acquiring or replacing the goods that were sold. I even pointed out examples where the transactions could end up costing more than the $100. The value of an item is not really related to its inventory cost. However, the cost to the store of an item is exactly equivalent to its inventory cost.

And yes, an item is never worth more than what someone is willing to pay for it. That is the basics of economics. Not my definition, it's been around for quite a bit.



If you have an inborn temptation to fight wrongness, educating yourself on economics would be a great start.

To go back to your ferrari example. the reason that you can't just name your price of $1 and drive off with it is because someone else is willing to pay more for it. They bid $2, you bid $3, and so on, until it goes out of the range of one of your budgets. They are not going to sell it to you for less than someone else is willing to pay for it.

But you know what, they will also sell it to you for less than the list price. If it says $250,000, you'd be a fool to pay that much. You'd go in and offer 225k, and might end up settling at 239k. The value of the car was not 250k, it was what you agreed to pay for it.

Same as your theft at my home example. If I buy a brand new TV for $1000, and someone steals it, I have lost $1000, because I now need to replace it. If I had put a $2000 price tag on it, that didn't mean that I lost $2000.

To continue, if the thief had, instead of cash, just stolen $70 in merchandise, and the owner decided to claim it on his insurance, the insurance would pay out the replacement cost, not the sale price, of the item.

You are conflating cost and value, again. Cost is what the store paid to stock the item. Value is what the item will sell for.



Do not follow your logic here. Why are you dismissing the inventory cost factor?

Lets say that this store has been open for a week, and the only customer has been this thief. He stole the $100, good for him. Then he bought $70 in merchandise. At the end of the week, the owner reorders, and starts the next week with the same stock levels. The reorder to replace the $70 in merchandise costs $35. He also notes that his register is $100 short.

Profit on merchandise sales for the week without theft=$35

Theft=$100

Profit for the week minus theft=$35-$100=$65

Once again, and you have avoided answering this, if a $100 gift certificate that was given away as a raffle gets cashed in, does the store lose $100?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...9&postcount=68

[Someone]

Awesome. That's like a whole river full of self-filleting trout who just hop into your frying pan.

[Someone]

If I ever get to a point in my life where I think having a discussion like that looks like a valuable use of my time I'm stepping in front of a fucking bus.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Awesome. That's like a whole river full of self-filleting trout who just hop into your frying pan.

Called it in our original thread:

But even if we did know that the price was $60 plus tax, the sixty bucks isn't what the store lost; that amount is just there as a potential future sale. We need to know what the store paid for the item.

[Someone]

Retro snark, just bumped.

Who here has caught either parent masterbating? (sic)

I thought a masterbater was good at catching fish.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Retro snark, just bumped.

Who here has caught either parent masterbating? (sic)

I thought a masterbater was good at catching fish.

He's the one who rows the boat.

Stroke, stroke, stroke.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Retro snark, just bumped.

Who here has caught either parent masterbating? (sic)

I thought a masterbater was good at catching fish.

I was going to just click on the last post to see if the thread had gone anywhere interesting, saw that it was made by Beckdawrek and decided not to bother. Her posts are like ... stale air.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I was going to just click on the last post to see if the thread had gone anywhere interesting, saw that it was made by Beckdawrek and decided not to bother. Her posts are like ... stale air.

That's a good one. Nearly twenty posts a day of it, too.

[Someone]

The BigTard Lecture Series continues: Tsk, tsk. Shame on you for calling someone stupid in the Pit

[Someone]

As cringeworthy as BigT is, up_the_junction is being a total douchenozzle. What is his beef with Quartz?

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

The BigTard Lecture Series continues: Tsk, tsk. Shame on you for calling someone stupid in the Pit

I told him to chill since that seems to push one of his hot buttons. Let's see if he rises to it.

Originally Posted by Someone

<Irrelevant part of BigTard lecture snipped>

And is there a more meaningless imperative verb than "chill"? It just means "I'm gonna pretend you are too upset so I can dismiss what you have to say."

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...php?p=20561795

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

As cringeworthy as BigT is, up_the_junction is being a total douchenozzle. What is his beef with Quartz?

I don't remember what it was, but it was in an ATMB thread a few weeks ago. It seems up_the_junction* thinks Quartz reported him for some shit, even though the mods say no one reported it, they acted on their own. He apparently doesn't believe it and won't let it go.


*The origin of his user name is a description of the location of his head. I'm sure you can guess what 'junction' is being referred to.

[Someone]

::::: Clapham?

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

::::: Clapham?

No, Clapham is God. Or something like that.

[Someone]

[Someone]

Beckdawrek was thoroughly obnoxious in the Forced Kiss thread. Lamia issues a well-deserved smackdown: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...2&postcount=15

[Someone]

A couple of damn asses in the Texas church shooting thread:

Originally Posted by Someone

It's on tape.

The church videotapes its services every Sunday and places the video on FB/YouTube. Looks like it's a single camera, only one perspective, manually operated.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwi...Pg0lFFVycFvvWA

There have been 2 fewer mass shootings than there have been days so far in 2017.

This is God's answer to all these prayers - there is no more clearer evidence that prayer doesn't work.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...3&postcount=15

OK, I get his point, but religious jabs are against the rules in breaking news threads. He'd do better starting a thread someplace like Great Debates.

Originally Posted by Someone

He probably drowned in a pool.

Originally Posted by Someone

of his own blood.
( •_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...4&postcount=43

Totally assholish behavior. Followed up by Terry the Tramp with a Roger Daltrey "YEAAAAAAHHHHHH!

[Someone]

Rick Kitchen calls the perpetrator of today's massacre a "good guy with a gun".

26 people assassinated by a good guy with a gun in a church in Texas today and Paul Ryan calls for thoughts and prayers.

Maybe he considers killing churchgoers a good thing.

[Someone]

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Beckdawrek was thoroughly obnoxious in the Forced Kiss thread. Lamia issues a well-deserved smackdown: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...2&postcount=15

And she's doubling down briskly in spite of numerous bitch slaps!

[Someone]

She sounds like James Otto Sweet Heart only without the

God Bless you and James Otto always!!!

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm.

clearly sarcasm

[Someone]

Well, as long as we've established it was sarcasm.

[Someone]

Yes, but have we established beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Someone]

I dunno...i think it might have been sarcasm.

[Someone]

But that would involve unseemly levity. And as you know we're all about keeping up appearances. So that can't be it.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I dunno...i think it might have been sarcasm.

As long as it wasn't Czarcasm.

[Someone]

[Someone]

Bosda is offering his specially commissioned art for sale again.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Bosda is offering his specially commissioned art for sale again.

Why isn't the deviant who commissioned it buying it?

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Why isn't the deviant who commissioned it buying it?

He's in protective custody in a Supermax somewhere.