From the Wall Street Journal:

Dude, You're Not Gettin' a Dell
"Dell Computers is under fire from gun aficionados after it refused to sell a laptop to a handgun maker," Wired magazine reports. The computer company canceled Jack Weigand's order because of the name of his company, Weigand Combat Handguns:

It turns out that a manager in Dell's export compliance department flagged the shipment as a purchase that was prohibited under U.S. law. Weigand was told that his order had been canceled because, in these post-Sept. 11 days, the name of his company sounded a bit too terroristic for comfort's sake.

Weigand actually makes high-quality custom revolvers. Dell apologized for its error and offered Weigand a free computer, which he turned down. He has now been immortalized on the urban myth-busting site Snopes.com with a page attesting that his story is true.

Thought I'd post this here since the thread is now too long to read.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

  

Thanks for the update. Sounds like Dell doesn't know what excuse to us though: "...flagged the shipment as a purchase that was prohibited under U.S. law." or "...the name of his company sounded a bit too terroristic for comfort's sake." So Dell, which is it?

MSU

>Thanks for the update. Sounds like Dell doesn't know what
>excuse to us though: "...flagged the shipment as a purchase
>that was prohibited under U.S. law." or "...the name of his
>company sounded a bit too terroristic for comfort's sake."
>So Dell, which is it?

And your confusion of course is all Dell's fault right. I would challenge you to make a statement to the press and see how much of what you actually said gets repeated or put into print properly. I've read newspaper accounts and seen TV reports of various tragedys and every outlet has a different account and set of figures and this is the norm not the exception.

As for Mr. Weigand I see an opportunist here with his own agenda going for all the mileage and publicity possible to further his own cause. Any average guy would have accepted the free computer as well as the fact that humans are not perfect ergo prone to the odd blunder. Why do that though when you can exploit the injured party role and get nationwide attention. Publicity like that would cost a fortune if you had to pay for it.

BTW I could care less who owns guns and who does not as long as they are legal so for me that is not an issue. Witch hunts however I can do without and this whole saga smacks of it. Yesterday Dell, today Crucial, who's turn will it be tomorrow?

Probably none too popular at all but that's my opinion of this matter.

Yesterday Mr. Weigand.

Today Spezi.

Who will it be tomorrow?

Eh? }>

Yarddaawg

"Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
(1879-1955

"Any average guy would have accepted the free computer"

I think you are wrong. Newegg wanted to REALLY make things right with me. All I wanted was the return shipping paid in full. The VP insisted that he round it up to an even number. I said that the $16.25 was enough. He again insisted.

But I guess you are probably right and the average (by numbers) person would've taken the free computer, or stuck Newegg with a huge loss. But I'd like to think that there are enough of us moral people out there who only want what's coming to us to bring that average down. In Mr. Weigand's case an appology and a change of policy and nothing more, in my case my return shipping paid and nothing more.

Maybe it's just us legal gun owners who are the moral ones. Afterall we are the ones who have to jump through hoops to follow laws and still get treated like crap.

I return to a store if I get over changed 25¢. I walked by a 6 pack of soda sitting in a shopping cart in a Wal*Mart parking lot today. Maybe "average" is not something that we humans should be striving for.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Perhaps I should have said the average person would be content to resolve the issue which the injured party here does not seem to want.
I think you understood what I was trying to get across Myk.

If there's any justice maybe he'll find himself a nice Compaq. }>

This is a topic I've seen come up here before and one that I may add brings with it a lot of passion and emotion. It is also one where each party sees only what they want to see be it right or wrong, truth or fiction. In some discussions there is a possibility to sway someone and make them see the other side or another way but whenever guns are mentioned all I see is closed minds and a full steam ahead consequences be damned attitude.

Talk about a great example of making a mountain out of a molehill.
Well, I've said my piece now where'd that Dell order go.

I'm off of guns (at least until someone starts making false claims again ) and on the moral issue of what it takes to resolve it now.

The resolve he was asking for from the start was an appology to him and all gun owners and a change of policy. He said he didn't want a Dell computer after that and he stuck to it at a cost of probably a couple thousand dollars.

I don't see Dell really doing either. I see them doing the corporate thing of making an excuse and then saying oops we messed up but the law made us do it (when the law actually doesn't have anything to do with it).

He has kept everyone updated like he said he would. Dell promised an appology, he posted about it. Dell gave their excuse (instead of the appology) and he posted it.

It seems to me that by not letting himself be bought off with a free laptop he is sticking to his guns and doing the right thing. What do you want him to do? He's got nothing of what he wanted, do you want him to pull down his page keeping everyone updated? Would that be fair to Dell? Would it have been fair to Newegg if I hadn't let everyone know my deal with them was made right?

I don't think it was a molehill. It was someone who was following the law being treated like a criminal, when it would've been very easy to check him out (websearch) or pass that buck to the FBI like Dell should be doing if they think someone is a threat to public safety.

Actually he was wanting a laptop, a Compaq wouldn't be that bad of a choice.

(And I do look at the other side of the gun issue. I'm waiting for anyone to ever post something that can back up their claims that is not from a questionable source, I backed off the UK crime rates until I found official information about them. I guess in a way my mind is closed, but only to bad information. I won't change my mind on if guns should be allowed but I may change my mind on what effect guns have.)

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>This is a topic I've seen come up here before and one that I may add >brings with it a lot of passion and emotion.

You seem somewhat apprehensive about passion and emotion. Having deep feelings about something is healthy as long as it doesn't cloud your perception of the truth.

Legal gun owners are victims of one the biggest witch hunts of all.

Nightly Reader

Apology?

They still pretend it has something to do with the law, when in fact, it doesn't. As a matter of fact, I would bet that their entire procedure as they describe it is illegal because it discriminates outside the legal parameters of the law.

What they are trying to do is cover their butt, because it's hanging in the wind. Note that they have never suggested that they are going to stop screening domestic sales?

Honestly, I figure they don't think they made a mistake. They just got caught and it's good public relations to make that statement.

Hope Compaq and IBM are ready, because I'll be recommending them for corporate machines, servers and notebooks. For desktops, build your own.

You see Weigand as an opportunist because you have no comprehension of what the meaning of events associated with Dell's actions represent. I won't waste time on repeating myself because I know you participated in Al's post.

Any average is guy is YOU! The exceptional ones understand the danger and precedent Dell's actions represent in creating the kind of unfounded fear Joe McCarthy spawned in the 50's by assuming many Americans were communists. There was an atmosphere of fear and mistrust among fellow Americans that ruined careers and destoyed lives.

To oversimplify Dell's actions and characterize them as silly human mistakes only attests to your complete inability to grasp the reality unfolding before you.

Your damn right people get angry. Not only are people angry over Dell's actions but in responses like yours that force the rest of us to wade through and step over your unconscious corpses to stand up for the truth.

I have a vision of you unwittingly imprisoned in a theme park, eating cotton candy and hot dogs while skipping from ride to ride doing whatever you can to avoid conflict so you don't have to go home.

I can't make up my mind if you're vision is impaired or your weak-minded or both.

>You see Weigand as an opportunist because you have no
>comprehension of what the meaning of events associated with
>Dell's actions represent. I won't waste time on repeating
>myself because I know you participated in Al's post.

That's the whole point, I think a lot of you are reading into Dell's action what you want to, rather than what their procedures were actually intended to do. I read the posts and what I grasp is that to Dell this is a terrorism issue where to Weigand it is a gun lobby issue. There may be some similarities but I see the two sides as being on totally different wavelengths and that mostly due to the fact that gun issues have been so dominant lately so understandably Weigand does have a bit of a persecution complex. This quote taken from rpeyton " It seems much more to me that they were attempting to remove themselves from any possible scenarios in which their equipment could have been linked to terrorist activities. Think about how much criticism they would endure if such link between them and terrorism was made." is more along the lines of what I believe the truth to be. Where you are concerned it would appear Dell is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

>
>Any average is guy is YOU! The exceptional ones understand
>the danger and precedent Dell's actions represent in
>creating the kind of unfounded fear Joe McCarthy spawned in
>the 50's by assuming many Americans were communists. There
>was an atmosphere of fear and mistrust among fellow
>Americans that ruined careers and destoyed lives.

So reading your own political agenda into a companies simple attempt to maintain a clean image and calling for a boycott of their products for the trouble is not considered ruining careers and destroying lives? Perhaps I'm wrong but I could have sworn that quite a lot of Americans work for Dell. I wonder if they share your opinion. What you fail to grasp here is that I can understand the passion a lot of you are exhibiting and I could easily support your stance if it were not for the fact that I believe you need more actual proof and examples of the percieved injustice before taking retaliatory measures. Basing a whole companies reputation on one isolated incident which turned sour due to a glitch in a relatively new procedure that needs fine tuning seems a tad harsh to me. I take it you've never made a mistake?

>To oversimplify Dell's actions and characterize them as
>silly human mistakes only attests to your complete inability
>to grasp the reality unfolding before you.

No it attests to my ability to remain rational until all the facts are in.

>
>Your damn right people get angry. Not only are people angry
>over Dell's actions but in responses like yours that force
>the rest of us to wade through and step over your
>unconscious corpses to stand up for the truth.

Your truth not mine and my failure to become a kneejerk reactionary hardly makes me an unconscious corpse. I have a voice and you don't need to stand up for me just because I choose to put my brain in gear and carefully weigh all the facts before deciding on a response.

>
>I have a vision of you unwittingly imprisoned in a theme
>park, eating cotton candy and hot dogs while skipping from
>ride to ride doing whatever you can to avoid conflict so you
>don't have to go home.

There you may well be correct as I am lacking your passion for stirring up shit. }>

>
>I can't make up my mind if you're vision is impaired or your
>weak-minded or both.

Now you see this is the part of the discussions that I can do without. There's no need to begin name calling just because I'm not armed and sharing your view of the persecuted gun owner. I can't make up my mind if you are just trying to stir up more emotion or if you're just incapable of keeping the exchange civil. If you want credibility I suggest trying the latter.

Well, I see it as a discrimination issue. They claim to have been screening to conform to US law, when in fact, US law does not require them to screen this order AT ALL.

And they have no intention of changing that, based on what they have said. None.

Discrimination. Pure and simple. Nothing to do with terrorism.

I think you are correct that to Dell it's a terrorism issue and to us it's a gun issue. That is because Dell seems to think that to be a LEGAL gun owner/dealer means that you are a terrorist, or at least not someone to be trusted.

It's not one isolated incident. It is company policy. The one incident just happened to bring that policy to light.

How about if I refused to sell you high compression pistons because you like fast cars? That if I did that because I equated your need for speed as meaning that you were a drunk driver?

Would you accept that as me being responsible or would you look at that as me unnecessarily treating you like a criminal?

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

I understand why you feel singled out and I agree totally that Dell was wrong and they need to fine tune a procedure but I also think they should be cut a little more slack and be given an opportunity to fix the problem.

That said I can see that it would not be that easy to please all parties in this situation especially given the current tensions.
Al makes a good point about the export law and it not being applicable to items not being exported but I must ask does watching out for potential problems even at home not make some semblance of sense? Like it or not there are idiots and fanatical groups based right at home in the good old USA.

Think for a moment of the security measures implemented in many other areas since Sept 11, most notably airports and such. I'm not a terrorist nor are you yet if we want to board a plane we are still pretty much treated like one. Do you get what I'm trying to say? I've been to the odd concert for example where they conduct body searches for prohibited items which makes me feel like a criminal while I have done nothing wrong yet I still have to endure the procedure if I want in. I hope this makes sense.

I'm not anti gun at all Myk but I can't help but feel that emotions and actions regarding this whole event are getting blown out of proportion.

What is so stupid about this is, Dell thinking their policy is going to make any difference. Perhaps they don't, and it's just covering their ass for legal implications. That's what I'm tending to agree with in the discussions we've had.

The reason is, their policy is going to do nothing but piss customers off. If I ordered a laptop and then got a phone call from Dell asking me questions about what I was going to use if for, my response would be: "Look, are you going to ship the laptop or am I going to go downtown right now and buy a ThinkPad?" I wouldn't be bothered answering them. I'm very ornery about things that aren't anyone's business but mine.

They are only hurting their own sales.

Another example that was brought up, Citibank. Refusing to do business with any firearms companies. That's funny. Really it is. I'd laugh at them as I simply went to one of their competitors for my business and banking needs. When one tries to use their business to enforce or advocate their political views, their business is only going to suffer.

Grogan

Gotta agree with you Grogan. I'm sure any real terrorist isn't going to answer the screening questions correctly anyway thus rendering the whole procedure somewhat useless.

I think it is all about perception and them trying to maintain a clean image as well as complying with US law.
Covering their butts as you put it pretty much says it.

But like it or not, in the US, even the biggest racist groups have rights. And as long as they don't infringe on another's rights I will stand up for them too.

Yes, what you say makes sense. But it's not being applied equally. That is what the hoopla is about. When you go to the airport or concert they don't flag you because you are wearing a T-shirt that has crossed Colts saying Don't Mess With Texas. They check everyone.

I'm against profiling for auto stops too. Again because that's not applied equally.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Spezi,

Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Let me suggest you read the US Constitution and think about what it means. Think good and hard about the freedoms contained therein.

Then think about what you just said. If there is a question, you inform the FBI. You don't discriminate. Not only is it a violation of the principles of the United States, it is a violation of the law.

There is NO EXCUSE for DELL, and the fact is that they still screen domestic sales. They have no reason to do so. None.

Not much different from Germans screening people because of Jewish sounding names in the 1930s, is it?

You require more proof because your perception is limited and you rationalize your indecision under the guise of reason, civility and fairness. The writing's on the wall. You're like a dear frozen in the headlights.

>So reading your own political agenda

No. I'm reading Dells and you're not!

>I could have sworn that quite a lot of
>Americans work for Dell.

That's tough! A lot of Americans worked for Ford and GM in the 70's but that didn't stop people from boycotting gas guzzeling cars and buying Japanese. Quit Dell and join the free world.

>I have a voice and you don't need to stand up for
>me just because I choose to put my brain in gear and
>carefully weigh all the facts before deciding on a response.

By the time you get through wieghing the facts which are staring you in the face we'll be in the next century.

>Now you see this is the part of the
>discussions that I can do without. There's no need to begin
>name calling just because I'm not armed and sharing your
>view of the persecuted gun owner.

I never called you a name! I characterized your thinking process and this is a perfect example. I don't own a gun. I don't care if you own a gun. No where, in the post you're responding to, did I even mention guns. I believe in the right to own a gun and if I remember correctly, so do you.

hal9000 suffice it to say some see the glass half full while some see it half empty. It's apparent we agree to disagree on this topic.

That's OK. There just didn't seem to be too many willing to take Dell's side so someone had to.

Have a great day and I'll see you in the next century.

I see a glass of poison and it wouldn't surprise me if you drank it all with a smile while thanking Dell for their hospitality.

If the poison is a good blended Scotch sure why not. }>

Now, I'd join you for a glass of that. As long as it wasn't Dell pouring the scotch.

Spezi-

After reviewing this thread I realized I got too personal with you and do apologize.

Thanks. I've pretty much learned that if I'm willing to post my views then I have to be pretty much prepared to take whatever fallout comes as my opinion is often not popular. I guess I'm just attracted to helping defend what I see as the underdog in some circumstances.

Simply put I'm a satisfied Dell owner and politics aside they make a good ready made computer if that's what a person needs. I also believe in giving a place more than one chance in the event of a minor discretion.

I'll give them another chance when they actually comply with the law instead of what they infer it should be.

>I also believe in giving a place more than one
>chance in the event of a minor discretion.


I'd admire your grace. I guess the difference between us is that you see a computer company and a mistake, period. You don't see beyond that event, which if left unchallenged, will establish a trend for similar future actions.

I see an outrageous act of selective censorship born in the form of a dim witted, innocent child begging for pitty and asking to be adopted by the benevolent, charitable people of America. I see that foster child maturing into an adult who's stream of thought bear the seeds of more thoughts that assume that EVERY American is guily intil proven innocent which could emerge as a standard mode of thinking in this country, which is why our founding fathers wrote the constitution and why many have DIED to uphold it.

If Dell's action go unchecked, Americans are giving each other permission to suspect their neighbors. Exactly what the terrorist wanted!

It always starts with something simple and innocent. Read history!

Well I'm not American so perhaps therein lies your explanation. I'm already acquainted with the guilty until proven innocent concept because the revenue service here uses it and I was of the mind that yours does too but I guess I'm wrong.

You would have a lot more success getting me passionate about that injustice as it is being perpetrated by government which I thought was supposed to protect our rights.

I'm struggling for words here but my whole stand on the Dell issue is that no one has proven to me that there was intent. In order for me to castigate them someone would have to prove to me that Dell had intentionally singled out law abiding gun owners and I just do not see that as being the case. Their intent was to maintain an appealing sqeeky clean image in my opinion.

I suspect at this point I'm just repeating myself so that is all I have to say on this issue. FWIW you might bear in mind that I'm Canadian and we are just a more mellow bunch.

>I'm struggling for words here but my whole stand on the Dell
>issue is that no one has proven to me that there was intent.
> In order for me to castigate them someone would have to
>prove to me that Dell had intentionally singled out law
>abiding gun owners and I just do not see that as being the
>case. Their intent was to maintain an appealing sqeeky
>clean image in my opinion.

The intent is implied and incorporated into the assumption that one qualifies for suspicion based on words and not actions!

Dell has done worse than single out one person or company. They have included everyone who uses WORDS that they or others have decided may incriminate you.

Spezi, I can tell you're a really nice guy. I guarantee you if this incident personally affected your way of life or the life of someone you loved you would instantly understand. Imagine that before purchasing a product, you found yourself and others being indiscriminately screened because a "word" you chose to use had been designated as a security risk. Now, Imagine that, that product was food for your family and that the screening process caused a delay in obtaining the food. Spezi, if that were happening we would not be having this discussion.

Because the product in question is a computer means NOTHING. It is what the thought process represents! This type of thinking is like a virus which in the beginning mainfests as a silly cold. It can easily take on a life of it's own and tomorrow or next week it will not just be computers.

Looks like I won't be purchasing a dell.

BobGuy©
And the band played on.

And I had my heart set on a Dell Notebook 80? something. What's a good alternantive?

I was going to buy a Dell Inspiron 8100, and I'm still going to buy a Dell.

Everybody makes mistakes, companies included. If Dell admits their mistake and can do something to make their policy better, that is enough for me.

There are an awful lot of bitter people in this forum, but face it, Dell still makes quality PC's at reasonable prices for the average consumer and I wouldn't buy my Notebook from anyone else.

I'm not a member of the NRA, but I do own a rifle and am not happy with their mistake, but I will not stop doing business with them because of it.


Just my 2 cents.

Rick

We're not bitter. We just can see where the country is going if some have their way.

Nightly Reader

>We're not bitter. We just can see where the country is
>going if some have their way.

In my opinion, I don't think Dell is one of the "some," you should be worried about. I seriously doubt Dell was trying to push some political agenda with their policy. It seems much more to me that they were attempting to remove themselves from any possible scenarios in which their equipment could have been linked to terrorist activities. Think about how much criticism they would endure if such link between them and terrorism was made.

Once again I do not agree with their policy, but I think it was a mistake that can be corrected and certainly not one that merits a boycott on the company.

I've also read accounts of gunshot victims attempting to sue gun manufacturers for being shot. Welcome to the business world.

No American would knowingly sell to terrorists and gladly conduct reasonable screening procedures. But what's far more important is to be resposible enough to spend more money and time in screening procedures so you don't shape or create an atmoshphere of suspicion towards Americans in your own damn country with money saving, short sighted, inept screening policies.

And yes. It's not just Dell, it applies to any company equally as lazy and irresponsible.

>I've also read accounts of gunshot victims attempting to sue
>gun manufacturers for being shot. Welcome to the business
>world.

That's a whole new topic.

>
>No American would knowingly sell to terrorists and gladly
>conduct reasonable screening procedures.

Oh really? Just how the heck do you know that statement to be true?
Don't tell me you have psychic powers too.

But what's far
>more important is to be resposible enough to spend more
>money and time in screening procedures so you don't shape or
>create an atmoshphere of suspicion towards Americans in your
>own damn country with money saving, short sighted, inept
>screening policies.

Yes and I'll bet you'd be the first one to holler when PC prices go up to pay for these perfected procedures you want more money spent on. Wakeup dude, implementing these policies is a new thing for many so there are bound to be some bumps in the road.

If after this debacle Dell doesn't fix the problem then and only then will you see me switching camps.

Did you read their latest reply? They did not say that they were going to change a thing as they had implied earlier.

Their excuse is that US export law means that they have to screen people when they are selling a computer from Texas to Pennsylvania.
How is that covered under any EXPORT law?

Their appology is, Oops, we should've notified him that we canceled his order.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

As flawed as it may be I don't see a problem with them using the same procedure for all transactions as they do for export provided they do it properly as they should have the Weigand order. I see no problem with their policies flagging something that may be questionable, it was their cancelling of an order without explanation or follow up that was totally wrong. Confirmation of specific facts when questions arise is an everyday thing in my part of the business world. The thing that ruffles the feathers of anyone is being ignored and that is not good business and I saw Dell admit to that.

Maybe what I'm suggesting is that if you or Al or anyone for that matter has a better solution or suggestion for a better method that meets both the criteria of Dell as well as the consumer then relaying that idea to Dell would be a great approach. Remember Dell is just a name but a name behind which thousands of Americans are just trying to make a living like you and I.

I could go along with them using the same procedure as for exports. But don't blame it on the law when it is their choice to flag the words and to apply the procedure.

I already have stated my suggestion. If Dell thinks someone is a risk they should not be taking the matter into their own hands. They should be forwarding the information to the FBI. Had they done so in this instance the FBI would've had the guy's clean record already in their system because of the fact that he is an FFL holder.

Even if they didn't have it on file (which for FFL's I'm pretty sure they do), it takes me $2.50 and a few minutes (usually) to have an instant check run on me when I purchase a gun.

I would be much more happier with Dell if they would make EVERYONE go through an FBI instant check if that's what they wished to do. But singling out one group is wrong.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>
>I would be much more happier with Dell if they would make
>EVERYONE go through an FBI instant check if that's what they
>wished to do. But singling out one group is wrong.

if we ever have to go through an f.b.i. check to get a computer,
i won't be buying. thought police tactics are not acceptable
when applied to one group or everyone (your suggestion). i, for
one, don't want to live in a police state and was wondering how
you could say such a thing, with that "live free or die" scroll.

live free or die (mean it)

I didn't say I would like it. I said, "I would be much more happier with Dell if they would make EVERYONE go through an FBI instant check".
Why? Because then they would be applying their policy EQUALLY. You can't live free if there isn't equality.

I didn't like the NICS when it was first implemented because of how it was run but now it works pretty good in almost all instances. The only problem I see with it now is that it's used as a de facto gun registration list, which wouldn't be a problem with computer purchases since I don't know of any computer ban groups.

Like it or not anyone can have a background check ran. Most of the time you need the consent of the person getting checked. But if you work for or know someone who works for a place that is set up to run checks you can do it without the person's knowledge.

Do you give up your right to buy a firearm because an instant check is required? NICS seems to be one firearms law that most gun owners don't have a problem with. Do you not drive a car because if you get a traffic stop you will be run through a database? Do you refuse to work for the govt, the police, the school system or any other security minded business because they run background checks?

If not then I don't really understand why it would be a problem for other purchases.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>I didn't say I would like it. I said, "I would be much more
>happier with Dell if they would make EVERYONE go
>through an FBI instant check".
>Why? Because then they would be applying their policy
>EQUALLY. You can't live free if there isn't equality.
>
who cares if police state tactics are EQUALLY applied? when the
day comes that we have to "show our papers" just to move around
are you going to be happy that we ALL have to do it? will that
little bit of EQUALITY make you feel any better when your rights
are in the toilet? the violation of civil rights (of one group)
has to be nipped in the bud before it does extend to everyone.

>I didn't like the NICS when it was first implemented because
>of how it was run but now it works pretty good in almost all
>instances. The only problem I see with it now is that it's
>used as a de facto gun registration list, which wouldn't be
>a problem with computer purchases since I don't know of any
>computer ban groups.
>
because computers give the masses access to alternative sources
of information (vs the MAINSTREAN propaganda) and information is
is power, i wouldn't be at all suspised to see an attempt to
control this access or a monitoring of those who have it. that
is EXACTLY what happened in the soviet block and china. first
the guns, then thought and free communication. it CAN happen here
too.


>Like it or not anyone can have a background check ran. Most
>of the time you need the consent of the person getting
>checked. But if you work for or know someone who works for a
>place that is set up to run checks you can do it without the
>person's knowledge.
>
just because that's so doesn't make it okay. it seems to me
that this is a problem, spiraling out of control, precisely
because the sheople let it get this far.


>Do you give up your right to buy a firearm because an
>instant check is required? NICS seems to be one firearms law
>that most gun owners don't have a problem with. Do you not
>drive a car because if you get a traffic stop you will be
>run through a database? Do you refuse to work for the govt,
>the police, the school system or any other security minded
>business because they run background checks?
>
you make good points. we give up a lot, already, to be a part
of a community. does this mean that we should give up everything?
as for guns, i don't have any. judging by the history i've read,
i don't think being on a list of gun owners is a good idea (see
anything you can on Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Owner-
ship - THEY should know). if i ever do decide to buy a gun, i'll
do it OFF the books. if i have to shoot someone breaking into my
home then i guess i'll have to deal w/the fallout of having an
unregistered gun.

>If not then I don't really understand why it would be a
>problem for other purchases.


oh, really? how about books, newspapers and videos? are you willing
to let Big Brother control and moitor THAT? do you not see the
danger in these things?

i am a vegetarian and animal rights advocate (probably not a
popular position in this forum). i'm a non-violent, warm fuzzy
type. i'll tell you one thing about guns, though. the second
amendment has NOTHING to do w/hunting and recreation. it is
about defending yourself from the tyranny of GOVERNMENT. in
every country where genocide has occured, in last (20th) century,
gun control was implimented FIRST. do you think that new gun
contol laws need to be passed if the government can get corporations
to do the deed for them? what happened to mr.weigand is an
insideous form of GUN CONTROL. this is not a simple case of
political correctness. we are talking about laws, here. today
export, tomorrow DOMESTIC. if you don't believe me, then check
out the laws pertaining to banking. we're in big trouble and we
need to start putting our actions where our hearts are.

DELL is excluding potential customers by WORDS. the day could come
when they exclude gun owners - or animal rights activists. and
just because they're in texas (shelly) doesn't mean jack. the
branch davidians were desended upon because they had too many guns,
and were reported by the u.p.s. driver who was delivering them.
another case of corporate spying. nobody in texas stopped that.

You've obviously came in at the tail end of the conversation. You are preaching to the choir.

I said (and this will be the last time I repeat it because I really don't need the typing practice), that IF Dell wants to screen their non-export customers that Dell should screen ALL of their customers, otherwise it is discriminatory. And if Dell finds a customer that they think is a threat that they should report them to the FBI and let them handle any further checking, that refusing to sell on their own suspicion is not their place.

You are wrong, the Second Amendment does not say that it has nothing to do with hunting or recreation. All it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infrindged, it does not say "for the purpose of defense". It does not mention anything about their use and the founding fathers were just as much for hunting and target shooting as they were for self defense.

Since you are so gung ho about the anti-data base I assume that you do put your money where your mouth is and you don't drive a car, use a charge card, have a bank account, buy books from stores that use a computerized inventory, apply for any jobs that require a background check or any other thing that involve some sort of checking up on your history (which is just about everything now-a-days).

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>You've obviously came in at the tail end of the
>conversation. You are preaching to the choir.
>
i've read the entire thread. i spoke to you because of your
inconsitancies.


>I said (and this will be the last time I repeat it because I
>really don't need the typing practice), that IF Dell wants
>to screen their non-export customers that Dell should screen
>ALL of their customers, otherwise it is discriminatory. And
>if Dell finds a customer that they think is a threat that
>they should report them to the FBI and let them handle any
>further checking, that refusing to sell on their own
>suspicion is not their place.
>
the typing practice? okay. you are more concerned about
dicrimination than the violation of civil RIGHTS. i said
(and will not bother you any further) that to apply police
state tactics EQUALLY still results in the loss of our rights.
you, obviously, don't get it.


>You are wrong, the Second Amendment does not say that it has
>nothing to do with hunting or recreation. All it says that
>the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infrindged, it
>does not say "for the purpose of defense". It does not
>mention anything about their use and the founding fathers
>were just as much for hunting and target shooting as they
>were for self defense.
>
YOU are wrong. the constitution was the outcome of a long
process and much debate. volumes of information are available
concerning the thoughts and the debates of the founders and
the reasons behind their actions and writings. i suggest you
research your history.


>Since you are so gung ho about the anti-data base I assume
>that you do put your money where your mouth is and you don't
>drive a car, use a charge card, have a bank account, buy
>books from stores that use a computerized inventory, apply
>for any jobs that require a background check or any other
>thing that involve some sort of checking up on your history
>(which is just about everything now-a-days).


myk, i have been as subject to violations of my rights and
privacy as any other american. i'm sure there is plenty of
information about me in data bases. i am struggeling against
the intrusions of government and the new world order, the
best i can. the differance between us is that i am not deluding
myself into thinking that the non-discriminatory violation
is somehow better than the discriminating variety. i wonder if
mr.weigand would feel better if all gun ownwers couldn't buy
from DELL, instead of only those with "comabat" in their
business name - like YOUR idea of equality and freedom proposes.

good luck with your typing, mr.live free or die. may you never
have to use your guns to fight tyranny. oh, and yes, i am gung
ho about my rights. you say it like it's an insult!

What different founding fathers meant by the 2d Amendment does not make its meaning. What makes its meaning is what it says, and Myk is right there. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only reason it gives is that a militia is essential to a free state. It doesn't eliminate other reasons. Nor does it explain why the militia is essential to a free state. Don't read into the document. Read what it says. It is more than enough. http://www.11bravo.homestead.com/textmeaning.html

>don't
>read into the document. Read what it says.

LOL. If it were only that easy Al. Heck if that worked we wouldn't need lawyers and politicians would have to be honest.

Every time there's a debate it's usually because everyone interprets things to suit themselves. Isn't that one reason there are so many religions?

Your point is well taken.

Among several of the definitions of the word Interpret is: make sense of or assign meaning to.

The very act of interpretation invloves filtering an idea through your mind to assign meaning to it. Maybe it would be more accurate to acknowledge to yourself whos meaning you're more attracted to.

I had a meeting with a lawyer about some training we are considering offering to the legal community. He made an interesting and telling comment to me. He said: "Lawyers want ambiguity, and they build it into laws they are associated with". Most politicians are lawyers, aren't they?

>I had a meeting with a lawyer about some training we are
>considering offering to the legal community. He made an
>interesting and telling comment to me. He said: "Lawyers
>want ambiguity, and they build it into laws they are
>associated with". Most politicians are lawyers, aren't they?


Telling? Hardly, anyone with a pulse is aware of that Al. Without uncertainty (read as legal mumbo jumbo) built into every darn law and legal document there would be no need for lawyers. That's simply their job security plan and the one thing they must all be good at.

Course listing was "Baffle them with BS 101" and it was mandatory. }>

i agree. the consitution speaks for itself. i also feel that the
historical context is important. knowing the history might help
someone like myk understand the importance of what occured with
with mr.weigand and DELL. anyone who could say that this infringe-
ment should be applied equally, if at all, has got to be clueless
about what is at stake.

i read the schulman piece and printed it. thanks for including it.

Duhhh, if the infrigment was applied to everyone equally it wouldn't be an infrigment.

That's not too hard of a concept to grasp. His business is part of public record. It's not like the broke into his house without a warrant to dig up some dirt on him.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>Duhhh, if the infrigment was applied to everyone equally it
>wouldn't be an infrigment.
>
so if the day arrives that we are all violated EQUALLY, say
total gun control (none for everyone), i'll feel better that
you've explained to me that that's not an infringement. thanks
for setting my thinking straight, myk. i don't know what the
heck i was thinking!


>That's not too hard of a concept to grasp. His business is
>part of public record. It's not like the broke into his
>house without a warrant to dig up some dirt on him.

of course not.

Yeah, let's change the topic from the "infringement" of public records being searched by a company but applied only to certain individuals, which is not a definite infringement to gun bans by the govt which is a direct infringement.

Way to be a troll.
(You either don't understand the Constitution and freedoms and have problems understanding what I've said or you are trolling. Your insistence to equate unrelated items and twist one into the other leads me to believe the latter.)

On the off chance that you're not trolling you should read up on constitutional laws and how they are applied, you seem like a good freedom fighter but just a bit confused.
Generally it takes the govt to violate a constitutional law to have a civil case. Discrimination suits have, to my knowledge, only been applied to private business refusing to do business in the case of race or sexual discrimination. Businesses are also free just like we are. And if they want to search public records of everyone they do business with there is nothing illegal or morally wrong with it. Only when they apply their policy to certain individuals does it become discrimination and even then, it is their business to run how they want until a court steps in to say otherwise.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

You are seeing inconsistencies because you want to. I've explained it twice now and don't plan to do it a third time. Believe what you want to believe.

Thomas Jefferson said, "A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercises, I advise a gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character to the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." 8 Papers of Thomas Jefferson

John Adams, "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense." A Defence of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America

Before you claim that I don't know my revolutionary era history maybe you should do some reading about it yourself. Volumes of history are available and I wonder how many of them you have in your house, I have plenty here.
Perhaps you think that they meant for the guns to just sit on a shelf and for people to be able to magically hit their targets without any target practice if they were ever needed to fight tyranny.
And perhaps you think they were able to run to a Super Wal*Mart to pick up some fresh meat all nicely packed in plastic wrap.
Ahh yes, guns are ONLY constitutionally protected for defense against tyranny and not target practice, hunting or self protection of your own property. That's the same claim I've heard before from the anti-gun crowd, that since we have the armed forces and hunting, sport and self-protection aren't what the Second is about, that we no longer need it. That's ridiculous.

I say gung ho like it's an insult because you want to come down on me for what you think I said yet you don't put your money where your mouth is.

Non-discriminatory violations are better. Do you think Hitler would've got as far as he did if he was sending everyone off to the concentration camps?
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
-Martin Niemoller

"i wonder if
mr.weigand would feel better if all gun ownwers couldn't buy
from DELL, instead of only those with "comabat" in their
business name"

You have a very strange view of non-discriminatory and the meaning of the word "everyone".

Please tell me where there is a civil rights violation. Find me one constitutional amendment that says that your public information is not to be kept in a data base. Find me one that says someone can't go into public records to find that information.

(edit)The civil rights violation in this instance would be that their practice is not being applied to EVERYONE equally. And that is only going by the notion that a private business is not free to do business with whomever they wish. I don't think Dell's practice is illegal, I just think it's immoral and un-American.(/edit)

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

your posts speak volumes. thank you. it's been fun!

Your refusal to answer whether or not you drive to avoid a data base check. And what is the civil rights violation or amendment speaks even louder.

It's easy to get yourself in an uproar. It's a little more difficult when you have to back it up with facts or actions.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

myk -

this is my attempt to answer what you've said to me and about me. i
felt that i had done so in previous posts but to be sure, i went back
and re-read all of them. any references i make to previous posts are
paraphrases.

in #39 you stated that it was okay if DELL puts everyone through an f.b.i. instant check. your reasoning being that the equal application makes it okay.

in #49 i stated that i don't want to live in a police state. i was
supprised at what you said because of your "live free or die scroll".

in #53 you state that it's okay w/you if there are data bases kept
on our purchases. i vehimently disagree w/that.

somewhere you refered to something i said as an argument you've heard by the anti-gun crowd - your way, i guess, of painting me
anti-gun. i thought that was very underhanded and desperate, on
your part, as i am obviously pro gun rights. you have also indi-
cated that because i said the 2nd amentment is about defense against
tyranny that, somehow, this prohibits the use of a firearm in the
defense of ones own life or property. i am supprised that you could
draw such a conclusion. does my bringing up defense against the
tyranny by goverment make you think that i would not value life
and property in any other instance? use your head.

in #59 i proposed a hypothetical situation of using an unregistered
firearm to defend against an intruder. i said i would take the fall-
out (legal consequences) of having an unregistered weapon. does this
sound like i am anti-gun? in the same post, i referred you to Jews
for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, the best gun rights org-
anization i know of. they have scrupulously documented the history
of gun control, all over the world. they are in milwaukee, wi.

in #60 you state that because i am so "gung-ho" about data bases
being kept on private citizens that i must not drive a car, use
banks, buy books from stores w/computer inventories, have back-
ground checks, etc.

in #61 i said that i have been subject to the same intrusions as
all americans and that there is probably a lot of information on
me in data bases. i'm of the opinion that this is happening to
people all over the planet and my concern should not be construed
to mean that i am, somehow, immune from the dilemmas of the human
race.

in #72 you accuse me of not answering your question of whether
or not i am in such data bases. i thought i answered that in #61.
yes, i have a long, recorded history, starting with my birth cer-
tificate. i drive, i work (have a social security number), have
had background checks done on me (for a criminal record), have had
medical care, etc., etc., etc. the more i have learned about the
compiling of information on private individuals, the more alarmed
i've become. you, apparently, feel that i'm in no position to
protest as long i have lost my privacy. in your eyes, i am a
hypocrite for attempting to fight back.
in this same post, you say that it it easy to get myself in an
uproar and you indicate that i've not backed up my beliefs with
action or facts. what do you know about me? for all you know,
i may have taken on the i.r.s. over constitutional issues (at a
time, i might add, that a local federal judge said that anyone
raising a constitutional issue in "his court" was going to have
the book thrown at them). you don't know shit about me.

in #66 (and others) you argue that an equally applied infringement
is no infringement at all. THAT does not warrent another response.

in #70 you call me a troll. now, i'm a first time computer user (about a month now) and this forum stuff is new to me. i have always thought of troll as a term used in fishing or a little gnome type of creature living underground. i'm not familiar w/the lexicon here but i'm not stupid. judging from the context in which you've used the word, it sounds like you are accusing me of being an agent provocateur. if that is the case, then you are really reaching to go to such lenghths to discredit someone who takes issue with your
notions about "equality".
in this post, as well, you say it takes goverment to violate a civil
right. that is my understanding, too (though i'm no legal expert).
did not DELL claim they were complying w/a LAW? last i checked, it's
government that passes law. this is, however, a minor point with me.
i don't give a damn who came up with the idea to screen customers for
computer purchases, I DON'T LIKE IT!
you also state that businesses are free just like we are. DELL is a
corporation and a corporation is a legal fiction. the unalienable
rights of a human being are not the same as the priveledges extended
to a corporation. even if there were not a difference, i STILL would
be oppsed to this type of screening.

in #64 you say "find me one constitutional amenedment that says that
your public information is not to be kept in a data base". well i'm
not too sure what you mean by the word "public". it seems to me that
what is private fast becomes public, these days. in any event, i would point to amendment IX, in my opinion, the most important.
i think that i have a RIGHT to privacy and i don't need any court to
affirm it. i guess you do.

you reply in any way you see fit. i don't plan to. i don't think this
forum was meant for these types of lengthy exchanges and i think i've
just about worn out my welcome. i never intended to get so carried
away but, i admit, it was immpossible not to respond to you. may all
who have endured this, please, accept my apology.

It is OK if Dell want's to put everyone through an FBI check. FBI background checks are not illegal. Dell picking and choosing who they put through checks is not OK by me but is still legal. You are not the only one who deserves rights you know.

It is OK that data bases are kept on your purchases. That should be obvious since they have been kept on them for a very long time. If you disagree with that, again I ask, do you stand behind that? Do you not drive a car, do you only pay cash for stuff from places outside your locality so that the store owner won't know who you are to keep any sort of data base on you? If you did answer that before it wasn't very clear. Saying, "I have been as subject to violations of my rights and privacy as any other American." is not a direct answer to that question. The direct answer is either a yes or a no.
If (and it seems it is) the answer is no then I don't see where you get off telling me to live up to my sig because I don't see the same thing as being a violation that you do. Live up to your own convictions before you start telling me how to live up to mine.

You would guess that is how I'm painting you (anti-gun). But you are wrong. I merely said what I said. Just like the Constitution don't try to put your own spin on my words. I've heard that same ludicrous statement made by the anti-gunners and it doesn't make any more sense when you said it. That does not mean you are an anti-gunner. It does mean it's a dangerous ground you tread when you start adding meanings to the Constitution.
No, you implied that hunting, target shooting and self-defense were not constitutionally protected reasons to own a gun. That the only reason that amendment is there is for defense against tyranny. You were wrong.
There is no sense in me counter pointing the rest of your proof that you are pro-gun because I never said that you weren't.

In #66 I'm talking of the infringement of Dell checking out a legal gun owner more than they do anyone else. If that was applied to everyone who bought from Dell it wouldn't be an infringement.

It seems that you are trolling for a fight. You twist the "infringement" above to mean any infringement. You keep trying to turn this into another gun or other rights debate instead of keeping on the issue of what Dell did (which is why this thread was started). It seems you have singled me out for something that others have also said. If I say something I am wrong, but if someone comes along as says the same thing you agree. I've run into two kinds of troll on the net. Those that indiscriminately look for fight and those that pick a target. I don't care, I like playing with trolls.

Finally, we can talk about what Dell has done. Dell does claim they are following a law. But in this case the law they are following does not apply. It is an export law. The last time I checked, shipping from TX to PA is not an export. Therefore if Dell wants to use that law as a basis for their policy they should apply that policy to everyone of their customers and not just ones who are gun dealers with a business name that they disagree with. Applying their policy inequally is discrimination. In that light, if they want to apply that policy then they should do so to every purchase and then it wouldn't be discrimination.

I don't want to get into corporate law because I disagree with most of it. As it is I think one of the ways a corp is treated as a person is that they are free to do business however they want as long as it is within the law. A way that they are not a person is that the owner cannot be held responsible for what the corporation does, if they go out of business there is no estate that can be held responsible.

To be within the law a court does have to uphold your views or nobody has to question them. Since your views are already in question because there is plenty of public record out there I would venture to guess that you don't have the right to keep anyone who wants to look at that information from looking at it.
The way I handle that is if it's something I don't want people to know I don't do it so there is a paper trail.

Feel free to have these lengthy conversations. It's done here all the time. For the most part nobody holds a grudge here. I don't care what your views are, you have the right to express them.
I meant to welcome you after your first post to me but with the snide comments about me and my sig I didn't feel like it.
So, I'll do it here. Welcome and stick around.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

i'm a little late getting to this but, thank you for the welcome and your invitation to stick around. i may do that - just to bug YOU!

JUST KIDDING

>IF Dell wants
>to screen their non-export customers that Dell should screen
>ALL of their customers, otherwise it is discriminatory.

Myk-

What kind of logic is this? The issue is Dell screening ANY customers at all based on word usage! How can you fail to see that? Dell is free to implement any screening policy they want but doesn't it occur to you what level that reduces us all to?

Becoming complacent with the idea of Dell using key words to screen all their non-export customers instead of gun store owners does nothing to address the real issue.

Maintaining freedom can't be achieved by allowing just a little of it to be taken away. It's all or nothing. I must say I agree "live free or die", mean it!

"Dell is free to implement any screening policy they want"

That says it all doesn't it. Dell is just as free as you or I to do business how the want to. If you or I don't agree with their practice we are free not to buy from them.

What Dell is doing by definition is discrimination. By law it is not (at least not until a court says it is). So you would rather take away Dell's freedom and every other business' freedom because you perceive a threat.

What you end up with is a govt who forces a business to do business with you and you being forced to do business with them. Is that what you want?

Or are you being a hypocrite and only want the freedoms for yourself?

I would rather have the right to boycott Dell on the basis that what they are doing is discrimination and morally that is wrong. And leave them with the right to run their business the way they want to while I'm left with the freedom to not do business with who I want to.

(edit) And I'm not talking about applying their discriminatory word list as screening. I'm talking about the screening they do because someone get's flagged by the list. Dump the list and screen them all if that's what they want to do.(/edit)

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Oh Gimme a break. I never said anything about outlawing Dell's screening policies.

I suggested you think about what Dell's policies and our adherence to them would represent, especially if Dell's mindset continued to expand to others.

"Dell's policies and our adherence to them would represent, especially if Dell's mindset continued to expand to others"

You mean the discriminatory policy or the running checks of public record? The checks are not the problem (as you must think since that was what your reply was to me). The fact that they apply checks to one group (i.e., the ones singled out by their word list) more strictly than others is the problem.

It's not, "Dell screening ANY customers at all based on word usage", they do that to all their customers from what I understand. It's the words they use and the fact that they want to check someone who is running a legal business more closely than someone else because they are afraid of a word.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>What Dell is doing by definition is discrimination. By law
>it is not (at least not until a court says it is). So you
>would rather take away Dell's freedom and every other
>business' freedom because you perceive a threat.

Discriminating agains blacks was once legal. Based on your logic, if I had suggested we all be outraged at a company discriminating against blacks before it was legislated as being illegal, you'd be accusing me of wanting to take away someone's freedom. Besides if I were black and being discriminated against I wouldn't need a law or a government to tell me not to protest against it, which by the way is exactly what blacks did! Dell's actions are no different.

I think you have a fundemental misunderstanding of freedom. You seem to think that by resisting discrimination, and one's attempts to oppress, you are denying the oppressor their right to discriminate.

>What you end up with is a govt who forces a business to do
>business with you and you being forced to do business with
>them.

What you end up with is a free society.

>I would rather have the right to boycott Dell on the basis
>that what they are doing is discrimination and morally that
>is wrong. And leave them with the right to run their
>business the way they want to while I'm left with the
>freedom to not do business with who I want to.

Following that line of logic, Blacks should boycott businesses that discriminate, you should allow businesses to continue to discriminate against blacks and leave it up to blacks to boycott those buisnesses.

>And I'm not talking about applying their
>discriminatory word list as screening. I'm talking about the
>screening they do because someone get's flagged by the list.

What in the hell is the difference?

>Dump the list and screen them all if that's what they want
>to do.(/edit)

Do you relaize how crazy this reasoning is? Don't discriminate against a few, discriminate against us all and then it won't be discrimination! Wheww.

Live free or die, mean it!

If someone doesn't want to do business with a black person I don't think they should be forced to, at least not by govt law. Any force should come from public pressure and boycotts.
If I don't want to do business with the big wig racist in town I shouldn't be forced to because otherwise I would be discriminating against his kind.

I think you are the one who doesn't understand freedom. When the word "forced" is used it implies anything but freedom.

You can't discriminate against EVERYONE. That would be impossible since it goes against the meaning of the word.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

DISCRIMINATE: "recognize or percieve the difference. Marked by the ability to see or make a fine distinction."

There is only one thing I discriminate against. Someone attempting to deprive me of FREEDOM. And that's an act of force. Freedom is not expressed in the forceful act of depriving the freedom of another.

Read history! Examine the political and social atmosphere in a nation-state prior to the birth of tyranny! Tyranny has a gestation period. It's growth begins slowly. It may start with the careful examination and discrimination of one's word usage, or the IMPLIED threat to a power structure of a citizen bearing arms. When the spotlight of suspicion shines on Americans for their use of key words everyone should be concerned. I'm not suggesting our government is tyrannical, only that there is evidence of the makings of tyranny.

It's always more difficult to be objective when your looking from the inside out. It's not always easy to see something when it's staring you in the face. Myk, I agree with you, I don't want or beleive in a world of forced equality. My energy is waning and I'm tired of discussing this topic. Be that as it may, in my heart I am genuinely concerned at the complacency I see around me regarding these government inspired guidelines. I suspect many here beleive me to be paranoid. Fine. All that I ask is that you think about what I've said. Read History! Examples abound! Please try and keep your mind open.

Sort by destination. C'mon, any programmer worth anything can write that.

But I'll tell you what is wrong with their policy. It discriminates against American citizens. Maybe they have to screen for Jewish sounding names before you see the point...

>Oh really? Just how the heck do you know that statement to
>be true?
>Don't tell me you have psychic powers too.

When I say American, I mean body, mind and spirit. What did you think I meant?

>Yes and I'll bet you'd be the first one to holler when PC
>prices go up to pay for these perfected procedures you want
>more money spent on. Wakeup dude, implementing these
>policies is a new thing for many so there are bound to be
>some bumps in the road.

Like I said, You're a dear frozen in headlights. What kind of thinking process is reflected in even momentarily considering costs when it comes to ensuring fairness to Americans, especially now.

Mc... Mc... Mc... something?

>Just my 2 cents.

Which is exactly what it's worth!

I never realized there were so many people who would interpret ones refusal to take a stand against the suppression of free speech and free thought as being bitter.

Would you consider your resistance at someone's attempt to smother you, bitter? This isn't really even about Dell and it isn't about guns. It's about freedom.

I'm beginning to realize that this country is in real trouble. The oppressors aren't the threat. It's all you wanna be slaves!

Well... The important thing is that you get a good buy on a Dell Dude!

You'll be surfing the web in the night of the living dead.

"I'm beginning to realize that this country is in real trouble.

I've been thinking that for a while.
Support was dropped very early on a second generation game I play. I refuse to by the third generation because of it. Yet the people like me who will not support the company because they screwed us over are very few.

Nobody (at least not enough) has the guts to stand up for themselves anymore.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

mwave.com has a great 8100 "derivitave" laptop that a friend has recently purchased. Nothing but good things to say, and you get to choose if it comes with an OS or not, which is cool. Here's a link for you.

http://direct.mwave.com/mwave/ProdNOTEBOOK-MWAVE.hmx?UID=&CID=&Back=

Thank you.

Doc, Are those processor speeds for real? I didn't know Laptops could get those speeds yet.

Yeah, i was kinda shocked as well, but i don't think Mwave would just put up stuff like that if they couldn't deliver

IBM Thinkpads are excellent notebooks.

Thanks for reminding me. I had looked at those quite some time ago and liked them. Time to take another look.

I was suprised not to see you on Al's Post?

I think you'd better go read my bottom post in that thread.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Oh, great. I bookmarked the site, but not for the reason they would want me to.

MSU

As far as I am concerned, commercial companies are not qualified to get involved in anti-terrorism. Cookie cutter approaches are asinine. I doubt if any terrorist group, foreign or domestic, is going to adopt a name like "Terrorists-r-Us". Simplistic stupidity like that can only backfire on a company, as it did for Dell. If a company comes across a customer that truly arouses suspicions, they should contact the proper authorities that are qualified to evaluate and investigate the situation. I'm sure Dell's intentions were good, and I'm confident they are not beating any anti gun drum... especially being from Texas. The terrorist attacks against this country have produced exactly the kind of fear and paranoia that was the real objective of the operation. The discussion in this thread has been reasoned and rational with the exception of one person who is either a troll or a fool, and added nothing of value.

Shelly

If Dell sold phone or cable service and was the only available company in your neighborhood and pulled this discriminatory crap, I doubt anyone would defend them. There would be no misunderstanding. Pure and simple. You wouldn't stand for it.

If Dell sold food, medical supplies or automobiles and was just one of a handful of companies available to do business in your city that your family could patronize, I doubt anyone would defend them. There would be no misunderstanding. Pure and simple. You wouldn't stand for it.

None of this stuff hits home with most people until it touches their lives personally. And then in most cases it's too late. Look at history. Before freedom is seriously eroded there's always a warning sign. When freedom begins to erode it starts to fade slowly and innocuously, many times under the auspices of "following guidelines" "your protection" "good intentions." And Dell might not even realize the gravity and implications of their own actions! The erosion of freedom is like having a piece of cheese in the fridge. You cut apiece here, you take apiece there and before you know it it's gone completely.

On the surface it may appear that this issue with Dell is some minor misunderstanding caused by well-meaning good intentions. Dell's actions and mind set will multiply and spread to others and will begin to take on a life of it's own if we don't stand up against it. To diminish Dell's actions and believe those concerned are paranoid and reactionary is foolish beyond belief. Any one of us could be next.

Now, I don't care who you are. I don't care how much education you've had. I don't care if you're a financial wizard, some sage people worship, or man of the year. Let there be no misunderstanding. Dell's actions are inexcusable. For that matter any company or any person duplicating Dell's actions is inexcusable.

GO SHELLY!!!!!


I don't want ANY company to think that they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with their products, based on some perceived notion.

Of course it does exist, here and there.

If I was to buy 600 gallons of diesel, how do YOU know whether I'm going to build a bomb or heat my house??

If I want to buy a computer, or any other product, I don't want to have to "prove" my worthiness, just because I have a business with a "naughty" key word in the title.