>"toto" <scarec...@wicked.witch> wrote in message
>news:6aaip35329pj36jiqbqgf5jihfosji8n8q@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:00:17 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:

>>>toto wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:13:27 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky
>>>> <beliav...@aol.com> wrote:

>>>>> That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people did not
>>>>> think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be the world's largest
>>>>> company by sales.

>>>> Opinion isn't truth though.  Walmart does not actually offer a good
>>>> value for the money.   Of course, that is only the tip of the iceberg
>>>> in terms of why Walmart is a poor place to shop.

>>>Please tell us why you think Walmart is a poor place to shop. I am quite
>>>curious.

>>>Jeff, who rarely shops at Walmart.

>> The way Walmart operates, it dictates the price it's suppliers must
>> give them.  This forces companies to cut corners and to make shoddier
>> goods.  It also forces some companies into bankruptcy and others go
>> out of business because they cannot sell their goods and make a fair
>> profit.  They have changed this a bit recently, but Walmart is still
>> way too powerful, imo.

>> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

>> From the comments section after the article

>> WALMART WAYS THEY FOOL THE PUBLIC.. I worked for Wal-mart and noticed
>> the going out of style or damaged or just didn`t have room for them
>> items were put on a SPECIAL SALE table or shelf.. the price wasn`t
>> reduced just a sale.. ALSO I got the Kodak camera this Christmas for
>> the unbelieveable price of $89 ..the kicker is you can get this model
>> everyday for this price... and I stood in line an hour!.. and the
>> model is being phased out!.. Watch out

><snip>
>Um... I don't think that's a problem. Doesn't sound misleading to me. It
>sounds rather obvious to me.
>I wouldn't pay £89 for anything without checking that it wasn't cheaper
>elsewhere, particularly anything digital where advances mean that generally
>things sre becomming obselete very quickly.
>Surely if it's damaged then they have to say-certainly in the UK that would
>be true-or at any rate you'd be entitled to your money back if you got it
>home and found later it was damaged and it didn't say. That's called
>"consumer rights" here.
>Debbie-who not only has NEVER shopped at Walmart-I don't think I've even
>seen one!