totoro;169707 Wrote: > The more I think about it, the more I agree with P Floding and Robin's > later assessment. The only sensible reading of "no risk" is "no > financial risk". P Floding hit the nail on the head for me when he said > "what other kind of risk is there?" for this kind of transaction. > > This caveat means essentially, "30 day trial period with a $150 fee > that can be applied towards the purchase price". Seriously: it's > absolutely logically equivalent, as far as I can see. > > If that's what they had said, at least they would have been obvious. > IMHO what they did was commit a sleazy linguistic sleight of hand. I > honestly don't think I know anyone who would interpret "No Risk Trial" > and "30 day trial period with a $150 fee that can be applied towards > the purchase price" as having the same semantics. > > As I said earlier, whether or not this is a legal difference is a moot > point. I won't do business with a company I perceive as being > unethical. > > Who knows what other dirty tricks they might have up their sleeve, say > when you need warrantee service? > > Kind of reminds me of the scene in "the Meaning of Life" where a guy > has to give up his liver while he's still alive because he didn't read > the fine print of his organ donor agreement.
Let's hope BCD looks at this thread. They should be alarmed by all this bad publicity and perhaps they will take steps to improve their image. Is squeezing the 150.00 out of the OP worth all this bad PR? -- tomjtx ------------------------------------------------------------------------ tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31562 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
