What is Digg?158 Comments
- rolfeman02, on 10/12/2007, -6/+100So where does shampagne come from?
- latova, on 10/12/2007, -4/+83And what better a place to find those kinds of sites then on digg?
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+63The lawyer's the real winner here. The guy thinks hourly pay on a non-winnable case is better.
- cbasst, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51Can I sue digg if it overloads my site?
- jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+47no the users can sue YOU because your site wasn't online.
or should they sue digg? ... tough call ... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+45@jeremy66158
we all know that. but it's Saturday night and we need something to argue over. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+44Ummm... "Guy" is an obvious idiot, and this is most likely standard forum BS, theres no lawsuit, no court filings, no digg
- freebirdpat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41At $250 an hour, I bet there are plenty of lawyers willing to take this guy seriously.
- ThePrise, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42So should I start suing any site that ever gets overloaded?
- Hegemony, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41It's got to be a joke. He's just messing with people... I hope.
- myheaditches, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41That is not, how you use commas.
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35I tried to buy one on the East coast and I couldn't access the site for 5 minutes before and after, should I throw a tantrum too? Guy seriously needs to learn what limited quantities means.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31duh. 250/hr is the investment that will return a bentley, caviar and some shampoo.
- echinatl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32You can try to sue. Anyone can pretty much sue anyone for anything. It's our legal system in action!
Next, he should sue GOD, for making him stupid. - EasY_TargeT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28if hes spending 250/hr on a lawyer, why doesn't he pay full price, cheap bastard.
- jeremy66158, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29I don't know why I bother but do you think this guy is going to sue anyone? I don't, he's blowing hot air and you guys are listening?
- frankiejr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24I really hope this is a joke.
Years and years ago (it all started in 1999), I was price-watching a monitor I wanted on Buy.com. I watched diligently (mind you, no RSS feeds back then) for the price to drop. Finally it did... and I caught on from a friend that called me at 5am because he was watching the price of the same monitor. Turns out the price dropped to far below regular retail price. So, I tried to buy two.
Buy.com admitted it was a mistake. In response, they sold what they had in stock at their advertised price. Mind you, "ADVERTISED" was a VERY limited term back then.
More than a year later I got a letter in the mail, along with my friend, from a lawyer letting us know that we were automatically entered into a class action lawsuit about this whole issue unless I sent them a letter stating otherwise.
The travesty is that lawyers know the law very well will jump on any issue like this because they know they can win a SETTLEMENT. It has nothing to do with people being right or wrong. It has to do with lawyers knowing they can make loads of money off a lawsuit that makes little sense, but a company will pay tons to push away.
I got a check in the mail close to two years after the whole thing for over $100. I accepted to be included in the lawsuit for several reasons. First, I was young and thought the whole thing was a laugh riot. Second, I was lazy and even if I thought it was stupid I wouldn't have sent the simple piece of paper in. So I took the check and giggled at the gas money it provided.
Anyways (sorry about the long description), I realize now that the whole thing was just plain stupid. Someone decided to try and make money off it, and the class action lawsuit was obviously graciously accepted by the Law Firm since they made a hefty sum off the whole deal.
I wish I wrote something about this back then so I could just link to it now... I hope that people see this as a "related comment..." - blueigloo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Dugg for the most retarded story of the year!
- EasY_TargeT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22both? gotta win one of them
- titaniumdecoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20The title of this story is inaccurate. It should read, "Guy brags about his idiotic plans to sue Amazon to get attention."
- fantasmacanino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21This is a case for Lionel Hutz.
- rhinez0r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET.
PS. If you give me money you will have get a larger penis. - burke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21"sham"-pagne indeed. This guy won't be drinking much more than grape juice with the way this case is going to turn out.
- cliffy2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Let's not tell this guy about woot.com...
- MrMxyzptlk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Oh no, time for internet lawyers!
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13do you accept paypal?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11This is obviously a joke. No lawyer would take this guy seriously.
- Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The guy is a troll stirring up trouble. If you look at his last post between 90 and 100 you'll see the one that nails him as such.
Marked as Inaccurate. - tonicboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You know what the funniest thing about all this is. The people who are bashing him for being an idiot are all getting their comments dugg up, as though they're geniuses for figuring out that his "lawsuit" is ridiculous. Meanwhile, there are a few people who have actually figured out that this guy is just a freaking a troll out for a few laughs and THERE IS NO STUPID LAWSUIT, and they have all been dugg down. Are you people too stupid to realize this even when you're told?! Today I am embarassed to be part of the Digg community. Here is the funniest part of his trolling:
"[My lawyer] is an honest guy. He gave me free cokes and cookies and didn't even ask me to pay for it while I was there. He wouldn't be doing all that if it was just a 'dead case'" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9relax it's probably a 10 year old kid
- robbiedo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Do you think this whole Xbox fiasco was just a stunt by Amazon's IT Department as a test of their servers for the holiday season?
Could you imagine if they were selling PS3's for $100. The tubes! Oh the humanity! - alecpriester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8No, this is a case for Bob Loblaw
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In the UK if you lose a case like this the guy suing can be forced to pay the other sides legal fees, is this not the case in the USA?
(Not rhetorical, genuinely asking :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Agreed
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I second the motion!
- ForlornHope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Because this is obviously a fake, I'll insert one useful nugget into this thread: Contracts law specifically contemplates this situation. If a meatspace vendor runs out of stock, they're not obliged to fulfill the advertised price. Circulars are deemed mere 'invititaions to deal' rather than 'offers'.
You may point out that companies give rainchecks anyway; that's often true, but they're not *obligated* to do so. - spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Amazon provides sales records of 1000 consoles and boom, this guy has no case
What an idiot. It's his lawyer who's lying to him by saying he has a case, not Amazon - diggmaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If it was upto this guy, woot would've gotten sued to death many many times by now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6As a former corporate litigation attorney, I can tell you what will almost certainly happen: Amazon will settle and sell him the machine for 100 and have him sign a non-disclosure agreement or in some way have him assume liability if the terms of the settlement are ever revealed. Morally repugnant? Absolutely.
But it's easily the cheapest of options, and remember that Amazon's primary responsibility (by law) is to its shareholders, and as an Amazon shareholder, you can bet your sweet bippy I'd rather have them settle for a few hundred dollars and process minimal, boilerplate paperwork than spend any length of a corporate attorney's time (=money).
Like it or not, this is just how the game of capitalism is played. - Thater, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You all act like you've never seen a troll before. Not even very funny. buried as lame.
- thewhitefedora, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Obviously you have a limited vocabulary.
- Radionesiac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I feel sorry for anyone who thinks this is serious.
- schmiggyjk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Way to add your own definition to look intelligent!
- megaton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Given that they had a disclaimer on the page disavowing any responsibility for malfunctioning equipment, I don't imagine this guy will get very far.
Hint: When your lawyer wants money up front, he doesn't think you can win. :) - ishmal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's BS. "Contingency"? Does he mean "retainer"? I can't think of a lawyer who would do anything -but- hourly charging for something like this. BS.
- Henwood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Anyone noticed the guy is called "Little Bit Timmy" probably after the mentally retarded south park character. I can't believe anyone took this seriously, this is also obviously a joke because he says "I have my lawyer working for only $250 an hour!!!!!" no one says that! Honestly, you're sooooo dumb!!!!!!!!
- frankiejr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wonder if it's really a case of sales records as much as records of advertising records.
They advertised 1000 XBox 360 units for One Hundred Dollars. They were sold, and that was it. End of story. - frankiejr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bingo.
- EasY_TargeT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3cuz it was $100
- GODSUN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Its what any digg user with more than 102 of IQ may wonder.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is