Walmart sued for refusing to stock Plan B pill

[Wandor]

I don't have to post any proof, it is up to Wandor to post proof of his claims because another poster has checked with the source Wandor provided and found the source does not remember speaking to Wandor. Since the source Wandor used is no longer valid Wandor has to provide the proof.

You posting under a different name does not constitute "proof" that the conversation happened. Even if Tiffani Bruce doesn't remember talking to me does not constitute proof that the conversation did not happen. I talk to dozens of people on the phone every day at work. If you asked me is I talked to customer_01 on the phone last week I can pretty much guarantee I wouldn't remember talking to them, even if I really did. Tiffani Bruce is the media reltaions manager and a company spokesperson, how many people do you think she talks to every day? I called the CEOs office and they don't remember sending a fax with answers regarding their Plan B policy last week. Obviously this means it never happened.

[Turonyen]

Wandor has not proved his "conversation" actually happened.





I don't have to post any proof, it is up to Wandor to post proof of his claims because another poster has checked with the source Wandor provided and found the source does not remember speaking to Wandor. Since the source Wandor used is no longer valid Wandor has to provide the proof.

You have to post proof, since I don't care or even read about Wandor's claims. Post up, or shut up about it.

[Fnagaton]

You have to post proof, since I don't care or even read about Wandor's claims. Post up, or shut up about it.

I have posted quite a few times already that I will post my proof when Wandor posts his proof first because Wandor made his (now discredited) claims first.

You posting under a different name does not constitute "proof"

I have not posted under a different name.

Even if Tiffani Bruce doesn't remember talking to me does not constitute proof that the conversation did not happen.

It means the person you claim is your cite doesn't remember talking to you which leads to the conclusion that the conversation did not take place. Congratulations, this means the source you cite is not able to confirm what you claim. Since she is not going to remember talking to you and cannot confirm your claims then that means your cite is invalid.

I called the CEOs office and they don't remember sending a fax with answers regarding their Plan B policy last week. Obviously this means it never happened.

It's too late for you ( http://www.graffe.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=610 ) to play that game, your source has already been discredited.

You would of course be able to supply the name of who you talked to, if you actually talked to someone. The name you supply would also have to match up with the name that is on my fax.

Here is a hint, when you actually do call Walgreen don't ask to go through "reception" when the computerised voice asks you what department you want. If it puts you through to the same bad tempered woman who answered when I called your ears will start burning.

I talk to dozens of people on the phone every day at work. If you asked me is I talked to customer_01 on the phone last week I can pretty much guarantee I wouldn't remember talking to them, even if I really did. Tiffani Bruce is the media reltaions manager and a company spokesperson, how many people do you think she talks to every day?

That is a very poor excuse for suppyling a cite that is unable to confirm that your conversation took place.
It's not even remotely believable because:
1) You claim she called you back. Which means she would have made a reminder to herself to call you back. Hard to forget doing that.
2) You claim you asked her if it is OK to quote what she said. You are seriously trying to tell us that a media relations manager easily forgets who she has given permission to quote her for and only a short time ago? That is a massive stretch. If a customer calls me up and asks me for permission to quote something I said to them I make damn sure there is a written record of who I spoke to, what the quote was and what time is was made. This is for the express reason that I can at a moments notice consult my records and also so that if those quotes ever end up in a contract dispute or court I can produce the records to satisfy demands for proof. I would also prefer to confirm what I said in writing, but that's me being extra secure.

I don't buy your excuses, they are unbelievable.

[Wandor]

It means the person you claim is your cite doesn't remember talking to you which leads to the conclusion that the conversation did not take place.

No, the only conclusion you can logically draw is that she doesn't remember the conversation. Of course that is assuming you believe pseudo-Fnag really called and Tiffani Bruce really said that. Using your logic however, psuedo_Fnag has not provided any proof to back up his claim that he made the call so the claim is invalid.

Since she is not going to remember talking to you and cannot confirm your claims then that means your cite is invalid.

Of course she can confirm my claim. I posted my questions, all you have to do is have a little reading ability to see if she answers the same.

You claim she called you back. Which means she would have made a reminder to herself to call you back. Hard to forget doing that.

I call bullshit*, post proof that Tiffani Bruce doesn't remember talking to me or retract that statement.

You are seriously trying to tell us that a media relations manager easily forgets who she has given permission to quote her for and only a short time ago? That is a massive stretch.

You have no proof that she has forgotten that she spoke to me. Refer to above bullshit call.







* Bullshit called based on Fnag's Razor, Fnagaton. "Walmart sued for refusing to stock Plan B pill." Graffë Forums: Off-Topic Discussion. 2006. http://www.graffe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38300

[Fnagaton]

No, the only conclusion you can logically draw is that she doesn't remember the conversation.

So you say, you're wrong. It does mean that your supposed cite for your supposed conversation is not valid.

Of course that is assuming you believe pseudo-Fnag really called and Tiffani Bruce really said that.

You will have to stop with the pseudo-Fnag stuff because you're writing ruibbish. If you're going to attack a poster then at least have the guts to use their real handle.

Using your logic however, Wicerius has not provided any proof to back up his claim that he made the call so the claim is invalid.

Using your logic the other poster used a known source and posted their findings. Apparently the poster used your exact cite and posted the question they used along with the answer they got. Again using your logic the other poster has satisfied all of your criteria for posting 100% valid proof and this means the other poster according to your logic doesn't need to post proof.

Of course she can confirm my claim.

So you say, but you have failed to prove it. The other poster also shows that when asked she cannot support your claim because she does not remember talking to you. This makes your cite invalid.

I posted my questions, all you have to do is have a little reading ability to see if she answers the same.

The other poster posted their question along with the answer (and the exact source used). Again according to your logic the other poster doesn't have to post any other proof because you think just posting a quote along with a source is 100% proof.

According to your logic that is more than enough proof that the other poster is correct.

I call bullshit*, post proof that Tiffani Bruce doesn't remember talking to me or retract that statement.

You could bullshit but that just means you are ignoring my previous call of bullshit against your claim. If you want someone else to comply with your call to bullshit then you must first handle my call of bullshit against you and this means you have to provide proof.

You have no proof that she has forgotten that she spoke to me. Refer to above bullshit call.

The proof against you is three-fold.
1) The other poster posted their findings where you cite is shown to be invalid.
2) Nobody else has jumped to your defence (despite giving them days to do so) to say they have verified your claims with the contact information you posted.
3) You have still failed to provide proof.

[Wandor]

It does mean that your supposed cite for your supposed conversation is not valid.

No more invalid than your supposed fax.

If you're going to attack a poster then at least have the guts to use their real handle.

I am using the posters REAL handle. Prove it is not you or your claim is invalid.

Apparently the poster used your exact cite and posted the question they used along with the answer they got.

The "other" poster is a liar and made an invalid claim. Prove otherwise or retract your statement.

The other poster also shows that when asked she cannot support your claim because she does not remember talking to you. This makes your cite invalid.

The "other" poster did not ask the questions I asked so cannot claim whether my claims are valid or not.

1) The other poster posted their findings where you cite is shown to be invalid.

Already discredited claims. Invalid arguement.

2) Nobody else has jumped to your defence (despite giving them days to do so) to say they have verified your claims with the contact information you posted.

I don't need anyone to defend me against your flawed logic and your pseudonyms.

You have still failed to provide proof.

You have failed to discredit my claims in any meaningful way.

[Fnagaton]

No more invalid than your supposed fax.

I have a fax and nobody has posted to say they checked and found my claim to be lacking.

I am using the posters REAL handle. Prove it is not you or your claim is invalid.

No you're not. Don't ask to see such stupid things. I also do not have to prove a negative.
You claimed the other poster is me so you have to provide proof of your claim.

I see how your world works now. You make a claim without proof. You then expect people to provide proof to prove you wrong. That is extremely fucked up.

The "other" poster is a liar and made an invalid claim. Prove otherwise or retract your statement.

According to your logic you don't have to provide proof when posting quotes from a source, but then according to your "logic" other people have to provide proof when posting quotes from the same source.

There is real irony there.

The "other" poster did not ask the questions I asked so cannot claim whether my claims are valid or not.

That doesn't matter because the source you cite cannot confirm there was any phone call in the first place. The fact is your entire claim is discredited because your supposed source (the one you laughingly claim to have asked permission to quote) cannot remember talking to you and cannot confirm there was any phone call. This means you cannot use those quotes you made in your posts.

Already discredited claims. Invalid arguement.

You failed to provide counter proof, so according to your logic the claims of that poster stand against you.

I don't need anyone to defend me against your flawed logic and your pseudonyms.

According to you this is a popularity contest, since nobody has supported your claims by saying they have checked your story then you have lost.

You have failed to discredit my claims in any meaningful way.

So you say, you're wrong for the reasons I have already posted.

[Floydian]

This has been going on long enough and enough people have complained to warrant the locking.