quote:You are ignoring the possibility that more people would buy food and drinks if they were more reasonably priced or higher quality. This isn't an either or situation, its a balancing act. What we see is that theaters are depending more and more on the side products, candy and popcorn, to make their profit. This suggests that the demand for movie tickets is far more elastic, than the demand for food once people are in the theater.
Exactly, this is a balancing act, and theaters are trying to manage it.
(Btw, theaters have been relying on food and drink for operational costs andprofits for decades, now; ticket sales have gone almost entirely to pay off the cost of movies for quite some time).
And it is very easy to explain why people are less sensitive to the price of purchased food: they can better control how much they consume, varying their price of a movie. For instance, a person who bought popcorn and a drink might in the future buy only a drink, or only popcorn, or even nothing. Hence it makes far more sense for theaters to try to keep the ticket price as low as possible, and to attract as many people as possible, assuring they're able to keep getting the blockbuster movies, and then to extract additional money only from those willing to pay it to have the food provided by the theater.
edit: and if this is against other attractions, are you asserting people aren't aware of how much they spend on ticket + food at a typical movie outing?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What we see is that theaters are depending more and more on the side products, candy and popcorn, to make their profit. This suggests that the demand for movie tickets is far more elastic, than the demand for food once people are in the theater.
This is not necessarily true. It may just mean that, if you divide them into two separate groups, people who are unwilling to buy concessions are also unwilling to pay higher ticket prices, but that people who are willing to buy concessions are simply willing to splurge more overall. Under that model, the concessions folks would keep coming even if ticket prices were raised, but the nonconcessions people would stop coming if ticket prices were higher.
So it might not be about different elasticities at all. It might just be a way for movie theaters to charge splurgers more overall without alienating other customers.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:edit: and if this is against other attractions, are you asserting people aren't aware of how much they spend on ticket + food at a typical movie outing?
The average American sees less than 5 movies (in the the cinema) per year. Since there are many people in their teens and tweens who hit a movie almost once a week, you have to figure in a lot of people who go to the movies 1 or 2 or no times in a typical year. I suspect most people who attend a movie every week are aware of how much it costs them. I also suspect that a lot of those people who only go to movies once in a while aren't aware of how much they spend on ticket + food at a typical movie outing.
I'd add that a lot people are relatively poor money managers. I know people who are constantly spending more on outings than they expected because they routinely forget to adding "auxilliary" costs like gas, parking, and popcorn.
quote:And it is very easy to explain why people are less sensitive to the price of purchased food: they can better control how much they consume, varying their price of a movie. For instance, a person who bought popcorn and a drink might in the future buy only a drink, or only popcorn, or even nothing. Hence it makes far more sense for theaters to try to keep the ticket price as low as possible, and to attract as many people as possible, assuring they're able to keep getting the blockbuster movies, and then to extract additional money only from those willing to pay it to have the food provided by the theater.
Your argument is almost circular. If people's choice to attend a movie is less sensitive to food prices than ticket prices because they can easily regulate how much food they buy, then food concessions would be a highly elastic market. If the food prices got too high relative to ticket prices, people would buy less food and the theater would loose money. This would tend to drive food prices down and ticket prices up.
But food prices at theaters are notoriously overpriced which suggest that the market is in fact fairly inelastic. Once people are in the theater, a large fraction of them will buy the food regardless of the price. This may be because they are buying for a date or for their children. Or for many, popcorn and a soda are seen as an indispensable part of the movie going experience so once they've paid for the ticket, they will fork out a bundle for the food and drinks regardless of the price.
Look at it this way. The theater's profit margin on tickets is very low. This suggests that they have to keep ticket prices low to get people in the theater. In contrast, the profit margin on the food and drinks is enormous, suggesting that they don't need to keep those prices down to get people to buy popcorn and candy.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is not necessarily true. It may just mean that, if you divide them into two separate groups, people who are unwilling to buy concessions are also unwilling to pay higher ticket prices, but that people who are willing to buy concessions are simply willing to splurge more overall. Under that model, the concessions folks would keep coming even if ticket prices were raised, but the nonconcessions people would stop coming if ticket prices were higher.
But elasticity simply means that the number of customers you draw is more sensitive to the price you charge. You haven't actually said anything that contradicts the idea that the one market is more elastic than the other.
I doubt that movie goers can be easily split into two nice groups, those that don't care about prices and those that do. I suspect its much more of a continue.
Clearly, there are many movie goers who are displeased with the high price of food charged by the theater or there wouldn't be so many trying to bring in outside food. I'm quite confident that if the theaters dropped the price of soda and popcorn, they would sell more. They have set the prices to maximize their total profit (the product of the profit per item sold and the number of items they sell). The fact that the price has settled to such a high value indicates that the market is quite inelastic.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
1) It's not illegal for me to carry around my private property with me, including food I have purchased.
2) If a contract (ticket purchase) isn't explicitly contingent on compliance with food related policies then I'm not breaking it by noncompliance with those policies.
3) If a business wants to refund my money and ask me to leave because I'm not complying with their policies which weren't an explicit part of our contract, it's fine with me.
4) Brewvies is awesome, and I go there as often as I can. A good burger, hot fries and a beer with a movie...hard to beat. (The major downside is that long movies and beer are not terribly compatible...I wish they'd re-introduce the intermission.)
5) "dishonesty" and non-compliance with a "policy" that is not an explicit part of a contract are NOT the same thing.
6) I lie all the time, and people who don't lie at least some of the time are either a) impressively virtuous people or b) adhering to a twisted set of ethics IMO. What I don't do is cheat or defraud, and I don't deceive people without what I consider to be a good reason (which might be as simple as preventing unpleasant feelings).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It looks like the park is the one who is lying.
The cost of admission does not cover the expense of the admission. So, they lie about the cost of admission and then go to great artificial lengths to pretend that it is against some principle for people to bring their own food.
That reminds me an awful lot of some of the arguments I've made here about why I hate the principle of tipping at restaurants. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But elasticity simply means that the number of customers you draw is more sensitive to the price you charge. You haven't actually said anything that contradicts the idea that the one market is more elastic than the other.
What I'm saying is that it is possible that concession sales may be equally as elastic as (or even more elsastic than) ticket sales. Even in those cases, it could still make sense for the theater to use concession prices to separate out big spenders from people unwilling to spend extra.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I don't see properly identifying an act of dishonesty as necessarily making a moral judgement. there are many situations in which an act of deception might not be immoral, and even some situations in which one might be moral.
The main thrust of your point seems to be that if a theater does not clearly post a sign at the box office, and if a theater refuses to refund your money, they are in the wrong. I have no problem with this.
My experience however, is that this happens so rarely that it is hard for me to imagine happening. Every theater I attend has signs at the box office. Every therater where I have worked has had signs at the box office. I have only ever asked someone to leave because of outside food or drink twice, and it had more to do with the behavior of those people than the actual issue of the policy, and certainly those people received a refund.
What I take away from this -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you are okay with a theater having, and enforcing, a no outside food or drink policy as long as signs are clearly posted at the point of entry.
If this is the case, we are actually in complete agreement on the issue.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I take away from this -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you are okay with a theater having, and enforcing, a no outside food or drink policy as long as signs are clearly posted at the point of entry.
There's another aspect to this: one who circumvents that policy through carrying food where it is not easily seen (as opposed to active deception such as saying "No, I have no outside food with me") is not being dishonest and is not doing anything wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's another aspect to this: one who circumvents that policy through carrying food where it is not easily seen (as opposed to active deception such as saying "No, I have no outside food with me") is not being dishonest and is not doing anything.
Is this person aware of the policy? Is this person purposefully holding food where it is less easily seen (behind the back of a friend, or to their side on the opposite of the ticket taker)? If so, I disagree.
Or is this person making an honest mistake?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That reminds me an awful lot of some of the arguments I've made here about why I hate the principle of tipping at restaurants.
That's exactly what I've been thinking for two days.
I also hate tipping in restaurants, but hiding the total cost of the meal is only one reason. For me, the bigger issue is putting the responsibility on the customer to decide how much the server should be paid, and using that mechanism to provide the necessary feedback on their work performance. In other words, I don't want to have to make employee performance evaluation and reward my job when I'm eating out. I'd rather have the manager train, monitor, manage, and pay his staff appropriately. (Taking that responsibility out of my hands by simply tipping 15% or 20% no matter what simply defeats the supposed purpose of tipping in the first place.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this person aware of the policy? Is this person purposefully holding food where it is less easily seen (behind the back of a friend, or to their side on the opposite of the ticket taker)? If so, I disagree.
The problem with labeling flouting a policy as dishonest is that a business's policy is not the same as moral law. You can break policies without being dishonest, just like you can institute policies that are immoral. I think fees where a bank charges $45 dollars for being $1 short in your banking account are immoral, despite being "policy."
Labeling something as dishonest is absolutely a moral judgment. "Not following the policy" is newtrle. "Dishonest" is not.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this person aware of the policy? Is this person purposefully holding food where it is less easily seen (behind the back of a friend, or to their side on the opposite of the ticket taker)? If so, I disagree. Or is this person making an honest mistake?
Either/or.
Failing to disclose something is dishonest only when one has a duty to disclose, when the other party has a reasonable expectation that the fact will be disclosed, or when one is doing something else to convey the opposite meaning.
None of those apply to someone carrying food into a theater.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's another aspect to this: one who circumvents that policy through carrying food where it is not easily seen (as opposed to active deception such as saying "No, I have no outside food with me") is not being dishonest and is not doing anything wrong.
I disagree with this, Dag. By the letter of the rules, they're not being dishonest-assuming no sign is posted, of course, an assumption I don't grant in all cases. But there's a scale of dishonesty, with little while lies somewhere on one end, and for example lying under sworn oath far away on the other end.
Stealthily violating rules you know or have a strong suspicion of believing to exist surely falls somewhere on a scale of dishonesty.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Breaking the rules is not automatically dishonest. The rules have to have a moral force before breaking them is a problem. Depending on how they are broken, the label of "dishonest" may not apply.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Breaking the rules is not automatically dishonest. The rules have to have a moral force before breaking them is a problem. Depending on how they are broken, the label of "dishonest" may not apply.
Well, a rule is only as valid as a) the morality behind it, and b) the authority of the one making the rule.
If the first but not the second, you're behaving immorally for doing an immoral thing. If the second but not the first, you're behaving immorally for not abiding the legitimate rules of a legitimate authority (such as going to someone's home and, I dunno, carrying a firearm or something even if they don't permit guns in their home-that's just a pretty off-the-wall example).
The movie theater is the host, or at least the one you're renting a seat from. Should the have some say over what you do and say while renting and occupying that seat?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been teaching my kids that there is more to honesty than simply telling the truth, and that you can be dishonest without actually lying. I tell them if they are attempting to make people believe something that is not true, even just by their silence, they are being dishonest.
If I happen to have food in my purse when I walk into a theater and no one asks me if I have any, I'm not being dishonest. If I put it in my purse to hide it because I know it's not allowed and I'm trying to sneak it past them, I am being dishonest because I'm trying to deceive them into believing I am not bringing food.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Labeling something as dishonest is absolutely a moral judgment.
Keeping in mind the aforementioned exceptions, I hope. I'm certainly not a fan of equating dishonesty with immorality as an across-the-board judgement.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A business model does not have moral force. I do not consider the "no outside food" to be a moral law. It's something the business wishes would happen, and that's nice, but it's like the rules for no running in the halls or no proper nouns in Scrabble. It's a made-up rule, not a moral law, and unless you agree distinctly to follow it (not "implied", no bait and switch, no "my seat my nonsensical rules" deal), then breaking it is morally newtrle.
Mucus: Oh, reasonable disclaimers apply and I'm not interested in beating the weeds, but in general, if you are labeling someone as dishonest, you are making a moral judgment about them. To say otherwise is absurd.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If the second but not the first, you're behaving immorally for not abiding the legitimate rules of a legitimate authority
I'm sure there are a lot of people who would not accept that. The phrase "legitimate rules of a legitimate authority" is pretty vague anyways.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina: I'm not familiar with that expression (beating the weeds). However, allow me to elaborate. On the contrary, I think that there are many situations in which one can lie and yet that is moral, especially (but not necessarily) if that is the expectation. In fact, I can think of a handful of tough situations in which it would be borderline immoral to not lie.
Keep in mind I believe it is obvious from context that TL intended/intends the label of dishonesty to be a moral judgement.
However, I do not think that it is absurd to make that distinction in general.
We may or may not be on the same page, but I just wanted to spell it out just in case.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, that's what I meant. There are situations when it is more moral to deceive, which may or may not be the same as being dishonest, but in general dishonest=immoral=bad.
Spending time examining the rare exceptions is what I meant by "beating the weeds."
I'm not sure where I heard that phrase, but it might, sadly, have something to do with golf, where someone could spend most of the day searching for lost balls in the weeds and not actually playing. They are on the course and they spent the day attempting to interact with a ball, but they didn't really play but instead spent the day "beating the weeds."
Heaven help me, I'm using golf metaphors. How very preppy of me. I swear I have never played, but everyone else in my family does. *sigh*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
And it's a manipulative post. It's like me saying "So you believe that rules for obtaining a rebate are inherently moral?"
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leaving aside the (interesting) questions of morality that have been being discussed, I've been thinking about alternative models that theaters could use to circumvent the problem. I mean, regardless of whether it's right or wrong, under the prevailing model, people are going to sneak food into theaters. What might be some ways to dissuade people from doing so? There is the model of the restaurant/theater that Enigmatic and a couple of other people have mentioned, but what else? Off the top of my head (and I'm not presenting all of these as good ideas, or even in all cases entirely serious ideas--they're just thoughts that occurred to me):
1. In addition to the ticket cost, 90% of which goes to the theater, include a $3.00 (or however much) fee of some sort that is mandatory. Allow outside food to be brought in, no questions asked, and price concessions reasonably. People are going to grouse about this one, regardless of how inexpensive the concessions are made to be. Chances are good that it'd drive down ticket sales.
2. When people buy a ticket, they have the option of buying a dining ticket or a non-dining ticket. Dining tickets cost several dollars more than non-dining tickets, but their bearers are welcome to eat either outside foods or present their dining ticket at the concession stand for "complimentery" popcorn and drink (or whatever). People will still game this sytem.
3. Charge a reasonable amount for concessions, but cultivate the idea that it's gauche not to give a 20% tip to concession stand employees. Require that concession stand workers put their tips in a communal pool, the lion's share of which is taken by the theater.
4. Continue to charge an arm and a leg for concessions, but provide more interesting, unique snacks. A thing of Reeces' peanut butter cups has a pretty solidly defined value; most grocery stores charge about the same amount for them. Convenience stores charge a little more, but not a whole lot. When a theater offers them at roughly six times the going rate, people are inevitably going to feel that they're being gouged. If they're offered a treat that is of higher quality, or is something that is unique to the theater, something that doesn't already carry an established value elsewhere in the theater-goer's experience, it is going to seem like much less of a rip-off. If the theater chooses to sell baked goods, make sure that the vents on the ovens are designed in such a way that the scent of baking cinnamon rolls and the like permeates the theaters themselves.
5. Lease space in the lobby of the theater to various fast food franchises. Make a food court of it, and let the theater make its money from the rent that the franchises pay for the use of the space.
6. Lower concession prices to something reasonable, and make up the lost revenue by instituting a theater lottery or raffle. Tickets cost just a dollar, and every showing/day/interval of your choosing some lucky winner gets, say, a voucher for a pair of tickets and snacks. If the prospect of tickets and snacks isn't alluring enough, expand it--in additon to the more modest prizes, all raffle tickets are entered in a monthly drawing for something big and shiny. People love lotteries.
What else? I'm sure there are other possibilities, serious or othewise.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
7. Set up a deal with prisons in which low risk prisoners, in additon to cleaning up our roadsides, can tear tickets and clean theaters. Prison labor=cheap! Lower labor costs = more profit for theaters! No need to charge an arm and a leg for treats.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Why not? I'm seriously curious, even though it was a manipulative post. Are the categories different only because one is a business and the other isn't? And anyway, no it's not the same thing as if you'd said what you did about the rebate.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't feel like talking about hospitality rules. I'm still pissed about the manipulative post and don't want to talk to you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Returning to an earlier example, about bringing your own wine into a nice restaurant -
This already happens in an above board fashion. The restaurants allow it, and simply charge a "corkage" fee to open and serve your wine, which makes up for their lost opportunity to sell you a marked up bottle of wine. (This is in Utah, no idea whether this is a custom peculiar to this state.)
Theaters could easily do this too. Charge an "outside food" fee, let people bring in what they want. I think this is very similar to alternative business model #2 listed above.
Yes, people will try to get around paying the surcharge. However, it does the following things:
1. Allows people to bring in the food of their preference, which might be worth a surcharge to them (or at least preferable to $5 popcorn).
2. Provides an opportunity to explain that the theater makes its money on concessions, or the outside food surcharge, and not on tickets. Enhances transparency.
3. The theater makes money for free. Lower overhead than concessions.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by: fugu13 I am fairly confident that a theater allowing you to bring your own food could never operate in competition with one not allowing you to bring your own food and providing highly priced concessions. The ticket prices would (obviously) have to be substantially higher. People who are already used to going to a theater and not buying food or sneaking in their own would go to the cheaper theater and not buy or sneak in, and people used to buying food at the theater would go to the place where at least they get some food out of the price (on the whole).
About a year and a half ago the theater we always go to changed their no food policy to allow whatever you want. Once in a great while we'd get a slurpee from the concession stand, but only very rarely. After they changed the rule, we bought slurpees from the 7-11 next door, and sometimes from the nearby fast food places and went in. A lot of stuff just plain isn't easy to smuggle in. Stuffing a can of pop in your pants if they're baggy or in a friend's purse is one thing, but a McDonald's bag and a slurpee? I think the duffle bag you'd have to be bringing into the theater would look a bit suspicious.
Anyway, about six months ago the theater had another change. They changed their ticket prices to a two level system. Tickets Mon-Thurs are $4.75. Tickets Fri-Sun are $9. Prices before that for a matinee were $6.50 and for a night movie were $8.50. As a result, we see a lot more movies than before because we can bring in our own food and pay less if we see it during the week.
We use that theater almost exclusively. The only exception we make is when we go up town to the fancy theater with the seats that feel like a cloud and stadium style seating. That theater costs nearly $10 all the time, but it's a totally different experience. That theater actually has a special theater in it where all the seats are leather lazyboy recliners with little tables between them, and there's a gourmet buffet before and during the movie. Tickets for that are I think $18, which I think is totally worth it given the comfort level (it's reserved seating, you actually pick your seat when you get your ticket) and the high quality of the food. That particular screening room almost always sells out.
There are at least a dozen theaters by me within close driving range. All of them charge between $8.50 and $10 for first run movies on a weekend. Most of them charge around $5 or $6 for matinee prices. All of them charge outrageous prices for concessions, though even that varies, with the newer fancier theaters charging just a little bit more than the older theaters.
But unless it's a special movie, we always go to the theater with the free for all food policy and the better pricing, and we see a lot more movies than we would have otherwise. What they lose in high value of pricing, I think they are making up for in quantity. They've managed to stay in business with this practice for more than almost two years with extreme local competition.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, one of our local theaters sort of does #5, and I like the idea. I think there is pizza (Pizza Hut?), Hardee's, TCBY, and some "Great New York [American?]" franchise famous for its crosscut fries(?).
Unfortunately, the regular employee crew seems to be responsible for staffing those registers as well, and as the theater seems to be having some problems lately (shortstaffed, erratic air conditioning, various things breaking down), often the shops aren't really available. Good if done right, though, I think.
quote:So you don't also believe in the obligations of a guest to a host, for example?
Do you believe that a business providing a service is acting as a host? Or that you, when you pay for the service, are a guest? Should I start charging people when I invite them to my house for tea?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't feel like talking about hospitality rules. I'm still pissed about the manipulative post and don't want to talk to you.
So you don't have an answer, then?
And given your incredibly rude though respectably blunt reply, allow me to reciprocate: am I supposed to be intimidated or something? Or feel a huge loss that you don't want to talk to me, in light of the way you announce it? Because I'm feeling neither.
-------------
quote:Do you believe that a business providing a service is acting as a host? Or that you, when you pay for the service, are a guest? Should I start charging people when I invite them to my house for tea?
I don't believe the roles are precisely equivalent, but some of the rights and responsibilities are similar.
Should you also be allowed to video movies on premiere night or sneak previews, then? Or bring in snacks and then sell them? Or stand on your seat?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't wish to converse with those who have so little respect for me that they want to manipulate me. It isn't fun and I don't believe you'd be speaking in good faith. *shrug* Feel however you want. The statement was meant to be informative.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't wish to converse with those who have so little respect for me that they want to manipulate me. It isn't fun and I don't believe you'd be speaking in good faith. *shrug* Feel however you want. The statement was meant to be informative.
*snort* Just informative, right.
Thanks for the information.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Returning to an earlier example, about bringing your own wine into a nice restaurant -
This already happens in an above board fashion. The restaurants allow it, and simply charge a "corkage" fee to open and serve your wine, which makes up for their lost opportunity to sell you a marked up bottle of wine. (This is in Utah, no idea whether this is a custom peculiar to this state.)
Theaters could easily do this too. Charge an "outside food" fee, let people bring in what they want. I think this is very similar to alternative business model #2 listed above.
Yes, people will try to get around paying the surcharge. However, it does the following things:
1. Allows people to bring in the food of their preference, which might be worth a surcharge to them (or at least preferable to $5 popcorn).
2. Provides an opportunity to explain that the theater makes its money on concessions, or the outside food surcharge, and not on tickets. Enhances transparency.
3. The theater makes money for free. Lower overhead than concessions.
I would love that. I just don't like eating the junk that they sell.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forgot to mention that the cost of new, plush, stadium-style theaters is probably the main driver for the concession rip off. If people didn't highly prefer the new generation of luxury in moviegoing, we'd have more old, flat, creaky, sticky theaters still in operation that could actually get by charging $2 for a small soda and popcorn (without challenging the status quo business model).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, your post struck me as more rhetorical than manipulative. For what it's worth. And my answer would be that it isn't a guest/host relationship at all. But then, I don't like eating during movies, so I just rip off the movies theaters in a completely moral and legitimate manner. Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Rakeesh, your post struck me as more rhetorical than manipulative. For what it's worth.
To-may-to, to-mah-to. Everything said to another person is manipulative unless you are uninterested in getting a response.
Personally, I don't mind someone trying to direct me into a rhetorical "gotcha" as their ability to succeed at such an endeavor indicates that I have not thoroughly considered the implications of my reasoning or did not communicate it well.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those are not the only conclusions to be drawn from someone twisting your words and using manipulation in what was before a good faith discussion.
I'm not interested in those kinds of games or that kind of discussion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I specifically thought of you when I was writing that one, Porter.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
