6435155
story
Comments: 667 +- Your Rights Online: Toyota Claims Woman "Opted In" To Faux Email Stalking on Thursday October 15, @03:37PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif); width:71px; height:53px;
privacy
An anonymous reader writes "ABC News is reporting that a California woman is suing Toyota for $10 million for sending her email that appeared to be from a criminal stalker. The woman claims the emails terrified her to the point that she suffered sleeplessness, poor work performance, etc. Toyota says the ruse was part of a marketing campaign for the Toyota Matrix. A Toyota spokesman says they are not liable for the woman's distress, because 'The person who made this claim specifically opted in, granting her permission to receive campaign emails and other communications from Toyota.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Toyota claims woman "opted in" for email stalking by Anonymous Coward
No man in the world has more courage than the man who can stop after
eating one peanut.
-- Channing Pollock
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
I'm over 35 (Score:5, Insightful)
Saatchi & Saatchi told the marketing magazine OMMA last year that it had developed the campaign to target men under 35 who hate advertising.
I'm over 35 and I really hate advertising now. If I did something like this, I'd be in jail awaiting trial, my name would be smeared all over the place, and my life as I know it would be over - even Saatchi & Saatchi wouldn't hire me.
Toyota? Nothing.
Saatchi & Saatchi? They'll probably get more business because the dipshit MBAs will think that "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
Assholes.
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:5, Funny)
When I first read the article, it made me realize that my least-favorite people were neatly represented here; a gold-digger playing "Lawsuit Lotto", brainless marketing drones, and two sets of evil lawyers; a) the lawyers who wrote a shitty, incomprehensible opt-in, and b) the ambulance-chasing losers inciting this woman to get every penny she thinks she deserves.
What I propose is simple. Arm them all with machetes, and drop them in a pit. Last one standing get lifted out, bandaged, and after convalescence is put to work earning a modest but honest living for the rest of their life.
Within 1 year, I predict that frivolous lawsuits would mostly cease to exist, legalese would become plainer, and slimy marketing campaigns would become scarce.
$_EVIL_RANT = "false"
The preceding text may contain hyperbole and derision, substances which the State of California has determined can cause cancer and advanced stages of whining. By reading this post, you agree to the following:
a) you are opting in to reading it, you agree not to hold the writer responsible for your personal wretchedness,
b) you agree not to take the writer literally, and/or post responses implying the above proposal was in any way serious (unless you are a television producer, and are willing to pay me lots of money to produce this as a prime-time sporting event),
c) you agree that if you have mod points, you will award the writer +1 (of any positive category of moderation),
d) and most importantly, you agree not to sue the writer in an attempt to pay off the credit cards you maxed out a couple years ago. Plus, I have no money, so suing me won't do you a damn bit of good anyway.
Parent
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:5, Insightful)
I had forgotten the existence of the Toyota Matrix until I read this article.
When it comes to brand recognition, there IS no such thing as bad publicity. Brand association, on the other hand...
I'll be buying a commuter car in the next year. I was leaning toward a small Honda anyway -- but this gives me one more reason to not buy a Toyota.
That said, when it comes down to it, it'll be about prices and reviews anyway. And if this article helped me remember that Toyota offers a commuter car, then the PR campaign worked.
Parent
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:5, Funny)
I was leaning toward a small Honda anyway
Would that be the Honda Fit? It's a small, 5-door competitor to the Toyota Matrix which outperforms it in all customer satisfaction metrics, as well as fuel efficiency and crash safety. Plus, instead of steel, it's made of chocolate. Delicious AND biodegradable.
Don't tell anyone that we're 'turfing for Honda's PR company!
Parent
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:5, Insightful)
There is such a thing as bad publicity, and you can very easily help end this.
Call your local dealerships and tell them that though you're a loyal Toyota customer, as a result of the Amber Duick situation and the way corporate has pretended there's nothing wrong with the situation, you apologize, but you cannot in good conscience remain a Toyota customer. Be polite, and be prepared to explain and to provide reference.
Then call Toyota and do the same. Toyota's toll free is 800-331-4331, and extension 5 is specifically dedicated to telling Toyota about experiences you've had with their company.
Tie up each call with "if Toyota were to publically apologize, release Saatchi and Saatchi from advertising and release Chad Harp from spokesmanship, I would be able to believe that this was a temporary oversight. As long as the company and individual who allowed this to happen retain their positions, I must conclude that Toyota believes that fake stalking by a man on the run from the law claiming to be ready to show up at the customer's home is an appropriate marketing behavior, and I cannot do business with you again."
Ask that the dealerships contact corporate and explain that they're losing customers as a result of Toyota believing that it's appropriate to pretend to stalk their customers.
They'll listen if they think their bottom line is at risk.
Parent
Opted In (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Opted In (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Opted In (Score:5, Funny)
Apple has been running a very creepy campaign recently where they get people in berets to sit in corner shops with Macs and sneer at potential customers.
Oh, sorry, I've just been informed that that wasn't a marketing effort at all, those were just regular Mac users.
Parent
Re:Opted In (Score:5, Funny)
If I received messages like that, I'm sure that I'd immediately run out and buy the car. Would that work for telephone soliciters?
CALLER: I'm coming over to kill you!
ME: Why yes, I'd like to test drive your new car.
CALLER: I'll also rape your dead body!
ME: Really! A free cookbook with a test drive. Awsome.
Parent
Advertising these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
Advertising gets weirder and weirder. I don't understand how this is supposed to get someone to buy a car. The only thing I could think of is she didn't had a car so maybe she's supposed to buy a Toyota so she can get the hell away? I think it's lost on me.
Re:Advertising these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not designed to get the stalkee to buy cars. It's designed to get the friend that set them up to buy cars. The friend is now in collusion with Toyota, they share a dirty little secret, they're friends now...
Parent
I don't understand advertising (Score:4, Insightful)
How does this in any way make anyone want to buy a Toyota?
I get that companies all want to 'push the envelope' these days so you see them over the competition, but this is just ridiculous.
I guess that's another benefit to marking every email I don't recognise as spam.
Re:I don't understand advertising (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Read the damn EULA (Score:4, Funny)
Limitation on Scope of Content
The Toyota Web site, toyota.com, contains information regarding Toyota and its products and promotional programs. The Toyota vehicles described on this site contain uniquely American specifications and equipment and are offered for sale only in the continental U.S.A. The promotional programs described on this site are only available in the continental US and may be limited to particular states as described by the program. All pricing information referred to on this site is in U.S. dollars.
No Representation or Warranty
Toyota reserves the right to modify the information contained on this site at any time without notice. While Toyota makes all reasonable efforts to ensure that all material on this site is correct, accuracy cannot be guaranteed and Toyota does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or authenticity of any information contained on this site. By viewing this site, you agree to release and indemnify Toyota from all legal responsibility arising from sending you emails, hiding in bushes outside your house, picking through your trash and dry-humping your dog, cat and/or hamster(s). This site and all information and materials contained herein, is provided to you as is without warranty of any kind.
Re:Read the damn EULA (Score:5, Informative)
And once again for those of you who are incredible dense ...
JUST BECAUSE YOU PUT IT IN A CONTRACT AND GET SOMEONE TO SIGN IT DOESN'T MAKE IT LEGALLY BINDING.
We've been over this, it in fact was one of the factors that lead to the civil war, after which we (the USA) made efforts to make it so a bullshit contract could no longer be considered valid.
The right to freedom in America should only be given to those who care enough to understand what having and protecting that right means, your right to freedom would most certainly be revoked.
Parent
Possible CAN SPAM implications (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear Toyota Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
work performance (Score:4, Funny)
she suffered sleeplessness, poor work performance...
Unanswered question: how was her work performance before the emails? Was it really that much worse?
$10M - Sounds a bit Low (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words anything that would, in plain English, explain what you were agreeing to, no one would sign.
And regarding $10M, though this may seem like a lot of money, the point to this type of suit is deterrent, and at $10M, I doubt that it is.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but terrifying sure is. Victims of stalking find that they are incapable of doing day-to-day things. The lady had a legitimate fear, she told her friends, then she later was ridiculed for those fears. This is all the fault of Toyota.
I for one hope that she wins the whole $10 million. Maybe only that way will dumb-ass marketers start *thinking* about what they do!
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but terrifying sure is. Victims of stalking find that they are incapable of doing day-to-day things. The lady had a legitimate fear, she told her friends, then she later was ridiculed for those fears. This is all the fault of Toyota.
I for one hope that she wins the whole $10 million. Maybe only that way will dumb-ass marketers start *thinking* about what they do!
I suspect (but do not know) that once we see the actual emails there's no way on earth anyone with an IQ above retarded would believe it was real. Have you ever seen one of these campaigns? Even imbeciles know they're fake.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, you've got your headquarters in your hindquarters. No offense. Even if we grant your premise, that some large proportion of people would spot the campaign as fake, you have to remember that (1) Telling lies from truth is different from IQ. Some very bright people are extremely gullible, some very dull people have an unerring radar for falsehoods. (2) It's neither morally nor legally permissible to purposely scare the hell out of someone merely because they're less intelligent. (3) Many tens of thousands of people - mostly women - are stalked each year in this great nation, and a portion of them murdered by their stalkers. So a campaign like this odds are will reach some of them, who already know that stalking threats are real, have already been stalked, and just like a veteran hearing a backfire and finding himself back in battle, can easily be returned to the real psychological state - even by an instance they intellectually know is fake.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but if you make $9 million in profit and lose $10 million in a lawsuit, then they'll not do the marketing campaign again. Even if they make $12 million from the campaign (doubtful), the return becomes so small that it's not worth them doing any more. Further to this, hopefully the arsehole marketer who came up with the idea loses a job or some advertising agency loses revenue as Toyota moves to another company.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, $10 million isn't something to sneeze at, even for a company with $200 billion in yearly revenue. That $10 million represents a lot of lower level employee's worth of salary which might lead to lots of average Joes getting layed off (face it, it won't be the execs. that feel the hurt). On the other hand, it sounds, to me, like they, honestly, earned the punishment (though, perhaps somewhat less than what she's asking) on this one. It isn't reasonable to say that just because she checked a box somewhere agreeing to accept marketing communications from a company that she should expect those communications to take the form of a simulated stalking. What next, are they going to go door to door in white robes burning crosses on people's front lawns to drum up attention for next year's Carolla?
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
They sure did. Very creepy, and no doubt terrifying at the time... ummm...
Except if it was so terrifying, why did she do everything but call the police, who have the powers to actually investigate things like this and would have probably figured out in about 5 minutes who sent the emails? Why make her boyfriend sit by the bed with a club, when she's getting notices from someone who sounds like a hardened and probably ARMED criminal that they are coming for a visit? If this were a real event, she and her boyfriend would likely be dead by now.
Why sit cowering in your home for FIVE DAYS then claim you were unable to live your life for MONTHS, when a quick three-digit phone call ("911", in case anyone has forgotten the number) would have started an investigation that would have rapidly debunked it in a hurry? Toyota would have no doubt issued a deep apology to avoid a lawsuit, suffered some well-deserved bad press, and Ms. Duick could have gone about her life with nothing more than a probable (and understandable) lifetime hatred/contempt of Toyota Motor Company, and not a long-term debilitating fear.
I'm not saying Toyota was in the right here. No way. This was just plain effing stupid.
I think both parties are clearly in the wrong. Toyota's actions were reprehensible and deserving of punishment, but Ms. Duick's response (or utter lack thereof) certainly gave Toyota no indication of the harm they were causing to her. They thought they had agreement, she was unaware of the agreement, they acted stupidly, and she didn't do anything useful to help herself until after she found out it was a prank ad campaign.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Funny)
1. Well below average intelligence
2. Unable to communicate in a coherent fashion(no ability to elaborate on a point except to repeat it verbatim but louder)
3. Blissfully unaware of points 2. and 3.
4. Create weird recursive lists when trying to explain the failure of other people to communicate coherently.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the article?
Toyota's marketing campaign was in POOR taste, although one wonders why she never reported it to the police.
I think giving her 10 million seems high, but I think that a class action suit with everyone who got this incredibly lame marketing campaign isn't such a bad idea.
Pretend stalking someone is a terrible idea.
How about this:
What if you kept getting phone calls.. that said:
I'm coming for you.. in a mysterious raspy voice, at all times of the day.
That would be a clear cut case of stalking and instilling fear.
Parent
"Informed consent" = no way (Score:5, Interesting)
FTFA:
I work in research with human subjects, and there is no way this constitutes informed consent.
If Toyota wants to argue that the fine print spelled it out and it's her fault she didn't read it carefully enough, maybe they can win the case through legalistic hairsplitting. But if they buried it in fine print and incomprehensible language, they're jerks no matter what.
But they're making a much broader claim if they're calling it informed consent. Informed consent means that she comprehended what was going to happen to her as a result of agreeing. In other words, "informed consent" isn't just a statement about the objective content of the opt-in statement -- it's an assertion about the state of mind of the person who gave consent. If she had truly given informed consent, then not only would she have no legal claim, but she'd have no moral claim either (because she'd have known what she was getting into). But it's blindingly obvious that that isn't true here.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't wonder why she never reported it to the police: its' because this entire episode, including her and her complaint, is a fake. The news story itself is the actual marketing campaign for Toyota (and Saatchi & Saatchi), not the events it relates. Why else would the marketing company put an actual sales blurb into the article?
It's a reverse psych-out, and we're the ones they're trying to punk
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yeah, you need $10 million to cover that" - Tell me then, how do you punish a company except by a fiscal penalty?
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
What this does is ensure that company's are probably punished for causing harm, but removes the incentive to sue for enormous amounts for trivial issues (or not-so-trivial issues that don't justify $X million). This system is relatively common, and it always surprised me that people find it reasonable that the amount of damages awarded should be relative to the offenders ability to pay - Not primarily the crime itself.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
One solution is to apply the very same punitive penalty, but award the punitive part of it to a fund/charity. In essence, whenever a major company causes somebody harm, that person is eligible to receive whatever amount is considered reasonable depending on the damages. In addition to that, the company is also fined an amount that is relative to its size and financial status, simply as a form of punishment. The latter amount never comes in contact with the victim.
The elegant thing about giving victims the penalty money is that it encourages them to take on litigation. A lawsuit is expensive, risky, and time-consuming. Without motivating litigants and lawyers with potential rewards, the powerful would be much freer to abuse the weak. In your system, this lady would stand to win at most a few thousand in actual damages, but would risk losing tens of thousands in costs should Toyota prevail. Further, all the good lawyers would be on salary or retainer for large companies; few would be willing to work for a chance to get paid a reasonable hourly rate.
It's good to keep large companies walking on eggshells when it comes to causing harm, and the current tort system is the best way we know to do so that we can afford.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
...and sued McDonalds because they didnt warn *coffee* was *hot*)
Everyone misunderstands this. I have a friend in Law school. They analysed this case in class, and it turns out that this is generally misunderstood. The coffee was EXCEPTIONALLY hot, not just hot. McDonalds was keeping the coffee on the burner at a higher temperature so they would have to make new batches less often. This temperature was above what is generally used, and necessary. Hence, the coffee was hotter than it needed to be, and the burns were far more severe than if it had been at the normal temperature (I think this is generally somewhere around 50C).
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
And individuals will come and try to sue hoping an easy way to get rich (after hearing about the women who drop hot coffee on herself and sued McDonalds because they didnt warn *coffee* was *hot*)
Yes, everybody who is capable of ordering coffee knows it's hot. McDonald's coffee was scalding hot, more than 40F higher than the minimum temperature known to produce third degree burns - a 49 cup produced third degree burns over 6% of that woman's body, and lesser burns over another 16% [wikipedia.org]. If you think experiencing that is an easy way to get rich, I have to believe neither you nor anybody you love has ever experienced a serious burn.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
79 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. Third degree burns are the most serious kind of burn. McDonalds knew it had a problem. There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court. Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. And so the jury came back with a decision- $160,000 for compensatory damages. But because McDonalds was guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct" punitive damages were also applied. The jury set the award at $2.7 million. The judge then reduced the fine to less than half a million. Ms. Liebeck then settled with McDonalds for a sum reported to be much less than a half million dollars. McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants.
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm [commondreams.org]
Summary: 700 complaints of scalding incidents. Requests from the Shriners burn unit. This was willful disregard for people's health. And the size of the reward? Calculated as the profits from one morning's take from the sales of coffee across the enterprise. I'd say that's a reasonable--if maybe small--slap on the wrist.
I don't know why people choose to defend corporations over the people they hurt. It's not like McDonalds would cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire; it must be something like the Stockholm Syndrome.
Parent
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) most of the time people suing corporations are lazy people that want to get rich
Here's a radical question: do you have any idea if this is true?
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to be in favor of the 'corporate death penalty', and I still am, but only in a certain way.
We shouldn't break the company. What we should do is fire all corporate executives (Everyone who legally empowered to agree to contracts.), and the board of directors, cancel all stock and leave it operated by the government for a while. (1) They will run it basically as before, and also do a housecleaning to find illegal behaviors that have become ingrained in the company.
It then, after about a month, publish balance sheets and stuff so that people can see how it's doing. Then the company should issue new stock, under a new stock symbol, on the stock exchange, so people can purchase it. And the new owners will, presumably, elect a new board of directors, etc, and the temporary executives put in by the government will resign.
I.e., we don't need to dissolve the company if they commit crimes. We need to fire the people who ran the company in a criminal manner, and we need to take it away from the owners who let the company get run in a criminal manner. Then we clean it up, and sell it to whoever's willing to pay for it.
'The company', as an abstract entity that presumably provides some actual services, and employs a bunch of people, can continue to exist. So 'death penalty' isn't really the right word. Let's call it corporate forfeiture. (Hey, if we call it that, does that mean we don't have to have a trial?)
1) The government running a company, incidentally, is not without precedent, especially during bankruptcy. The federal government does assume caretaker responsibility of some business, the most famous example being when it found itself running a brothel in Nevada for about a year.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, a normal person who'd never done anything wrong would obviously assume an anonymous stranger threatening them was playing a prank on behalf of a large company. The vast majority of stalking cases are like that, and innocent people are never targeted by crazy people for no reason.
Seriously though, WTF are you talking about?
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Funny)
This "Goatse" kitten is the second ugliest kitten I've ever seen!
Parent
Re:what a dumb bitch (Score:5, Funny)
slashgame: YOUR ARE IN A ROOM
slashgame: LOOK NORTH
slashgame: YOU SEE AN ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: HE HAS A KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD THROWS THE KAFKA-GRENADE AT YOU
slashgame: CATCH KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: YOU CATCH THE KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: PULL PIN FROM KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: THROW KAFKA-GRENADE AT ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: KAFKA-GRENADE EXPLODES ON ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD TURNS INTO ANONYMOUS COCKROACH
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COCKROACH SCREAMS IN FEAR ABOUT RAID IN COMPUTER
slashgame: MOTHER OF ANONYMOUS COCKROACH SCREAMS FROM OTHER SIDE OF BEDROOM DOOR "ARE YOU WATCHING GAY PORNO AGAIN?"
slashgame: MOM ENTERS BASEMENT BEDROOM
slashgame: MOM SEES ANONYMOUS COCKROACH
slashgame: MOM REMOVES SHOE WITH SOLE OF MATERNAL INSTINCT
slashgame: MOM INSTINCTIVELY CRUSHES ANONYMOUS COCKROACH WITH SOLE OF MATERNAL INSTINCT
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COCKROACH DOES FINAL SWIRLY AROUND THE RIM AS MOM GIVE HIS REMAINS "BURIAL AT SEA"
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD -- 1784 KARMA, WILL RESPAWN A FLOATER IN TIDY-BOWL COMMERCIAL
slashgame: YOU HAVE EARNED 1 BONUS SCROLL OF GUMMY-BEAR
slashgame: EXIT
me@slashdot >
Parent
Re:deception psychology experiment waiver (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds of a psychology experiment a few decades ago, where the consent form was something like:
I agree to *insert a bunch of things here* including "I agree to be deceived."
Then you became the subject of an experiment that appeared to be one of the other things, but in reality, you were being deceived as part of the experiment.
I'm a behavioral scientist. An experimentalist. When working with behaving subjects one of the things that's harder than anything else is to understand the experiment that you performed. This was brought home during a lecture I saw being given by a very senior faculty member who was describing an experiment that didn't seem to have gone very well at all. After reviewing the not very encouraging and somewhat confusing results, he said, "it took us quite some time to realize that although we had designed and performed this experiment in good faith, the experiment we ACTUALLY had done was quite different than what we intended." The difference was one of how the subjects had interpreted the non-verbal instructions. Viewing the results in the new radically different light made far more sense. Sometimes, it's the experimenter who is the one being deceived!
Parent
Re:Scared? (Score:4, Insightful)
maybe, but Toyota overstepped a line, and it's her due right to try to make them accountable.
In the end, Toyota impersonated another person and royally overstepped the boundary of the agreement with her to send her marketing messages from Toyota.
Consider: If I grant access to my restricted private house to friend X, I can surely legally restrict that same person if he impersonates another person. According to the original agreement I must provide access to friend X, but I have no legal way to distinguish between friend X and what he impersonates, so I can clearly deny him access. The same holds for Toyota: they cannot impersonate the US President, the Police and waive this lawsuit away by saying that they had the right to send messages. While impersonating the Police is a felony (obviously), impersonating someone random immediately voids the e-mail agreement, since there is no way for the "victim" here to distinguish between them. (Toyota can send her messages, vs. Toyota impersonating a stalker).
IOW, this is in terrible bad taste. Toyota screwed up badly, and the law will likely be against them.
Parent
Re:Scared? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is with the 'victimization' culture these days?
You mean, among people who have genuine greviances? Yeah, I know! The "victims" of my pyramid scheme have SUCH a sense of entitlement!
Grow a pair and make some more money for me to steal.
I tried telling the judge that many of the people I ripped off weren't even trying to get new jobs at say, Mc Donalds to earn more money, so they obviously weren't hurt enough to change anything about their life. Jerks.
Sincerely,
Bernie Maddoff
Parent
Re:How does this happen? (Score:5, Funny)
Just wait until the New GM (Powered By Your Tax Dollars) comes out with its own ads threatening to beat you to death with a tire iron unless you buy one of their cars. It's a whole new wave of marketing!
Parent