Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Marketplace & Market Info Market Watch
Thread started 08 Mar 2013 (Friday) 05:23
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

NewEgg 24-70 2.8 II for $299 last night?

 
this thread is locked
TSchrief
Goldmember
TSchrief's Avatar
2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Bourbon, Indiana
Mar 11, 2013 16:19 |  #106
banned

OK, it the owner of the cash were identifiable, I would return it. I found a lady's wallet in a cart in the parking lot at Walmart. Her ID was inside, along with credit cards and $12 in cash. I drove to the address listed on the driver's license and return the wallet, contents intact. All of that does not mean I will step over unidentifiable cash on the sidewalk. Nor does it mean I wouldn't take 24-70 II for $300 if the opportunity arose. If I see you drop the bundle of $100s, I'd tell you. If not, I'll take it. Thanks. Fool.


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
TSchrief
Goldmember
TSchrief's Avatar
2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Bourbon, Indiana
Mar 11, 2013 16:32 |  #107
banned

Dooku wrote in post #15703354external link
If a person (or company) makes such an error, then that does NOT give you the right to jump on that to take advantage of the situation. What gives you the right, by TAKING advantage of someone else(or company) to aquire a financial gain? If a person mistakenly forgets to put his wallet in his coat and leaves it on a table when leaving a restaurant, do you take that wallet and think "a fool and his money deserve to be parted", because THAT is your reasoning.

What strikes me the most is that you never ever question your moral reasoning but only tout that message: "a fool and his money deserve to be parted". Seems to me you suffer from a major character deficiency.

Yes, I am afraid it does give me that right. You offer me something for nothing and I take, and you claim that makes ME wrong. Wrong. That makes you a fool.

And yes, a fool and his money actually do deserve to be parted. I don't actively seek opportunities to screw someone over. I have good feeback on POTN and a lot more on E-Bay. You don't get that by cheating people. I am not talking about taking something that isn't mine; I am not a thief. I am talking about accepting an offer someone else made. It the offer is stupid, how is that my problem? If you hand me a dollar, who am I to second guess you? I'll take it.

By the way, I have questioned the morality of a fool and his money deserve to be parted. It holds up well. If that bothers you, feel free to not make me any stupid offers. I'll get by.


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Thorrulz
Goldmember
Thorrulz's Avatar
Joined Jan 2009
The Land of the "Go Big Red!"
Mar 11, 2013 17:05 |  #108

TSchrief wrote in post #15703469external link
OK, it the owner of the cash were identifiable, I would return it. I found a lady's wallet in a cart in the parking lot at Walmart. Her ID was inside, along with credit cards and $12 in cash. I drove to the address listed on the driver's license and return the wallet, contents intact. All of that does not mean I will step over unidentifiable cash on the sidewalk. Nor does it mean I wouldn't take 24-70 II for $300 if the opportunity arose. If I see you drop the bundle of $100s, I'd tell you. If not, I'll take it. Thanks. Fool.

Surely you have seen news articles where an elderly person has left some money behind on their way to deposit it to the bank. Luckily it wasn't someone like yourself that found it so there could be a happy ending on the evening news when the money gets returned.;)


TSchrief wrote in post #15703528external link
Yes, I am afraid it does give me that right. You offer me something for nothing and I take, and you claim that makes ME wrong. Wrong. That makes you a fool.

And yes, a fool and his money actually do deserve to be parted. I don't actively seek opportunities to screw someone over. I have good feeback on POTN and a lot more on E-Bay. You don't get that by cheating people. I am not talking about taking something that isn't mine; I am not a thief. I am talking about accepting an offer someone else made. It the offer is stupid, how is that my problem? If you hand me a dollar, who am I to second guess you? I'll take it.

By the way, I have questioned the morality of a fool and his money deserve to be parted. It holds up well. If that bothers you, feel free to not make me any stupid offers. I'll get by.

Luckily the U.S. court system doesn't often agree with your reasoning.

How interesting you include what an honest seller you are after making the "A fool and his money deserve to be parted" statement.

^^^And I'm really glad you made that statement and not me.^^^:lol:

I think we can all agree that at least for ourselves we know where we stand on this type of an issue. Plus now we know more about our fellow forum members and what a diverse group we are as are our opinions.


Flickr (external link)
D800 I Nikon 200 f2 VR 1 I Nikon 200 f2 ED AI-S I Nikon 135 f2 DC I Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 I Nikon 50 f/1.4G I Nikon 85 f/1.8G
My sister, the professional baker and cake decorator once told me that my camera takes great pics. My reply was that I thought her oven baked great cakes.:lol:

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Emmett
Member
201 posts
Joined May 2012
New Orleans, Louisiana
Mar 11, 2013 17:06 |  #109

Watch your step with "Newegg" I agreed to purchase a new lens through them a few months ago. The seller noted only one existed. So, like you did I jumped on it. I tried to pay for it using my Visa CC. I got email from the person selling the lens trying chisel for a special bag and filter. I didn't need either, and was unwilling to pay anything extra. Suddenly the lens was withdrawn from sale. I checked back a few days later and the same seller was trying to sell the lens again. I print out all my transactions, and sent the history to Newegg. I have never heard from them. I'm wondering if the new lens was actually new, and what gives about the filters and bag. The lens was a Canon 70-200 f2.8L with IS for only $1200.00, to good to be true.


New Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, Canon EOS 7D Mark II, Canon EOS 50D, Canon 7D Classic, Canon 6D, Canon EF 70-200 f4L USM with IS, Canon 40mm pancake, Canon EF 50mm 1.8, Canon EF-S 10-22mm wide angle, Canon EF-S 18-135 IS STM, Canon EF 100mm 2.8L USM Macro, Tamron 18-270mm Dii VC, Tamron SP 150-600mm VC, Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 VC USM, Canon EF 16-35 f2.8L II USM, Tamron 2X Tele-Extender, 1.4 Tele-extender

LOG IN TO REPLY
tsw910
Goldmember
tsw910's Avatar
2,650 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Nyc
Mar 11, 2013 18:27 |  #110

holy crap people .. you guys turned a funny a$$ thread into something else! seriously!! get over it!!

Yes, I hope they all get that lens for $299! and Yes, I am that guy who chased down a woman to return $3000 in cash! get over yourselves! really!


Scuba Tom
http://tomwangphotogra​phy.comexternal linkNYC Wedding Photographerexternal linkhttp://www.tomwangphot​ography.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
scarbo
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Sep 2011
Mar 11, 2013 21:01 |  #111

Amusing debate, but I don't see the ethical dilemma here at all. It's not as if you're robbing a blind defenseless old age pensioner. This is a transparent business transaction and you'd be a fool not to jump on such a great bargain if you saw one. Plus, the seller is under no obligation to sell anyway.

I also make a distinction between individual people and big companies/corporations​. The latter are big entities which are quite capable of looking after themselves and in turn will seek to exploit an advantageous position to feed their bottom line if given half a chance, so frankly I have no sympathy. You think most of the big companies in the world would have any scruples about taking advantage of their position if they had a monopoly, for instance? Think again. That's why they have anti-trust laws.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrushka
"all warm and fuzzy"
Andrushka's Avatar
3,735 posts
Joined Oct 2007
OC, CA
Mar 11, 2013 22:28 |  #112

koala yummies wrote in post #15702453external link
If the OP has to admit, according to the demands of posters in here, that they saw the deal and decided to "take advantage" (semantics), then we should all admit that whoever listed the ad, clearly should not be listing ads for Newegg.

All of us in here knows what this lens costs. All of us. We don't work for Newegg nor are we being paid to know about the products being sold. The person being paid by Newegg to list the ad should. They should know what this item costs, there are unemployed people with better product knowledge and internet know-how, than the person who listed the ad.

The person being paid by Newegg should have re-read the listing once over (proofreading) before listing it on the site. A sales manager should have checked it over. Re-reading the ad once over before submitting it would have taken less than 60-seconds. 60-seconds of proof-reading, or potentially a $2,000 loss.

If the OP is to blame for anything at all, then Newegg is to blame as well. If it's the OP's responsibility to have a conscience then it's Newegg's responsibility to list the products at the correct prices. It's not the consumer's responsibility to protect a business's profit margin.

This ^

So for all the nay-sayers: what if it was $1229 (still significantly below market) - would that make it alright? What about $1829 still well below the usual price, and probably a mistake - Would that be "unethical" to click "add to cart?"


http://www.paradigmpho​tographyoc.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lexar
Senior Member
297 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Mar 11, 2013 22:51 |  #113

A local tv station did a test and dropped 20 wallets around the city with $200 and some ID and 18 were returned with all the money in tact. People are generally morally good when it comes to other people.

However this is not a question of morality... There was an offer to sell goods at a certain price. You purchased at that price. That does not make you immoral or a thief.
If I knew nothing about the value of this lense and just happened to see it and buy it for $299 does that make me immoral somehow??


Canon 70D | 15-85IS | Σ17-50/2.8 | Σ30/1.4 | 40/2.8 Pancake | 100/2.0 | 55-250STM | 430EXII

LOG IN TO REPLY
kid007
Member
Joined Jan 2010
Western Australia, Australia.
Mar 11, 2013 22:53 |  #114

so did the OP get the lens for the listed price or not? Looks like the thread has deviated by long way :)


5D Mark 2, 400D, 24-70 f2.8 L, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 IS L, 70-200 f2.8 IS L, Zeiss 50mm f1.4 T* ZE and 580EX2
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kid007/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
jrbdmb
Goldmember
jrbdmb's Avatar
1,290 posts
Joined May 2011
Mar 11, 2013 22:57 |  #115

Hmm ... no cancellations, but no tracking numbers either. Surprised this isn't resolved by now.


Tools: 70D, 10-22, Tamron 24-70 VC, 70-300L, 135 f2L

LOG IN TO REPLY
catchquan
Member
catchquan's Avatar
209 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Mar 11, 2013 23:00 |  #116

After reading all 4 pages of this crap I really feel like the people who didn't get the hit on this jackpot are just butthurt and need a reason to hate on the others who did.. either way its a pretty tiring debate at this point and everyone should just calm down.


"Look, I'm not an intellectual. I just take pictures"
Canon 5DMKII (Gripped) | Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM | 85 f/1.2L USM ii
| AB800 (3) | 530EX (2) |

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Bob_A's Avatar
Joined Jan 2005
Alberta, Canada
Mar 11, 2013 23:20 |  #117

jrbdmb wrote in post #15704987external link
Hmm ... no cancellations, but no tracking numbers either. Surprised this isn't resolved by now.

Their legal department is probably reviewing their policies to ensure they'll have no issue cancelling the orders. Hopefully someone didn't lose their job over making the error.


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrushka
"all warm and fuzzy"
Andrushka's Avatar
3,735 posts
Joined Oct 2007
OC, CA
Mar 11, 2013 23:26 |  #118

If there is no chance of them really shipping these out, what's up with this hypothetical "someone losin their job" thing?


http://www.paradigmpho​tographyoc.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,741 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Mar 12, 2013 01:27 |  #119

catchquan wrote in post #15705000external link
After reading all 4 pages of this crap I really feel like the people who didn't get the hit on this jackpot are just butthurt and need a reason to hate on the others who did.. either way its a pretty tiring debate at this point and everyone should just calm down.

I don't think anyone's upset about missing out on a deal that won't happen anyways...

Andrushka wrote in post #15705054external link
If there is no chance of them really shipping these out, what's up with this hypothetical "someone losin their job" thing?

I'm sure the mistake is at least leading to a few headaches at newegg...especially if they have to start dealing with idiots that want to complain about not getting their lens at the typo price...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
catchquan
Member
catchquan's Avatar
209 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Mar 12, 2013 01:33 |  #120

DreDaze wrote in post #15705228external link
I don't think anyone's upset about missing out on a deal that won't happen anyways...

I'm sure the mistake is at least leading to a few headaches at newegg...especially if they have to start dealing with idiots that want to complain about not getting their lens at the typo price...

Oh I didn't mean to imply that I think these orders would actually be fulfilled but it just sounds like a, "Screw you I hope you feel terrible for what you're doing even though I wished I could have ordered one at the 1% chance of the order going through."


"Look, I'm not an intellectual. I just take pictures"
Canon 5DMKII (Gripped) | Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM | 85 f/1.2L USM ii
| AB800 (3) | 530EX (2) |

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

20,052 views & 0 likes for this thread
NewEgg 24-70 2.8 II for $299 last night?
FORUMS Marketplace & Market Info Market Watch


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00239 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is clippingmasking
923 guests, 443 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017