Legally, it's one of those Uniform Commercial Code things that was worked out many decades ago - the rights of a consignor in a business transfer.[1] This is a routine problem with standard answers.
In this thread you have admitted to not knowing basic facts about this case. Yet here you are pontificating on the merits. Are you affiliated with B&M? Maybe an employee or franchisee? Why do you feel so strongly you need to defend them?
Sure, it's possible the serving was not done correctly. Even in that case, this does not imply, as you have claimed, that this is "just needless YouTube drama" (emphasis mine). There is clearly a lot going on beyond the obvious flashy setting which is chosen for the presentation.
Arguably, no attention would have come to this matter if not for such presentation, and the perpetrators would have just gotten away with it easily, so it is in fact understandable that things were done in such a way.
Yet you choose to ignore the way more significant issues from B&M's side and focus only on the choices of dramatization of the events, which, if a problem at all, are only marginal in comparison. While further trying to use that a way to try to in fact discredit the more relevant issue.
>He is neither affiliated with the person who lost the legos
I haven't watched part 2 yet, but he absolutely is affiliated with the person who lost the LEGOs. He's explicitly working with the son, who was the previous person that was running point on trying to get the sets back until it ruined his life.
> He also didn't leave after the police were called, which is not all that unusual for someone who looks out their window and sees someone they're in conflict with has traveled across the country to stand in front of their door.
> This is just needless YouTube drama generation. I agree, he should have paid a process server to do the job correctly, but that wouldn't be good business for his YouTube channel.
Your ability to create a fantasy to defend the CEOs in this example is, well, frankly depressing. Like, none of what you said is true, but you just confidently made it up and then put it in a comment, why?
If you don't know what's going on, why comment? Why go beyond that and just make stuff up?
> Your ability to create a fantasy to defend the CEOs in this example is, well, frankly depressing. Like, none of what you said is true, but you just confidently made it up and then put it in a comment, why?
It’s bizarre how cooked this comment section has become. I’m not “defending CEOs” by pointing out that a YouTuber is making poor choices in the name of generating content.
You don’t have to defend every action a YouTuber takes because they are the enemy of someone you dislike. The level of parasocial defensiveness of this YouTuber’s behavior is scary.
Oh. YouTube drama.
Legally, it's one of those Uniform Commercial Code things that was worked out many decades ago - the rights of a consignor in a business transfer.[1] This is a routine problem with standard answers.
[1] https://uslawexplained.com/consignor
In this thread you have admitted to not knowing basic facts about this case. Yet here you are pontificating on the merits. Are you affiliated with B&M? Maybe an employee or franchisee? Why do you feel so strongly you need to defend them?
[flagged]
Sure, it's possible the serving was not done correctly. Even in that case, this does not imply, as you have claimed, that this is "just needless YouTube drama" (emphasis mine). There is clearly a lot going on beyond the obvious flashy setting which is chosen for the presentation.
Arguably, no attention would have come to this matter if not for such presentation, and the perpetrators would have just gotten away with it easily, so it is in fact understandable that things were done in such a way.
Yet you choose to ignore the way more significant issues from B&M's side and focus only on the choices of dramatization of the events, which, if a problem at all, are only marginal in comparison. While further trying to use that a way to try to in fact discredit the more relevant issue.
4 replies →
>He is neither affiliated with the person who lost the legos
I haven't watched part 2 yet, but he absolutely is affiliated with the person who lost the LEGOs. He's explicitly working with the son, who was the previous person that was running point on trying to get the sets back until it ruined his life.
Diversity of thought enriches conversation. Are you uncomfortable with people holding opposing views? Are you inexperienced in debate?
> He also didn't leave after the police were called, which is not all that unusual for someone who looks out their window and sees someone they're in conflict with has traveled across the country to stand in front of their door.
> This is just needless YouTube drama generation. I agree, he should have paid a process server to do the job correctly, but that wouldn't be good business for his YouTube channel.
Your ability to create a fantasy to defend the CEOs in this example is, well, frankly depressing. Like, none of what you said is true, but you just confidently made it up and then put it in a comment, why?
If you don't know what's going on, why comment? Why go beyond that and just make stuff up?
I just don't get people today.
> Your ability to create a fantasy to defend the CEOs in this example is, well, frankly depressing. Like, none of what you said is true, but you just confidently made it up and then put it in a comment, why?
It’s bizarre how cooked this comment section has become. I’m not “defending CEOs” by pointing out that a YouTuber is making poor choices in the name of generating content.
You don’t have to defend every action a YouTuber takes because they are the enemy of someone you dislike. The level of parasocial defensiveness of this YouTuber’s behavior is scary.
[dead]
The company should have done the right thing, but instead, they are evil, criminals, and crooks who should be treated as such.
> he should have paid a process server
He was quoted a LOT more money to try.
> He also didn't leave after the police were called,
He was legally allowed to be there trying to serve the individual.
Why are you defending a clearly evil criminal company?
[flagged]
> I'm not defending the company at all. My comment was about the YouTuber who got involved as a 3rd party for content production.
You have claimed the story is "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story".
Unless you are completely incapable of understanding basic human communication, this obviously amounts to defending the company.
4 replies →
> That account is reminding me why I switched to using an anonymous handle on HN, though.
Because you can't ever admit being wrong?
You’ve posted EIGHT comments defending this company with what ifs.
ONE comment admitting you haven’t actually got any understanding of the facts.
If you were genuinely trying to get to the bottom of it every single comment wouldn’t be defending the thieves.
Are you Mormon too?