Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 27, 2013, 10:42 AM   #351
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleScruff1 View Post
No. I don't think Apple should be responsible for anything. Ever. They are perfect in all ways. Is that better?
Here, drink the milk
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2013, 03:21 PM   #352
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleScruff1 View Post
No. I don't think Apple should be responsible for anything. Ever. They are perfect in all ways. Is that better?
No.
BaldiMac is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2013, 07:48 PM   #353
AppleScruff1
macrumors 603
 
AppleScruff1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
No.
I never said Apple should be held liable. I simply said that there may be some merit to the case. Or maybe there isn't.
AppleScruff1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2013, 10:17 PM   #354
maxosx
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Southern California
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidcmc View Post
So much ignorance in this thread.
True.

Insecurity, ignorance, fear uncertainty & doubt.
maxosx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2013, 09:31 AM   #355
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleScruff1 View Post
I never said Apple should be held liable. I simply said that there may be some merit to the case. Or maybe there isn't.
Okay, I'll rephrase.

Why do you think that there may be some merit to the case because of signs in a third-party retailer?
BaldiMac is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2013, 09:53 AM   #356
AppleScruff1
macrumors 603
 
AppleScruff1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
Okay, I'll rephrase.

Why do you think that there may be some merit to the case because of signs in a third-party retailer?
I don't know all the details of the case. Someone from Brazil brought up in this thread that people were knowingly mislead, hence my comment.
AppleScruff1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2013, 10:05 AM   #357
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
New to me means unused in an unopened package.
You'll probably find "new" stuff according to that definition in a pyramid in Egypt.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2013, 10:07 AM   #358
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleScruff1 View Post
I don't know all the details of the case. Someone from Brazil brought up in this thread that people were knowingly mislead, hence my comment.
Why are you avoiding the question? brdeveloper brought up a claim that there was no indication that the iPad 3 was not the newest iPad in some third-party retail stores. Why do you think there may be some merit to a case against Apple based on that claim?
BaldiMac is online now   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC