NPR Reports: REI vs L.L. Bean Return Policy

its absolutely amazing the "moralizing" thats going on here about something that people may do that is perfectly legal and in fact several companies who do have such policies said outright … "go ahead"

now leaving that aside …

its absolutely amazing how youre telling poor old MAX here

Yes, I read your post about how you never abused REIs policy- don't get defensive again. But you do sure seem damned "open minded" of some very reprehensible behaviors.

switch out REI for anything other issue … same sex rights, women/racial rights, gun rights, doggy rights, my little pony rights etc … and you sound just like a tea party shill (no offense to any tea party BPLers)

basically youre implying hes the anti-christ for being "open minded" on something he never did, and even if he did do is perfectly legal and encouraged by many companies with such policy

i think we need a new BPL video series called "TO CATCH A SCAMMER"

well have hidden cameras, sit around LL bean … and when we see a SCAMMER come up, well ambush em on camera …

hell we can even get chris hanson to host it

itll be a sure hit … then BPLers can sit around with their virtual gear lists pretending they are the elite, moralizing over what lesser people do

;)

Late, but I figured I'd pitch in my thoughts about a certain point I read above: that if you need a year to know if you really want your gear you shouldn't be able to return it..
My counter to that is that when purchasing specialized gear we sometimes don't get the chance to even test it within a month. Anecdotal personal case: I bought a $600 REI branded bag supposedly rated to -20f for winter climbing trips. When I finally had the opportunity to use it in cold temps (-5f) that were well above it's supposed rating, I damn near froze… When I got home I promptly returned it as it was essentially worthless for the use I had bought it for (one of 2 rei returns ive made after spending ungodly amounts of cash there ove the past few decades). Under the new return policy I would have been stuck with a 600 dollar bag that I could not use because REI exaggerated the rating for their bag and no longer backs their equipment….

Point is with specialized gear it takes time to know if the gear will perform as promised, and that with their old return policy I felt comfortable investing in expensive gear because I knew if it did not perform as promised, I could return it. With the new policy, that assurance is gone. I spend my money elsewhere now.

More than that, I no longer recommend rei to others. Just the opposite…. I tell people looking for gear to spend their dough elsewhere

"basically youre implying hes the anti-christ for being open minded"

Wow. That's one hell of a straw-man. I'll give it the comment it deserves:

Thanks Dave, perfect example, I said pretty much the same thing a few pages ago. Alpine tents, snowshoes, ice axes, packrafts… all things I could see needing a return after a 1-year policy has expired.

Luckily, my experience with other companies (won't name, except I definitely will name Paypal) is that if you argue with them over the phone long enough, they'll step up and cover a customer rather than risk the bad PR. I suspect REI would cover a return like that over the limit, but who knows.

Just be careful. Admitting to a return around here gets you crucified.

… but more seriously :) when did I say he was the Antichrist? Is "reprehensible" synonymous with "Antichrist" or something?

I didn't say you called me the antichrist, although I did allude that I was being crucified…

This thread is getting a little too heavy for my taste. Goodbye!

Yes, I read your post about how you never played with my little ponies – don't get defensive again. But you do sure seem damned "open minded" of some very reprehensible behaviors.

MAX will BURN in hell no doubt … fire and brimestone

BPL has a special deep dark place for those types of "open minded" people

;)

"Yes, I read your post about how you never abused REIs policy- don't get defensive again. But you do sure seem damned "open minded" of some very reprehensible behaviors.

"reprehensible" …

i mean there are attacks on a mall in kenya, people getting gassed in syria, killings in the states, kid loving monsters running around, the guvmint spying an mass on its own citizens, ceos saying that complaining about their bonuses is like mass lynchings in the south, a japanese power company that denies their reactor is coming apart, haliburton destroying their gulf oil spill evidence and BP trying to get out of paying their settlement as well …

and were bashing poor MAX about being open minded on some "reprehensible" behavior over some REI return he never did??????

god i LUUUV BPLers "morality" …

all it needs is to be slightly changed for it to be a true political statement

;)"

Great post!

"You're ignorant to my entire point, which is that you, Dean, and myself, and everyone else in this forum can't really say that a certain group of people are, to quote you, "reprehensible" people based on something as ill-defining as a RETURN AT AN REI."

Actually, this a better argument, because it points out that we are talking about two subtly different things despite my desperate attempts not to do so.

I pointed out many times that I'm not talking about everyone who returns something. Clearly, there are legitimate returns, including Dave's example. OTOH I'm talking about clear abuse- the archetypical worn out running shoes, etc.

I'm sorry, I'm willing to say that that is an abuse of a wonderful return policy.

I would like to back you into a corner, here: Disregarding any chemotherapy, feeding Indian orphans, etc., do you think it would be MORAL to repeatedly return a pair of running shoes that you had returned after 700 trail miles under the old REI policy so that you could get "shoes for life" for $55? Spit it out! Is that a moral act?

Wow, Eric. My little ponies. That was perhaps the least lucid thought I have yet seen expressed on BPL forums. Bravo. :)

You sure told me! I will never again use a good SAT word when a simple 8th-grade "not good" would work just fine!

Do I think it's the building block of a moral person? Of course not! We've always been on the same page there. Of course, I do still believe you can't decide the morality of a person based on the morality of an act. Everyone's got different circumstances. You're very intentionally and repeatedly judging PEOPLE based on RETURNS.

Do I personally care about what other people do with their returns? NO! I really do not think anything about it because I find it so unbelievably inane to waste time doing so, I can hardly express it. I don't really know what makes you think this is a cause worth fighting for. I don't know why your morality hinges upon your condemnation of others, rather than through your own moral actions. It's depressing…

Hi Dean,

I just want to point out that there is an important, but apparently, subtle distinction between judging a behavior and judging the individual. We have a sense of discrimination and right and wrong for reason–it's good to judge (discriminate) things, activities, or non constructive behaviors.

It's not so helpful to judge the individual, and often judgement of that kind comes either from some kind of emotional dislike of the person/individual OR quite often a type of unconscious projection of self dislike or repressed shadow stuff, rather than some lofty, balanced and impersonal sense of ethics or the like. I've found for both myself and my errors of judgement and observing others, that judgement of individuals rarely comes from that latter space of helpfulness. It certainly can, but it's rare so far ime.

There are a lot of behaviors in this world and in humanity that i really disagree with (actually from my perspective, humanity's actions, behaviors, etc as a whole are quite barbaric and irrational to me), but when it comes to individuals partaking in same i've found both for the sanity and health of self as well as others, that it's worthwhile to at least try to not judge the people partaking in said behaviors and activities.

This world has far too much bickering, disharmony, intolerance, and the like. Why not add a little Love, understanding, and patience to it? If you see your brother partaking in erring, limited behavior that negatively effects himself and others, why not a gentle word or two, or an impersonal speaking up of principles, rather than the personalized condemnation that can ONLY for most people raise their defense mechanicisms and make them deaf to any actual words of wisdom. Why not reach out a helping hand rather than shove them down telling them how they are not good enough?

Something must be working with this practice and philosophy that self does try hard to live by, because i'm one of the most consistently happy and at peace people i know (despite this crazy world), and not because my outer life is particularly easy or what not. I'm one of those, that has been through a lot on many levels.

Justin,

High five for saying the exact same thing at the exact same time!

MORAL MORAL MORAL … must find rout out all the IMMORAL SCAMMERS on the intrawebs …

and even if they dont SCAM … must find out what MAX things is MORAL …

its absolutely and utterly important to prevent such REPREHENSIBLE behavior !!!

well one cant say that we arent a "moral" society on BPL … when we are more diligent than those religious folks in our "moral" online inquisition …

but dont worry MAX … well save your BPL soul once you "confess"

;)

I've missed you Max…….

I am glad Max is part of our BPL community. We need more people that question and push and keep us on our toes. Thanks for that.

I had a chance to sit around a campfire last night with a great man. He was a monk in Thailand for many years, before he disrobed and came back to the United States to practice yoga and cooking. He's a dear friend.

We talked about a great many things; the concept of innate human knowledge, the understanding of your own truth, and the difference between destiny and the journey to it. All delectable topics with vegan marshmallows and beer.

Point:

Justin, the most interesting thing he told me is that achieving inner peace and striving towards enlightenment does not make you "happy." Happiness is a fallacy propagated by people who don't really understand the point of someone striving for a Buddhist-esque living. The point, he said, was to let go of the extremes of emotion. Live on neither end of the spectrum. Be content, and quietly neutral, and observe everything that happens to you with thoughtfulness. A true monk is never elated, or thrilled, or depressed, or angry. He is content.

Next time you decide how happy you are, instead try and see how much emotion you've removed where it is unnecessary. of course, go forth and love life and have ups and downs. This makes life worth living. But don't let the absence of utter happiness be a negative. Merely exist in the center, and drift towards either end on occasion.

I can tell you, I am nowhere close. I don't do yoga and I'm not buddhist. I can't even touch my toes and I cursed at an electric toothbrush like 15 minutes ago.

I have a mental image of Jen eating popcorn.

"You're very intentionally and repeatedly judging PEOPLE based on RETURNS."

Well, no. That's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that returns like that are an abuse, and that people a wrong to do such things. Which they are. I'm not saying they are going to hell, should be keelhauled, or calling in the UN or anything. I am, in fact, merely judging an act.

However, people sort of are the sum of their actions. It doesn't matter "how good a person you are inside" if you keep stealing, robbing, murdering, etc. (To use a reductio.) So at some point, yes, I do feel justified in saying that a given person is "bad". (The people stoning the "adulteresses" come to mind…) Which is no to say "irredeemable."

Is it a waste of time to discuss morality? To a certain extent I can see that argument but, hell, people have discussed philosophy for all of recorded human history. It has a long tradition. And it's at least interesting.

But you evaded my question. Answer it. Is the $55 "shoes for life" scam a moral act?

"I don't know why your morality hinges upon your condemnation of others, rather than through your own moral actions."

Wow, you sound very judgmental there, Max, despite trying to use waffling language like "I don't know why…". And puerile, frankly. On what evidence to make the conclusion that my self-image hinges on condeming others? Really? That's one HELL of a lot thinner than my claiming that the shoes for life scam is wrong, isn't it? I state an opinion that one act was immoral, now suddenly my self-image hinges on condemning others? That's hilarious- I laughed out loud. At you. Seriously, Brother, that's pathetic.

I'm sorry- that sounds harsh, not to mention downright unfriendly, but I can't think of a better way to express it.

EDIT- wow, this thread sure picked up. There were like, what, seven posts while I was writing that? More likely I'm just too verbose…

In my opinion, I think this argument is based on an irreconcilable difference:

Max believes in moral relativism (as it appears Eric does, as well)

Dean (and myself and a few others) believe in moral absolutes

I don't think when you're dealing with that type of difference that discussion can result in anyone changing their minds. Moral relativists will always have a way to justify any act. Moral absolutists will always condemn an act they see as wrong, regardless of the reason for it.

We're all beating a dead horse at this point, and it's gone way beyond REI's return policy.

The logical backflips you're doing are amusing. I don't think you're reading what I'm typing, I think you're reading what you want me to say.

First off, you said (quote) "I'm saying that returns like that are an abuse, and that people a wrong to do such things. Which they are." Then you immediately follow that with "I am, in fact, merely judging an act."

Sorry, no! You're not "merely" judging an act! Your whole post is excusing the jump from act to person. Which do you actually believe? I can find you books written by great men, founders of our country, on not judging the character of a man based on a single action. The confusion and grey area elicited by return policies alone seems to me to excuse this conversation from the moral arena, to a great extent.

My god, man! Do you know what level you've reached? Almost every religion in the world is about the absolution of sin. To err is human! You cannot judge a person as "Bad" based on an abuse of a policy! Everyone who ever skipped a parking meter is, in The Book of Dean, an evil soul? Is that really what you're insisting on?

Let's move on.

You say "You've avoided my question!" so I assume you forgot to actually read what I wrote, so I'll conveniently quote myself, now.

"Do I think it's the building block of a moral person? Of course not! "

It's just below your insistence that I spit it out.

Of course, a five year old can tell you if the act is moral. The philosophy of it is to decide whether we can really judge the human.

Dena, you're right, but i'll be damned if it's not intellectually stimulating.

"I have a mental image of Jen eating popcorn."

Perhaps right there we have the touchstone of Chaff :)

@ Dena-

Actually, no, I would not call myself a moral absolutist. I don't thin ANYONE is, really, even you, probably. I believe that there IS such a thing as mitigating circumstances. But I'm just talking in generalities on this issue.

@ All the Hippies-

Yes, peace, love, and all that. Hurray. Go snuggle up to Jeffrey Dahlmer and bring him into the fold. (Another reductio, but there you have it.)

But more to the point, I am not confronting the return-policy abusers right now. Unless, of course, you happen to be one of them. I'm discussing a behavior. If I were to try to influence such a person I would NOT begin with "that is an immoral act." I am quite able to be more politic that that. I am actually a damned understanding and "nonjudgmental" guy- you sort of have to be in my profession. But I'm willing to put my foot down and commit when something is clearly wrong.

That said, many of these abusers I am talking about are doing this PRECISELY because they are trying to "get over", and they will not be influenced by some dude in the customer service line behind them trying to engage them. ("Many", not all- I'm sure many also simply feel desperate, just got laid off, or whatever.)

I would call you a moral absolutist, Dean, because nearly every post in this thread you've made supports it.

If not, we wouldn't be arguing.

"That said, many of these abusers I am talking about are doing this PRECISELY because they are trying to "get over", and they will not be influenced by some dude in the customer service line behind them trying to engage them. ("Many", not all- I'm sure many also simply feel desperate, just got laid off, or whatever.)"

Do you see what you just did? You condemned the act, and then refused to judge every unknown person based upon it because you understood that it was incorrect to do so. That's my point; It's not necessary to have an absolute opinion, which clearly you yourself recognize, as evidenced by your first sentence right up above this quote.

It seems you've heard me after all.

Aaand… scene.