If they set you up on the wrong plan, customer care can change it.....The only thing you really need to worry about it if you have a problem with the phone itself...then you would have to go back to walmart.

This is correct, although the cost is just a little bit more with the Corporate Store you will be saving yourself grief in the long run. $50 is a small price to pay for better customer service, knowledgable sales people and the store 30 day return option 🙂

Not to mention that the walmart people are not trained to the plans and the pitfalls. Also are not trained to ask the kinds of questions that can save customers grief in the long run. "If you bought it there...go back there." I work on commission. Walmart got all the commission; now go give them all your problems.

that was uncalled for

See, thats your reps' problems these days, lets say this, I buy a car from a local toyota dealer, and say i move or something else happens that prevents me from taking my car thats still under warranty for repair. Now do you think that if i take my car to a different toyota dealership that they will tell me to take my car back to where i bought? are they going to tell me "you bought it there, so take it back there" NO! see my point?

Lets see. you buy your Toyota at dealer A. He promises you that the car will get 40 MPG. You drive the car for 2 months and your mileage is only 28 MPG. You pull into Toyota Dealer B and complain that your Toyota is not getting the mileage that dealer A told you.
Do you say; "We are all Toyota dealers. If dealer A said you would get 40 MPG and you are not; let us take the car off your hands and give you a full refund."

There is your analogy.

I think the complaint here is that if the phone stops working, you have to take it back to the point of sale. Generally, if you buy a phone at a corporate store, you can take it back to any corporate store, though it's preferable you take it back to the original. Walmart, on the other hand, has completely different return policies. They only offer a 15 day return period, as is stated in their contracts. Not to mention, XBM handles all returns that are outside of the 30 day return period for walmart purchased phones, corporate, or Joe Schmo reseller.

If you move and take your car to another dealership, who cares, the guy working on your car doesn't get commision, he gets paid hourly to work on your car. When someone comes into my store has problems with their phones, there's 5 people waiting in line, that want to buy phones from me, that's where the problem is.

They will do warranty work that is outlined in your owners manual. They will NOT honor some vague promise of performance from another dealer....read my analogy carefully.

Warranty work is handled through XBM (exchange by mail) at all levels. All technicians should have been pulled from all corporate stores by now. If somebody has a problem with there phone not working, that's an easy fix, just give em the XBM number.

Toyota (not the dealer, the actual company) pays the dealership to have the car worked on, if it's under warranty. If it's not, YOU pay for it. Either way, the dealership is getting paid to do the work. They don't do it for free. This is the U.S.A., not the U.S.S.A. I'm assuming, if you buy a phone from dealer A and take it to dealer B to change the rate plan that A messed up, or to help with a phone problem that A messed up, B isn't going to get a penny. I'd be pretty upset about that. Now, would I take it out on my customer? Probably not.

I am wrong but dont the retailers get a base pay plus commission? I know some blue dealers were. If so I dont see how you can justify not wanting to help a customer because there is no commission involved. What the heck are you getting paid that base rate for? Not just to stand there.

That is true. I'm not in the wireless business, so I'm not sure of the innerworkings. Whether they get a base pay or just work on commission shouldn't matter. The cost of helping all customers that walk through the door should be built into their pay. It's just like when you purchase a product, say cellular phone and service. With what you pay, Cingular should put everything into that costs, such as tech support, customer service, dividends to stock holders, company cars, retirement plans, and even the taxes that Cingular has to pay. Yes, all those costs are passed on to the consumer.

yeah it will save a lot of people a lot of trouble in the long run to go to a corporate store, the idiots that work in my town's walmart don't know a thing about what they are selling when it comes to cell phones, $50 might sound good right now but it will suck in the end.

I work at Sam's and we also sell the v551 for $49.99 and you can still use the $50 rebate that Cingular offers. Anywhere you get a Cingular phone has the 30 day return policy because that is offered by the carrier not the store you puchase it at. All Cingular broaches talk about the 30 day return policy and anyone that sells them has to honor it. As for customer service....if you like waiting in long lines and dealing with someone what has to try and up sell you on all the media insurance and accessories have at it. Every customer that comes through here hates the corp stores because of lines and people that dont want to answer questions and just sell you something. Training wise I had to go to the Cingular corp headquarters in Indy on ...
(continues)

im glad someone else can see clearly through all the bs!

jldnr77......are u from st louis by chance? only reason i ask is there is schnucks in st louis and thats where im from 😁

Born and raised here 😁

me too...born and raised in st louis.....i cant wait to come back on wednesday😁 we should party when i get there....what part of st louis are u from ?

I'm in the High Ridge area....

cool cool im in the all over st louis area 🤣 chesterfield creve coeur ballwin normandy area

I grew up in Chesterfield, now live in Maryland Heights, and will be moving to Florissant next month.

Who are you? Do you work in the Arnold call center, or are you a retail agent?

Arnold call center here.

What's your name? What department are you in? Do I already know you?

I'm in SSG...and I don't know....maybe...

Do you know Dave on the Blue Team? **points to self**

I'm training for Orange systems with Mari's class right now.

You know me?

Nope...but Mari was my trainer. Be nice to her, she's cool.

Assimilate all you want. That is fine if you have no individuality and wish to have the same prodcut, just as everyone else in your city has, from the same location because that is the only location to obtain them.

If you are trying to dispute the detrimental effect that Walmart has on any city they are present in - then sir - I suggest you take some business classes, as it is not my intention to educate you. Of course - I guess the cities that try to block Walmarts from opening - only to have Walmart find legal loopholes - have no justification whatsoever for such attempts.

Example: Walmart is prohibited from building a Mega-Store in a city. The city contends that having a mega-store will detrimentally effect the community. Walma...
(continues)

No customer service at walmart??? HA!!! I have worked at many places, walmart included. Walmart, like most other companies, does have policies that they make the workers follow. However, at walmart, if you ask for a manager and yell enough, trust me, they will give you whatever you want. They tried to tell me just the other day that I couldn't return rechargeble batteries that I bought and wouldn't take a charge. I asked for a manager, and they took care of it, no problem at all.

Detrimentally effect the community??? Yeah, it means people pay less money, which means they pay less taxes. It also means they buy less gas because they don't have to run to 5 different stores to buy what they could get at just 1 walmart. Yeah, it's d...
(continues)

How truely shortsighted you are.

In the search for cheaper goods, walmart aggressively demmands that its suppliers cut wholesale costs.

This has the effect of wholesalers moving factory jobs from our nation to others. Our citizens lose jobs and our economy and communties suffer.

Furthermore, in this process, they fail to meet the labor standrds that have been enacted to protect workers. Of course, you probably just ignore the massive amount of lawsuits in this area.

As long as you can get your cheap products, it doesn't matter if people in our country are out of work or treated like 3rd world laborers or if children in other countries are used as slaves.

The effect on the communities can also be seen as employeers of co...
(continues)

And who says these wholesalers wouldn't move there factories to other countries anyway just because they want to make higher profits?? It's there choice to move their factories, not walmarts. Imagine what the economy would be like now if walmart wasn't around forcing everybody else to keep their prices competitive....you never know...a loaf of bread by now might cost 5 bucks. Have you ever stopped to think the walmart might be balancing the economy a little bit? Look at how high prices on everything are becoming. Why don't you open your mind a little bit. How many americans would actually work at some of these factories anyway. Most americans are spoiled rotten little brats who would rather collect unemployment or even welfare than de...
(continues)

I don't need business classes, I got common sense.

You could not be further from the truth in both regards - as it relates to this matter.

Judging by the sheer volume of ignorance in this most recent post of yours - highlighting facts and referring you to places that will educate you are fruitless.

I don't need no stinking education - I can deny the facts without having to even examine them.

Kudos to being uniformed and being proud of it.

Enjoy the KOOL-AID.

You know....I took the time to address all the points you made, even if my responses were "uneducated", and all you do is respond with laughing and totally avoiding the subject, finalized with what I have to assume is an insult. Makes me wonder about YOUR education. Maybe before you brag about how "informed" you are, you should learn some manners.

Oh I have manners, however, my frustration gets the better of me. Especially when it appears to me that an individual has a rooted belief - that I know to be untrue - and with proper education - the individual would realize this as well.

This frustration is further exasperated when I demonstrate (allbeit in a very simplified form for this forum) that the matter is not as simple as one believes.

The fact of the matter is that the issues you raise as counterpoints are simply unjustified and not valid. However, they do make for good rhetoric.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmar ... »

I'm not against progress - but progress at the expense of human rights, equality, and fairness - I am.

Hmmm.

But..

except...

You stand on one side of an argument of which both sides have merit. I happen to agree with several points on both sides. When the extremist viewws come into play I begin to pull back.

You can find thousand of articles to support your points, but the fact remains that experts on BOTH sides disagree. By simply saying "take some business classes and you will understand" you are taking the stance that every educated person sides with you and that is simply not true.

No need to post links, make additional arguments and what not. I specifically left out my views because, as Will so properly noted, this is not the place for those discussions.

Wal-Mart is not all bad, nor are they all good. Consumers mak...
(continues)

I disagree.

My education comment was in reference to the fact that Walmart's low prices do not hurt anyone else other then mom and pop stores. That simply is not the case.

Yes there are experts on both sides - however - the proof in the pudding. An expert can tell me all day how Walmart is good for my community and our economy - but the proof is in the pudding. No links this time, but lets look at some of the pudding.

1) Sales clerks made an average $8.23 an hour - for about $13,861 a year in the year of 2001. That is approximately $800 below the line that has been established for federal poverty. (Business Week) Their average employee working in the US makes $15,000 a year, $7.22 per hour!

2) Walmart profits off taxpayers...
(continues)

I have no idea what to say. Trying to keep this forum about PHONES and be nice by saying both sides have arguments and you still have to post this.

This forum is about phones, not about why not buy from Wal-Mart.

I am turning over a new leaf, as Will opened my eyes. This doesn't matter here.

As a comment on the subject matter. Wal-Mart does not price any lower than many other national retail distributors. That is their pricing model. None of the additional commentary matters since all other national retail companies do not have similar (alleged) issue. If they ALL had these issues and it factored into their pricing model you might have an argument worth making on a CELLULAR PHONE website.

So, to the point. Let's keep this ...
(continues)

Sorry - I thought the thread opened up - how can walmart charge this price.

Simply put - they can charge that price because they underpay and undersupport employees allowing the government to pickup the slack with taxpayer dollars. Also because chances are some Chinaman made the product for $100 a month (if they are lucky to be paid that much).

If your find that irrelevant - enjoy your KOOL AID.

Best Buy, Radio Shack, Sams Club, Costco, Circuit City, (insert favorite national retailer here) all are paid a higher commission when activating new service. They offer handsets at lower prices than most czrrier (agent or coporate owned) retailers.

They ALL do this, so your arguments regarding this particular issue are NOT RELEVANT. Wal-Mart may or may not do all those things you accuse them of, but it has NOTHING to do with their phone pricing in this situation.

Oh, and YOU opened up the thread with this rant. Your topic is not relevant to this particular case because your issues have nothing to do with national retail commissions.

Walk away, please.

Wal-Mart may or may not do all those things you accuse them of...

Let there be no mistake - they are guilty of everything I have said. That much is not up for debate whatsoever - unless you are capable of changing history.

As for a "rant", I responded with an answer - my answer was questioned - I further responded.

It is obvious to me that you have not watched the PBS documentary I included in this - else you would know about the pressure walmart exerts on their suppliers. So it has everything to do with what I have stated.
Also - Sam's Club - is walmart - I seriously hope you knew this.

Afterall - isn't Best Buy selling the same razor for approx $50 more?

I know you suckle from the corporate te...
(continues)

captainplooky said:
Let there be no mistake - they are guilty of everything I have said. That much is not up for debate whatsoever - unless you are capable of changing history.

Then you were there to witness all of that?

If not, then you're taking someone else's word for it. If that's the case, then you cannot say with 100% certainty that those things did happen, because you do not know.

Amazing - absolutely amazing. Critical thinking does not appear to be a strong suit here.

The information I posted was gathered from court settlements - respected economist/scientists - and other highly reputable sources.

Take your KOOL-AID elsewhere.

Um, you do actually know it was unsweetened grape Flav-R-Aid, right? 🤣

Like I said, you have no idea if that happened or not. Other people have reported it. It's up to you if you choose to believe them - just like anything else: religion, science, politics, etc. - it's all the same.

Ummm - considering many these matters have been in the court system - and Walmart has been found guilty or settled them - I would say your belief here is absurd.

Just out of curiousity - do you think we landed a man on the moon?

If you weren't there, then you don't know. Regardless of the 'evidence' - it's other people presenting the evidence.

It's a matter of faith. In this instance, it's faith in other people telling the truth.

I don't care if the moon landing was legitimate or not. It's not like we've done anything there - at least not anything we've been told.

We let some guys walk on the moon, or we didn't. It really doesn't make a difference.

It really doesn't make a difference what Wal-Mart has or has not done, either. They're still in business. Your 'damning' evidence doesn't change that fact.

Damn, what was the name of Dan Akroyd's character in "Sneakers"?

Ummm, the discussion was about a Motorola V551, not about the RAZR.

And, what Wal-Mart does and does not do has NOTHING to do with this conversation. All national retail companies follow this same pricing structure.

I see that even when I specifically do not attempt to argue with your "facts" and just point out that whether they are true or not they simply don't apply in this situation you still want to argue about whether or not they are true. THAT ISN'T THE POINT!

For your argument to hold true in this instance ALL national retailers would have to be doing everything you say Wal-Mart does. But you aren't making that argument. You are attempting to say Wal-Mart has that price because of x, y and z. X, Y and Z have nothing to d...
(continues)

Um...why don't you shut up and let everybody exercise their first amendments rights??? Yes, this is a phone forum. So?? People do tend to get sidetracked every so often. Last time I checked, everybody has freedom of speech. If you don't like the conversation, stay out of it.

Shut up and first amendment. Is that an oxymoron?

Other side of the argument and you didn't get it either.

Wal-Mart got to where they are by plunder and deceit. There are quite a few court cases right now throughout the country involving Wal-Mart bribing city councils to kick people off of their land and sell the land to Wal-Mart. Here's how it works...

WM decided to build a store on a certain plot of land. The only problem is that there are some old houses and trailers occupying said land. WM asks them to sell and will pay them their fair market value. The owners say no, which they have an absolute right to, it is their property after all. WM then goes to the city councel and tells them that a WM store will provide a lot more taxes than those rinky dink houses and trailers are providing.

The councel agrees, but doesn't know what to d...
(continues)

That is an unfortunate perspective of Walmart. If you were anything OTHER than hourly worker for some corporate conglomerate you would see the the true cost of Walmart. They pay their people below average, because they can. They sell their products cheaper because they force their vendors to cut costs and produce a low quality product. They kill the local economy because they become the place everyone shops putting others smaller companies out of business and therefore employee's out of work. Where do those out of work employee's go? To Walmart to make less money. Only Walmart comes out ahead.

The 20 Richest people in the world. Forbes 2005 list. Pay attention to numbers 10,11,12,13 and 14. Notice how they are all Waltons. Guess where the bonuses of having a large sweatshop profiting, communuity ruining business are going. Right to the top. If you combine the 5 Waltons wealth you have by far the wealthiest family in the world.

1 William Gates III 49 46.5 United States United States , WA , Medina

2 Warren Buffett 74 44.0 United States United States , NE , Omaha

3 Lakshmi Mittal 54 25.0 India United Kingdom , London

4 Carlos Slim Helu 65 23.8 Mexico Mexico , Mexico City

5 Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud 48 23.7 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia , Riyadh

6 Ingvar Kamprad 78 23.0 Sweden Switzerland , Lausann...
(continues)

Cellular Dude said:
That is an unfortunate perspective of Walmart. If you were anything OTHER than hourly worker for some corporate conglomerate you would see the the true cost of Walmart. They pay their people below average, because they can. They sell their products cheaper because they force their vendors to cut costs and produce a low quality product. They kill the local economy because they become the place everyone shops putting others smaller companies out of business and therefore employee's out of work. Where do those out of work employee's go? To Walmart to make less money. Only Walmart comes out ahead.

They pay their people what PEOPLE AGREE to accept. People have a choice based on their educati...
(continues)

bravo ! I tip my hat to you

Walmart like every single other company i the world operates within the CAPATALIST system. What that means is they try to accumunalte the most money by CONVINCING consumers to buy their products. How do they do this? By selling their wears for less then the other businesses. Does this put the other other businesses out of business? Yes indeed it does. Is this walmarts fulat? No it it is the business that went unders fualt becuase they were not able to compete with walmart.
Hating walmart becuase they are better at the capatist game then other companies is like hating an NFL all star becuase he is a better foot ball player then your neighboor.

The same reasons apply to why the american ecomeny is in the sh*tter. Becuase other coun...
(continues)

Yes, Wal-mart is "not to blame," but don't you think it's a tad irresponsible to say "Hey, it's not my fault the system is set up to allow such enormous profit and that my goods are manufactured in countries where human rights violations happen every minute."

What about business with a conscience? Wal-mart, by no means the only example, is the largest, and so it tends to be villainized more than others. So you say it's capitalism, and all's fair? Fair enough. I agree. I do NOT agree with a free market system such as we have today, that allows and encourages profit hoarding. Money was an invention to allow transactions over great distance, not so a few people could collect it in large amounts. If Wal-mart was non-profit (enough to pay empl...
(continues)

(This is way off course, but I love it!)

Wal-Mart is absolutely to blame.

In the state of Arizona, it cost taxpayers 1.2 Million dollars to pay for health care costs for Wal-Mart employees alone. That is just Arizona not somewhere big like California, New York or Texas. You might save 8 cents at Wal-mart over another retailer, but you are taking it from Wal-Mart's employees not from rich faceless manufacturer. Last year Wal-Mart's profits were 10 Billion dollars. In Maryland they are trying to write legislation to require Wal-Mart to allocate 8% of their yearly gross to benefits for employees.

This is going on nationwide. Wal-Mart isn't largest because they are best. They are largest because they make more money by taking from their...
(continues)

Wal-mart may or may not be taking money from its employees.

It is still their chioce to work there.

Wal-mart most likely does buy products made in swet shops over seas. As does Nike and most other mayour retails.

The factories are not over seas becuase of wal-mart, they are over seas becuase the company owners can get the products (labour to make that raw materials) cheaper if their factories are over seas. why to the Manufatcores move their companies over seas? BECUASE IT SAVES THEM MONEY, AND THUS THEY MAKE MORE $$$$$$.

This isn't becuase of wal-mart, IT IS BECUASE OF THE CAPATILIST SYSTEM.

if you don't like the capitist system of greed the DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! pedition your government for change. Join socialist act...
(continues)

Let me see, Wal*Mart uses giant alien mind control beams! Yeah, that's the ticket! It can't be anything like "good price", "selection" or "good customer service". No, there HAS to be some EVIL plot to destroy the world.

Look bud, if you can prove that Wal*Mart is stopping me from shopping at the KMART across the street, then I'll listen to your dribble.

I bet if we could go back in time we would find the EXACT same arguments being made against SEARS. "Oh no! SEARS will kill Fred's House-O-Horse-Shoes!" I fully expect that in 3005 someone will be protesting that MALL*WORLD is unfairly doing busines because of cheap labor from Uranus!

Yes, we could find those arguments, and the argument is correct, in proportion to the difference in size between the businesses. Naming it doesn't make it untrue.

Also, where did I mention that we were forced to shop at Wal-mart? I accused capitalism of being the world in which these corporate behemoths roam, and I make the statement that it is set so that business with a conscience is uneccesary, even avoided. Shopping in a place with the lowest prices is common-sense for the consumer, but how many consumers, if given a vote, would want their products manufactured by individuals who live in absolute poverty because their governments won't let them get equitable treatment?Calculated greed took over, crossed international borders, and now ...
(continues)

santasbluehelper said:
well that and about of 50 years of pariod military over spending.
(Canada has not increased it's military spending sence 1960 and we are still a soverign nation)

You do realize that the only reason why Canada has gotten away with that is BECAUSE of USA paroniod military over spending 😳

Canada depends greatly on big brother to the south!

The fact that Canada has not increased military spending in 45 years is not something to be proud of! Its pitiful and shameful!
Canada can not even deploy troops in a forigen country without aid from allies! Canada is even losing its special forces troops because private security companies steal them away with their MUCH higher wages!
...
(continues)

Every countries Military loses troops to the private sector, like you said they pay alot more. Seen articles in UK, Americian as well as Canaidian newspapers to that effect. I do strongly agree that Canada really needs to improve its defensive capabilities.

Defense against what?

I ask that one simple question: who's going to attack us? The only country with any visceral interest in our great land is the US, and I would love to see any army we can muster hold off the US military. Military, bah! Look at the US! They have the most powerful army on the planet, and yet they tremble at the rattle of a sabre. When a few individuals can hijack 4 powerful vehicles and use them as weapons on your homeland, it's time to consider the phrase "Think smarter, not harder"

Not to mention the fact that in spite of the US having a huge standing military, a disproportionate number of troops currently in the Middle East are NATIONAL GUARD. If you can fight a whole damned war with just your militia troops and retired military reserves, what do you need the rest of them for? Do Americans ever stop to think that maybe a gigantic military isn't always the best answer to every threat, and might have a whole lot more to do with keeping defense contractors fat and happy? Our giant military is a dinosaur in the 21st century, and it only makes sense if we're going to hire them out as mercenaries to other countries. That would be fine, too, as long as the troops are cool with it and we get phat paid for their risk... Certa...
(continues)

This thread started as a post regarding pricing at Wal-Mart. Then it turned into a Wal-Mart bashing session. Then it turned into a Canada military session. Now it is a military speculation thread.

My god, let it die.

texaswireless said:
This thread started as a post regarding pricing at Wal-Mart. Then it turned into a Wal-Mart bashing session. Then it turned into a Canada military session. Now it is a military speculation thread.

My god, let it die.

Life is seldom a series of discrete events which have no relationship to each other, get used to it... 🤣

Actually I did read the comments.

Like one of the comments on the site posted:

Porn or not, this is still the same Walmart that thinks Glamour magazine is too smutty for the American public.

Seems odd - if they are respecting the Chinese by selling such items - then that would indicate the censorship walmart perpetrates in the US is respectful of our culture. I would have to disagree.

Is censorship if I choose not to carry faceplates with a swastika or pictures of bikini clad women?

The government is not telling you it is indecent, a business is choosing not to sell the item. You can buy it, just not from Wal-Mart.

That is not censorship, that is a marketing decision.

Actually it is censorship.

Firstly - walmart will have manufacturers change packaging, remove material, or other such forms of censorship in the name of "marketing" while not removing those same materials from a more restrictive cultures? Does that make sense?

Walmart - who sells a multitude of violent games and dvds - next to the gun rack/sports shop - but abhors some musical lyrics or magazines to the point they have them changed or removed.

I understand the point you are trying to make about marketing - but have to disagree that this is an example of it.

No . . . it is a marketing decision.

Recently T-Mobile threatened to recall the HP H6315 because it was too buggy. They essentially 'forced' HP to release a patch to fix the isssues. The IPAQ simply did not meet T-Mobile's standards for the type of product that it sells to its customers. Is that censorship because they tried to remove it?

What Walmart is doing is similar. Some items or magazines may be packaged in a way that does not meet their standards - so they leave the manufacturer with an ultimatum: change the packaging or we won't stock this item. The manufacturer is under no compulsion to comply (though they will lose a lot of revenue if they don't).

The final decision lies with the manufacturer. So in a sense, if anyo...
(continues)

You can't compare a phone that doesn't work to a magazine that has a cover a company just doesn't like. T-mobile did a great job pulling that phone off their shelves, they were looking out for the customer and themselves. Wal-mart isn't looking out for the customer, they are just trying to force their hypocritical beliefs on the general public. They sell guns, violent games, violent toys but heaven forbid they sell a fashion magazine with a risque cover.

First of all . . . it is similar (though not identical), because it has to do with what sort of products a company feels that it is and is not ethical to sell. T-Mobile felt that it was wrong to sell a product with so many glitches; Wal-mart feels that it is wrong to sell glamour magazines.

Secondly, for someone so quick to accuse other people of forcing their beliefs on other people - you seem awfully quick to force your beliefs on them . . .

Lastly, hypocrisy implies holding up a particular standard outwardly, but not keeping it yourself. Walmart seems to be doing just fine at keeping their own standards - you may not agree with them, but there is nothing inherently inconsistent about selling guns but not glamour magazines (my loca...
(continues)

I really don't see where I'm forcing my beliefs on anyone and I really don't know what beliefs you're talking about. There is a post somewhere on this thread that shows walmart selling adult movies in a walmart in china. If that isn't hypocritical I don't know what is. As mentioned before they won't sell cd's with violent lyrics but they have no problem selling violent toys, video games and guns. I personally I don't have a problem with any of them. I own guns and violent video games. I just don't think its right for a corporation or anyone else to preach one thing to one group and something contradicting to another.

That's fair . . .

The thing with the pornographic movies though - is that they PROBABLY weren't pornographic movies. The link was someone's blog claiming that they had seen porn in a Wal-Mart in China. Some of the other people had noted that a lot of Asian dramas ('soap operas') have really racy covers on them, but nothing really bad in the films themselves. I work for an Asian company and have experienced that myself - some of their films look pretty risque but are actually pretty clean (Chinese and Korean cinema that is - Japanese movies are pretty twisted sometimes).

I was mainly trying to make the point in my earlier posts that the link that started this was heresay, and that Chinese culture has different standards than ours.

...but thats the point. I don't recall ever hearing about a public outcry to remove racy magazine covers. Walmart just did that on their own. Why its OK in china but not here is what I don't understand.

Many of the stores here block magazine covers from view it if it is felt they are too revealing. The place a black cover over the display so you can't see what may be on the cover.

I have no issue with it because it is that business making the decision.

I think the reasoning is this: some people in the US would be offended by racy magazine covers, but no one is likely to be offended by NOT seeing them, so Walmart chooses not to display them so as to not offend a large segment of the American population.

The Chinese public might not become offended with those same images in the same way as their American counterparts, so Wal-Mart does not cover those images up. It's pretty simple really . . .

It is extremely simple, except for those looking for controversy.

The first time I saw magazines covered at the local supermarket (United, decent size midwest chain) I laughed. I get it though, I live in the bible belt. Wal-Mart is most successful in the heartland (hence why these "NIMBY" issues are mainly in CA) where traditional values are prevelant. It is not a crime nor is it worth all this fuss that they choose to not potentially offend those with moral standards who may object. You can still buy whatever you want, but just not from Wal-Mart.

If you want to pick on Wal-Mart, a less chicken-s**t approach would be more effective.

Amen.

(Who, by the way, is an Egyptian god.)