You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Habibi's Oranges.
Yes what he did was theft, returning rotting oranges refusing to pay for the fresh ones we had sent. If we had called him on his deceit, he would have lost face, and would purchase everything from a competitor. By raising the price of all goods in the future by a penny in return for 1 truck load of oranges was huge, and he didn't notice the increase. This guy ran a supermarket and we supplied a lot of his meats, fruits, vegetables, cheese, juices, dish soaps, frozen goods, you name it. Immoral to raise the price? No, he was at liberty to buy elsewhere. Giggles!
ah, that was not mentioned.
Well it was in the return, it usually means you want your money back when you return merchandise to a store, but I was being minimalist so a lot was left up to deduction. I'll try not do that again because it may confuse other as well.
No deduction is not the problem. The lack of context. Return to a housewife means: no refund, but you can pick out another orange.
am I losing my marbles: I thought I saw numbers somewhere in a second comment, but where did that go.
Knowing about the theft, interpreting the "saying" as such a (vague) implication. then "those our not our oranges" gets a very different slant too. THEY are much more deceptive than the not so bad decision to raise your prices.
See, much more realistic world than I could know. Makes a difference too, helping to decode with outher pragmatic readings.
No, my arguments are nonsense. I must have a weak spot for orange sellers, feeling I could get him off any charges pressed against him for lack of evidence.
Eventually, I suppose we, the reader, to feel satisfied that Bernardus is a champ, would have had to trust it was HABIBI'S large scale rip off. The oranges were indisputably never rotten in the first place (trust the lawyers working for Hendrik to be on the side of truth). And forget he is a modest orange seller who buys the occasional truckload (filled in because of insufficient information).
He tried to steal, and he was not a man of modest means. He had a supermarket and a warehouse. When you return merchandise other than what was delivered, and demanding money back, is theft.
Say you sell me a pair of Jeans, and I then come back with a ripped pair saying the Jeans were defective and demanding a new pair, am I not stealing from you?
Where is any of that in the text?
It isn't, it is explained later.
Yes. But .... is my confusion about the explaination or the text. Do you think?
I think the text, because the plot was not laid out in advance, rather referred to later in character statements. Like James Joyce's direct quotation of thought, the detail often not immediately clear.
Ok. ... you are missing the point. I think I can read Joyce....
and I am definitely reading you right now.
But I see
There is another comment in steemworld visible, but not here. This happens more often a delay. How is that solved. Where do I find it in its entirely.
Look for little blue letters saying xx more comments, click on that.
I am easy to read right now, I got up at 5 am yesterday, and it's 2:10 am now. I think that's 21 hours non stop for me.
See?
The literary critic meets the businessman at last. Or not even. The good heart.
Your real life story is very simple for me. I would have done exactly the same.
Nothing immoral about it.
I even feel bad about returning something truly defective because how is it the shop's fault...