pudge's Journal: Ben & Jerry Deception

Ben & Jerry were on Colbert touting their TrueMajority web site. They said, go to the web site and get a free frisbee. So I went to the web site and signed up for a free frisbee.

I was then notified by e-mail that I had signed up to be a member of their organization. I did not. I find their principles to be silly, naive, and in some cases flatly unconstitutional.

They did not say on the web site I would be joining their group, they only said "sign up and get a free frisbee." I thought I was signing up for the frisbee, not to be a member of their organization, and nothing on the page or in the form implied otherwise. Their founder, Ben, said on Colbert only that "anyone who visits the TrueMajority.org web site -- any one of your fans -- gets a free one of these [frisbees]." He said nothing about joining the organization. (Also, many people were turned away from getting a frisbee, as they didn't have enough to meet demand, so he was misleading about that too.)

They say they have over 500,000 members, but that number cannot be trusted, because there's no telling how many of those "members" were, like me, signed up deceptively.

Free Frisbee

[RailGunner]

You can still get a free frisbee in the mail right here. [ubuntu.com]

:)

Oh dear...

[FroMan]

Everyone has their price... Yours? A frisbee.

Re:

[RailGunner]

Everyone has their price...

Ted DiBiase [wikipedia.org], is that you? :)

Re:

[pudge]

Again, they did not tell you the "price" until AFTER you signed up for a frisbee.

Well it's obvious

[StalinsNotDead]

Anyone who wants a free frisbee must agree with their politics and would naturally consent to joining their organization. Why would you want a frisbee otherwise?

Re:

[pudge]

For the same reason I got free immortality rings from Alex Chiu. Yes, I seriously have them.

Just sign on with a fake name

[sulli]

If they are faking so should you be.

Re:

[pudge]

I DID sign up. Before they told me that "signing up" for the frisbee meant I was joining the organization. By the time they tell you what "signing up" really means, you have already joined.

Re:

[sulli]

Ah good point. It's like those disclaimers ("By reading this you agree to be bound by all terms and conditions that we might ever think of.")

misinterpretation

[mschuyler]

"Sign up" means "sign up to their organization." You misinterpreted. Why is your misinterpretation their fault? They don't owe you anything. Get a grip.

Re:

[pudge]

"Sign up" means "sign up to their organization." You misinterpreted. Why is your misinterpretation their fault?

Because it was not at all clear what "sign up" meant. There was nothing stated or implied about signing up to their organization. So yes, it is therefore their fault. That's how it works. Intentionally or not, their statement on Colbert and their web page were deceptive due to the lack of clarity, and there's no getting around that fact.

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Because it was not at all clear what "sign up" meant.

It is to everyone else.

Re:

[pudge]

Because it was not at all clear what "sign up" meant.

It is to everyone else.

You base this on ... what? Certainly not facts.

Re:

[Bill Dog]

For someone who makes perfect sense 98% of the time, it's amazing how off you are when you are. It's obviously a startup organization, and a left-wing organization. From thence it's not a shocker that they might be looking to collect names to grow the appearance of having backers and some relevance, and they're probably not real particular about how honestly they do it, respectively.

Re:

[pudge]

For someone who makes perfect sense 98% of the time, it's amazing how off you are when you are.

Fact: they said on Colbert that anyone could get a free frisbee just by going to their site. They said nothing about signing up to be a member, but explicitly stated all you had to do was watch the show and go to the web site.

Fact: their site said nothing about signing up to be a member of their organization to get the free frisbee.

Fact: there was no way of knowing that signing up for the free frisbee meant signing up for the organization. You could guess it, but you could not know it, because they didn'

Re:

[Bill Dog]

You could guess it,...

Exactly.

Re:

[pudge]

You could guess it ...

Exactly.

And ... ? You cannot claim someone as a member for your organization if you did not clearly state to them that this is what they were signing up for. They did not. So they were deceptive. This is all I am saying, and you appear to not disagree, so what's your beef?

Re:

[Bill Dog]

You cannot claim someone as a member for your organization if you did not...

Au contraire, they can do anything they want. I can start an organization this second and claim *YOU* as a member, if I want. It doesn't actually mean anything, but I can do it.

So they were deceptive.

So what else is new with Leftists?!?

...so what's your beef?

I don't have a beef with you. I just don't know why you're acting like what resulted was such a surprise.

Re:

[pudge]

You cannot claim someone as a member for your organization if you did not...

Au contraire, they can do anything they want. I can start an organization this second and claim *YOU* as a member, if I want. It doesn't actually mean anything, but I can do it.

And I could sue you. Sure, there are not likely be any damages, but in this country, we have freedom of association, which necessarily includes my right to not be associated with people I don't want to be associated with (which is why attempts to force political parties to be affiliated with candidates they did not choose for themselves have been soundly rejected by the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org]), and I could absolutely sue you and win and force you to stop claiming me as a member, and enjoin you to not ever claim me

Re:

[Bill Dog]

And I could sue you.

And grass is green. One can always sue -- that's a given. I can sue anyone, anywhere (in this country), at any time, for any reason.

...but in this country, we have freedom of association,...

No, we do not. We have freedom from govt. interference with our choices in association, in most cases, but nowhere is it stated that another citizen may not interfere in this. Actually you might have a tough time winning such a case, as you would have show that you were injured in some way. Maybe und

Re:

[pudge]

And I could sue you.

And grass is green. One can always sue -- that's a given. I can sue anyone, anywhere (in this country), at any time, for any reason.

But in this case, the law backs me up.

...but in this country, we have freedom of association...

No, we do not.

Yes, we do.

We have freedom from govt. interference with our choices in association, in most cases, but nowhere is it stated that another citizen may not interfere in this.

Yes, it actually is. Again, read the Scalia quote. The "freedom to join together to further common political beliefs" necessarily implies that I have the freedom to exclude myself from associations I do not wish, or exclude others from my organizations.

Actually you might have a tough time winning such a case, as you would have show that you were injured in some way.

I already addressed this. If I were suing for damages, I would have to prove damages. However, I could still sue to force you to stop claiming me as a member.

The govt. telling someone who can vote for leadership/representative positions in their club != someone signing up someone else into their club on the sly. Totally different things.

No, the portion of the decision I am referr

Re:

[Bill Dog]

No, the portion of the decision I am referring to was not about who can vote in their club, it was about who is on the ballot as a member of their club.

It looks like that part was left out of the Wikipedia article you referenced, hence the confusion.

I think we should cordially accept that we simply disagree on this. I see Scalia saying that I can keep out of my club whomever I want, not that I can keep myself out of whomevers' clubs who would love to have me. They're related in that topically they're both a

Re:

[pudge]

No, the portion of the decision I am referring to was not about who can vote in their club, it was about who is on the ballot as a member of their club.

It looks like that part was left out of the Wikipedia article you referenced, hence the confusion.

Yeah, it is not clear from the writeup. As Kennedy wrote in his concurring opinion, "The true purpose of this law, however, is to force a political party to accept a candidate it may not want and, by so doing, to change the party's doctrinal position on major issues."

I see Scalia saying that I can keep out of my club whomever I want, not that I can keep myself out of whomevers' clubs who would love to have me.

Yes, I addressed that when I first mentioned the Scalia quote, and I said that it's the same principle. We are known by our associations, whether it is someone forcing me to be a member of this Ice Cream Fantasy Island Organization, or the

Membership

[jdavidb]

At root, we're all just individuals. Membership of various organizations is largely semantic. We can barely agree over the definition of who is or is not a Jew or a Christian.

Exposing the fact that they are lying about their supporter numbers is quite significant. But personally, if they wanted to "consider" me to be a member of their organization, I wouldn't feel like I'd been forced to be a member. They won't get dues or statements of support out of me, and if anyone asks if I'm a member, I'll say n

Re:

[pudge]

Not saying you're mad over nothing; just saying that if they are deluded enough to think you are a member of their organization, then that is more their problem than yours. :)

I didn't say I was mad. I was just pointing out the fact. As you implied, my main point is simply that their number of members is untrustworthy, and is deceptive, intentionally or otherwise.