quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
That's because I haven't bought or sold any wine from anyone here or winecommune or any other site. Never. The only online sites from which I've purchased wines were retailers and I've never circumvented the laws in question here.

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:
Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining!

LOL Funny


Civil disobedience this is not. And even if it were, its government you should be targeting, not wine.com.

I do need to issue a bull**** alert for both sides of this debate: first - while I applaud the SWRA for its approach to the problem (imagine that, a lawyer who is applauding litigation), but I think it is a little bit disengenious of you to launch a salvo against wine.com here for not throwing the sheckles into your litigation war chest. And lets face it that it might not fit into their business plan to jump onto the SWRA bandwagon.

A level playing field is what all retailers should seek. If you ignore sales tax, your wine is significantly cheaper and,pursuant to the law of demand, easier to see. But lets turn the proposition onto its head which yields this silliness: Do the right thing, make less money and lose your customers! Maybe you can get your marketing department to put that on some coffee mugs for you.

But in actuality,though,its worst than that,because what's really happening is that the rogue retailer (the one who ships where he shouldn't or fails to collect sales taxes) is actually doing better. So those coffee mugs that we're ordering should say:"Break the law and earn money while doing it!"

But I also think that wine.com is overstating their case a little bit. The payment of state sales tax rests with the BUYER, not the seller. You CHOOSE to collect and ditribute sales tax dollars. Is that because you're just a bunch of good boy scouts?

And my bull**** meter was pinging really loudly at the start of the story. I'm assuming you are well counseled (lawyered up as we like to say), buy doesn't wine.com run the risk of legal prosecution for actually being a part of wine-buying consiparcy? Or have you guys been deputized by the local authorties? (this is a genuine question).

quote:

Originally posted by Tom From Glen Ellen, CA:

quote:

while I applaud the SWRA for its approach to the problem (imagine that, a lawyer who is applauding litigation), but I think it is a little bit disengenious of you to launch a salvo against wine.com here for not throwing the sheckles into your litigation war chest. And lets face it that it might not fit into their business plan to jump onto the SWRA bandwagon.

You're point is well taken. However, if we are to take the CEO of Wine.com at his word it seems quite appropriate to ask first, why not join with other retailers at SWRA and get these laws over turned and, second, why Wine.com did not fight the implementation of laws that hurt consumers.

Just to remind you what the CEO of Wine.com said right here:

"Wine.com wants two things:

First and foremost, open markets. We’d like to see all states open up to interstate shipping of wine. This would be best for consumers, best for the health of the online wine business and best for Wine.com and our customers."

quote:

Originally posted by sydthesquid:

quote:

Originally posted by TheEngineer:

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:

quote:

Originally posted by Markiemark:
There are a bunch of self-righteous, law and order "rule of law" hypocrites in this thread who should consider their own actions before saddling their high horse and lecturing others.

That's one of the most self-righteous posts ever made on this site. It's also very hypocritical. You're doing exactly what you're decrying.

How so, Board-O?

I think Board-O is suggesting that if Markiemark is not a law-aiding person then it would be hypocritical to make such a statement. Regardless, I would like to know if Board-O and those on the side for Wine.com has ever broken the laws as outlined above, i.e. shipping one's wine ahead of travel schedule to off-lines, mailing bottles to friends, buying or selling bottles on Wine-Commune.

Gents, Comments to the original question? Just a matter of interest of course.

I saw Board-O cross 34th street IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK.

Menace to society.

Never mind.

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:
I should let Markiemark speak for himself. However, I WILL say I didn't get that at all from his thread. He doesn't claim that he follows 'the law'. He communicates frustration at OTHERS who are preaching to the forum about issues they're LIKELY quite guilty of themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:

quote:

Originally posted by Tom From Glen Ellen, CA:

quote:

while I applaud the SWRA for its approach to the problem (imagine that, a lawyer who is applauding litigation), but I think it is a little bit disengenious of you to launch a salvo against wine.com here for not throwing the sheckles into your litigation war chest. And lets face it that it might not fit into their business plan to jump onto the SWRA bandwagon.

You're point is well taken. However, if we are to take the CEO of Wine.com at his word it seems quite appropriate to ask first, why not join with other retailers at SWRA and get these laws over turned and, second, why Wine.com did not fight the implementation of laws that hurt consumers.

Just to remind you what the CEO of Wine.com said right here:

"Wine.com wants two things:

First and foremost, open markets. We’d like to see all states open up to interstate shipping of wine. This would be best for consumers, best for the health of the online wine business and best for Wine.com and our customers."

Who knows what darkness lurks in the minds of men?

Maybe the guy at Wine.com doesn't like the guy who is running SWRA. Maybe the Board has decided to pursue their own course and not be merely a pawn in the SWRA gameplan.

Who knows - maybe they saw this as an oportunity to take out some of the especially annoying competition.

But at the end of they decided to blow the whistle on some of the lawbreakers who happened to be their competition. In this case, the MORAL and LEGAL thing to do coincided perfectly with the SMART BUSINESS thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:

quote:

Originally posted by Markiemark:
Everyone on this board who has bought or sold wine on winecommune or on the buy/sell forum here has likely broken the "law". Those who have shipped wine to others in advance for offlines have likely broken the "law". Many have probably not declared alcohol in a shipment at one time or another and required someone 21 years or older to sign for it as required by "law".

There are a bunch of self-righteous, law and order "rule of law" hypocrites in this thread who should consider their own actions before saddling their high horse and lecturing others.

So what you're telling me is that if you've broken a law, you're violating some taboo by pointing out that you SHOULD KNOW that your actions are wrong. I really have no beef with folks who undertand that their actions are illegal but they do it anyway. If you fit into this category -- fine. Just don't come bitchin and moaning to me once you get busted.

How many times have you consoled a guy who got a speeding ticket? "Dude. Too bad. It sucks that you got caught driving 83 in a 55." We do not say, "Dude. The speed limit on that road ought to be 83. Let's protest!"

HOWEVER -if you HONESTLY BELIEVE that there is no reason to obey these laws, you're one step short of sociopathic and are most likely amoral.

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:

And it is ridiculous to suggest that you can only speak on a subject if your hands are entirely clean. "I DID IT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS WRONG" certainly suggests moreself-awareness than "ITS WRONG DON'T DO IT," or "IT AIN'T WRONG."

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:
And you're missing the point. You know those causal shipments are wrong, and I suspect that even you ( ) understand why they are wrong.

You choose to ignore the law for a number of personal reasons. Where's the victim? Its a stupid law? The chances of prosecution are almost nil? Even if I do get busted, its just a fine.

I could go on and on. But I suspect that you don't fit into the amoral category. Its the ones who DON'T UNDERSTAND why its wrong to break these laws that I worry about.

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:
What I'm saying, Mark,is that I have a big problem with the boneheads here who are suggesting wine-com's actions are somehow immoral when exactly the opposite is true.

quote:

Originally posted by SD-Wineaux:
Personally, I don't think that this issue is deserving of a moral sub-context.

quote:

I hope they were well advised legally before doing what they did. It opens up a big can of worms. I think there is a world of difference between turning the bad guys in and actually making an order (presumably with a transfer of funds) and then reporting the transaction after the fact. The implication, of course, is that there's no culpability in the purchase of the wine -- just the selling and/or delivery of it.

As I noted above, they need to consider their liability as possible co-conspirators.

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:
And by the way, I never said their actions matched my moral compass.

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:
All of this reminds me of my law school's Honor Code (and every law school in the nation and most of the undergraduate schools have similar policies): Cheating AND tolerance of cheating are equally offensive. If you know someone is cheating and DON'T turn them in, your offense is JUST AS BAD as the cheater.

quote:

Originally posted by pape du neuf:
Wow,

Hard not to get worked up about this.

I suppose if you suspect your neighbors of indulging in illegal sex acts, it might be fair to entrap them and turn them in.

quote:

Originally posted by pape du neuf:
I suppose if you suspect your neighbors of indulging in illegal sex acts, it might be fair to entrap them and turn them in.