I received a replacement piece of equipment from Spectrum. The label
on the package uses some very strange wording. Note: this is not the
shipping label with my name and address on it. It's just a label across
the opening that must be cut in order to open the box.

It starts with this, which I take as instructions that "someone" is giving
to me. They even politely suggest that I "please visit" their website.

They are talking to me, I am listening to them.

"Returns Information
Spectrum-leased equipment
- Option 1 - Return to The UPS Store
- Option 2 - Drop off at any Spectrum Store
For detailed returns information, please visit:
Spectrum.net/equipment-return"

Immediately after those instructions, there is this:

"Important Notice
I am responsible for loss, repair, replacement and other damages
and applicable charges associated with my use of this equipment."

Either I am suddenly talking to myself about what I am responsible for
or the "I" in that sentence is the "person" who was giving me the return
instructions.

Who the hell thought that this was a proper way to convey this information?

How would this ever hold up in court? If it said "By opening this package
you agree that you are responsible..." that would make sense. Absent that,
I have agreed to, and therefore am responsible for, nothing.

Marilyn Manson <comawhiteknuckles@gmail.com> wrote

> I received a replacement piece of equipment from Spectrum. The label
> on the package uses some very strange wording. Note: this is not the
> shipping label with my name and address on it. It's just a label across
> the opening that must be cut in order to open the box.

> It starts with this, which I take as instructions that "someone" is
> giving
> to me. They even politely suggest that I "please visit" their website.

Presumably because it's hard to get it all on the label.

> They are talking to me, I am listening to them.

> "Returns Information
> Spectrum-leased equipment
> - Option 1 - Return to The UPS Store
> - Option 2 - Drop off at any Spectrum Store
> For detailed returns information, please visit:
> Spectrum.net/equipment-return"

> Immediately after those instructions, there is this:

> "Important Notice
> I am responsible for loss, repair, replacement and other damages
> and applicable charges associated with my use of this equipment."

> Either I am suddenly talking to myself about what I am responsible for
> or the "I" in that sentence is the "person" who was giving me the return
> instructions.

Just another example of how poorly schools teach how to write english.

Yours isn't great either.

> Who the hell thought that this was a proper way to convey this
> information?

It does make it harder to ignore when opening the box.

> How would this ever hold up in court? If it said "By opening this package
> you agree that you are responsible..." that would make sense. Absent
> that,
> I have agreed to, and therefore am responsible for, nothing.

Thats has always been true with the silly claim that if you use
software you have allegedly agreed to the terms and conditions.

And the even more dishonest signs at the counter of shops
etc that the repairer has no legal liability whatever they do.

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 3:43:43 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
> Marilyn Manson <comawhit...@gmail.com> wrote
> > I received a replacement piece of equipment from Spectrum. The label
> > on the package uses some very strange wording. Note: this is not the
> > shipping label with my name and address on it. It's just a label across
> > the opening that must be cut in order to open the box.
>
> > It starts with this, which I take as instructions that "someone" is
> > giving
> > to me. They even politely suggest that I "please visit" their website.
> Presumably because it's hard to get it all on the label.
> > They are talking to me, I am listening to them.
>
> > "Returns Information
> > Spectrum-leased equipment
> > - Option 1 - Return to The UPS Store
> > - Option 2 - Drop off at any Spectrum Store
> > For detailed returns information, please visit:
> > Spectrum.net/equipment-return"
>
> > Immediately after those instructions, there is this:
>
> > "Important Notice
> > I am responsible for loss, repair, replacement and other damages
> > and applicable charges associated with my use of this equipment."
>
> > Either I am suddenly talking to myself about what I am responsible for
> > or the "I" in that sentence is the "person" who was giving me the return
> > instructions.
> Just another example of how poorly schools teach how to write english.
>
> Yours isn't great either.

It's hilarious that you write that immediately after not using proper capitalization.

> > Who the hell thought that this was a proper way to convey this
> > information?
> It does make it harder to ignore when opening the box.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion about the wording used on the label.

> > How would this ever hold up in court? If it said "By opening this package
> > you agree that you are responsible..." that would make sense. Absent
> > that,
> > I have agreed to, and therefore am responsible for, nothing.
> Thats has always been true with the silly claim that if you use
> software you have allegedly agreed to the terms and conditions.

"Thats has always been..."

Just another example of how poorly schools teach how to write english (sic).

That's also irrelevant because I've never read a software EULA written
in the first person.

Marilyn Manson <comawhiteknuckles@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Marilyn Manson <comawhit...@gmail.com> wrote

>> > I received a replacement piece of equipment from Spectrum. The label
>> > on the package uses some very strange wording. Note: this is not the
>> > shipping label with my name and address on it. It's just a label
>> across
>> > the opening that must be cut in order to open the box.
>>
>> > It starts with this, which I take as instructions that "someone" is
>> > giving
>> > to me. They even politely suggest that I "please visit" their website.

>> Presumably because it's hard to get it all on the label.

>> > They are talking to me, I am listening to them.
>>
>> > "Returns Information
>> > Spectrum-leased equipment
>> > - Option 1 - Return to The UPS Store
>> > - Option 2 - Drop off at any Spectrum Store
>> > For detailed returns information, please visit:
>> > Spectrum.net/equipment-return"
>>
>> > Immediately after those instructions, there is this:
>>
>> > "Important Notice
>> > I am responsible for loss, repair, replacement and other damages
>> > and applicable charges associated with my use of this equipment."
>>
>> > Either I am suddenly talking to myself about what I am responsible for
>> > or the "I" in that sentence is the "person" who was giving me the
>> return
>> > instructions.
>> Just another example of how poorly schools teach how to write english.
>>
>> Yours isn't great either.
>
> It's hilarious that you write that immediately after not using proper
> capitalization.

Only for fools. Capitalisation doesnt affect comprehension, stupid.

>> > Who the hell thought that this was a proper way to convey this
>> > information?

>> It does make it harder to ignore when opening the box.

> Totally irrelevant to the discussion about the wording used on the label.

But completely relevant to why it was done on a label there.

>> > How would this ever hold up in court? If it said "By opening this
>> package
>> > you agree that you are responsible..." that would make sense. Absent
>> > that,
>> > I have agreed to, and therefore am responsible for, nothing.

>> Thats has always been true with the silly claim that if you use
>> software you have allegedly agreed to the terms and conditions.
>
> "Thats has always been..."

Just a typo, fuckwit.

> That's also irrelevant

Completely relevant to your question about whether it would hold up in
court, fuckwit.

> because I've never read a software EULA written
> in the first person.

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 4:32:51 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
> Marilyn Manson <comawhit...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> Marilyn Manson <comawhit...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> > I received a replacement piece of equipment from Spectrum. The label
> >> > on the package uses some very strange wording. Note: this is not the
> >> > shipping label with my name and address on it. It's just a label
> >> across
> >> > the opening that must be cut in order to open the box.
> >>
> >> > It starts with this, which I take as instructions that "someone" is
> >> > giving
> >> > to me. They even politely suggest that I "please visit" their website.
>
> >> Presumably because it's hard to get it all on the label.
>
> >> > They are talking to me, I am listening to them.
> >>
> >> > "Returns Information
> >> > Spectrum-leased equipment
> >> > - Option 1 - Return to The UPS Store
> >> > - Option 2 - Drop off at any Spectrum Store
> >> > For detailed returns information, please visit:
> >> > Spectrum.net/equipment-return"
> >>
> >> > Immediately after those instructions, there is this:
> >>
> >> > "Important Notice
> >> > I am responsible for loss, repair, replacement and other damages
> >> > and applicable charges associated with my use of this equipment."
> >>
> >> > Either I am suddenly talking to myself about what I am responsible for
> >> > or the "I" in that sentence is the "person" who was giving me the
> >> return
> >> > instructions.
> >> Just another example of how poorly schools teach how to write english.
> >>
> >> Yours isn't great either.
> >
> > It's hilarious that you write that immediately after not using proper
> > capitalization.
> Only for fools. Capitalisation doesnt affect comprehension, stupid.
> >> > Who the hell thought that this was a proper way to convey this
> >> > information?
>
> >> It does make it harder to ignore when opening the box.
>
> > Totally irrelevant to the discussion about the wording used on the label.
> But completely relevant to why it was done on a label there.

Still totally irrelevant to the discussion about the wording used on the label.

> >> > How would this ever hold up in court? If it said "By opening this
> >> package
> >> > you agree that you are responsible..." that would make sense. Absent
> >> > that,
> >> > I have agreed to, and therefore am responsible for, nothing.
>
> >> Thats has always been true with the silly claim that if you use
> >> software you have allegedly agreed to the terms and conditions.
> >
> > "Thats has always been..."
> Just a typo, fuckwit.
>
> > That's also irrelevant
>
> Completely relevant to your question about whether it would hold up in
> court, fuckwit.

Wrong, as always.

Marilyn Manson <comawhiteknuckles@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Marilyn Manson <comawhit...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > Rod Speed wrote
>> >> Marilyn Manson <comawhit...@gmail.com> wrote

>> >> > I received a replacement piece of equipment from Spectrum. The
>> label
>> >> > on the package uses some very strange wording. Note: this is not
>> the
>> >> > shipping label with my name and address on it. It's just a label
>> >> across
>> >> > the opening that must be cut in order to open the box.
>> >>
>> >> > It starts with this, which I take as instructions that "someone" is
>> >> > giving
>> >> > to me. They even politely suggest that I "please visit" their
>> website.
>>
>> >> Presumably because it's hard to get it all on the label.
>>
>> >> > They are talking to me, I am listening to them.
>> >>
>> >> > "Returns Information
>> >> > Spectrum-leased equipment
>> >> > - Option 1 - Return to The UPS Store
>> >> > - Option 2 - Drop off at any Spectrum Store
>> >> > For detailed returns information, please visit:
>> >> > Spectrum.net/equipment-return"
>> >>
>> >> > Immediately after those instructions, there is this:
>> >>
>> >> > "Important Notice
>> >> > I am responsible for loss, repair, replacement and other damages
>> >> > and applicable charges associated with my use of this equipment."
>> >>
>> >> > Either I am suddenly talking to myself about what I am responsible
>> for
>> >> > or the "I" in that sentence is the "person" who was giving me the
>> >> return
>> >> > instructions.
>> >> Just another example of how poorly schools teach how to write
>> english.
>> >>
>> >> Yours isn't great either.
>> >
>> > It's hilarious that you write that immediately after not using proper
>> > capitalization.
>> Only for fools. Capitalisation doesnt affect comprehension, stupid.
>> >> > Who the hell thought that this was a proper way to convey this
>> >> > information?
>>
>> >> It does make it harder to ignore when opening the box.
>>
>> > Totally irrelevant to the discussion about the wording used on the
>> label.
>> But completely relevant to why it was done on a label there.
>
> Still totally irrelevant to the discussion about the wording used on the
> label.
>
>> >> > How would this ever hold up in court? If it said "By opening this
>> >> package
>> >> > you agree that you are responsible..." that would make sense.
>> Absent
>> >> > that,
>> >> > I have agreed to, and therefore am responsible for, nothing.
>>
>> >> Thats has always been true with the silly claim that if you use
>> >> software you have allegedly agreed to the terms and conditions.
>> >
>> > "Thats has always been..."
>> Just a typo, fuckwit.
>>
>> > That's also irrelevant
>>
>> Completely relevant to your question about whether it would hold up in
>> court, fuckwit.
>
> Wrong, as always.

Can't even manage its own lines, or work out how to bullshit its way out
of a wet paper bag.

On 2/20/2022 3:14 PM, Marilyn Manson wrote:
> I received a replacement piece of equipment from Spectrum. The label
> on the package uses some very strange wording.
>
> Immediately after those instructions, there is this:
>
> "Important Notice
> I am responsible for loss, repair, replacement and other damages
> and applicable charges associated with my use of this equipment."
>
> Either I am suddenly talking to myself about what I am responsible for
> or the "I" in that sentence is the "person" who was giving me the return
> instructions.
>
> Who the hell thought that this was a proper way to convey this information?
>
> How would this ever hold up in court? If it said "By opening this package
> you agree that you are responsible..." that would make sense. Absent that,
> I have agreed to, and therefore am responsible for, nothing.
>
You must have missed the card about taking an oath. You are supposed to
put your hand on the bible and repeat those words.

Given that state of grammatical teaching, few would question the accuracy.