Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Phil, San Antonio, TX, USA on April 10, 2009:

"If you don't want it bad enough to pay the asked price, or if you just can't afford it... Learn to do without."

That needs to be posted at the top of every CraigsList "Wanted" page and in the Freecycle "Wanted" instructions.

Posted by Leonard, Red Banks, MS on April 10, 2009:

Wow!! Mr. Myers just slapped me silly via cyberspace. This should be required reading for all the spoiled 'babies' of the family (myself included), or anyone who believes they are owed something for nothing. Thank you for passing this on Mr. Cassingham because its well worth the short time it took to read not just once, but many times.

Posted by Tom, St. Paul, MN, USA on April 10, 2009:

Sometimes the "Wanted" on Craigslist are items that I might want, but haven't found listed for sale. I am willing to pay for them, just want someone to know I am looking for a certain item. As for Freecycle, the group was designed for finding homes for good stuff that might otherwise be thrown away. Just because someone posts a wanted ad on FreeCycle, doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't willing to pay for the item. Stop generalizing, it doesn't become you.

---

You know Phil in Texas, Tom? Because it's quite clear that I didn't write that! So please be sure you address your comments to the person who did. Thanks. -rc

Posted by Tom, Indianapolis on April 11, 2009:

TANSTAAFL.

How many realize where that came from? The saying - it means: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" - as far as I know first appeared in the novel "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", by Robert Heinlein. However it got started, though, it's as true now as it was then - and is probably the best one-word life-instruction anyone could give - or get. EVERYTHING has a cost associated with it. Speaking of which - I wish I could afford the Premium "This Is True"... but it's a luxury I can do without, for now; while I do have a few non-essentials that I'm paying for... I need to trim a couple of items (read pay them off..) before budgeting any more "extras" - because there really ain't no such thing as a free lunch - TANSTAAFL!

Posted by John, Idaho on April 11, 2009:

I found the article right on target, even though Tom is correct to advise against generalizing. Thanks for posting it, and for recommending Talkbiz News.

Posted by Ted, Taylor, TX on April 11, 2009:

I was struck by how closely Paul Myers' article describes the shenanigans of those who seem to be supporting the political excesses of the ones in Washington, D.C. today although I don't feel he was attempting a political statement in any way. Bravo!!

Posted by rewinn, Washington on April 11, 2009:

Great post! I wish to comment on what is probably intended as a minor point, but hits close to home:

"...He'll prattle on at length, with warm-and-fuzzy sounding slogans and "humanitarian" cliches..."

As a bleeding-heart, fuzzy-headed, total and happy liberal humanitarian, I suffer near-terminal embarrassment at people who don't need something-for-nothing but use warm-and-fuzzy slogans to demand something-for-nothing.

I'm not talking about people genuinely in need; the world has plenty of real problems and real people with problems; but most people with problems are happy to do what they can (however small), and to take only what they must ( which is sometimes a lot.)

But it's just a fact that there are those who use humanitarian slogans for personal profit; this is analogous to the North American Cowbird; although physically capable of building its own nest, the cowbird lays its eggs only in the nests of others, often displacing their host's young. Human cowbirds, although capable of fending for themselves or at least chipping in their share, parasitize resources intended for persons actually in need and use the many genuine cases of need as cover for their parasitism.

Fortunately, on the internet, ignoring them is an efficient anti-parasite defense. An alternative may be demanding SOMEthing in exchange, however tiny, to demonstrate bona fide interest, e.g. subscribing to your email newsletter so your advertising is just a little bit more valuable.

I wish it were so easy to figure things out in physical reality, but what the heck, it's an imperfect world ... it just galls me to have cowbirds misappropriate humanitarian talk. Thanks for enduring my rant (...which, being on the internet, can easily be ignored... everybody wins! ;-)

Posted by Marc, MA on April 11, 2009:

I am a successful entrepreneur. I am not a whiner or a clown. And you know what? I hate email opt-ins, too. Not because I object to paying (in time or money) for things of value; I do that all the time. But because the vast majority of sites which want me to opt in to something are actually scammers themselves.

Randy has vouched for Mr. Myers, so I will assume he's the real deal. But he seems willing to pile an awful lot on the back of someone based on a single anonymous complaint. Perhaps he's earnest, but has just been burned more than once. He wouldn't be the only one.

Now, I know the point of the article is that there are people out there who expect something for nothing, and they will be a drain on your business if you waste time on them. This is a good lesson. But, I spent the whole article thinking "I hate opt-ins, and this isn't me. The guy saying this is pretty judgemental." Enough so to make me bother to write this.

---

One such complaint doesn't create a rant; the provocateur is simply a launching pad for the type. I get them too -- people who put in "fuck you" where it asks, "(Optional) Where did you hear of us?" Note it even says "Optional", yet they take the time and opportunity to be a jerk.

The bottom line is, there's a stated price for a stated benefit. That's the deal. One either chooses to accept it or not. If you don't want to register at Yet Another Web Site, I understand and support the decision. But to *whine* about the stated price is indeed worthy of derision. -rc

Posted by Jay, CA on April 11, 2009:

"I was struck by how closely Paul Myers' article describes the shenanigans of those who seem to be supporting the political excesses of the ones in Washington, D.C."

You have it exactly backwards. It is those who want all the benefits of society but don't want to contribute their fair share to the kitty who are leeches. And they will be the first ones to subscribe to government benefits, or go to court, if they ever suffer misfortune. Compare them to someone like Warren Buffet, who not only gives huge amounts to charity but favors a high inheritance tax and progressive taxation and complains that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.There's a man who understands just how much of his well being is due to a well regulated society, an educated man who knows that the nations with the highest quality of living have the highest top tax rates, a man who understands the meaning of the word "civilization".

Posted by David (Los Angeles) on April 11, 2009:

I'd like to add to what Jay says, with a minor correction. The higher tax rates of other developed countries are not, in fact, higher than those in the U.S. The difference is between direct and indirect taxation. In fact, in the U.S., we pay MORE for healthcare, MORE for education, MORE for infrastructure, MORE for electoral processes than ANY other developed nation, AND WE RECEIVE FAR LESS (e.g., worse healthcare outcomes except in the highest 5% income bracket). BUT, we pay in taxes AND privately. If one adds the per capita or per household or per family (any of those calculations will do) costs in the U.S. for healthcare, education and government, we pay MORE than everyone else, not LESS. I, too, agree with Warren Buffet.