Ripped off at Sherwin WIlliams

[Doug Kanter]

There's a word for a human who has chosen to stop learning. The word is "corpse". Rest in peace.

[Doug Miller]

Your continued inability to carry on a logical discussion is duly noted.

[Doug Kanter]

Translation: You've never in your life been involved with marketing a product. So, you bash any idea which might reveal your lack of experience. Why do you get involved in these discussions to begin with? Feelings of powerlessness elsewhere in your life?

[Melissa]

FWIW, I have 2 gallons of Classic 99 paint by Sherwin Williams-regular(old) style can, both say 124 fl oz., 3 7/8 US quarts, underneath that, in smaller but easily readable print, the can says Before Colorant Added.

I also have 3 gallons of their primer Preprite, which are labeled 1 US gallon. Both were purchased in the past month.

I wonder if they just forgot to put on the "before colorant added" part on the label of the new style container?

Melissa

[Edwin Pawlowski]

They forgot nothing. (Their lawyers approved the label) Both the base for color and the pre-mixed color are shy of a gallon. The base was actually slightly more. I'm guessing they did that so the colors would be mixed properly as the same mixing formula are used for many different paints. Base 33 11/16 premixed 3 27/32

[meirman]

In alt.home.repair on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:38:10 GMT [e-mail] (Doug Miller) posted:

I think in fairness, it was the same point.

Meirman

-- If emailing, please let me know whether or not you are posting the same letter. Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

[meirman]

In alt.home.repair on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:42:40 -0500 Duane Bozarth posted:

128 oz. *is* a full gallon. So you are saying that even base came in full gallons back then, and the most any of yours allowed for tint was 2 oz.

Meirman

-- If emailing, please let me know whether or not you are posting the same letter. Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

[Doug Miller]

Whether I have or not is not relevant to what we started out discussing. As usual, as soon as you began to lose the argument, you tried to change the subject. Stick to the point, or shut up.

What ideas was I bashing, Kanter, other than labelling as "silly" your suggestion that a manufacturer should display a banner calling attention to his smaller package and/or higher price? That *is* silly.

Oh, and what university is your degree in psychoanalysis from?

[Duane Bozarth]

Sorry, there was a typo and a mental faux pas going on in tandem there...I for some reason was thinking 132 oz/gal and wrote too quickly...the actual numbers for tint base were from 12 to 125, the non-tint-white was the full gallon...

The 123 would be in the range observed for a heavy tint but that isn't consistent w/ 27/32 qt -- 123/128*32 ==> 31 (approx). 27/32*128 ==> 108 oz which is a considerable shortage.

[tm]

Preferably over dinner with Selma Hayek.

[Duane Bozarth]

Man, I'm full of wonders on this... :(

27/32 is on the not the full gallon! So 27/32*32 + 3*32 == 123 oz.

Ergo, if this is a change it is very small and would assume it was for a deep tint.

[Doug Kanter]

It certainly *is* relevant. You claimed I kept changing the subject. You kept focusing on "deceptive" and "sneaky". That suggests "covert" - something manufacturers try and put over on the buying public. The opposite of that would be "openness", "informative". Instead, you said there was an in-between: The specifics of the package dimensions. I asked you why this would be unlikely to work. You didn't respond. So, one by one, you eliminate possibilities.

Whether in law, science, marketing or philosophy, most decent discussions involve the introduction, dissection, and rejection/acceptance of wide ranging hypothetical ideas. (Search the web for transcripts of Supreme Court sessions, for instance). If you don't have the energy or intellect for this practice, don't waste peoples' time.

One needs only to pay attention through one's adult life to notice these things.

[Doug Kanter]

In the tight blue number from X-Men?

[Doug Kanter]

I've been busy for 30 years, so I never checked with a measuring cup but, maybe they *did* come in a full gallon, but the cans were larger to allow for the tint? I dunno.....

[Duane Bozarth]

Man, I'm full of wonders on this... :(

27/32 is on the not the full gallon! So 27/32*32 + 3*32 == 123 oz.

Ergo, if this is a change it is very small and would assume it was for a deep tint.

I'm convinced the OP got the "full gallon" and there is no volume reduction at all...

[meirman]

In alt.home.repair on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:07:54 -0500 Duane Bozarth posted:

Oops, you're right. Congratulations. We all fell for this.

Right, there was never a problme to begin with. 114 posts for nothing. :) Ugh.

Meirman

-- If emailing, please let me know whether or not you are posting the same letter. Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

[Duane Bozarth]

meirman wrote: ....

Hey, it's usenet....that's what we're here for, right? :)

[Doug Kanter]

I had fun with Mr. Miller, as always. Not sure if he's returned his comment card yet, though.

[Hopkins]

a one gallon paint can will hold, if you fill it to the brim, about 132 ounces.