Your comment, seems to be missing a lot more: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view

Wow, super childish. Anyway, the point I was making is that all you managed to show was that standard oil practiced price discrimination as if it was some big revelation. Then I pointed out how it happens to a vast extent every day and it’s part of modern markets and you have nothing in response to defend your stance on price discrimination.

My guess is you just found out that coupons are price discrimination and are still pretty upset about that? If so, I’m sorry to break that news to you.

> Then I pointed out how it happens to a vast extent every day and it’s part of modern markets and you have nothing in response to defend your stance on price discrimination.

Back this up. None of your statements have any backing.

Edit: From your comment style and prior history, you have a history of utilizing red herring and slippery slope style comments to get your way without backing a single thing you say. Please, cut the bullshit.

Back what up? Grocery stores send out thousands of coupons every day in the regular mail. Coupons are price discrimination plain and simple. I’m honestly not sure what you need me to provide to show you how coupons work.

Grocery stores getting more sophisticated: https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/08/21/individ...

Here’s airlines: http://theconversation.com/a-travellers-guide-to-airline-pri...

There’s a bunch of examples right in the fucking wiki page on price discrimination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

Please spend a little effort at least googling before you make demands for proof of something so common.

> From your comment style and prior history

That’s just pathetic. Nobody is ever impressed you read someone else’s comment history to make a childlike ad hominem attack, especially just to misuse the term “red herring”. Stalking has ever advanced a conversation. Stick to the topic.