On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:03:38 -0400, "Gene Cottrell"
wrote:

For
example, they will make pharmaceutical prices so low that the local pharmacy
can't compete at all. Once they're out, Wal-Mart raises it's prices, then
next it's the hardware store, then the clothing store, then the sporting
goods store, etc. True, they can have lower prices than the local mom and
pop stores anyway, but if it's only a little, enough people will shop the
mom and pop to hurt Wal-Mart, so Wal-Mart's policy is 'They must go!' This
is not conjecture, it has been proven in court.

Completely wrong. Believe it or not, Walmart sees its biggest
competitor as its own stores, especially older ones. And here's a hint:
would your average "mom-n-pop" store really want to take Walmart's
customers away - IOW, have them all leave Walmart and come into their
store? No? So why would Walmart want to take "mom-n-pop's?" Really
think about that before you answer.

As to "proven in court," VERY little is "proven" in court. Finders of
fact may decide something (liable or not liable, guilty or not guilty -
note, not "innocent") based on the appropriate standard (51% or greater,
depending on civil or criminal). About as close as it comes is a civil
action filed following a criminal conviction (and not the other way
around), where the criminal conviction can be used as evidence, and even
then, it's simply the law following the logic - it still isn't "proof."

HTH,
R