Jump to content


Photo

Utterly Frustrated With "utterly Frustrated"


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#19 Mark Evans

Mark Evans

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1674 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milford, MA.

Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:59 AM

Hum, wouldn't dream of speaking for either of my fellow dwellers in the land o the Free an' dah Brave, but I would not mention the retailer in questions name because "it" is viewed in small town America as a plague. Once established on the outskirts of a community, it is only a matter of time before the small shops in the town centers slowly go out of business.

"It" is infamous for labor practices that are an abomination. Aggressive is "Its" corporate mindset. "It" stands poised over small town America with a cudgel in "Its" mitts and uses our own little icon to my left as "Its" logo. Go pick your reason...I've said too much already :ph34r: .

I stand with Stephen. The record is now out there. Let it stand. The artisans have been well defended. In fact were I younger, richer and in better health, I'd get in line for an EC, shut me yap and wait (didn't hardly know their names before this punch-up began). Paul and Ken have managed the situation in a measured and responsible way. Bravo. In future we'll all be a bit more careful would be my guess.

Oh, I can't wait to use "slagg off" in conversation...got to get the proper pronunciation though. I'll try it out on fellow commuters in the morning :huh: !

Edited by Mark Evans, 13 February 2005 - 08:13 AM.


#20 geoffwright

geoffwright

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Doncaster, South Yorkshire, UK

Posted 14 February 2005 - 07:55 AM

Howzabout redressing the bad publicity aimed at the Dippers by deleting the negative bits of the thread and leaving the glowing testimonials.

#21 JimLucas

JimLucas

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10123 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 14 February 2005 - 10:30 AM

[I am deleting the original content of this post, because it's an earlier version of my immediately-following post. I don't know how the duplication happened, since I only submitted once, but since I can delete the text here, that's what I'm doing.

........... /Jim ]

Edited by JimLucas, 14 February 2005 - 10:36 AM.


#22 JimLucas

JimLucas

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10123 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 14 February 2005 - 10:32 AM

Howzabout redressing the bad publicity aimed at ... by deleting the negative bits of the thread and leaving the glowing testimonials.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reasonable, IMO.
My concern about the original posts was twofold:

First was the simple fact that the original posts strike me as the internet equivalent of a masked man trying to stir up a lynch mob against someone who isn't even present. He failed to identify himself, even when asked. His questions of, "Why did M do X?"and "Why didn't he do Z?" presuppose that M actually did X and that he not only didn't do Z, but is somehow obliged to do so. Yet questions by those attempting to learn more were ignored. It was also a hit-and-run. He joined C.net, made his attacks, failed to get the support he desired, and apparently hasn't even logged on since then, nearly 2 weeks ago and 2 days after he joined. It appears that he isn't interested in our "community", except as a tool to be used to further his anti-M campaign.

The fact of the threads showing up on Google was my second concern. If it were just here on C.net, we could be satisfied that the subsequent discussion has adequately countered any unfairness in the claims. But I feel that what we have here is similar in effect to a major newspaper publishing an anonymous story that accuses a prominent public figure of scandalous behavior, publishing in the local edition subsequent evidence to the contrary, but leaving the original story on the AP wire to be copied and published by other papers throughout the world. Unfortunately, the only way on the internet to restrict circulation of content on a publicly accessible web site is to remove that content from the site. That's why I made my removal suggestion. You have suggested a more selective removal, which I think would be more appropriate, but which I suspect would entail considerably more effort on Paul's part, even if he felt it was otherwise reasonable.

So I've presented my perspective, but that's it. It's not up to me.

#23 Michael Reid

Michael Reid

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Location:Boulder, Colorado, USA

Posted 15 February 2005 - 12:11 AM

The fact of the threads showing up on Google was my second concern.  If it were just here on C.net, we could be satisfied that the subsequent discussion has adequately countered any unfairness in the claims.  But I feel that what we have here is similar in effect to a major newspaper publishing an anonymous story that accuses a prominent public figure of scandalous behavior, publishing in the local edition subsequent evidence to the contrary, but leaving the original story on the AP wire to be copied and published by other papers throughout the world.

The above analogy doesn't hold water. Searching Google for 'Colin Dipper' does turn up the thread in question: not just the original "story," but the entire thread (up through this evening) on a single web page. As far as I can tell, there's no way using Google to pull up just the initial post.

Also, this isn't a major newspaper, by any stretch of the imagination. It's an unedited, very loosely moderated web page, with no mechanisms to validate the identities of posters or prevent postings by imposters. That's not a criticism of Concertina.Net -- it's standard operating procedure in Internet communities, and mechanisms to prevent such abuse would be cumbersome and probably expensive. I think Internet users are smart enough to know the difference between a major newspaper and this forum.

The Dippers' reputation has been adequately, if not vigorously, defended in subsequent posts. On the whole, I think the thread -- "negative bits" and all -- provides useful information to someone who is thinking about getting on a makers' waiting list. Had I read this thread last year, I might have taken additional steps before sending off my money to get on a (different) maker's waiting list. Accordingly, I strongly oppose deletion of the thread in whole or in part.

He joined C.net, made his attacks, failed to get the support he desired, and apparently hasn't even logged on since then, nearly 2 weeks ago and 2 days after he joined. It appears that he isn't interested in our "community", except as a tool to be used to further his anti-M campaign.

Logging-on is not required to read C.net ... one can read everything as a guest. For that matter, one can monitor an existing thread from Google.

#24 Jim Besser

Jim Besser

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2363 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC metro area

Posted 15 February 2005 - 06:39 AM

I think the thread -- "negative bits" and all -- provides useful information to someone who is thinking about getting on a makers' waiting list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I agree.

Providing feedback from concertina consumers, for concertina consumers, is a useful function of this community. Such forums always attract their share of angry ranters, but that's part of the mix. Overall, the thread was useful because it laid out some of the pitfalls of ordering a concertina in this fashion, as well as useful information about how to deal with such orders.

The maker in question is in an odd position -- kind of an icon in our little community, but also a business that needs to be responsive to customers. Having read the threads, I don't think I'd be less inclined to order from him, but I certainly would have a much clearer idea of what to expect and what questions to ask.

I do agree that the hit-and-run behavior of the original poster is disturbing. But in the end, we all benefit from the open exchange of views, despite the ranters who always show up for the party.

Edited by Jim Besser, 15 February 2005 - 06:40 AM.


#25 Nanette Hooker

Nanette Hooker

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Townsville, Queensland, Australia

Posted 15 February 2005 - 07:35 PM

I think the thread -- "negative bits" and all -- provides useful information to someone who is thinking about getting on a makers' waiting list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I agree.

Providing feedback from concertina consumers, for concertina consumers, is a useful function of this community. Such forums always attract their share of angry ranters, but that's part of the mix. Overall, the thread was useful because it laid out some of the pitfalls of ordering a concertina in this fashion, as well as useful information about how to deal with such orders.

The maker in question is in an odd position -- kind of an icon in our little community, but also a business that needs to be responsive to customers. Having read the threads, I don't think I'd be less inclined to order from him, but I certainly would have a much clearer idea of what to expect and what questions to ask.

I do agree that the hit-and-run behavior of the original poster is disturbing. But in the end, we all benefit from the open exchange of views, despite the ranters who always show up for the party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Your comments have made me realise that this topic has provided some very useful feedback

#26 Rhomylly

Rhomylly

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bloomington, Indiana

Posted 16 February 2005 - 06:10 PM

Also, this isn't a major newspaper, by any stretch of the imagination. It's an unedited, very loosely moderated web page.


No, it's not a major newspaper, at least not to the general public. But for me at least, it fills the function of a "concertinist's newspaper," and as such c.net is, in fact, the biggest of its kind.

Just my .02


Edited 2/18 to fix the quote because I am a quote feature idiot. I'm sorry, Michael :blink:

Edited by Rhomylly, 18 February 2005 - 04:52 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users