[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Aquatic Plants Digest V4 #1440

>Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 02:56:30 -0800
>From: Steve Pushak <teban at powersonic_bc.ca>
>Subject: APD guidelines

>The reason why I suggest that the APD guidelines should urge
>contributors NOT to complain on the list about their dissatisfaction is:
>1) they have other avenues to seek satisfaction first and more
>appropriately from the vendor. 2) even if the complaint is based in fact,
>it can disproportionately injure the vendor's reputation and hence cause
>him great financial harm.

If the complaint is based in fact, who CARES if the vendor's reputation is 

>I am completely certain that any legitimate vendor would greatly prefer to
>refund your money rather than have you voice a complaint in a public 
>forum such as the APD. 

A "legitimate vendor" does not necessarily equate to "honest vendor".

>In fact, he is entitled to make restitution to you in
>order to avoid bad publicity.

That is not an entitlement for a vendor,  it *is* a moral obligation and a 
wise business move to do so *before* it comes to the point of becoming 
bad publicity.


>However, the APD is not required to make itself the vehicle for venting
>anger particularly where that would disproportionately harm someone 
>else's rights.

Muzzling protected speach is no way to protect or preserve anyone's 
rights, this particularly true when there are real issues that need to be 
brought to the light of day.

>Freedom of expression is a much cherished privilege not enjoyed by all. 
>Let us not abuse it by forgetting our duties!

Stephen, one of the greatest duties of any society or people is to have an 
eternal search for the truth.