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

Re: Aquatic Plants Digest V4 #1444

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:08:32PM -0500, Aquatic Plants Digest wrote:
> From: joelle at witty_org
> Subject: Re: Internet Libel
> While I write this, I got this response from a lister to an earlier comment.
> I wrote in support of Steve Pushak:

	That response would be from me. Taken off-list because
it was largely off-topic.

> „« [I for one, support this view. Those who don't, seem to think it's their 
> „« God given right to speak their minds about this or that company and to 
> „« > hell with the consequences. You seem to think that your single, poor 
> „« > experience with a company gives you the right to amplify your opinion 
> „« > in a public forum and damage its reputation and cost it hundreds of
> „«  > thousands of dollars. ]
> 
> Their response:

> > Actually, it _is_ our God-given right. It's enshrined in the
> > Constitution. And, yes, a single poor experience _does_ give us a right
> > to damage a company's reputation and cost it hundreds of thousands of
> > dollars in lost business. That's how competition encourages good service.

> This is just the kind of selfish, vicious and vindictive an attitude that
> prompted my original post.  I wonˇ¦t say who wrote this.  Obviously they
> realize there may well be something objectionable about their view or
> they would have voiced it on the list. Besides that, it is a naive and
> misinformed view.  Can you all not see how easy it is to manipulate
> people when nefarious individuals that think like this exist out there?

	I'm "selfish"? I'm "vicious"? I'm "vindictive"? I'm not the
one suing people for millions of dollars.

	I'm "nefarious"? I'm "infamous by way of being extremely
wicked" (that's what that word means)? I'm "naive" and "misinformed"?
There's something objectionable to my view that a retailer with bad
service deserves less business?

	No wonder you're posting anonymously.

	Think about this -- yesterday, I was planning on buying
a TV at store X. A co-worker told me about a bad experience his
family had at that store. So, I went to store Y, and bought the
TV there. Essentially same price; the difference was word-of-mouth
information about the service at the first store.

	Have you ever walked out of a store because of bad service?
I have, and will in the future. I will also tell people about the
experience. _That_ particular chain has since gone out of business,
in large part because their service was horrible.

	You _have_ to tell people about bad service, especially 
when the retailer refuses to correct the problem. It's the only
way to punish bad service.

> Try to separate yourselves from the current case and think:  Arnˇ¦t
> consumers  hurt when mediocre companies use underlings in the guise of
> disgruntled customers to attack superior competition?  Donˇ¦t consumers
> get hurt when larger, established  companies with higher prices and
> several cronies slander smaller companies with lower prices and less
> resources and drive them under?

	Yes, but that's not what's happening here.

> Some have commented that the opinions of members about online and retail
> sellers is beneficial to them.  I agree.  But it is also damaging if
> that opinion is allowed to be manipulated behind the scenes by vested
> interests or even by lone, vindictive individuals.

	Who are these "lone, vindictive individuals" running this
mailing list from their star chamber?

	Who has been manipulating this list to attack petSwarehouse.com?

> I have been told (off list) that what I propose that the list should have
> a group of a ˇ§approved vendorsˇ¨ is impossible because the list could
> get sued by vendors that are not included.  This argument is baseless.
> Example; Consumer reports magazine has never been sued by companies it
> has <not> reviewed. There is no basis for damages.

	I pointed that out to you. Consumer Reports prints positive
and negative reviews; being excluded does not mean good or bad. They
also have the benefit of a much longer history of freedom of the
press as it deals with printed material, and, I'm sure, a team of
good lawyers.

	If you had an "approved" list, exclusion would imply
disapproval. That implication would possibly open the maintainers of such
a list to lawsuits. IANAL, but that seems to be an implication of the
"no moderation, no responsibility" bent of current case law.

> If the list managers agree with the comments Iˇ¦m getting that the
> listˇ¦s current ability to gather customer evaluations of companies
> (however flawed and subject to abuse) is so important, then they will
> spend the time to construct a suitable forum to gather and evaluate such
> opinions. A forum that is less subject to manipulation and abuse.

	What manipulation and abuse?

	Why do you keep talking about this like there's an astroturf
campaign against petSwarehouse.com?

	<List mom's post clipped>

> Think a little further into the future, Cynthia.  I and the vast majority
> of the aquarium world is behind you in this fight.  However, donˇ¦t
> count on the same support financial or otherwise in the future if this
> flaw that I described goes unaddressed and the list is sued yet again.

	Hey, "joelle", have you supported the defandants in _this_
case? Not just in words, but with actions? If not, then the threat
in the above statement is meaningless.

	I have, and will continue to support them.

	(Of course, that statement will get me added to the list
back at the petSwarehouse.com offices...)

-- 
crawford@     | "Our world has passed away/In wantonness 
 kloognome.com| o'erthrown./There is nothing left to-day/But steel 
--------------+ and fire and stone!" -- Rudyard Kipling