🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4aidu4$5br@access5.digex.net>,
moobox@access5.digex.net (Moo's Access Point) wrote:

  > We did NOT have knowledge beforehand and trying to imply otherwise is
  > incorrect.

So you did insufficient work yourselves, buying a product by name rather
than by performance specification.  Then you proceeded to advertise what
you /hoped/ it would do, rather than what TPC /said/ it would do, to
prospective customers.  'Zat so?

  > 2) It was not common knowledge within Bell Atlantic; how are we
supposed 
  > to know more about the phone company's equipment than the phone
company?

You're not.  But having advertised what you'd offer, and having taken money
to actually provide that, it's now your problem to deliver.

Let me give you a small example.  I create a moving company, and I offer to
take people's belongings from Washington to Baltimore, same-day service.  I
then go out and buy a Chevy van, without bothering to check on whether the
volume of the van is sufficient to carry even one house-full of furniture. 
I then accept a customer's commission (or a thousand of them) to provide
them with same-day moving service.  THEN, I tell the customers that I'm
very sorry I can't actually do it all in one day, but Chevy sold me an
insufficient van and didn't tell me ahead of time it couldn't handle a
house-full of furniture in a plausible number of trips during a 24-hour
standard day.

Really.

So, if it isn't the customer's fault and it isn't Digex's fault, then why
don't you sue Bell Atlantic for failure to honor the contract you signed
with them?

And if they /did/ honor the contract, then why are you blaming /them/ for
the problem?

Yeesh.