🚀 go-pugleaf

At one time or another, I have purchased items from Future Shop (FS) as well
as from other major chains.  I have been satisfied with the service I received
from all, but especially from IBM's outlets.  In one case, I purchased a $230
item from FS; within a few days, the price fell to $200.  Asking for a refund,
the $30 (plus tax) was returned with no difficulty whatever.

Yesterday, Tony Cote's column in the Ottawa Citizen published a consumer's
complaint regarding a $30 charge that the customer considered unjustified. 
Not only was the matter resolved to the customer's satisfaction, but in
assessing the cause of the complaint, Tony Cote stated, "it is hard to blame
them...".

Since January 12, many articles have been published re FS, some very negative
and using very strong language indeed.  One recent example in this context is
Article #88319, ott.forsale.computing, by wareznazi@geocities.com., who says:

>"I've read all the horror stories, and I've experienced them myself... I
>have two suggestions:

>If you do get fucked (excuse the language), DON'T BACK DOWN!!!!  If you
>argue long enough, they will cave in. (I got Total Annihilation for $28!)

>NEVER, EVER, buy from that shit chain EVER!  I want those corporate SOB's
>to rot in hell!


But compare this debate with a parallel debate concerning Elgin Computers
(EC).

as in the FS debate, the EC debate was sparked by a consumer query/complaint. 
Similarly, both debates have been going on for close to two weeks.  And in
both cases, the companies concerned failed to respond to the specific
allegations.

This is more or less where the similarities end.  The differences, however,
are conspicuous and fundamental.  For the benefit of consumers, I will outline
five differences: you be the judge.

(1)  Unlike FS, EC and/or its supporters responded to the postings against
them by explicitly waving the clumsy club of legal action.  To my mind, using
this weapon without trying to answer the postings (or ignore them as FS is
doing) should raise the question as to whether such conduct is commensurate
with that of rational humans.  And while we're on the topic, recall the case
of McLibel against two young persons in Britain.  Without taking sides in that
dispute, one should note what might happen when businesses take steps contrary
to common sense; if you doubt it, search WWW for "McLibel"  -- you'll find
more material than you could consume in a lifetime.

(2) Very early in the debate, the supporters of EC leaked a private letter
sent to them by Mr Scott Wiper; this letter included unfortunate remarks for
which the author later apologized.  Because EC's supporters leaked this
letter, and for no other reason as far as I can see, personal information
about an EC employee became public.  At this point, EC's supporters began to
complain that the debate has degenerated to the personal level, "forgetting"
that it was of their own doing.  Reminds me of the joke about the kid who
killed his parents and then asked the judge for mercy because he was an
orphan...

(3) The supporters of EC have resorted to false statements which, when refuted
by citing documentation, again became a topic for these people to complain
about personal info being revealed.  For example, in article  #87875,
ott.forsale.computing, "T.Dillon" stated concerning one of EC's employees,
"She [the employee] did NOT go bankrupt" [note that T Dillon referred to a
specific person, not to a corporation].  When I checked the public record, I
found that she [the employee] HAD gone bankrupt; I posted the details, and the
supporters again complained about my revelations, "forgetting" that they
invited this scrutiny by their false statements.  Common sense tell us that
"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".


(4) Most significantly, as the debate heated up, I called repeatedly for
resolving the open issues by mediation and moderation.  One participant in the
debate even offered to act as mediator (see Hans@HDC, article 43,930 of
ott.general).  EC and their supporters declined to respond or react.  As a
consumer, I got the distinct impression that this camp is committed to
belligerence  -- just my opinion, of course: you be the judge.


(5)  Under the brave cover of anonymity, the supporters of EC have resorted to
infantile postings of a caliber exemplified by the following citation
[directed against me personally]:


***************
Article #87933 (87956 is last):
From: darrob@bigfoot.com (NOSPAM or your DEAD)
Newsgroups: ott.forsale.computing
Subject: Re: Elgin computers:  Correction
Date: Mon Jan 19 16:37:57 1998

[snip]

Furthermore, do your homework and don't sit here with this petty
bullshit.  You are making me FURIOUS with the drib drab... So now here
is MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH! LISTEN UP!!!!!!!!

GET A FUCKING LIFE YOU NO GOOD HOMOPHOBIC WASTE OF A HUMAN! Go screw
your wife if you can still get it up, maybe she will have a child and
it will be GAY!

Go play somewhere else, PLEASE!  YOU ARE A WASTE OF YOUR FATHERS
SPERM!

************************


For the record, I reject the homophobic allegation as an absolute lie.

I think that these facts speak for themselves.  You be the judge.



*********************
I dedicate this article to Woodward and Bernstein.  May their relentless
pursuit of the truth be an inspiration to us all, and it illuminate our path.

JAN
*********************