🚀 go-pugleaf

On 22 Jan 1998 22:02:29 GMT, dt804@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (J Alexander
Norland) wrote:

>
>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

>*********************

First I would like to say, this is the first and only message ever
posted by either Elgin Computers, or 1150033 (OCS) or Lori McConkey.

Scott Wiper emailed the store  on  AUGUST 8,1997 to say and I quote:

 "get rid of lori O'brien if you want my business because she gave me
the known SHAFT on a floppy drive.(3.5") Saying it was new and the
damn thing stopped working 10 afterwards. She screwed me on the refund
(Ottawa Computer Sales) so until then I will have top put you on my
"dealers to avoid list."
(A copy of this can be obtained at EC, 258 Elgin ) 

We naturally assumed he was speaking truthfully and replied that if he
brought his reciept to Elgin Computers with the floppy, we would
honour the OCS warranty and refund the money.  A copy of the email and
response is available at EC. He responded with his Public announcement
condemning EC and OCS claiming they were one and the same and claiming
untruthfully OCS was bankrupt.  
(a copy of this can be seen at EC, 258 Elgin)

Scott Wiper claimed last week on this newsgroup that he actually
bought the floppy from EC in SEPT 97, stating EC screwed him for his
refund. He also claimed the reciept was faded and out ribbon required
changing.
( a copy of every invoice from the date Mr. Wiper mentioned is
available at EC, 258 Elgin.) (including a summary report listing any
voided transactions)

Scott Wiper has NEVER contacted Elgin Computers to claim that he
purchased a floppy drive from EC in SEPT 97 or that the salesperson
was Lori, or that she chased him out of the store. We don't use
ribbons, our invoices are printed on a laser printer and every invoice
in September was pitch black on pure white.
(Incidently, Lori was out of the country in September, and her
passport proves it. A copy is available upon request.) 

So if Scott Wiper NEVER purchased a floppy from OCS and NEVER
purchased a floppy from EC then what's his beef?  We believe it to be
racist, and sexist. We believe both Scott Wipers actions and words
were offensive and criminal.
(a copy of these statements can be seen at EC, 258 Elgin)

What have we done? We offered warranty, we made it clear OCS and EC
were different companies, we requested on numerous occasions that he
cease making incorrect statements. We strongly requested that he stop
following our employees. Lori had her address removed from the
telephone book listing and takes a different route home every night.
When everything else failed EC contacted a lawyer and Lori went to the
police. 

We have not responded until now because we did not believe this was a
consumer issue. We thought it was a matter for the police and had no
place on this newsgroup.
We apologize for any spelling errors this is our first newsgroup
posting. We also apologize if we caused anyone any distress, it was
not our intent. 
We believe everyone has the right to freedom of speech. We are not
hateful, or spiteful people. We do not chastise or correct people for
their spelling or the colorfullness of their language.

 We think we are big enough to admit our mistakes. Everyone is human,
we all make mistakes. We can't satisfy all of our customers all of the
time but we can try, and we do. If you have a greivance or think you
do, we are always willing to hear them and make thinks right if we
can. 
That is all we have to say publicly on this issue. We hope it is
satisfactory and we hope this will close the debate re Scott Wiper.

from:
Patrick Fleury 
Lori McConkey