🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 21:07:25 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:

>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 
>
>
> 
PS. we are NOT nospam@nospam.com. someone came into the store and used
the email and changed some of our preferences. Sorry!!