Date:         Thu, 9 Sep 1999 08:30:35 -0700
Reply-To:     Steve@SCHWENK-LAW.COM
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Steve@SCHWENK-LAW.COM
Subject:      Re: Hang 'em High 2 (vendor perspective)
Comments: To: Jim Cain <jcain@MINDSPRING.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

The reader has to exercise some discretion, here.  It
is legitimate to report facts regarding a bad
experience with a vendor, where all reasonable efforts
to resolve the problem were met with unreasonable
responses by the vendor.  We all benefit from such
info.

It is quite another thing, however, to use the list to
try to leverage something from the vendor, or to do
damage to the vendor because the customer is unhappy
with how things worked out.  We have seen this type of
complaint on the list.  With these, instead of facts,
we get conclusions...like "the vendor failed to honor
contract...and therefore is a ripoff...."

The customer owes it to the list to exhaust all
reasonable means of resolution before posting warnings
and complaints to the list.  Even then, there may be a
legitimate dispute instead of a ripoff.  I think the
postings about Todd were appropriate and provided
enough info to demonstrate that there is reason for
concern and to warn others.  Something's clearly gone
wrong with Todd.  We know he's a good guy, but
something is up that others need to know about.  The
post about Deltev, on the other hand, is just
conclusions and allegations with no detail or facts.  I
also note that a law firm was cc'd on the
correspondence...and may have written it.  As a reader,
this does not meet the objectivity standard for me, and
Deltev gets the benefit of the doubt, as far as I am
concerned.



Jim Cain wrote:
>
> >I think that it is great that folks are really crucifying vendors on this
> >list...
>
> It just shows to go you, that "you can please some of the people some of
> the time, but the rest of them just get upset"!