Re: Re[2]: Flame Wars

[webb.p@xxxxxxxxx]

Way back when the Digest was on Wizvax, there was a published Digest policy 
regarding vendor disputes.   It states that there was to be NO gripes about a 
bad vendor experience and that disputes with vendors should be resolved 
privately.

If that policy is still in effect, then this has no place on the list.   In 
taking the view that law is more important than personal opinion, this is a 
good idea.   Personally, I like to see things like this come to light in 
public.  I had posted a while ago that Caribou were not answering the phones 
and was looking for an alternate vendor.   Someone chimed in with Bruces Parts 
Bin who was more than happy to sell me the part which was a pleasant experience 
and I would certainly shop there again.   I may have blown the Caribou 
situation off as a one time occurance save for this discussion.  Now I know 
better with a combination of experience and listening to others experience.

So, we need to weigh liability over information.   I would like to see things 
like this posted as long as it remains factual without name calling or he-said-
she-said.

I agree pasting private emails to the list is bad form.   If there is a way to 
resolve the issue privately, thats great.   The original complaintant can then 
post to the Digest that the vendor made good and everyone kissed and made up.

My $.02

-Peter
> On Thu, 29 May 2003 07:45:04 +0000 (GMT) greg@domain.elided wrote:
> > I hope Richard will continue to allow the initial posts on topics like
> > these. And if the matter pertains to someone on the AD, then allow that
> > person a rebuttal message. Assuming everyone doesn't chime in with a "me
> > too" on either side of these issues, Richard won't need to step in.
> 
> that's pretty much my plan, although i'm not sure everyone will be able to
> resist the urge to chime in or  prolong the argument.
>  
> > Another common solution would be for someone to create a vendor FAQ and
> > perhaps Richard could include a reference to the FAQ in his FAQ, or
> > include the vendor ifnormation in his FAQ.
> 
> i'd be _extremely_ wary of anything that looks like official alfa-digest
> sanction for something like this; it sounds like a very risky thing for the
> digest to be involved in. one litigation minded vendor who gets negative
> reviews in such a FAQ, and the digest is over and done with. i don't know
> that we have any such vendors around, but i'd rather not find out the hard
> way.
> 
> if someone were to start a vendor FAQ, i'd probably not object to
> occasional mention of its existence, but that's about as far as i'd be
> willing to go.
> 
> richard
> --
> Richard Welty                                         rwelty@domain.elided
> Averill Park Networking                                         518-573-7592
>               Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
> --
> to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
> or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided