I know this has nothing to do with tech but I also know that most of you don't go to chit chat and that most of the bashing goes on here. This article don't make it right but if they choose to sue... www.msnbc.com/news/734035.asp?cp1=1

Originally posted by Sloan
I know this has nothing to do with tech but I also know that most of you don't go to chit chat and that most of the bashing goes on here. This article don't make it right but if they choose to sue... www.msnbc.com/news/734035.asp?cp1=1

Just read the same thing... Can't wait until the though police are out in full force...

There's two sides to this coin. It sounds like this vendor was an ass (dare I say that?) and these list members were well within their rights, but we really don't have specific quotes, and I learned a long time not to always trust the media (spoken as a member _OF_ the media).... but who hasn't seen someone threaten a vendor with promises to "tell the story (or at least one side of it) on the web, in front of a thousand people?" Who hasn't seen someone else wrongly accused on the Internet?

Yeah, the vendor is often free to post a rebuttal, but that takes a good bit of time, and bad news travels far faster, and stays around far longer, than good news, even if the vendor knows exactly where the damaging posts exist, and how to shed light on the 'rest of the story.'

I love the Internet, but all too frequently, it bugs me the way it gets used... and posting only one side of the story is only a hop, skip, and a jump away from blackmailing/bullying a vendor into a result.... it can hinge on something pretty difficult to determineL intent.

The article sounds like standard media disaster-ization, but hopefully it makes people stop, think, and realize/remember that nobody is truly anonymous on the web, and that they need to have at least some responsibility for their words and deeds even if they occur in the ether, and not the real world.

Randii (nice soapbox, eh?)

So do you guys think TAP will come after the PBB now:D

Now is this Novak dude gonna sue MSN for carrying the story and making this him look like a jerk? And maybe he can sue me too.

Originally posted by randii
blackmailing/bullying a vendor into a result.... Why is it I don't have a problem with this? In fact I think the Internet is a very powerful tool that the little man has in dealing with companies, others or ????

If it takes Internet leverage to use it against someone, who lies, cheats and steals or defrauds their customers. I really don't see where this is bad.

Case in point: RedLine Off Road. You fawk over people here and next thing you know, EVERYONE knows about it and the buyer is now armed with information making CAVEAT EMPTOR a little more accesible.

If someone fucks me over, you can be damned sure that I will spread the word around.

Bring it.

If someone fucks me over, you can be damned sure that I will spread the word around.
I'm less concerned about that than I am about somebody flipping that sentence around a bit, and spreading the word around to fuck someone else over. Which happens more? Depends entirely on the consumers and the vendors, I think....

Examples:
* Unfair Competition -- one company screws another company by spreading untrue rumors
* Unfair Pricing -- consumer leans on company with threat of spreading bad if price is not dropped

These are just too easy to do in an age where few people seem to vette their information that well... I mean 'I read it on the Internet' is taken by some as gospel.

Me personally, I don't believe anything until I have read it on the Internet, seen it published in the Enquirer, *AND* watched the full details on Jerry Springer. :flipoff2:

Randii

I think the internet polices itself pretty well. Say for example someone came on here and started badmouthing Jess of highangle driveline. There would probably be 10 pages worth of folks disputing that and posting what great experiences they had. Only way I could reasonably see something like that being successful would be if the vendor was an unknown that no one else had ever dealt with. Then the vendor might go under before he ever got started. OTOH the thread would likely contain a few replies like "Really, never heard of them, I'll stay away." That should clue everybody else in that maybe this was an isolated incident or perhaps it didn't happen at all. The message to vendors ought to be watch how you treat your customers, word spreads faster than ever. This Petswarehouse guy (can I still say that?:eek:) may have won the battle, but I guarentee he's lost the war. Who in their right mind would ever give him another cent of business.

that's exactly what i was thinking Grandpa. he might have 'proved his point' about not talking about his business by sueing all kinds of people but it likely cost him his business to do it. i know i wouldn't give someone like that a dime after i'd heard about that.

- jack

Did any of you read the entire thing? The guy hacked into their computer ordering system and jacked a bunch of stuff up according to the article. I think that is what burned him more that speaking his mind.

Originally posted by MattS
Did any of you read the entire thing? The guy hacked into their computer ordering system and jacked a bunch of stuff up according to the article. I think that is what burned him more that speaking his mind.

Well that's why he's the only one having to pay out. Kinda bogus that the others got busted too.:rolleyes:

I could be wrong but my perception of the sequence of events was that he complained about his order on the net, then got sued, then hacked the place. you got to admit that hacking the place was stupid ...

- jack

That is how a read it also. But if he has just complained I honestly doubt he would have had to pay. Usually they order the removal of the info and that's it. They started out at $15 mill!!! Yeah right!!

I just wish that judges would throw out stupid stuff like this. I mean that are sites dedicated to making fun of people and other large business but you don't see them getting sued all the time because they know this is America and free speech is a right be have.

Originally posted by morpheus
I could be wrong but my perception of the sequence of events was that he complained about his order on the net, then got sued, then hacked the place. you got to admit that hacking the place was stupid ...

- jack

probably so.

exactly ... what is that site something like microsoftsucks.com or something. I don't see Bill Gates firing up the lawyers on that guy.

- jack

Slander is a real easy thing to protect yourself from, on both sides.

Tell the truth - and even though they may sue, they won't get a dime and will have to pay YOUR costs too in the process.

Lie - and you get what you deserve.

Originally posted by Grandpa Jeep
I think the internet polices itself pretty well. Say for example someone came on here and started badmouthing Jess of highangle driveline. There would probably be 10 pages worth of folks disputing that and posting what great experiences they had. Only way I could reasonably see something like that being successful would be if the vendor was an unknown that no one else had ever dealt with. Then the vendor might go under before he ever got started. OTOH the thread would likely contain a few replies like "Really, never heard of them, I'll stay away." That should clue everybody else in that maybe this was an isolated incident or perhaps it didn't happen at all. The message to vendors ought to be watch how you treat your customers, word spreads faster than ever. This Petswarehouse guy (can I still say that?:eek:) may have won the battle, but I guarentee he's lost the war. Who in their right mind would ever give him another cent of business.

I agree.............

Irregardless if you are shopping on the internet, or in person, the retailer should maintain some kind of customer satisfaction, or their stuff just wont sell. Maybe some people bellyached about their service, but hey, what novak(????????) did was take it a little too far. Unfortunate that even the volunteer had to suffer from the consecuences. Ya would think that the petswerehouse.com was actually out to do business, (maybe I shouldn't have said that, maybe they'll send the net police after me now) but if so many customers were having troubles with the retailer, you would think that the retailer would realize that a problem existed, and that they would have remedied the problem at hand before it had gotten :nuke: out of proportion.
I use to work in retail, and if you couldn't keep the customers happy, you weren't going to make a living, nor stay in business for very long. PERIOD.