Subject:
|
Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:29:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1574 times
|
| |
|
|
"Mark P" <mark@landofbricks.com> wrote in message
news:I2vxt7.q1p@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
>
> I think you are wrong. Dan owes nobody a reason. Dan does not NEED to
> explain
> why he runs his site the way he does. And people are going to think what
> they
> want to no matter what is said.. proof of that is already easy to see.
>
> Dan has already said it was due to a 'malicious problematic past' and
> thats all
> that should be needed. Dan does not need to divulge ANY private
> information.
> IMHO if he does - that would be far worse than anything already done. We
> were
> given a reason - some may not like it, some may not think its enough - but
> fact
> remains, thats what we got.
I have a real problem with businesses that like to lay down the law without
providing a reasonable explanation as to why.
A while back I had an issue with my ISP where they accused me of a policy
violation. When I directed them to the policy on the matter, they claimed
that though I followed the listed policy to the letter - that policy did not
apply to me and instead another more vague policy did apply.
They weren't willing to discuss the possibility that they were wrong - and
they weren't able to explain to me why one published policy applied to me
even though another didn't.
If someone has a policy, and the policy is broken, I see no problem with
warnings and subsequent enforcement.
I do take issue with people who intentionally maintain overly broad
catch-all policies simply to eliminate any reasonable ability to object to
decisions made by the management.
The least this "Dan" fellow could do, if indeed a gray area was encountered,
would be to either cite the previously posted policy that had been violated
by "Larry" - or at least admit the arbitrary nature of his rule enforcement
and add a new item to the policy as a result of Larry's unforeseen act.
But this whole "Dan doesn't need to explain his actions" idea is hooey.
-Neb
--
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President >>>>>
http://badnarik.org/?sid=32232
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) ok, so take off the 'so bad' ;) But still, I do not see WHY Bricklink NEEDS Larry. And am more than curious as to why she thinks it does need him - in any way in any amount. (...) No, I am expressing an opinion, just as she did. I do not think (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
131 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
