We came home from dinner with rfunk's family to a cool house. It seems we have run out of fuel oil. Couldn't it have lasted just a few more weeks
( Read more... )
I suppose I see your point...but my point is: it doesn't appear that this was a part of any intentional attack against GLBT or adult content on Amazon's part. It was an error. Errors happen all the time.
In the event of errors such as this one, your choices are pretty standard. You can: A) overlook it, B) file a complaint, or C) refuse to do business with them until it is fixed (or some combination of the above).
And, even if it wasn't an error, your choices are: A) overlook it, B) file a complaint, C) refuse to do business with them until the policy is changed, or D) refuse to do business with them, period.
That's why I think it's silly to get bent out of shape about it. Clearly, the policy (or error) is disadvantageous to their business and impedes the buyer's ability to access desired content. For that reason, I see the benefit of spreading this around the internet like wildfire. It obviously worked to get a quick reaction from Amazon once they knew they might have to pay for it. If Amazon cares for their sales figures (which they clearly do) they'll fix this. However, if they don't fix it, well, they'll no longer be the largest book seller in the US because people will just have to SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE to get what they want. That's capitalism for you.
No, it doesn't appear to have been an intentional attack by Amazon. It was still a problem that needed to be fixed. (And I'm not convinced yet that it's really being fixed properly, but from what I've heard about Amazon's systems it's a nightmare to change anything there.)
On the one hand you "think it's silly to get bent out of shape about it," but on the other hand you "see the benefit of spreading this around the internet like wildfire," and mention multiple choices involving not overlooking it.
So I don't see what your problem is. People spread it, people complained to the company, and people refused to do business with them until it was fixed/changed. As far as I can tell you're saying those are all reasonable things.
Yes, some people went to extremes in their reactions ("OMG Amazon is evil I'm cancelling my account and never buying there again!"), but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't tar all of us who spoke up about the situation with the same brush.
whoa there, friend. I'm not trying to 'tar' anyone at all! All I said was I thought it was pretty dramatic, which wasn't meant to offend or attack, but was a simple statement of opinion. (I'm pretty sure it's still ok to have an opinion in this country ;P)
As you pointed out, I already pointed out that I see the merit in speaking up about the situation / filing complaints / withholding future business pending corporate response. I felt that my statement that I "think it's silly to get bent out of shape about it" was an obvious reference to the extremists you refer to in your last paragraph. (By which I mean to say, I agree with you.)
It's clear to me now that you felt I was denouncing all courses of action as 'extreme'; however, as you noted, it would be hypocritical and illogical of me to say that all actions are extreme when I plainly described several modes of recourse which I consider 'reasonable'.
In essence, I feel that you and I are in agreement. In each comment, I tried to further clarify what I thought to be a relatively innocuous position-- that when a company steps 'out of bounds' and does something the consumer finds distasteful, the consumer has several options to choose from to respond to the situation. Getting "bent out of shape" (ie: "OMG Amazon is evil I'm cancelling my account" etc. ad nauseum) did, does and will continue to seem very senseless and dramatic to me. (*Which is not to say I mean to tar those people either, but to simply note that I find it senseless and dramatic to waste emotional energy on a situation with a rather limited number of possible responses.)
Perhaps my mistake was when I used the word "all". "It all seems rather senseless and dramatic..." What I should have said was "It mostly seems senseless and dramatic..." or just "Some of it seems senseless and dramatic..." [I'm not trying to patronize you, I'm really not. I'm just pointing out that this is possibly what started us out on the wrong foot.]
All the same, as you don't know me and I don't know you, I'll ask you one favor: if in the future I say something that you may interpret as an insult, please give me the benefit of the doubt and give me a chance to explain myself. Generally, I'm pretty easy to get along with, and I have pretty well quelled my habit of making incendiery statements over the internet.
In short, I don't have a problem. Not one that I know of, anyway. :)
In the event of errors such as this one, your choices are pretty standard. You can: A) overlook it, B) file a complaint, or C) refuse to do business with them until it is fixed (or some combination of the above).
And, even if it wasn't an error, your choices are: A) overlook it, B) file a complaint, C) refuse to do business with them until the policy is changed, or D) refuse to do business with them, period.
That's why I think it's silly to get bent out of shape about it. Clearly, the policy (or error) is disadvantageous to their business and impedes the buyer's ability to access desired content. For that reason, I see the benefit of spreading this around the internet like wildfire. It obviously worked to get a quick reaction from Amazon once they knew they might have to pay for it. If Amazon cares for their sales figures (which they clearly do) they'll fix this. However, if they don't fix it, well, they'll no longer be the largest book seller in the US because people will just have to SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE to get what they want. That's capitalism for you.
Reply
On the one hand you "think it's silly to get bent out of shape about it," but on the other hand you "see the benefit of spreading this around the internet like wildfire," and mention multiple choices involving not overlooking it.
So I don't see what your problem is. People spread it, people complained to the company, and people refused to do business with them until it was fixed/changed. As far as I can tell you're saying those are all reasonable things.
Yes, some people went to extremes in their reactions ("OMG Amazon is evil I'm cancelling my account and never buying there again!"), but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't tar all of us who spoke up about the situation with the same brush.
Reply
As you pointed out, I already pointed out that I see the merit in speaking up about the situation / filing complaints / withholding future business pending corporate response. I felt that my statement that I "think it's silly to get bent out of shape about it" was an obvious reference to the extremists you refer to in your last paragraph. (By which I mean to say, I agree with you.)
It's clear to me now that you felt I was denouncing all courses of action as 'extreme'; however, as you noted, it would be hypocritical and illogical of me to say that all actions are extreme when I plainly described several modes of recourse which I consider 'reasonable'.
In essence, I feel that you and I are in agreement. In each comment, I tried to further clarify what I thought to be a relatively innocuous position-- that when a company steps 'out of bounds' and does something the consumer finds distasteful, the consumer has several options to choose from to respond to the situation. Getting "bent out of shape" (ie: "OMG Amazon is evil I'm cancelling my account" etc. ad nauseum) did, does and will continue to seem very senseless and dramatic to me. (*Which is not to say I mean to tar those people either, but to simply note that I find it senseless and dramatic to waste emotional energy on a situation with a rather limited number of possible responses.)
Perhaps my mistake was when I used the word "all". "It all seems rather senseless and dramatic..." What I should have said was "It mostly seems senseless and dramatic..." or just "Some of it seems senseless and dramatic..." [I'm not trying to patronize you, I'm really not. I'm just pointing out that this is possibly what started us out on the wrong foot.]
All the same, as you don't know me and I don't know you, I'll ask you one favor: if in the future I say something that you may interpret as an insult, please give me the benefit of the doubt and give me a chance to explain myself. Generally, I'm pretty easy to get along with, and I have pretty well quelled my habit of making incendiery statements over the internet.
In short, I don't have a problem. Not one that I know of, anyway. :)
Reply
Leave a comment