Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaider
The rant was not aimed at you Rodknock (embarrassed, I forgot your real name) or Bill. It was aimed at the other posts that suggested, without evidence, a conspiratorial nature in the pricing practices of our community. I actually don't have any argument with either your position or Bill's. My issue is with the suggestion of collusive pricing practices.
Suggestions about collusive pricing practices for which there is no evidence is just not responsible. It is the equivalent of someone saying I heard that so-in-so is a bad guy without any accreditation as to the source or its own credibility. Statements without accreditation should be as offensive to us as readers as they are to the accused. By pushing back on that sort of behavior we not only discourage and discredit it but, we also discredit those who choose to traffic in that sort of misbehavior.
Don't misunderstand the argument. I am wholly in favor of calling someone out who has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Shucks, they don't even have to take a bite out of the cookie! As long as they were caught with their hand in the jar or in the act of removing the cookie from the jar, they are fair game and should be woofed on.
Ed
|
I agree with everything you said, especially since naming names of people and/or companies, with or without any evidence, on the Internet is probably libel and/or slander.
