Vendors have numerous places to post information and obtain information
about their customers - credit bureaus, check verification companies, etc.
This type of forum is the only one available to consumers.
I probably wouldn't send any thing of great value to Tommy or Charlotte or
any one else without a good deal of investigation, but it is unlikely that
vendors are monitoring these posts for the sort of information posted. I
can, therefore, only conclude that the purpose of the post was revenge.
I agree that what is sauce of for the goose (credit bureaus, etc.) is sauce
of the goose (the internet) .... or is the other way around.
Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net
----------
> From: C.M.Newell <reshan@deyr.ultranet.com>
> To: ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: the latest flap
> Date: Thursday, March 13, 1997 6:03 PM
>
> >If there is an ongoing problem with a DEALER on this list, it behooves
> >us
> > to warn the others. It is not however the business of any list to cast
> > aspersions on any individual over for a discrepency in this way.
> >
>
> Not taking sides here, but the above puzzles me--why should it be
> acceptable to "warn" people about Teddy or other "dealers", but not for
> them to "warn" about alleged "deadbeats"?
>
> Personally, I say it ain't appropriate *either* way, but what's
> sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
>
> Fire at will....
> --Charlotte