TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] Ten Tec's return policy

To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten Tec's return policy
From: "Scott / W4PJ" <w4pj@bellsouth.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:26:57 -0400
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
At least someone finally addressed the question I posed earlier instead of
attacking the messenger.
Thanks Toby.


PEACE
Scott  -  the other one... not the "nice" one.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Toby Pennington" <toby423@earthlink.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten Tec's return policy


> I believe what Ken is saying, although in a different way,  is that in
this
> case it could be considered as an attempt to supress Freedom of Speech, in
> that the action by TT citing a negative post on Eham as one reason not to
> sell to an individual who has placed an order for a product,  could indeed
> discourage others from posting truthful, although negative posts, for fear
> that TT would in the future blacklist them from future purchases.  IF this
> practice is allowed to continue , then definitely if you want to buy from
TT
> you had better not say anything negative about their
products.....therefore
> freespeech is surpressed.
>
> But in reality,  it is probably an issue of business ethics that is at
issue
> and not so much freedom of speech.  The question would be, "Is this an
> ethical way to do business"?  This could be the important question and may
> come down to personal opinion if no laws are being broken. Only TT can
> conclude if this is the way they want to do business.  Personally,  I
think
> it is a very bad policy.

_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>