16-Dec-2019 07:21 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Rant] Trust?ANN.lu
Posted on 03-Mar-2003 03:17 GMT by Atheist234 comments
View flat
View list
There are two sources of hardware to the continuation of the Amiga legacy. Neither side trusts each other, and accusations are flying in both directions. Both companies are in danger of folding, and I am worried... ...worried that, mischief makers on both sides are going to sabotage the other.

Spreading rumors/lies is one thing. If a prospective buyer reads information found all over the internet and asks people their opinions, this will cause minimal damage, and at least they will hopefully buy one of the two systems.

I strongly feel that, in the face of this animosity, it will not be past some users to purchase a system from the side they dislike, damage the board and return it, requesting a refund, having never intended to own it in the first place. I think both sides should agree that any purchaser of either product, sign a form waiving their right to return a board and get a refund. They could use the same form, just it would only have their companies name on it. This must waive actions through the credit card company also, if so purchased.

I am being totally neutral in that it IS in BOTH companies best interests.

We are all grown ups. We KNOW what each product represents. Make a choice, and stick with it, or don't buy one.

This is a most unusal action to be taken, but this is a unique situation, is it not? Again I stress, neither company can afford even 1 person harassing them in such a manner. It costs money and time, bottom line, malicious damage. How can a customer be sued on such a basis?

I have no problem signing such a form as I have chosen a side and am an adult, make choices, and stand by them.

Thierry Predavec, Vancouver, Canada

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1CodeSmith03-Mar-2003 03:19 GMT
Comment 2Sigbjørn Skjæret03-Mar-2003 03:24 GMT
Comment 3Kelly Samel03-Mar-2003 03:49 GMT
Comment 4Anonymous03-Mar-2003 05:09 GMT
Comment 5Neko03-Mar-2003 06:54 GMT
Comment 6JoannaK03-Mar-2003 06:57 GMT
Comment 7Don Cox03-Mar-2003 07:25 GMT
Comment 8Don Cox03-Mar-2003 07:25 GMT
Comment 93seas03-Mar-2003 07:49 GMT
Comment 10stefkos03-Mar-2003 08:23 GMT
Comment 11Anonymous03-Mar-2003 09:05 GMT
Comment 12Daniel Miller03-Mar-2003 10:19 GMT
Comment 13Colin03-Mar-2003 10:31 GMT
Comment 14Colin03-Mar-2003 10:32 GMT
Comment 15Colin03-Mar-2003 10:32 GMT
Comment 16Colin03-Mar-2003 10:32 GMT
Comment 17Andy03-Mar-2003 13:13 GMT
Comment 18Anonymous03-Mar-2003 13:58 GMT
Comment 19Hooligan/DCS03-Mar-2003 14:00 GMT
Comment 20Colin03-Mar-2003 14:01 GMT
Comment 21Trust03-Mar-2003 15:36 GMT
Comment 22DaveP03-Mar-2003 15:38 GMT
Comment 23Hooligan/DCS03-Mar-2003 16:17 GMT
Comment 24rafo03-Mar-2003 16:21 GMT
Comment 25Wayne Hunt03-Mar-2003 16:35 GMT
Comment 26Hooligan/DCS03-Mar-2003 16:43 GMT
Comment 27Christophe Decanini03-Mar-2003 17:24 GMT
Comment 28Darth_X03-Mar-2003 21:26 GMT
Comment 29Darth_X:03-Mar-2003 21:38 GMT
Comment 30Anonymous03-Mar-2003 21:59 GMT
Comment 31Darth_X03-Mar-2003 22:19 GMT
Comment 32Ketzer04-Mar-2003 11:49 GMT
Comment 33Don Cox06-Mar-2003 10:22 GMT
Comment 34Nate Downes08-Mar-2003 03:34 GMT
Back to Top