Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site othervax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray
From: ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.consumers
Subject: Re: dodge omni repair bill
Message-ID: <712@othervax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 13:57:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: othervax.712
Posted: Thu Oct 17 13:57:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Oct-85 21:31:09 EDT
References: <104@emacs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn)
Distribution: net
Organization: Philips Information Systems - St. Laurent  P.Q., Canada
Lines: 27
Xref: linus net.auto:7492 net.consumers:2701
Summary: 

In article <104@emacs.UUCP> pz@emacs.UUCP (Paul Czarnecki) writes:
>
>Summary to date, I believe I have been treated unfairly by [named auto
>company] in the repair of my 1981 Dodge Omni.
>..
>..
>......  I feel this is not enough and am going to take them to
>small claims court.....
>..

I have a major problem with the acceptability of postings giving a one sided
viewpoint of a personal dispute prior to the outcome of litigation or what-
ever.  I did not see the associated postings giving details, and certainly I
have had major problems with auto dealers and other suppliers myself,
however publishing one side of the "facts" in a public forum seems to me to
be akin to the evils of "black-lists" or publishing the names of payment
defaulters etc.  Does the other party have access to publish his
refutations?

Put yourself in the other's shoes for a moment.  If, because of your
dispute, you hadn't paid the bill, would you consider it acceptable if the
dealer published your name with his side of the story in an ad in a
newspaper?

What are the opinions of the net readers?

Ray Dunn.   ..philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray