Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!vms.macc.wisc.edu
From: anderson@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: everex
Message-ID: <3265@dogie.macc.wisc.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 90 04:46:31 GMT
Sender: news@dogie.macc.wisc.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Lines: 81


In article <5151.25ed9a77@uwovax.uwo.ca>
singer@uwovax.uwo.ca (Ben Singer), whose passion in the
matter struck me as very odd, writes:

>I believe Jess Anderson's comment on the "legality" of
>complaini about an experience with Everex is not only wrong
>but intimidating.

Pretty large indictment, given the tininess of my putative
transgression, wouldn't you say?

You're entitled, but I said nothing about legality.  Civil
liability -- *possible* civil liability was my issue.  As
for intimidation, anyone intimidated by what I wrote -- for
example, you weren't -- may have a problem, but I didn't
cause it.  So it's a straw person, and that's why I say you
sound like a person with a hidden agenda.

>If the experience is true and serves the public through
>being published, and is not malicious, regardless of the
>fact that the person also gives his opinion of the machine,
>then I believe the statement is protected.

Under those conditions, I would agree the speech is
protected (and I referred to that, didn't I?).  But in the
given case, malice could be the issue.

>The criticism of Jess Anderson, who is loyal to his Everex
>computers, has a chilling effect on the willingness of
>others to share their experiences in this public forum.

That's grossly exaggerated nonsense, as you probably know.
Loyalty is a concept that doesn't even apply.  If there's a
chill, it would be in your mind, and as we've seen, you
weren't chilled -- on the contrary, you're unnaturally hot
under the collar, looks like.  Pretty silly, I think, as
is your peculiar attachment to my both names.  Very odd.

>Would you send the same communication to Consumers'Union,
>Jess?

Excuse me?  Now you're familiar?  What's Consumer Union have
to do with it?  Talk about irrelevant ... But since you
mention them, you'll notice that they say, "the product we
tested behaved like so." They do *not* say, "and therefore
we urge you to boycott anything made by those people,"
because they'd get sued instantly.

Now in fact, I did not say that Ken had done anything at
all wrong -- you'll recall I was quite specific about that,
right? -- but that wholesale blanket comments could result
in trouble.

Contrary to your allegation of chilling effect, what would
dampen valuable discussion would be to have someone get sued
thinking they enjoy some kind of immunity because it's
Usenet or because they've seen postings like Ken's.

>Coincidentally, I had a similar bad experience with my
>Everex Computer and with an Everex Video Card. After much
>frustration with them, I sent them back to the distributor
>who was kind enough to refund the cost.

I think any reputable dealer would make an adjustment of
that sort in such a case.  Anyone who's had a bad experience
is doing a public service, I think, to say what happened to
them, and that would certainly include what happened in
Ken's case or in yours.

But if you're urging others to boycott *all* Everex products,
including their use by OEMs and so forth, and if Everex
could show you damaged their modem or tape drive business,
assuming neither of those items was involved in your case,
you *could* be in court for that.

My point is that people should be responsible for what they
say.  Includes you, too.  I thought your reponse to my quite
calm posting was alarmist, argumentative, inflammatory, and
no fun at all!  So go sit in a cold puddle, and cool your
parts.  :-)