awhucks wrote:
Dear Lucznik,
We have not been aquainted, but thank you for your input, Sir. And for your information I had attempted to contact them via the email address on the SWFA website and at the time I posted this message, I had not yet heard from them. |
You know what they say, "patience is a virtue".
awhucks wrote:
I have posted a couple of questions on this forum before and have gotten very rapid replies from Chris and all the team at SWFA - who I might add are a very professional bunch. That is why I decided to post this question here (The above message was simply a cut and paste from my email that I had sent to their email contact). |
Their professionalism is not in question. Rather the question relates to the professionalism (or lack thereof) of posting a concern/complaint or similar such post in a forum where it is thus advertised to hundreds (if not thousands) of people unassociated with the company. That others do it also is irrelevant.
awhucks wrote:
As for your allusion to an electrical problem with one of our yachts, if you had given it a bit more thought you would have realized that your analogy is not accurate at all. We manufacture yachts. SWFA does not manufacture Steiner binoculars. They are simply distributors. |
This splitting of hairs does nothing to address the issue of voicing your difficulties in a public arena rather than allowing the company to fix any problem privately.
awhucks wrote:
If you do a search over on the "Tactical Scopes" forum... you will find many questions regarding problems with scopes purchased from SWFA, and Chris and Brady have responded just as promptly and professionally as they do with any other post. |
Again, another testament to their professionalism (which was not in question.) However, I must point out again that, the fact that others voice their problems in a public manner is not a justification to continue their poor behavior.
awhucks wrote:
I think that a company sponsored forum (as opposed to a true public forum) is an ideal place to get answers to questions related to the company's policies and is not, in any way, shape or form standing outside their place of business with a bulhorn announcing my difficulties. |
Sponsorship is not at issue. The term public by its very definition simply involves an open forum where people can generally "gather." Regardless of who hosts the forum, the fact that people like you and I can both freely frequent the site and "converse" makes it a "true public forum" and is therefore an innapropriate venue for the airing of difficulties, problems, etc. with the sponsoring company.
awhucks wrote:
...in the future, you may want to consider restraint in penning your opinions so as not to appear as too much of a busy-body.
|
Restraint is highly overrated.
It is this very "virtue" that allowed the Nazis to take over most of Europe before anyone thought to put them in their place and it is this same "virtue" that has us watching from afar as hundreds of thousands are today being killed in Darfur (and numerous other areas of the world.) Restraint is the mantra of the United Nations and their blue helmeted "peace keepers" (and they've just done a wonderful job at helping ensure that the world is a place of peace and beauty where children can grow up well nourished and educated with a positive and hopeful outlook on life...NOT!) Restraint is also why the Liberal Left has had power to co-op our courts, sabotage our culture, and generally demonize the basic principles and institutions upon which our nation was founded.
Certainly bullhorning one's difficulties on an internet forum is not on par with these greater evils but, as I can't do much to directly address those societal wrongs, I'll have to appease myself with just "calling a spade a spade" wherever I can. Besides, by posting on a public forum (as opposed to using email, the telephone, or [Heaven forbid] a PM) you have openly invited the input of all who frequent this board.
Another thing, don't you think its odd how when someone does something wrong and then gets called on it, they invariably demand the "restraint" of the people calling their bad behavior to question, when they felt no particular inclination to exercise a similar level of restraint of their actions in the first place?
------------- What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
|