|
In Reply to: Maybe, but posted by David C on December 23, 2006 at 19:00:59:
I'm going to discuss this with the understanding that we all want to support Billie, and are all trying to solve the problem, not add to it.
From what I understand, there was a percieved problem on George's part with what Billie and Billie Reposter did. But at that point, they probably believed they were already acting responsibly in promoting the product, by proactively asking people to visit her site. There was no lack of success as far as they were concerned, and they were already working to "make it a success" like you require.
When there was a perceived problem or potential problem with what they did, the ball was not in their court, but with George, who decided there was a problem. After all Billie and Billie Reposter couldn't address a problem they didn't know was there, right?
Since George had described it as a problem or a potential problem, he could have genuinely given them the benefit of the doubt, not just in speech but in deed, and actually looked at the post. It mentions WC was behind her site. He could have visited the site and seen there was in all likelihood no scam going on. Instead he says he and WC haven't communicated for a while? Then wouldn't it be time for an email to WC?
By saying it was their obligation to do the work you are saying they should have worked on something they didn't know was there.
By the time they knew it was there, a lot of unpleasant remarks had been made by George. The damage was done.
When the damage was done and they were offended, George said he was right because of their attitude problem. That is a catch-22 isn't it?
Not genuinely giving them the benefit of the doubt, George handled them like a true bureaucrat, cited their infringements, made it out that there was a problem with their attitude already. And when they got offended he said he knew he was right. That doesn't sound right to me.
