Keith McGuinnesswrote (in part):
Unfortunately, Doug, I partly agree with Tom; only partly because whoever
sent the abusive messages is most to blame for the subsequent fall-out.
It's good to not be alone. :-)
The "partly" is because I agree, with several others, that the request for
photographs was not made in a particularly professional fashion, nor was
the subsequent rejection of those who took the trouble to submit images.
The key phrase (for me) in the reply sent to those who submitted was: "We
received great images but due to the problems it has been decided that it
is more trouble that it is worth."
As Tom C said, the "more trouble than it is worth" is not a particularly
gracious response to those who submitted images for FREE for Pentax to use
in promoting its products. I can't speak for others, but mine were sent
with no strings attached, so I have difficulty seeing what the "trouble" is
here.
An employee of Pentax Canada, when dealing with the public on Pentax Canada
business, is for all practical purposes, representing the company. The
phrasing was basically insulting, even if unintentionally so. I won't pick
on it any more.
The message did say, twice, "thanks" to those who submitted images and, as
a consequence, I am interpreting "more trouble than it is worth" AS JUST AN
UNFORTUNATE CHOICE OF PHRASE. I think the poor guy just got caught in the
middle of something he did not anticipate. (I, on the other hand, having
been on lists and read newsgroups for over a decade am not in the least
surprised about the whole shemozzle.)
[snip]
To the best of my knowledge Tom C didn't send abusive letters to Pentax,
nor did I. On the other hand, as I said before, the people who are most at
fault are those who sent the abusive messages in the first place.
Of course not.
It might help if, in situations like this, people didn't refer to the PDML
as if it was some independent entity.
As a member of a mailing list we are individually no more responible for
another member's actions than we are for the guy down the street.
My conclusions, for what (not a lot) they are worth:
Was the original request made in a professional manner? Could have been
handled better.
Did the requester deserve to get abused for it? Definitely not.
Was the response and subsequent reply to those who sent images made in a
professional manner? Could have been handled better.
Does the PDML list deserve an apology? The list is not an entity.
Do the subscribers to the PDML list deserve an apology? Those who did not
send abusive messages have a reasonable case for thinking so.
And we're big enough not to actually require one.
Does Marco deserve an apology? Yes.
But not from the list at large.
Do I want an apology? I have better things to worry about.
Does Tom C deserve an apology? Oh...I hear the kids calling; I'll have to
sign off now... 8-)
PLEASE SOMEONE APOLOGIZE! OK, I'm Sorry. :-)
Keith McG
Secure in the knowledge that he is several thousand km away from any other
subscribers to PDML...!
