5 ms·
No. Suh kept changing the terms of the deal. > If Barker didn't like the deal she had plenty of time to cancel or just say no upfront. She did cancel it. Afte
by awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
No. Suh kept changing the terms of the deal.
> If Barker didn't like the deal she had plenty of time to cancel or just say no upfront.
She did cancel it. After Suh kept changing the terms. The deal was for 2 people. Then Suh added a few more people. Then added a few more dogs.
Sure, the racist language wasn't called for but Suh was in the wrong.
- rhcom2 9y agoSuh changed the deal and got confirmation that Barker accepted the changes. Suh asked, Barker said yes for an extra $50 and then Barker exploded on her when she got here. Barker is in no way the victim here. Sure maybe Suh was a high maintenance renter, but she didn't do anything wrong. This is the third time I'm posting this excerpt: "When Suh later asked if it was OK to bring two friends and two dogs along, Barker said it was fine but the group would need to pay an additional $50 a night, according to screenshots of their text messages." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-california-racist-comment-penalty-asian-american https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-ca...
- masonic 9y agoaccording to screenshots of their text messages Which the Guardian does not show at all, and no source that I can find has published a complete, unedited account of the text exchange.
- rhcom2 9y agoHere: https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/ https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/ I don't see a spoiled brat. Why is it so hard to believe that Suh wasn't in the wrong?