4 ms·

It is rejecting the premise of the question. Airmule isn't a common carrier, so engaging with a line of questioning that presumes they are a common carrier is a

It is rejecting the premise of the question. Airmule isn't a common carrier, so engaging with a line of questioning that presumes they are a common carrier is a lose/lose situation - the sort of questioning sometimes caricatured as "when did you stop beating your wife". Rightfully so, too. The blogger clearly chose his very unfriendly angle. Of the few actual quotes from the company are statements such as on-board couriers being an established industry, both FedEx and UPS being in that industry and all shipments complying with customs. If the blogger was genuinely interested in informing his readers, diving into those statements would be interesting, but he seems to reject them out of hand, preferring instead to pursue a "gotcha" question about common carrier status.

rini17 9y ago
No matter how supposedly hostile the question was, if there really is any genuine law protection of "couriers" - then company rep could just point out the relevant FAQ item. They are using as "couriers" mostly completely uninformed laypersons, which can't be expected to know what ocs is, ffs!
Fnoord 9y ago
> sometimes caricatured as "when did you stop beating your wife". You misunderstood that one. You cannot answer yes to that question since it implies you were beating your wife in the past. You cannot answer no to the question since it implies you are still beating your wife nowadays. Hence the question requires an in depth answer. Another poster above wrote as example reply: "I have never beaten my significant other". That's a clear answer, and if you said that under oath and its found out you lied, you got one more issue on your plate. And that's the goal of the question: it forces the other party to increase accountability. Because the question provokes (or 'requires') an in depth answer like the example provided it is a good question in interrogation techniques, but also a good question to ask from the hands or mouth of a journalist (or interviewer). Which a blogger arguably is. If anything, if you read through the article, the blogger is actually quite friendly and sympathetic about the startup. It just turned sour after the vague, dodging responses. When you get such vague, dodging responses you are at the very least dealing with amateurs, and at worst with people who know very well what they're up to.

rini17 9y ago

No matter how supposedly hostile the question was, if there really is any genuine law protection of "couriers" - then company rep could just point out the relevant FAQ item. They are using as "couriers" mostly completely uninformed laypersons, which can't be expected to know what ocs is, ffs!

Fnoord 9y ago

> sometimes caricatured as "when did you stop beating your wife". You misunderstood that one. You cannot answer yes to that question since it implies you were beating your wife in the past. You cannot answer no to the question since it implies you are still beating your wife nowadays. Hence the question requires an in depth answer. Another poster above wrote as example reply: "I have never beaten my significant other". That's a clear answer, and if you said that under oath and its found out you lied, you got one more issue on your plate. And that's the goal of the question: it forces the other party to increase accountability. Because the question provokes (or 'requires') an in depth answer like the example provided it is a good question in interrogation techniques, but also a good question to ask from the hands or mouth of a journalist (or interviewer). Which a blogger arguably is. If anything, if you read through the article, the blogger is actually quite friendly and sympathetic about the startup. It just turned sour after the vague, dodging responses. When you get such vague, dodging responses you are at the very least dealing with amateurs, and at worst with people who know very well what they're up to.