> Being nice and open does not imply having to take abuse with a smile, does it? You've found and then blasted right past the point. The controversy is largel

> Being nice and open does not imply having to take abuse with a smile, does it? You've found and then blasted right past the point. The controversy is largely coming from customers receiving abuse from the company. Because a few people got angry, does that mean the entire customer base now has to endure abuse from the company and be happy about it? In general, in today's society, it is considered wholly unacceptable for a company to dish abuse onto customers. And yes, companies are expected to take abuse with a smile. Whether that's good or bad is a different discussion, but the expectation is that the company handle abuse gracefully. Ignoring it and not engaging at all is typically the safest way. How would you react if one of Microsoft or Apple's pr drones came around to insult you personally? These companies receive orders of magnitude more abuse in a day than rpi would in a year, but their pr people don't act like this. The Rpi team did something bad. They mistreated customers, then doubled down instead of acknowledging or apologizing. They're trying to spin it as some wild conspiracy instead of accepting that one pr person made a shitty call in handling angry customers.