4 ms·

I did not say that. What they did was "plain dishonest." I don't call myself a stupid person, but I have done (and will in the future do) stupid things. That

I did not say that. What they did was "plain dishonest." I don't call myself a stupid person, but I have done (and will in the future do) stupid things. That does not make me stupid, and it does not make stupid things I do intelligent. You are pushing to soften the insistence that customers should have regarding how they are charged. I don't see how that's a better approach than actually holding a company accountable for its actions, without necessarily judging the character of their employees or management. Edit: Yes, I would say that to their faces. Exactly as I said it here, without personal judgment, but with a judgment regarding their conduct.

fpgeek 14y ago
Hold on. Let's not forget where this started. They did try to tell their customers - via email. Your objection is that the form of notice they used was inadequate. That's a fair objection, but choosing an inadequate form of notice, by itself, isn't dishonesty. Knowingly choosing inadequate notice would be the problem. To me it seems equally (if not more) plausible that someone, mistakenly, didn't realize that email notice wasn't good enough. I'll also add that it isn't clear that email notice was inadequate. Are there cases of people outside the 71 who were unhappy learning about the change from another channel (like this one)?