4 ms·

I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling", as in I don't like their methods but I like the results in this

by skuhn 12y ago

I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling", as in I don't like their methods but I like the results in this particular situation. I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it. I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it.

laumars 12y ago
> I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling" Yeah I got that. My point was that first part was just setting himself up to explain why he thought this lawsuit was a good idea - which you were arguing as well. ie you're focusing on the wrong part of his post and thus arguing against his post while agreeing with the majority of it. > "I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it." Hence why I said "near-reiteration" rather than "simply reiterated". You still argued the same points and came to the same conclusion regardless of your differing starting point with regards to class action lawsuits. > I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it. Again, nobody is suggesting otherwise. You're preaching to the converted. ;)
ghshephard 12y ago
Yes - I understood where you were coming from. My original comment had a reference to patent trolling, which I felt just sidelined what I was trying to say. I completely agree with you - sometimes class action lawsuits are entirely appropriate - this is one of those cases. We'll leave it for another discussion as to when patent lawsuits are appropriate.

by skuhn 12y ago

laumars 12y ago

> I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling" Yeah I got that. My point was that first part was just setting himself up to explain why he thought this lawsuit was a good idea - which you were arguing as well. ie you're focusing on the wrong part of his post and thus arguing against his post while agreeing with the majority of it. > "I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it." Hence why I said "near-reiteration" rather than "simply reiterated". You still argued the same points and came to the same conclusion regardless of your differing starting point with regards to class action lawsuits. > I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it. Again, nobody is suggesting otherwise. You're preaching to the converted. ;)

ghshephard 12y ago

Yes - I understood where you were coming from. My original comment had a reference to patent trolling, which I felt just sidelined what I was trying to say. I completely agree with you - sometimes class action lawsuits are entirely appropriate - this is one of those cases. We'll leave it for another discussion as to when patent lawsuits are appropriate.