lafayette;169760 Wrote: > That's an easy one: > > 1. You bad-mouthed the company for following a published policy. > > 2. What facts did you not check? Must I restate the obvious? You did > not check the specifics of the policy. There is an obvious link to it. > Most reasonable people about to make a very expensive purchase -- or at > least many -- would bother to read the details. > > There. I think I've said it two or three times now.
Give us all a break. We've walked through what a sensible reading of "No risk trial" means. The only sensible meaning is "no financial risk". Yes, it is _possible_ to read it some other way, but, in reality, any other meaning relies on some _other_ risk that nobody here has defined. I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing otherwise on this point. If you have fine print which contradicts the only sensible reading of your huge banner text, you are being dishonest and sleazy. End of story, really. And again: maybe it's legal, but who cares? I'll put it very bluntly-- calling someone who acts in a sleazy manner sleazy is not "bad-mouthing" them: it's merely telling the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. -- totoro squeezebox 3 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ totoro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5935 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31562 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
