Full Version: BallStars-Be Careful

From: bobkat [#34]
 24 Jun 2006
To: UncleSteve [#32] 24 Jun 2006

Again, you have distributors who have contractual responsibilities with the company, working together to restrict the business of the company. Completely different than this scenario.
Anybody can sue you if they can find some crooked lawyer to take the case (and their money). Note also that they LOST the suit. If they sue me, all they will get is the debt on my equipment; you can't get blood out of a rock!

From: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#35]
 24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#31] 24 Jun 2006

Steve,

You hit it right on the head. This is the lawsuit that will get many people on forums to tread lightly with their negative comments.

I think that lawsuit was settled. I know of one who ended filing bankruptcy because of the expense of the legal defense. I know you are likely aware of who that was.

EDITED: 24 Jun 2006 by DATAKES

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#36]
 24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#25] 24 Jun 2006

Bobkat,

We supply a venue for the discussion of people's personal experiences.

Who knows? There may be people with good things to say about Ballstars.

Over the years, on this forum, I've been very critical of certain industry suppliers and manufacturers, to the point where some people felt I was pushing the limits of being challenged legally.

With the truth and facts on my side, I was comfortable in my allegations.

During those allegations, the word "Boycott" never crossed my lips.

That act goes beyond personal experiences and isn't one I would consider becoming involved with.

From: UncleSteve [#37]
 24 Jun 2006
To: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#35] 24 Jun 2006

Yup! THAT is the suit I was talking about... I know you belong to the other group so perhaps Bobkat will listen if you also back up the story.

I also want to protect this forum from such happenings.

From: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#38]
 24 Jun 2006
To: UncleSteve [#37] 24 Jun 2006

I'm the same way. "Boycott " is a bad and unnecessary word to be used on this forum. Frankly, members can state the facts of their experience, and we will likely avoid companies who receive repetitive comments about bad service and/or products.

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#39]
 24 Jun 2006
To: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#38] 24 Jun 2006

David,

I agree.

Cream rises to the top...and...well...the opposite holds true for ethically-challenged companies. :-$ 

From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#40]
 24 Jun 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#39] 24 Jun 2006

I think that anyone calling for a boycott here is going beyond the limits of the forum.

Telling your story in a factual basis is allowed and encouraged. Our members are intelligent and will make their decisions in a fully informed manor.

It may have the same basic results, but calling for a boycott is out in my opinion. This has not been discussed at length by the directors of this site, (OK laugh at that statement), but is my personal opinion, and I try to act on my personal ethics at all times that I can.

From: bobkat [#41]
 24 Jun 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#36] 24 Jun 2006

There may be plenty of good things to say about Ballstars. I have no dealings with them and nothing more than a theoretical interest in the topic. I asked in my first post if anyone had GOOD experiences with them. Like I said, these days you can get sued for anything (or nothing). If you post here and say you will no longer use supplier ABC, you are conducting a personal boycott, whether you use the word or not. If you tell others they shouldn't use them either, are you guilty of being the instigator of a boycott? If others join in and say they too have had negative experiences with supplier ABC (as evidenced in this thread), are all of the people guilty of conspiracy? If that is the case, then Mark better be looking over his shoulder from now on because he did just that in post 4161.10. The paranoia in this thread is so thick you could cut it with a knife. There have been many posts here that are negative toward one supplier or another, (and not just by me!), yet this thread seems to have taken on a life of its own. Although being prudent is a good thing, I refuse to live my life in fear.

From: UncleSteve [#42]
 24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#41] 24 Jun 2006

Bobkat,

The point seems to be evading you. Anyone is welcome to state the facts in their own case and say they wouldn't use the supplier again.

The problems arise when third parties, ie YOU, talk about and around starting a boycott against a vendor you have never had dealings with. That is instigating, not making public personal experiences.


"Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean no one is following you"


From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#43]
 24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#41] 24 Jun 2006

Bobkat,

It must be a matter of perception. I'm not seeing the paranoia at all.

If I were living in fear, why would I personally contact Ballstars and make them aware of this thread?

I felt an obligation to bring both sides of this story to light.

I told the owner, if Mark was making patently false statements, I would delete the thread immediately.

I was asked to delete the thread, regardless, but advised against it, on two counts:

1) There's an element of truth to Mark's story. If Mark is completely out of line and making libelous statements, Ballstars should pursue their legal options with him.

2) Deleting this thread, would result in an acrimonius backlash, that would spread through the forum, creating a major disruption.

That's not a theory. It's based on past experience.

No paranoia. Just trying to be responsible and prudent.

From: bobkat [#44]
 24 Jun 2006
To: UncleSteve [#42] 24 Jun 2006

<The problems arise when third parties, ie YOU, talk about and around starting a boycott against a vendor you have never had dealings with. That is instigating, not making public personal experiences.>

That is your personal opinion and has no basis in law. Whether I had dealings with the vendor is irrelevant. (Unless you can find the "instigator statute") I simply posed a question, as a possible solution to a problem.

There is no point that has evaded me, I just don't agree with you. The discussion has changed from what may or may not be legal, to what is acceptable to post on the forum.

Here is the legal part: To be a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a boycott must have the effect of denying the supplier's access to the market. The forum is not that powerful, if it were, any negative comments posted here would be actionable.

If the word (or action) of a boycott is not allowed on the forum, that is fine, but lets not confuse law with forum protocol. Some of you don't agree with me on the legal issue, and that is fine. I have no intention of calling for a boycott of anyone. I guess if we haven't been able to persuade each other at this point, we will have to agree to disagree. >.< 

From: UncleSteve [#45]
 24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#44] 25 Jun 2006

quote:
I guess if we haven't been able to persuade each other at this point, we will have to agree to disagree


Agreed! :S 

From: Barbara (RGILE) [#46]
 27 Jun 2006
To: precisionlaser [#10] 27 Jun 2006

It's too bad that we always get to learn the hard way. It just amazes me how deceitful some people can be over greed.
Good luck, they will get theirs. People like that won't get ahead. They might for a while, but not for long.
Barb

From: precisionlaser [#47]
 27 Jun 2006
To: Barbara (RGILE) [#46] 28 Jun 2006

Thanks, Barbara...I think they're getting "theirs" already...

From: Jer (DIAMOND) [#48]
 2 Jul 2006
To: ALL

I do not know if an organized boycott is legal or illegal but I have a friend that is a District Judge. His favorite saying is "anyone can sue anyboy over anything". I have heard him say it a million times. The best thing to do is make sure you are right, then go ahead.

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#49]
 2 Jul 2006
To: Jer (DIAMOND) [#48] 2 Jul 2006

Jer,

I think it's a good thing that industry suppliers; especially those who do business through licensees; see these messages and keep in mind that, even though snagging "big fish" from their licensees, may be "business as usual", those with knowledge of that practice aren't likely to sign on, and definitely aren't likely to recommend that others sign on.

That just may have them thinking twice (or thrice) before circumnavigating a licensee, in the future.

From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#50]
 2 Jul 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#49] 2 Jul 2006

Who would license a process if they knew that the licensor was going to compete with them? Not me. To me it is dirty dealing bordering on implied fraud when selling a license.

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#51]
 2 Jul 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#50] 2 Jul 2006

quote:
Who would license a process if they knew that the licensor was going to compete with them?


Harvey,

I'm certain you were posing a rhetorical question to all, but just in case, "Not me." :-) 

From: UncleSteve [#52]
 2 Jul 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#51] 2 Jul 2006

Not I said the fly!
Nor me said the flea!

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#53]
 2 Jul 2006
To: UncleSteve [#52] 2 Jul 2006

Oops!

I try so hard to be grammatically correct. :-) 

Guess I'm feeling a little "street" today. :-) 

EDITED: 2 Jul 2006 by DGL

Show messages:  1-13  14-33  34-53  54-71

Back to thread list | Login

© 2024 Project Beehive Forum