| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 27777 | 2002-12-02 20:22:00 | PC Company | Chris Randal (521) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 102760 | 2002-12-04 06:19:00 | HP have been doing the same type of advertising as well. | Baldy (26) | ||
| 102761 | 2002-12-04 20:41:00 | Hi Mike From memory (I stress) the censored post was about the downsizing of the PC company - there is, therefore, an exact correlation |
Chris Randal (521) | ||
| 102762 | 2002-12-04 23:51:00 | >>>From memory (I stress) the censored post was about the downsizing >>> of the PC company - there is, therefore, an exact correlation You could be right - I recall it saying something about PC Company about to go under, and if that's what it was, then the news item definitely doesn't say that :) in fact downsizing usually doesn't mean a company is in trouble - take Fonterra for example. Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 102763 | 2002-12-04 23:56:00 | The post in question claimed the company was about to go under and asked whether you wanted to buy from a company that was going under. It was unsubstantiated, malicious and not acceptable here. There is a big difference between a company cutting jobs and "being about to go under", and either way unsubstantiated and anonymous rumours of that type are not acceptable. Reporting already published information is acceptable. | Biggles (121) | ||
| 102764 | 2002-12-05 00:22:00 | Sorry Bruce. I admit that my post was a little tongue in cheek...... |
Chris Randal (521) | ||
| 102765 | 2002-12-05 00:35:00 | Hahaha. Dont any of you know what GST stands for? Isnt it obviose? GST= Government Spending Tax Its for their pies and icecream, and coke for lunch, for new cars etc. |
mejobloggs (264) | ||
| 102766 | 2002-12-05 00:49:00 | Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned. The duscussion was censored and completley removed rather than just locked. Because of this people will remember what was said in their own way - when they retell the story it will become distorted. A rumour has begun and because the original was removed nobody remembers exactly what was said. FWIW I think it was wrong to remove the discussion, we still have free speech here in NZ and it should have been locked, perhaps with a disclaimer. People would make up their own minds about the author and whether his claims were malicious or not... I know I did. |
crozier (2004) | ||
| 102767 | 2002-12-05 01:24:00 | Crozier - it is not you who will get sued if it remains on the site. We have, do date, been very firm on NOT removing threads (there have been requests from vendors, no I aint saying who) because in all previous cases posters have been expressing valid opinons and relating personal experiences. In this case, a poster gave NO information that could in anyway be independantly verified. There a line between free speech and slander, and that post crossed it. | Biggles (121) | ||
| 102768 | 2002-12-05 02:13:00 | the question is, is NZ Media published information really information that is unbiased?? I would of thought its biased from the media'a point of view. Surely NZ Media is not a indpendent unbiased source of information. then what is the difference between info that goes on on forums and on NZ Media. | rayonline (2134) | ||
| 102769 | 2002-12-05 02:23:00 | Bruce - I apologise for stirring the pot but I tend to agree with Crozier that if the post had not been removed, I wouldn't have been tempted to indulge in a little devilment. I won't do it again. Kind regards |
Chris Randal (521) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||