655321, on 2011-January-20, 15:41, said:
On the contrary, I have read and fully understood your posts, I suspect I have understood more about them than you have told us. In the meantime, I note that instead of acknowledging that your response might have naive and over the top, you not only repeated your original post, but added "and quite possibly illegally" and "It does not leave me feeling that they are a reputable business with honest intentions." as well. Doesn't matter to me, we who read these forums are well aware of your white hat/black hat view of the world and expect this. Read Frances's post for an example of a more mature response to the same issue.
Here is one of the (several) posts where you told us you emailed them twice:
I suggest to you that if you seriously expected a response, you would have asked someone who has a more nuanced view of the world, or perhaps someone with excellent people-skills to compose your emails. An outraged email from Sir Wayne the doer of good deeds, on a crusade to rid the world of the totally evil, and without redeeming features, bridgetopics, is unlikely to get a response. The people you have cast in the black hat role don't know that they are evil, they think they are regular human beings like everyone else. So, to send a series of emails which assumes that they are the source of wickedness in the world (you see, I have understood more from your posts than you thought!) is unlikely to produce the response you wanted.
Anyway, I know this post won't change anyone's behaviour, so I think that after all Roger had the best idea.
Do you have a leak on my email that you have formed those opinions of them?
I suspect not since it does not seem likely that you have read them.
This is the entire content of the first email
"Can you please tell me where you got my email address from?
Thanks"
and the follow up email
"Hi
Two months and no reply.
Can you please inform me why I received spam from your business?"
There is no assumption of "a source of wickedness" and no evidence of outrage in those emails. In fact the brief content in those emails is the antithesis of your assumptions.
They simply have not had the courtesy to respond.
Perhaps you think that their spam policy to attract new business is acceptable perhaps you think that ignoring responses from those they chose to spam is acceptable.
I happen to not think so. I imagine that a majority or at least a very significant minority consider spam unacceptable.
I would be happy to hear from Jan or Eric or the others involved in this process with an explanation for their behaviour. I have certainly given them plenty of opportunity to explain. They have chosen not to. Therefore when someone asks for a recommendation about their business I will give my opinion based on the way that they have chosen to treat me and others they have spammed. After all that is the primary source of information that I have about them.
Maybe you think their behaviour is acceptable. Maybe you think that Roger et al being rude to me for expressing my opinion is acceptable.
I happen to find neither acceptable nor reasonable.
I hope that you would think that my response to bridgetopics shown above was reasonable and polite. I hope that you would think that their marketing behaviour and lack of response to those reasonable emails are not reasonable approaches to business.
As I said I would be happy for Jan or someone else from bridgetopics to contact me. Indeed I would welcome it. Given that the responded to Fred within a day I was hopeful that my two efforts to contact them yesterday would have met with a favourable response. But alas there is nothing in my inbox.
Given that it has taken three months without a response I won't be holding my breath for a response. In the meantime as word of mouth works if I am asked about my opinion of their organization I will give details of my very negative experience in my dealings or lack there of with them.
Help
