Amazon has banned my account - my Kindle is now a (partial) brick.

[markbot]

the device can still be used even if the account is canceled. hence, i still don't see the major issue. i still think he is lying. that is my BS detector. look at how easily it was resolved to for this "mistake". This ian fellow is far to polite and his messages are too well thought out. as if he over planned this entire thread.

how hard would it be for me to open up another forum account....do some research on what other people have posted on the issue on other sites and fabricated this entire thing! not very hard at all. and i might have a huge incentive to do so. i might work for a competitor of amazon. i might hate drm. i might not like amazon. i might be a luddite.

perhaps i will do this and then laugh at the gullible people afterwards.

the point is, when someone has an incentive to lie....and u can't monitor her activities, which u can't on the net,....u should factor in the possiblity that she is lying.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by krisk

If you were in business in a small town and someone marched into the Tuesday morning Rotary club and announced; "dmaul completely suckered me over!!!" and gave a convincing argument but no proofs and left after riling everyone up to the point where the bandwagon convened, most folks jumped on it, and all of a sudden the most of the town decided not to do business with you because of some stranger, don't you think you as the business owner would be pretty damn livid?

Livid? Probably. Have legal recourse? Probably not. Especially if there was truth to the complains, as there may well have been with Ians.

Just because he doesn't post much doesn't mean its not true. Many people don't post on forums unless they have something to complain about.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by snape

I wasn't aware this was a pro-Amazon-only message board. If Ian's statement of the facts are true, he had some valid grounds to be unhappy, yet his comments throughout this thread can hardly be considered unnecessarily critical of Amazon and their business practices. Claiming he shat on Amazon or anyone here is going a little far, in my opinion.

He also brought to light the very real potential that Kindle owners (and users of any brand of ebook reader, for that matter) could at some point lose access to previously purchased material. A discussion about that issue and what users can do to protect themselves is worthwhile.

Fortunately, with only a few dozen posts under my belt, my comments are nothing more than doggerel.

Carry on.

Please don't escalate by making such broad statements as "this is a pro-Amazon-only message board". If you read back through this thread, you see Amazon bashers, defenders and a lot of us in between. It's a bit of a straw man you're setting up there. If you want to debate a poster, then do that. You won't get a very good reaction if you decide arbitrarily that it's you against the board.

[catsittingstill]

Originally Posted by Alisa

Please don't escalate by making such broad statements as "this is a pro-Amazon-only message board". If you read back through this thread, you see Amazon bashers, defenders and a lot of us in between. It's a bit of a straw man you're setting up there. If you want to debate a poster, then do that. You won't get a very good reaction if you decide arbitrarily that it's you against the board.

I had the impression Snape was responding to Krisk, not seriously claiming that everyone here is pro-Amazon.

I do think that Krisk is a little too quick to assume Ian was lying. Perhaps he finds it more plausible that a single individual would lie to smear a company than that a company would cancel an account for "suspicion of scamming" and turn out to be wrong.

Me, I look at two possiblities:"Person A lies about Company Alpha to induce outrage, then reduces outrage with a second lie." and "Company Alpha, which has already mechanically applied a policy intended to reduce unathorized copying to Mobileread, mechanically applied a policy intended to reduce cheating that swept up Person A, then reinstated person A's account on receiving a polite request to reconsider."

One of them seems more likely to me than the other.

[snape]

My "Amazon-only" comment was directed at krisk's earlier posts, not the entire board - I should have been more clear on that. I was simply curious why someone thought a consumer's poor opinion of a retailer would give that retailer grounds to take legal action. At no point did I feel Ian was bashing Amazon, though many others were, so I was confused why another poster thought he deserved to be in the crosshairs of Amazon's legal team.

[krisk]

I think my posts speak for themselves. I was responding to the knee jerk "ohhhh! better not order from Amazon anymore!"

(and sheesh! if I were a he do you think I would be wearing a period dress?!)

[snape]

Hey, I noticed your dress.

[krisk]

why thank you!

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by krisk

See, this type of hysteria is what posts like this do. If I were Amazon I'd be going after Ian with legal guns a'blazing right about now.

LOL.

Maybe Ian should go after you for defaming him here..., legal guns a'blazing and all.

[Alisa]

Looks like Consumerist has picked up the story. (Not the old banning story but this latest incident.)

[catsittingstill]

Originally Posted by krisk

I think my posts speak for themselves. I was responding to the knee jerk "ohhhh! better not order from Amazon anymore!"

(and sheesh! if I were a he do you think I would be wearing a period dress?!)

Oops I apologize for not noticing the dress / realizing what it meant. My bad.

[astra]

What is this dress thing about?

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by astra

What is this dress thing about?

catsittingstill inadvertently referred to krisk as a "he" rather than a "she", and so "she" pointed out her avatar was wearing a dress.

Cheers,
Marc

[astra]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

catsittingstill inadvertently referred to krisk as a "he" rather than a "she", and so "she" pointed out her avatar was wearing a dress.

Cheers,
Marc

I didn't express myself clearly. Sorry about it.

I know why it has been discussed here, I don't understand what is it about krisk's dress? It looks like a normal dress...?

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by astra

I didn't express myself clearly. Sorry about it.

I know why it has been discussed here, I don't understand what is it about krisk's dress? It looks like a normal dress...?

It is a normal (period) dress. The point is that if it's wearing a dress, then that should be a clue that it's a *she* not a *he*... although these days that's a less reliable indicator than it used to be.