Kindle thead locked, due to discrimination

[Kevin R]

Please note that a kindle thread was recently locked because a small group of long time posters attacked a new poster. This was solely because the old timers did not like the question and the information being provided. They requested the thread locked.

The thread is here..https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93740

You will note that useful information was being provided and that many people also disagreed with the attacks on the original poster. The people providing information continued to be attacked as naive, whiner and crazy.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this terrible and sad action on the part of a small but powerful group on the boards. Very sad to attack new folks.

[carld]

I'll repeat my thought from that thread. I believe you're intentionally being offensive and provoking others.

[Kevin R]

Originally Posted by carld

I'll repeat my thought from that thread. I believe you're intentionally being offensive and provoking others.

Dear all please read the thread, No one was provoking others. The provocative part was providing useful information in spite of the fact that long time posters disagreed with the concnerns of the OP. I will repeat, the long time posters attacked the new member as naive, crazy and lazy. The OP only question was a concern about amazon and where to log a complaint.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Kevin R

Dear all please read the thread, No one was provoking others. The provocative part was providing useful information in spite of the fact that long time posters disagreed with the concnerns of the OP. I will repeat, the long time posters attacked the new member as naive, crazy and lazy. The OP only question was a concern about amazon and where to log a complaint.

I read all of the previous thread, and yeah, you were. Your word choices intentionally slighted the people who didn't agree with the original poster. You were called out on it several times but ignored the comments.

Even the title of this thread is designed to raise the ire of other posters.

[Kevin R]

Originally Posted by carld

I read all of the previous thread, and yeah, you were. Your word choices intentionally slighted the people who didn't agree with the original poster. You were called out on it several times but ignored the comments.

Why are you not commenting on the 1000+ posters? Is there bias? These people called this poor women naive, crazy and lazy. What you are referring to is me asking them to stop, I then provide useful information.


All please read the thread and decide for yourself. carld was part of the 'attack pack'

[carld]

Originally Posted by Kevin R

Why are you not commenting on the 1000+ posters? Is there bias? These people called this poor women naive, crazy and lazy. What you are referring to is me asking them to stop, I then provide useful information.


All please read the thread and decide for yourself. carld was part of the 'attack pack'

Screw it, welcome to ignore.

[AGB]

I've only read the first three pages, but I agree with CarlD.

Starting on page one and upping the stakes on page two, you (KevinR) are very fast to toss the word "discrimination" around, upping it to calling someone's argument "right wing" and whatnot. It's as if you don't understand that if businesses had to follow your argumentation, they would have to give - and deliver by whatever means - their products to anyone who wanted them and they should be able to pay by any means of their choice - be it debitcard, creditcard, cheque, cash, or even rabbits, oats, or goats.

I don't get it why you start a thread about the other closed thread, and begin by crying "discrimination!" from the get-go. There's a reason that other thread was closed, methinks.

[Kevin R]

Originally Posted by AGB

I've only read the first three pages,

I would suggest and request you read a little further. Why no outrage at the longtimers calling the OP naive, crazy and lazy.

[montsnmags]

I have repeatedly explained to you the Guidelines. I have iterated and reiterated to you that your posts are not the only posts/users being addressed in both moderator posts in thread, and in PMs off-thread (which included PMs to the negatively categorized "long-timers"). The thread was closed due to repeated request in-thread, reported requests off-thread, consensus amongst moderators, the continued unconstructive nature of the discussion, the absence of the OP having had her post answered in most every conceivable form, and with the note to the OP that they were welcome to request of the moderators that it be reopened.

There is no discrimination (you should note that if there is any form of bias by mods in that thread and matters related to it, that I can almost always be counted to err on the side of encouragement and patience in helping and explaining to newer folk, to the point that I get (sometimes justly) criticized for it).

I do not know what you hope to achieve with this Feedback thread, but if it is just to suggest bias/discrimination on what was mostly my part, you have the wrong end of the stick.

Cheers,
Marc
Moderator (note, this is NOT in bold green. I am writing as for myself as a moderator, but not moderating)

[Elfwreck]

My take on it:

OP was naive about legalities of business, and had unrealistic expectations. Companies can indeed demand "you must have a credit card to do business with us, including getting access to our freebies."

However, Amazon downplays information they don't want widely known; their "must have credit card to use a much-advertised Kindle feature" policy is not easy to find on the website, and no explanation for it is given. (Nor is it required; companies are not required by law to explain their business decisions.)

Several other posters verbally attacked OP for being naive and not wanting to link a credit card to the Kindle. Whether OP has the resources to have a credit card is fairly irrelevant for that.

I can think of several very legit reasons for not being able to link a credit card to an account: student in non-US country where banks don't hand out ccards like party favors, bankruptcy problems, person is financially incompetent & not legally allowed to manage his/her money, person is a minor. (My daughter's in this category--I'm not getting a credit card for my 14-year-old, so she has no access to Amazon's books for the Kindle she received as a gift. So far, she's fine with that.)

The reasons are irrelevant. For a forum that's very tolerant of "I don't like PDF" and "I want a reader without wireless" and "I don't touch DRM," it was surprising to read "you should get a credit card! it's easy! If you can't get one, you shouldn't have a Kindle!" ... as if a lack of ability--or desire--to link a credit card to one's wireless reader invalidated any desire to use the device.

I normally like MR debates. I see a lot of "if you don't like/can't do [X], your options include A, B and C; D and E are only available with X, sorry." It was almost shocking to read "if you don't like/can't do [X], you're doing it wrong. Anyone can do [X] so quit complaining about not having access to D and E."

(I don't know that I'd say the thread was locked because of "discrimination." I think that's flamebait. But it was locked because of bickering, and a level of insults I'm not accustomed to at Mobileread.)

[Kevin R]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

the absence of the OP having had her post answered in most every conceivable form,


I do not know what you hope to achieve with this Feedback thread, but if it is just to suggest bias/discrimination on what was mostly my part, you have the wrong end of the stick.

Again respectfully,

The myth of this thread is that the OP did have several useful answer to her question. I would suggest everyone read the thread and note that I tried to continually provide information on the FTC and other similar groups through out the world. Sadly, this information only served to flame the anger of many people in the thread. Interestingly many of these people were in fact longtime members (which is only an observation and not at all pejorative). What I do believe was, just the simple human fact, that these people have been around together longer and have more say against a new comer such as the OP, particularly in matters of things like thread locking.

As far as the short end of the stick I do not know why you would make such a public threat. And in a way that only serves to show the desire to use the power gained and mention above.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by Kevin R

I would suggest and request you read a little further. Why no outrage at the longtimers calling the OP naive, crazy and lazy.

I don't need to read much further. I don't need to read the entire thread to see what starts it.

How you claim it is "socio-economical" discrimination, crying that "the world is bigger than the US" when countered, completely ignoring that in order to buy a kindle, you first need the monetary funds for it, next you will have to buy it. THe OP have a kindle - a kindle he presumably bought direct from Amazon.com. He must have had the money for that somehow, and for you to make-belief that all of a sudden the bloke is in the same position as one from the third world (ups, I mean "the developing world" - we don't want to called discrimination here, do we), and a general eager to move the goal posts as you see fit, I can understand why people got fed up with that discussion with you.

Btw, before you try to claim that this is some sort of "old timer" conspiray as you seem to imply in that other thread (I'm at page five), I'm pretty new here and I am not a part of any old-boy's league. But then again, if I were, I'd not tell you.

In almost every one of your posts in this thread you have asked people to read the entire thread, when it's evident that you're the instigator of harsh language. Take a look at the title of this thread.

So, in short, just because you can't have it your way, doesn't necessarily mean it's discriminatory, right-wing or whatever monicker you want to adhere to whatever you disagree with.

[Kevin R]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

My take on it:

...

Thank you Elfwreck, I wish that I had stated my concerns about the thread as eloquently.

And you are right, this threads title was little over the top and for that I apologize to all.

[Kevin R]

Originally Posted by AGB

I don't need to read much further. I don't need to read the entire thread to see what starts it.

I suggest you read Elfwrecks post. He got it right.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by Kevin R

...

As far as the short end of the stick I do not know why you would make such a public threat. And in a way only serves to show the desire us the power gained and mention above.

There is no threat. You misunderstand the use of the idiom. It is used by me to indicate that your accusations of discrimination by moderators (ostensibly me), are ill-founded, as my "discrimination" tends to the reverse of the accusation. Thus you, as the wielder, may be injuring yourself with your own argument - "wrong end of the stick" (you're holding the sharp end).

I have discussed offline how disagreement is not in itself hostility. It appears you have not considered this in your quote here, when you categorize my contrary position on your accusations as an abuse of power.

Again, I reiterate, you are not the only person being addressed over that thread.

Cheers,
Marc
Moderator (not moderating)