Why not call it Anti-Troll-Troll Industries Inc?
1 Like
i dunno, you are the one adding all the adjectives to describe them.
are you sure its other people who are saying "40 pages in scare italics, is either very slack or disingenuous. It smacks of an attempt to make it sound like LOTS of peopleâ40 pages worthâhave complained. A DAMNING number! "
i mean. its 40 pages, described as 40 pages. thats a fact.
ok, so its also 5 complaints.
are they unfair complaints in your opinion? or is the word choice of the author (and that it was OBVIOUSLY intended to lead people more gullible than yourself to believe its an outrage) that is your own outrage here? or are you maybe concern trolling just a wee bit?
This kind of douchebaggery deserves a hitman, not legal action.
The post isnât about bringing attention to the individual company involved as much as bringing attention to the idea of people being brought to court over negative online reviews and companies who try to use threats of litigation against negative online reviews ending up actually having their bluff called and having to go to court. This case should be able to help set more legal precedent for that kind of situation.
Itâs interesting because that does have potential to impact a lot of lives. Anyone who would like to be able to trust the reviews posted online or who wants to post reviews about a business online or who has a business that might be reviewed online could be impacted by this case.
Well, there are people here in this very thread who seemed to find the story interesting, and not all of us live in the area and thus need to be worried about these shady contractors. If itâs not your cup of tea, itâs not that hard to ignore it and move on to the next post.
But with the hitman, the judge doesnât cheerfully grant you counter damages and a use permit; Iâve probably been using FindLaw wrong?
i mean. its 40 pages, described as 40 pages. thats a fact.
No - Itâs 40 pages described as a damning indictment of a companies business practices with the words 40 pages in italics to make sure that it is emphasized to draw attention. That is a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize the record in order to falsely build support for the articles argument. Thatâs my complaint. Ordinarily I am would have read the base article and said âChrist, what a bunch of assholesâ Now I read it and wonder about the honesty of the woman who filed the complaint, because honestly 5 complaints in 10 years doesnât strike me as excessive. especially not when half were settled between the parties.
Itâs not only that, now having an example of how they are willing to trim the truth I wonder about the basic honesty in anything else that is reported on this site including things like the issues with the Google buses in SF. Slippery slope.
So Baybrook have sued over 40 customers and astroturfed on the web, but the important thing is that the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection file is only 5 complaints. OK then.
1 Like
well, thats your opinion.
to me you sound like you are reaching and putting off some hyperbolic claptrap of the very sort that annoys you.
and there ate reports of astroturfers? huh. who knew.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
