Re: Re: Re: Re: ...and I want Bacon Cheeseburgers without the fat.
Except that the underwear bomber wasn't noticed until AFTER his explosive device caught fire instead of detonating. So, in my mind, he won that one... he had assembled his bomb, probably gave a quick silent prayer and pushed his button... but his device failed. He didn't resist when the passengers 'subdued' him.
"Thanks, I had it backwards but you proved my point. Removing the TSA would prove effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Lack of change = ineffective."
If I agree to your Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc argument, sure why not. However, until extensive studies and tests are done ALL of the factors involved, you cannot point to any one factor and say "There! That's the one that's doing it!"
So, no, I didn't prove your point. I merely made you more entrenched in a logical fallacy.
"We're focusing all our attention on airlines? Only in this article. That's why I instructed you to limit the discussion to the act of flying planes into buildings.
The webs are alight with blogs about all security measures involving malls, power grid, cyber battles, mail bombs, etc. It's only because of the naked scans and pat downs that we discuss airports now."
Of course this article is focused on the airports... because that's where the subject of privacy-invasion comes in. That's my whole point... look at all the attention the media is giving to just this ONE facet of anti-terrorism work. And that's why terrorists will have an easier time sneaking in the back door. Because one of our primary weapons in this - the alertness and awareness of the citizenry - is focused elsewhere.
"I understood your sentence and still ask, how did these experts prove these were ineffective? It is the TSA that is using these security measures after all. If you have time, give me a link."
I would argue that you didn't understand my sentence... hence your response of
"You say that independent research, testing and experts proved the TSA is ineffective? How did they do that?"
...which is NOT what I said.
But now that you do seem to understand what I was talking about, let me Google a few links for you:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/german_tv_on_th.html here's a site that has a link to my favorite video about the failure of the system to find multiple objects. Yes, some or most of them are in the guy’s jacket and that would have been removed, but what about the one in his mouth? Oops.
I'm sure there's more, but I'm at work and can't spend all day searching the interwebs for you.
"Nitpick? You brought up sentence structure first I believe, before that I said nothing about your frequent misspellings."
Before that ('that' being the first post I mentioned the sentence error), the only errors in my spelling were the ones I copied & pasted for quote purposes.
Again, feel free to point out the 'frequent misspellings' before my mention of grammar.
"By the way, I said "transportation" on my poorly structured sentence, not just planes, but you don't read any better than you spell."
From previous:
"The primary goal of the TSA is to protect us from someone that would use transportation including planes as a missile or save the lives of passengers."
You stated that, then proceeded to instruct me to limit my arguments to the act of flying planes into buildings. You tell me how I misread that?
"The would prove either effectiveness or ineffectiveness, because if it is ineffective like you say, casualties would go up."
Nooo... because if they are ineffective at stopping terrorism, there would be no change in casualties when those measures are removed from the equation.
"The TSA is not in charge of malls, they are in charge of transportation. "
True, but are those threats changed by the fact that we are focusing all of our attention on airlines? If anything, I think terrorists are sneaking in the back door while we're watching the front just because that's where they came in last time. Or, more accurately, I think that’s the stronger possibility than using airlines again.
"You say that independent research, testing and experts proved the TSA is ineffective? How did they do that?"
Read again:
"And they put into place security measures that independent research, testing and experts prove are INEFFECTIVE AT THEIR STATED PURPOUS[sic]."
The subject of the sentence is [security measures]. That is what is being proven to be ineffective... not the TSA. Want me to clear it up a bit? Here:
Security measures which are proven INNEFECTIVE AT THIER STATED PURPOSE by independent research, testing and experts are put into place by the TSA. Better? Maybe more grammatically-correct, but I think my point is clearer the other way. Sorry if it's misleading or confusing
""The terrorists love the fact that are security is so focused on ONE method of terror that they have quite a few alternatives that we haven't locked up yet."
Was that you? Correct me if I'm wrong."
I was referring to alternative methods of attack. Some of which have already been stated in this and many other blogs: such as bombing a mall at holiday shopping madness, a large sporting event (although, would we REALLY mourn the loss of a Nascar event? ;) )
And, ok you caught my spelling errors that I missed in my spellchecker... but why not point out the three consecutive "thier"'s I had in there? Or my misspelling of "noes"? Or how about where I failed to hyphenate "poorly-structured"? If you're going to nitpick, feel free... but admit that my spelling errors was not corrupting my point. Your error was leading to a potential misunderstanding of your point. I'm a bad speller... I'll admit that. Want to admit to your poor sentence structure?
"The only way to prove the TSA is ineffective is to quit screening entirely then add up the casualties."
I almost forgot that you actually replied to the points I was making and not just the spelling errors... altho both seemed quite lacking.
Actually, you're arguing against yourself there. If we were to stop all screening and watch the body count rise, all we would is how effective they were. To prove how ineffective they are, keep them in place and watch terrorists find other avenues of attack and laugh at us banning our >3oz hair gel bottles, water bottles, and Dr. Scholl's Inserts. All they have to do is blow up a mall and watch as we continue to feel each other up in airport security lines.
The TSA is ineffective because they are (to use another of your hated cliches) closing the barn door after the horse has already left. But the real problem with that is that they are doing so while saying "Look America, we're winning! We're sorry about your freedoms, but it's all for a good cause!" And they put into place security measures that independent research, testing and experts prove are INEFFECTIVE AT THEIR STATED PURPOUS.
I equate the whole farce to smoke and mirrors. And I'm not going to limit my view to just using a 747 to fly into a building, because the TSA is not trying to prevent just that. The whole reason for the ATI and 'enhanced pat-down' was BECAUSE of the underwear bomber. So why would I exclude that incident from my argument?
Just like the 3+3+1 rule for liquids. That was instituted because of a foiled plot where someone was going to create an explosive device using gels carried on with them. But that was foiled in the UK, not America. We instituted the 3+3+1 to stop that kind of plot from happening here. Because I'm SO sure that terrorists would try it again after they saw how successful it was there. And that doesn't even take into account the GLARING hole in the logic of the 3+3+1: if I can't make enough explosive with the items I'm carrying, me and my accomplices could surely bring enough separately to combine later.
"How do you find out how many terrorists have canceled plans because of the screenings?"
I have no idea. Do you? Until you do, don't tell me that it's working just because something hasn't happened yet. There are many different factors that could be causing that... such as, not the least, the fact that it's a more tactically-sound plan to try a new and unexpected method of attack. You're using a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc argument. To quote Frank Herbert's character who was paraphrasing Nietzsche: "The noes does not cause the tail!"
"The primary goal of the TSA is to protect us from someone that would use transportation including planes as a missile or save the lives of passengers."
I will assume that your poorly structured sentance meant that you believe the primary goal of the TSA is to prevent terrorists from using transportation as missles (including planes), and to save the lives of passengers. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I'm right, you are WAY off of thier purpose. Here's thier statement on thier own website...
We are your neighbors, friends and relatives. We are 50,000 security officers, inspectors, directors, air marshals and managers who protect the nation's transportation systems so you and your family can travel safely. We look for bombs at checkpoints in airports, we inspect rail cars, we patrol subways with our law enforcement partners, and we work to make all modes of transportation safe.
Sounds to me like their purpose is MUCH larger than just scanning you at the airport to make sure you don't fly the plane into a building. They arn't the Airport Security Authority or the No More Missle-Planes Authority.
"That ONE terrorist stopped in the screening could save hundreds of lives makes it worth it to me."
So where do you draw the line for your privacy and the privacy of the THOUSANDS and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who would be groped and prodded unnecessarily? What about the rape and assault victims and children who have to be subjected to that? If 1,000,000 people are scarred, is that your balance for a couple of hundred lives saved? And what if no terrorist is ever seen again? How many hypothetical lives do you tell yourself were saved so that you can sleep?
"List the alternatives you speak of, and keep it in reference to flying a 747 into a skyscraper."
Again, I refuse to limit the scope of my argument just to make yours sound more relevant. I never mentioned alternatives, but since you asked... I agree with the idea that passengers could be armed with non-lethal items such as stun-guns or a good ol' stick with which to subdue terrorists. Or, and I think I'm echoing a few people here, how about we accept the risks of the world we live in without SUCCUMBING TO TERROR.
The sheep comment is old, lame, and used by truthers across the globe. I'll keep posting, you keep smacking the cliches.
Its age, proliferation and list of users does not negate its relevance and applicability. If you'd prefer, I can use a parrot, since you seem to like bring up tired rhetoric of "never again" and "worth it in the end". How about I use “uncaring, heartless sociopath” since you want to try a Machiavellian "ends justify the means" excuse? Or, if none of those are to your liking, how about “mindless knee-jerk reactionary nationalist masquerading as a patriot by playing the 9/11-Card”?
You keep pointing at cliches, I'll keep smacking the logical fallacies down.
"TSA has never caught a terrorist with the scans or pat downs? It hasn't happened YET. It will happen, and when it does the guy that objected to the pat down will be the first to sue. Ignore the fact that someone put a bomb in their UNDERWEAR trying to kill innocents."
You're new here, yes? We've already covered the fact that the 'underwear bomber':
1) Was never subjected to any TSA screening... he was coming in from out-of-country
2) was only stopped because the device he had on his body ONBOARD THE PLANE failed to detonate properly
3) would not have been stopped by a 'grope' because the back/top of the hand would fail to notice anything out of the ordinary with materials stitched into the underwear.
So tell me... how are the TSA doing anything? Just because no one's been caught doesn't mean the measures are working. That's like saying the Elephant Repellant works in New York City.
The terrorists love the fact that are security is so focused on ONE method of terror that they have quite a few alternatives that we haven't locked up yet. What they REALLY love is the multitude of sheep that have been lulled into a false sense of security by the TSA telling them "don't worry, you're safe because we're doing THIS".
If you're going to strip away my freedoms, at least do it for something more than a smoke & mirrors theater performance aimed at making sheep more comfortable and docile. Go baaaaah somewhere else.
YES! When you go over to the side and the TSA agent explaines the proceedure, look him directly in the eye and tell him "you're going to love my nuts" with a wistful, anticipitory smile. Then ask him if it was good for him too. Make it as rediculously uncomfortable for them as it is for us.
Re: Re: Cars can drive themselves. Why not Airplanes?
"Suicide means no payout, so a suicide bomber probably doesn't have life insurance. So don't let people without life insurance buy same-day one-way tickets for cash. "
Sorry... I was an insurance agent for a life company. need to correct a small point to this: Suicide within the first two years = no payout. After those two years, it'll pay.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
"Being deemed malicious is an opinion or accusation open to interpretation, for which there are libel laws.
COICA addresses sites which are already clearly illegally infringing. It's right out there in the open at this very moment. Go look some up. The evidence is conveniently already displayed for us. You already know this. And so does everyone else. You're not fooling anyone with this approach."
And there you're wrong... by whose estimation are those sites "clearly illegally infringing"? The main problem that Mike has been pointing out is that this law will allow the 'powers that be' to shut down whole websites without the due process of accusation and defense. All a 'wronged party' has to do is point the DOJ at the offending website and it's shut down in its entirety.
To show why this is bad, look at a political site... one that says something the political majority doesn't like. All they have to do is abuse the COICA (just like many entities do with DMCA) and accuse that site of infringement. It's removed from the internet. And while this site is jumping through the hoops and cutting the red tape to get their legal and legitimate contact back online, their opponents have successfully (and illegally) silenced them. But since there's a law in place that allows this process, it's cloaked in the sheep's clothing of law.
And here's another problem... you tried a grocery store selling illegal substances as a parallel to a website who is hosting content. And that analogy is flawed in one major point... a grocery store selling goods is not expression. A website's legitimate content IS. So by removing a website in whole is blocking the free expression of that legitimate content.
You make a lot of noise to debunk what Mike is trying to say, but you don't seem to listen to what he's saying the first place. You take side points and misquotes and ignore the main point just to sound right... as though you being right automatically makes Mike wrong. There's a logical fallacy for that, but I'm too lazy at the moment to Google it.
I must be a sucker for punishment... second time this week I've fed trolls....
One problem with your argument... There IS a difference between 'stolen property' (what you call fenced goods) and 'copied intellectual property'. One is theft and the other is not.
I'm with crade... except I wouldn't call it a myth, I'd call it an excuse to be angsty. The only 'anarchy' I've ever seen (outside of setting up a 5 year-old’s birthday party) is rebellious youth who flock to anarchy as a way to do whatever they want without consequence.
I previously worked for a company which uses a large number of agents. We (finally) were able to let them create business Facebook pages for their agencies. One of the things we harped on was proper response to negative criticism.
While the whole "don't sue a negative commenter" wasn't exactly expressed, "don't delete negative comments" was. We told them that taking the opportunity to publicly respond politely and professionally to the situation gives them the opportunity to turn that negative comment into positive advertising.
If you leave me a negative comment, and I reply "Mr. Customer, I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Please come by the office some time so we can discuss how to make this right for you"... how good does that look? If you came across that kind of exchange you might very well think "wow, this customer is just a disgruntled blaster and the owner is trying to fix it".
However, if you delete comments or SUE them, you look like someone with something to hide.
On the post: TSA Agents Absolutely Hate New Pat Downs, Find Them Disgusting And Morale Breaking
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...and I want Bacon Cheeseburgers without the fat.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
If I agree to your Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc argument, sure why not. However, until extensive studies and tests are done ALL of the factors involved, you cannot point to any one factor and say "There! That's the one that's doing it!"
So, no, I didn't prove your point. I merely made you more entrenched in a logical fallacy.
Of course this article is focused on the airports... because that's where the subject of privacy-invasion comes in. That's my whole point... look at all the attention the media is giving to just this ONE facet of anti-terrorism work. And that's why terrorists will have an easier time sneaking in the back door. Because one of our primary weapons in this - the alertness and awareness of the citizenry - is focused elsewhere.
I would argue that you didn't understand my sentence... hence your response of ...which is NOT what I said.
But now that you do seem to understand what I was talking about, let me Google a few links for you:
http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20101116-31209.html here's the one that Techdirt pointed to
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/tsa-says-better-body-scanners-will-end-p rivacy-uproar-dont-bet-on-it/66761/ here's another one that discusses the problem with the analysis technology, though I hesitate to label it as 'expert'.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/german_tv_on_th.html here's a site that has a link to my favorite video about the failure of the system to find multiple objects. Yes, some or most of them are in the guy’s jacket and that would have been removed, but what about the one in his mouth? Oops.
I'm sure there's more, but I'm at work and can't spend all day searching the interwebs for you.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
Before that ('that' being the first post I mentioned the sentence error), the only errors in my spelling were the ones I copied & pasted for quote purposes.
Again, feel free to point out the 'frequent misspellings' before my mention of grammar.
On the post: The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
*perhaps
Time to fire either my coffee or my spellchecker. One of them is failing here. :/
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
I wasn't nitpicking... I was seeking clarification. Was I a bit pithy in my method? Perhapse. I'm a smartass. Sorry if I offended you with that.
But do feel free to point out my 'frequest misspellings' before the post that I helped rip back apart.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
*my spelling errors WERE
*PURPOSE
FTFM
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
And, ok you caught my spelling errors that I missed in my spellchecker... but why not point out the three consecutive "thier"'s I had in there? Or my misspelling of "noes"? Or how about where I failed to hyphenate "poorly-structured"? If you're going to nitpick, feel free... but admit that my spelling errors was not corrupting my point. Your error was leading to a potential misunderstanding of your point. I'm a bad speller... I'll admit that. Want to admit to your poor sentence structure? I almost forgot that you actually replied to the points I was making and not just the spelling errors... altho both seemed quite lacking.
Actually, you're arguing against yourself there. If we were to stop all screening and watch the body count rise, all we would is how effective they were. To prove how ineffective they are, keep them in place and watch terrorists find other avenues of attack and laugh at us banning our >3oz hair gel bottles, water bottles, and Dr. Scholl's Inserts. All they have to do is blow up a mall and watch as we continue to feel each other up in airport security lines.
The TSA is ineffective because they are (to use another of your hated cliches) closing the barn door after the horse has already left. But the real problem with that is that they are doing so while saying "Look America, we're winning! We're sorry about your freedoms, but it's all for a good cause!" And they put into place security measures that independent research, testing and experts prove are INEFFECTIVE AT THEIR STATED PURPOUS.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
Just like the 3+3+1 rule for liquids. That was instituted because of a foiled plot where someone was going to create an explosive device using gels carried on with them. But that was foiled in the UK, not America. We instituted the 3+3+1 to stop that kind of plot from happening here. Because I'm SO sure that terrorists would try it again after they saw how successful it was there. And that doesn't even take into account the GLARING hole in the logic of the 3+3+1: if I can't make enough explosive with the items I'm carrying, me and my accomplices could surely bring enough separately to combine later. I have no idea. Do you? Until you do, don't tell me that it's working just because something hasn't happened yet. There are many different factors that could be causing that... such as, not the least, the fact that it's a more tactically-sound plan to try a new and unexpected method of attack. You're using a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc argument. To quote Frank Herbert's character who was paraphrasing Nietzsche: "The noes does not cause the tail!" I will assume that your poorly structured sentance meant that you believe the primary goal of the TSA is to prevent terrorists from using transportation as missles (including planes), and to save the lives of passengers. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I'm right, you are WAY off of thier purpose. Here's thier statement on thier own website... Sounds to me like their purpose is MUCH larger than just scanning you at the airport to make sure you don't fly the plane into a building. They arn't the Airport Security Authority or the No More Missle-Planes Authority. So where do you draw the line for your privacy and the privacy of the THOUSANDS and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who would be groped and prodded unnecessarily? What about the rape and assault victims and children who have to be subjected to that? If 1,000,000 people are scarred, is that your balance for a couple of hundred lives saved? And what if no terrorist is ever seen again? How many hypothetical lives do you tell yourself were saved so that you can sleep? Again, I refuse to limit the scope of my argument just to make yours sound more relevant. I never mentioned alternatives, but since you asked... I agree with the idea that passengers could be armed with non-lethal items such as stun-guns or a good ol' stick with which to subdue terrorists. Or, and I think I'm echoing a few people here, how about we accept the risks of the world we live in without SUCCUMBING TO TERROR. Its age, proliferation and list of users does not negate its relevance and applicability. If you'd prefer, I can use a parrot, since you seem to like bring up tired rhetoric of "never again" and "worth it in the end". How about I use “uncaring, heartless sociopath” since you want to try a Machiavellian "ends justify the means" excuse? Or, if none of those are to your liking, how about “mindless knee-jerk reactionary nationalist masquerading as a patriot by playing the 9/11-Card”?
You keep pointing at cliches, I'll keep smacking the logical fallacies down.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Please don't fly
You're new here, yes? We've already covered the fact that the 'underwear bomber':
1) Was never subjected to any TSA screening... he was coming in from out-of-country
2) was only stopped because the device he had on his body ONBOARD THE PLANE failed to detonate properly
3) would not have been stopped by a 'grope' because the back/top of the hand would fail to notice anything out of the ordinary with materials stitched into the underwear.
So tell me... how are the TSA doing anything? Just because no one's been caught doesn't mean the measures are working. That's like saying the Elephant Repellant works in New York City.
The terrorists love the fact that are security is so focused on ONE method of terror that they have quite a few alternatives that we haven't locked up yet. What they REALLY love is the multitude of sheep that have been lulled into a false sense of security by the TSA telling them "don't worry, you're safe because we're doing THIS".
If you're going to strip away my freedoms, at least do it for something more than a smoke & mirrors theater performance aimed at making sheep more comfortable and docile. Go baaaaah somewhere else.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Hey it's Vince with the slap chop
On the post:
BackscatterMillimeter Wave Naked Scanners Confused By Folds In ClothingRe: Re: Cars can drive themselves. Why not Airplanes?
Sorry... I was an insurance agent for a life company. need to correct a small point to this: Suicide within the first two years = no payout. After those two years, it'll pay.
On the post: The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
COICA addresses sites which are already clearly illegally infringing. It's right out there in the open at this very moment. Go look some up. The evidence is conveniently already displayed for us. You already know this. And so does everyone else. You're not fooling anyone with this approach."
And there you're wrong... by whose estimation are those sites "clearly illegally infringing"? The main problem that Mike has been pointing out is that this law will allow the 'powers that be' to shut down whole websites without the due process of accusation and defense. All a 'wronged party' has to do is point the DOJ at the offending website and it's shut down in its entirety.
To show why this is bad, look at a political site... one that says something the political majority doesn't like. All they have to do is abuse the COICA (just like many entities do with DMCA) and accuse that site of infringement. It's removed from the internet. And while this site is jumping through the hoops and cutting the red tape to get their legal and legitimate contact back online, their opponents have successfully (and illegally) silenced them. But since there's a law in place that allows this process, it's cloaked in the sheep's clothing of law.
And here's another problem... you tried a grocery store selling illegal substances as a parallel to a website who is hosting content. And that analogy is flawed in one major point... a grocery store selling goods is not expression. A website's legitimate content IS. So by removing a website in whole is blocking the free expression of that legitimate content.
You make a lot of noise to debunk what Mike is trying to say, but you don't seem to listen to what he's saying the first place. You take side points and misquotes and ignore the main point just to sound right... as though you being right automatically makes Mike wrong. There's a logical fallacy for that, but I'm too lazy at the moment to Google it.
On the post: The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: ?
One problem with your argument... There IS a difference between 'stolen property' (what you call fenced goods) and 'copied intellectual property'. One is theft and the other is not.
On the post: MPAA Boss Defends Censorships With Blatantly False Claims
Logic Shredding
On the post: The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
Re: No Georgians!
On the post: The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
Re: Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
On the post: Let's Play A Game: Anarchist Or Photo Op?
Re: Re: Re: One more thing
My favorite illustration of this is from Something Positive: http://somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml
"This is anarchy! Where the strong rule the weak and guess where your place is Puglsey? Anarchy is your sixth grade gym class for all eternity!"
On the post: Doctor Sues Patients Over Bad Yelp Reviews
Re: Yelp and free speach
While the whole "don't sue a negative commenter" wasn't exactly expressed, "don't delete negative comments" was. We told them that taking the opportunity to publicly respond politely and professionally to the situation gives them the opportunity to turn that negative comment into positive advertising.
If you leave me a negative comment, and I reply "Mr. Customer, I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Please come by the office some time so we can discuss how to make this right for you"... how good does that look? If you came across that kind of exchange you might very well think "wow, this customer is just a disgruntled blaster and the owner is trying to fix it".
However, if you delete comments or SUE them, you look like someone with something to hide.
Next >>