Chris, if you paid more attention to your tone, you might understand why some of us object to some of your statements. Here is one example:
>>Don't you agree that they have handled that quite poorly? Telling people on the phone it would be this day, no this day, sorry next week, sorry please wait until September?<<
You intentionally misstate the facts. No one ever said "wait until September," except you. The company has said next week.
You have to expect people will not take kindly to you making up stories and distorting the facts in regard to a stock they own. Shame on you for making up such distortions.
It would be extremely unusual for a new BB company to get a mention in USA Today, especially a Canadian company, but you try to make it seem like somehow the company is at fault.
Here are a couple more examples of your offensive tone:
>>But I wonder how many of these other companies have a web page with a "FAQ" button that actually works as opposed to Planet City's pathetic.."
And it's so unbelievable anyway, that it's an affront to the intellect<<
As I said in a previous post, the company is working on this and says they will have it done soon. IMO, there are far more important things than getting your FAQ's quickly in order for a small company with a small staff.
If you choose to use loaded terms like "pathetic" and "affront to the intellect," over a small matter like FAQ's, then you should expect to get the kind of responses you have been getting and more. When you make a loaded criticism, expect a loaded answer. |
