[mythtv-users] Data Direct "service"

[Bruce Markey]

David Brodbeck wrote:
> Brian Guilfoos wrote:
>> I love it.  Nothing quite like pissing off the customer by refusing to
>> let him/her vent.  Admit a problem, inform that you are trying to fix

While I appreciate the supportive slant, the implication that
I was "vent"ing is incorrect. I had stated that the fault was
not in myth but in DD (eventually acknowledged) and asking that
they set expectations. Any venting I've done has been here
after the fact. I suppose you may have meant not letting me vent
after I was banned but if I wasn't banned, I'd have nothing to
vent =).

It is now clear that they were trying to keep this under wraps
and could not allow a messages to stand that pointed out this
problem that they were not responding to. They continued to remove
messages and lock thread and have stated that they (he/she) will
continue to remove messages that they do not want to acknowledge.

labsadmin:
"it's not like any of the complaints will make us get a fix any
faster. Any additional threads will be deleted/closed on site."

Despite the juvenile colloquialism "it's not like" and the word
"site" in place of "sight". this is as close to a statement from
TMS as we've seen. This verifies that the policy of this person
(although it may not be that if the company) is to delete messages
that they simply do not want to see or acknowledge. I would
suggest that this merits quotation marks around the word "service".

>> it, and allow users to blow off a little steam.  Brownshirting it and
>> locking critical threads will just push customers towards critical mass
>> more quickly.

I agree. Someone is learning a hard lesson and by the end of
the week was compelled to do what they should have done at
the beginning of the week.

> Well, except "customers" implies that we're paying something for the

We are registered customers for the (")service(") they
provide.

> service.  We're not, so we have to content ourselves with whatever
> they're generous enough to provide.

I covered this at length elsewhere in this thread. This is a
(")service(") they initialized and imposed (rather sternly on
XMLTV). They are the beneficiaries and this is by no means
an act of generosity on their part and this is the "number
two" referred to in my other message.

> It makes for a lopsided power arrangement.

That is true but it sounds as if your assumption of which way
it is leaning is incorrect.

--  bjm