Steve Lacey
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24/2/05
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 2
When I saw Scotty's post yesterday I was also just learning for the first time about Mel's illness and was quite distressed about it. So at first I was also a bit taken aback by Scotty's post and could understand some of the reactions. But rather than jump hastily to conclusions and slam him on-line (so easy to do when you are hiding behind an anonymous handle, huh!) I sought off-line clarification and my mind was put to rest. Sure, it doesn't look good, but if you go back to the start of the thread and read down, there is no mention of Mel's ill health in this thread prior to Scotty's post. It is about the loss of availability of ESB wort kits from the market. It can be very reasonably argued that Scotty, as a supplier of an alternative product, was simply making information available for the benefit of those concerned about this situation. Isn't that what other retailers do on a frequent basis on this board? Provide adverts that also happen to be in the interests of the broader membership? Could he have done it in a more sensitive manner? Probably, but I don't think the guy should be hung out to dry for something that is done every other day on these message boards by other retailers.
It is obvious that people's emotional reactions would be heightened by the circumstances, but I'm satisfied that Scotty's post was not what it has been construed to be and, frankly, the posters who are so prepared to make personal vindictive statements should have the guts to do so under their real names. I wonder, for example, what vested interests some of the slammers might have in impugning Scotty's character on this board? An anonymous poster whose one and only post on this site is a personal attack on Scotty, and who gives off a whiff of familiarity with Scotty while citing that "everybody knows everybody in this industry", certainly raises suspicions of not being completely free of a vested interest.
It is obvious that people's emotional reactions would be heightened by the circumstances, but I'm satisfied that Scotty's post was not what it has been construed to be and, frankly, the posters who are so prepared to make personal vindictive statements should have the guts to do so under their real names. I wonder, for example, what vested interests some of the slammers might have in impugning Scotty's character on this board? An anonymous poster whose one and only post on this site is a personal attack on Scotty, and who gives off a whiff of familiarity with Scotty while citing that "everybody knows everybody in this industry", certainly raises suspicions of not being completely free of a vested interest.