Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hispls" data-source="post: 8633042" data-attributes="member: 614752">So far, all those statements are hearsay at best.&nbsp; Treat this like an exercise in journalism who what why where and when.For example:&quot;On (Insert date here) (insert name of complainant here) of (Insert city and state of complainant here) bought (Insert offending item in question here).&quot;From there you can post any actual evidence (pictures of products, receipts, paypal/credit card claim, or sworn affidavits) then post Coleman&#039;s response (or state that he has not responded).What this does is gives Coleman something substantial to address, gives the rest of us some idea of how many people are claiming wrongdoing, and also lets us see who these people are and what evidence they can show and determine the validity of their claims based on not only their reputation but their evidence.&nbsp;&nbsp; I&#039;m not even saying some of that isn&#039;t true but I&#039;d bet my life&#039;s savings that some of it is bullshit by scammers looking to get over or just people who have a beef against CT Sounds.Honestly this is like reading a CNN headline then when you actually look at the story it&#039;s &quot;sources familiar with XXX say&quot; or &quot;a Washington insider said&quot;.&nbsp; It&#039;s just incredibly lazy and dishonest for all involved.If you care so much post facts and specifics as you would present them if you were a credible journalist or as if you were presenting them to a jury.&nbsp; &quot;Some guy on faceberg said&quot; is only taken seriously in a 9th grade girl&#039;s bathroom or in some hoodrat shootout over &quot;disrespect&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hispls, post: 8633042, member: 614752"] So far, all those statements are hearsay at best. Treat this like an exercise in journalism who what why where and when. For example: "On (Insert date here) (insert name of complainant here) of (Insert city and state of complainant here) bought (Insert offending item in question here)." From there you can post any actual evidence (pictures of products, receipts, paypal/credit card claim, or sworn affidavits) then post Coleman's response (or state that he has not responded). What this does is gives Coleman something substantial to address, gives the rest of us some idea of how many people are claiming wrongdoing, and also lets us see who these people are and what evidence they can show and determine the validity of their claims based on not only their reputation but their evidence. I'm not even saying some of that isn't true but I'd bet my life's savings that some of it is bullshit by scammers looking to get over or just people who have a beef against CT Sounds. Honestly this is like reading a CNN headline then when you actually look at the story it's "sources familiar with XXX say" or "a Washington insider said". It's just incredibly lazy and dishonest for all involved. If you care so much post facts and specifics as you would present them if you were a credible journalist or as if you were presenting them to a jury. "Some guy on faceberg said" is only taken seriously in a 9th grade girl's bathroom or in some hoodrat shootout over "disrespect". [/QUOTE]

Verification