Originally Posted by Philostang

I would agree, but I think he's already been warned. If so, that clearly hasn't helped correct his approach.

I for one LOVE to see someone disagree with Sam - intelligently. That's because I learn more from those exchanges than from 95% of the crap on the internet. We all benefit from a good debate over theory and practical experience, regardless if you agree or disagree with any of the sides of a debate.

Yet that is simply not what Just1Guy offers. All I've seen from him are unsubstantiated allegations delivered in a hostile manner. There's zero technical substance to his posts.

If the moderator has already warned Just1Guy, then I see no reason to continue to allow him to disrupt the useful exchange of knowledge and experience. I vote to ban.

-j

And for the record, the notion that "Sam is a vendor so he's inherently untrustworthy" is just false. I don't always agree with everything Sam says (at least as it pertains to what is best for me), I've gone against his recommendations, and I've spent MORE money as a result. One of the striking features of his customer service is that he'll steer you away from needless spending if he can. Sam is a business man (on top of other things) so he needs to turn a profit, but I'm pretty sure his business model is premised in large part on repeat customers and a widening client base that spreads by word of mouth. Making a quick one-time-sale sort of profit doesn't seem to be part of the equation. He could have made a lot more money off of me the first time we did business, but he "gently" (in that Sam-style way) asked me to reconsider my real needs. I saved a lot of money, and Sam gets whatever business I can give him.

Originally Posted by Just1Guy

One would think that attempting to “unmask” a vendor and show them for what they really are would be considered EXTREEMLY valuable?

Unless of course you just don’t want to hear it……