Post#231 » by Illuminaire » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:33 pm
Ace...
Your first post made a fact claim - that Ted Leonsis (Mr. Groupon) conducted unethical business practices.
This claim is very specific. Your statement cannot be interpreted in very many ways, and all of them include Ted himself being directly involved in this unethical business activity.
You then gave us an article link. The obvious inference is that the link would provide the factual basis for your truth claim. If it did not, then your statement was unsupported. That article did go on to discuss a shady business tactic... by a groupon client. The author of the article clearly placed the blame on FTD, with only an indirect rebuke aimed at Groupon. Moreover, the author's ire at Groupon was actually based on the fact that up until this incident, they had acted in an honorable and ethical manner with customers.
In other words, this incident appeared to be a departure from their normal standards of operation. Even when other clients had reneged on their coupons, Groupon had covered that for customers who informed them, so it was shocking to the author that they were not doing so with FTD - shock he had to repeal because Groupon WAS refunding the difference in cost.
Your linked article does not condemn Groupon. It does not reveal unethical business practices. At worst it reveals a corporate mistake that Groupon had only a small part in. At WORST, mind you. Furthermore, the article does not even attempt to link any of this to specific decision maker, which would be absolutely necessary to support your accusation that Ted Leonsis conducted unethical business practices.
To summarize, your truth claim is:
1) Unsupported by the article you listed
2) Requires the outright fabrication of additional "facts"
3) Exaggerated beyond reason
So yes, you employed hyperbole and twisted facts. There is no "not quite" about it. That is what you did, period.
PS: It's not a "cover up" when a company refunds a consumer's money. If you walked down to Walmart and bought something, then found out it's broken, you would take it back. Walmart would then refund your money or exchange the item for another one. None of that means that Walmart WANTED to sell you a bad product (unethical) or that they tried to hide the fact that they did (a cover up). It just means you got a bum item and they made it right by giving your money back.
PPS: There is a reason that hearsay is not permissible as evidence in courts of law. For the same reason, resting your *entire* argument on the blog postings left by random internet people at the end of an article is irresponsible and unconvincing. The bar for truth is higher than internet rumors, even here.