[Arm-netbook] Status update

[Paul Boddie]

On Monday, 21 November 2022 22:27:48 CET Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 9:02 PM Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > I have never communicated with Christopher Waid.
> 
> ah as Thinkpenguin is only 2.5 people, one of whom does not
> answer the support email, the probability that you were answered
> *by* Christopher Waid (without realising it) is very high.  apologies
> for not making that clear.

I have never communicated with ThinkPenguin, either. My remarks about 
ThinkPenguin's policy on commerce with the European Union, or lack thereof, 
was purely based on looking at their Web site.

> > I think I made that pretty clear in my previous messages,
> 
> Thinkpenguin is not a sole trader, but there is only Bob (internal-only
> technical R&D), Chris (main frontline support), and *one* part-time
> helper.
> 
> > so I don't know why you believe otherwise.
> 
> it's a reasonable (but unclear) logical deduction.

Well, I haven't communicated with Christopher Waid or ThinkPenguin.

> > Maybe quote me the text that isn't clear so that I will know to avoid such
> > misunderstandings in the future. For the record, I only ever sent a
> > general question to Crowd Supply asking what their policy was on failing
> > projects.
> 
> hang on - you sent a message to *Crowdsupply* and got a response from
> *Crowdsupply* saying "contact the project creators directly"?
> 
> that being the case, that was the correct response.

Yes, I got a message from Crowd Supply after having sent a message to Crowd 
Supply, although my own message was not about this project specifically, but I 
know that messages that were about this project have been met with "contact 
the project creators directly".

> > And perhaps, instead of chasing up Mr Waid, with whom I have no
> > contractual relationship, Crowd Supply might exercise their expertise in
> > ensuring that this project will not fail, given that they are so proud of
> > their perfect record and of "carefully vetting and working with our
> > projects".
> 
> it's just not their responsibility to do that.
> 
> it turns out that Joshua has in fact gone out of his way to help, at
> no obligation.

You're saying that Crowd Supply has no obligation to those who used its 
platform to fund projects. If so, that makes them barely any better than 
Kickstarter or Indiegogo and rather puts a different light on the various 
claims made about their capabilities and reputation.

Whether they genuinely believe they have no obligation or not, I would 
recommend caution on their part: people have successfully sought legal 
recourse for failed crowdfunding efforts in the past, regardless of what the 
small print claimed.

> Joshua has - *PERSONALLY* - offered to carry out the testing of all
> Cards, which was what i transferred 0.8 BTC to Chris for him to
> do [which Chris appears, as best can be discerned based on current
> behaviour and complete lack of responses, to have embezzled].

It is kind of anyone to go beyond any actual obligation they have, but all of 
this sounds like a dispute between people on the other side of the fence. So, 
although you have given us a status update in a way, I think that the only way 
forward is for those involved to resolve the dispute amongst themselves, not 
to drag in 1000 or so other people to do it for them.

Paul