Don't Support Incorrect, Anti-Kodak Topic Post Titles Found on Non-Hostboard Forums

[Alex]

I guarantee that every topics page (25 per page), should have at least one (I hope) topic you would find of interest.

If I had my druthers, I would rather the stickies stay at the bottom of page one, rather than the top, so it could be of importance, but not the number one important thing. I asked on the ADM forum if this could be an option, and was told it could not be an option.

So either I do nothing, or it looks like it's the number one issue, neither are my choices. I really got treated wrongly on Shooting 8mm. I said nothing for 2 or 3 weeks assuming that the passage of time would heal the situation, but it did not.

Do a search on Shooting 8mm with the name Alex, and read my posts, you'll be shocked at how polite I was, and I only got "tough" AFTER I began to get pummeled by the usual suspects, Mattias, Basstruc, eventually Roger.

I even would carefully construct phrases SPECIFICALLY to avoid confrontation. Phrases such as, "I am probably in the minority on this point, but....", but to no avail.

If you have Super-8 posts to make, they will be appreciated here.

[wahiba]

Well, for the record Kodak have redeemed themselves. The film came back a second time from Kodak. Obviously not processed, it is old KII, but with a proper explanation.

Now if they had managed this first time around this whole thread would not have happened. [img]redface.gif[/img]

[Alex]

Thanks for the update.

Although I seem to recall that Kodak did send you shipping instructions and a mailing address as to where to send your KII film, they just didn't explain to you why they had sent you your film back.

I believe when negative statements are incorrectly used in the TITLE of a topic post, they should be corrected rather then left as is. The only thing Kodak did, and it wasn't necessarily wrong was they sent you your film back with shipping instructions as to where you needed to send your film to get it properly developed.

Kodak didn't deserve the term bozo in the topic post title for that action. If you want to call them a bozo, in your words, in describing what happened, that is your business. But putting such a harsh, inaccurate claim for all to see, in the topic title, seems to cross a line of fairness.

I'm not condemning you, this is just common sense and something that a forum moderator should police.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 24, 2003 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[wahiba]

It was incompetence. When it came back the second time it was with a printed note correctly explaining the situation.

The first time it could have been for any of many reasons. I suspected that someone had returned it as though it were a non pre-paid ektachrome.

Consequently a Kodak employee was a 'bozo' which naturally transfers to the company.

I actually think Kodak has come clean by returning it the second time correctly. Nothing in this world is 100% perfect, and obviously Kodak realise that.

[Alex]

While this may be a pride issue for you, I see a bigger issue, using topic titles to present an opinion as fact.

In your opinion, you think Kodak mishandled the situation. In the body of your post, what you say is your business. Calling an anonymous Kodak employee a bozo in the topic title, as you did, simply because Kodak returned your film to you undeveloped because it was an emulsion that they hadn't processed in over 20 years; and Kodak returned it with alternate addresses that would help you get your film developed, seems like a very reasonable procedure by Kodak.

I'm still not understanding why you didn't post a question on the Super-8 forums about why your film may have come back BEFORE sending it back to Kodak the second time.

[wahiba]

[img]smile.gif[/img] That is easy. i was p++++d off at the return without adequate explanation.

[img]wink.gif[/img] The only problem I have ever had is an unprocessed film without adequate explanation.

[img]graemlins/smarty.gif[/img] I will now attempt to resolve the probelm by procesing it myself, at least in b&w. The colour process looks a bit complicated.