Gregory wrote:
There's little more to be said than that Sonor has lied by omission.
.
cliff wrote:
Addressing the issue itself:
Based on input from both the museum discussion and other sources as well, it is my opinion that (i) there may have been deliberate intent to deceive at the point where manufactured veneers were first used in place of genuine natural veneers, (ii) there may have been deliberate intent to avoid the question, after the fact, as to whether any and/or which veneers might be other than genuine natural veneers, (iii) what we hear through certain ‘unofficial’ channels is poorly crafted post-facto rationalization for a perceived deception, and, (iv) that parties involved including, but not limited to those involved in the manufacture and distribution of the product perceive some degree of further exposure, whether legal, reputational or commercial, and rightly so.
Addressing the reaction to the issue:
A wide range of alleged constituents have weighed in, including:
I. Current owners of kits whose veneers are subject to question
II. Past owners, now disinvested, unaffected economically, but intellectually embarrassed that they could have been deceived, and emotionally bruised over by the fact that they may have been deceived
III. Those with no exposure, involvement or ownership at any time of any of the products in question
IV. Those unknowingly involved in purveying a product subsequently called into question
V. Purported lovers of the product, whom in reality, may be more lovers of the company, or whose objectivity may have been discarded in trade for a tarnished halo from a relationship with the company
VI. Any combination of the above
VII. Revisionists who now tell a story about their actual decision process, involvement and experience that differs from accounts posted publicly in the past. Manny owns this category for now taking umbrage to having paid handsomely to be deceived, overlooking extensive prior public posting about the cartage company he worked for having bought the kit for the rental market, at an advantageous price befitting their importance in the market. Some time after sudden and unexplained separation from the company, he becomes owner of the kit (presumably at something even less than his employer bought it for), and subsequently sells it. He loves being a conspiracy victim, and this particular victimization, like the others is fraught with factual problems and with logic leaps that most just can not make.
The motives, degree of involvement and in some cases, the personality of each constituent must be considered. The attempts being made by some to convince others that they have not been mislead seem unfounded, and the folks that concede that deception may have occurred but that the buyer is ‘wrong’ to feel however he may about it show a mouth that is large enough for their brain to have been extracted through.
Thanks for asking, Hale.
I guess there was a lot more to be said. Thanks for laying it out so cogently, Cliff.
Login
Register
FAQ
