Kiltstore.net kilts

[arrogcow]

I also thought the word 'shady' was unnecessarily rude Adam, unless an accusation of deliberate criminality was really what you meant to imply. That's what it suggests to me anyway. And the 'bait and switch' reference I also found pretty abusive, given that you'd already had an explanation that would mean any price differences would as likely be over as under. I know how easy it is to get carried away and sprays insults around online, as I'm known to do so myself. But in my more sober moments I also know these sorts of forums work best when everyone observes basic conventions of mutual respect. Not everyone has the thick skin that I'm guessing you take for granted. If it were me I'd feel an apology was due. But hey, you're a Noble and I'm a mere newbie, so what would I know.

Maybe just a language crossing the pond problem. Shady, meaning not being completely forthright, not criminal.

Bait and switch on the other hand is accurate (to a degree). It means that you go in expecting to pay one price, only to discover that everything actually costs more (In the US you used to get stores advertising things like TVs for $100, only to discover that they had one for sale that is, of course not gone, but look at all these other ones for $200). Kilt store has a few tartans at the price on the first page, none are cheaper, and most cost considerably more.

As for being thick skinned, mutual respect and an apology. First I have said that their reputation for service is stellar. I have not insulted their products (on the other hand I refer to your post about the Gold brothers http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=11440 , not that I don't agree, their stuff isn't worth anything). And I have not sugested that people not do business there (again which two do you want; price, quality, service). What I have done is give excellent customer feedback on why I don't shop there. This is actually valuable info. While I am not in league with Ron or Ham, I still expect to spend over $700 this year on kilts/accessories. Most businesses have someone who's job is to see to it that that $700 is theirs.

And being more expensive is not necessicarally bad. I receintly had a prospective client ask about my day rates (freelance camera man). When I told her, she nearly choked, and told me that they usually paid half that. I took the gig anyway, but I usually carry nearly $2000 of gear with me (and it all comes in handy) and none went on this gig. This client wanted price , most of my clients want quality and service, which is why my rates are what they are.

I am sorry if anyone thought I was accusing them of any criminal activity, however.

Adam

[JerryMacP]

Maybe just a language crossing the pond problem. Shady, meaning not being completely forthright, not criminal.

As you say, I suspect there's some cultural difference here, between us effete Brits and you straight-talkin' settlers. I was just reporting my own response when reading your initial words. I'm sure no offence was intended.

But without wanting to flog this to death, I'd like to clarify my point about politeness. For me there's a world of difference between being rude about someone behind their back, and being rude to their face. Maybe it's hypocritical, but it's also the stuff that makes societies functional, and prevents web boards descending into flame wars. So if I'm talking about someone I despise who is not present, I will happily criticise and condemn in no uncertain terms with the best of them. But face to face I'd still feel it important to maintain a basic tone of civility and fairness in expressing to them my reservations about their business practice. My point here was that the person who you were talking about in language that might easily be taken, even if not meant, as insulting (who'd already said they felt hurt by earlier words) was in the room and taking part in the conversation.

[arrogcow]

As you say, I suspect there's some cultural difference here, between us effete Brits and you straight-talkin' settlers. I was just reporting my own response when reading your initial words. I'm sure no offence was intended.

But without wanting to flog this to death, I'd like to clarify my point about politeness. For me there's a world of difference between being rude about someone behind their back, and being rude to their face. Maybe it's hypocritical, but it's also the stuff that makes societies functional, and prevents web boards descending into flame wars. So if I'm talking about someone I despise who is not present, I will happily criticise and condemn in no uncertain terms with the best of them. But face to face I'd still feel it important to maintain a basic tone of civility and fairness in expressing to them my reservations about their business practice. My point here was that the person who you were talking about in language that might easily be taken, even if not meant, as insulting (who'd already said they felt hurt by earlier words) was in the room and taking part in the conversation.

While I was not trying to flame anyone (really wasn't), I disagree. Anyone I say about anyone will be said to their face, and they have the opprotunity to rebut. now I agree that a fourm like this should be civil and respectful. There is one kiltmaker here (not a sponsor) that got an evil bashing from me in an e-mail once, that I never would have posted here (nor been allowed to).

But as porrick has said, we've veered from the topic. I am done other than to say, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended, it was not my intent."

adam