I don't know. There will always be folks who respond inappropriately, and in fact, many of us, in my experience, have probably responded inappropriately at some time on some board- it's the nature of email and forum communication. I think the key is to learn who tends to go off and who doesn't, and to not respond when they do. I have found that many people who tend to respond inappropriately also make positive at other times.
I appreciate Bill's comment, and all the more so because he has earned my respect. I have nonetheless decided to no longer post in or participate in the printers forum. No more "rants" from me. This is my final posting.
My recent posts made two points, and the defenders of HP at-all-costs disagreed even with these:
(1) That anyone who receives equipment for free, such as the Z3200, either on a temporary or permanent basis, has an ethical obligation to disclose that when posting either positive or negative comments -- but especially in the case of posting positive reviews. It is a clear cut ethical conflict of interest to not do so.
The only person who did so, in the case of the Z3200, was Bill Morse, and I again commend and compliment him for doing so. Bill also educated me on my own naivety. It hadn't occurred to me that those posting and reporting on the Z3200 received it for free. Bill flatly asserted that it applied in the case of every posting from every person who has a Z3200, since it is not even available for sale yet. No, that hadn't occurred to me, and I doubt it would be so self-evident to a casual reader of the forum. Apparently everyone else thinks it is acceptable to take free equipment, not disclose that fact, and post rave reviews. In my view, those that do so are little more than a paid corporate shill because they declined to openly state their affiliation. Failure to report such a financial relationship is a serious conflict of interest.
Please note that this is not a criticism of HP. This has nothing to do with HP. It has everything to do with those who receive the free equipment, post rave reviews, and do not disclose that fact.
(As I also noted, the only exception to that is someone who is generally known to have a paid relationship with a company, and that applies to one individual who posts in the printers forum with regards to Epson. Everyone knows who he works for, he hasn't made any attempt to hide that affiliation, but has in fact previously acknowledged and disclosed it, and the above is not a reference to that individual. Nor does it apply to one or two others who sell printers, including both HP and Epson, and who have disclosed that relationship.)
(2) There were two postings that the new firmware caused a hardware failure. One of those posted that this occurred after his warranty had expired. Presumably that means that he had to spend hundreds of dollars for a service call for the parts and labor; or he had to pay for the part himself at an unknown cost but replaced it himself.Either way, it means that in two cases the firmware allegedly DAMAGED the printer based upon those reports.
Please note that my original posting was carefully worded to qualify that based upon whether those reports are accurate. But I have no reason to dispute their accuracy. Do you?For those of you who so violently objected to my summary, how would you feel if you had to pay to repair the Z3100 printer after it was allegedly damaged by HP's own firmware download?
Yes, I called that incompetence on the part of HP -- if, as I said, it was in fact caused by the firmware and the hardware failure was not a simple coincidence. But the latter is unlikely since the same thing, involving the same exact part, happened to two different individuals.
(3) This forum, IMHO, has increasingly become an outlet for those who only wish to defend HP. And if you dare call it like it is -- that it is incompetence for HP firmware to allegedly damage an HP printer -- you are accused of rants and suggestions are made that your comments be censored.
On top of that, any forum that thinks it is acceptable for posters to get free equipment, not disclose that fact, and then post positive reviews, is doing a serious disservice to those who read that forum.If a moderator is needed, it is to enforce basic ethical conduct, and those who post reviews based on free equipment -- and do not disclose that fact -- crossed over that line long ago.
That is what you should focus on. That is a basic ethical standard, and that is what you need a moderator to enforce.
Not to advocate that someone should be censored who states the obvious -- that it is, in fact, incompetence when firmware is reported to cause hardware failures, and when there is no evidence that those reports were inaccurate or that the hardware failure was a coincidence.
When someone has to pay to repair a printer when it is damaged by HP's own software, well that is an open and shut case.
Except, of course, for those who want to censor any criticism of HP, while applauding rave reviews from those who receive free equipment and don't disclose that.