TeaChat

mr mopu wrote:I think you are "fair" and correct in the persons "knowledge" factor. I have over 500 teas and I don't rush judgement and try to "learn" more everyday.

Tofsla wrote:

mr mopu wrote:I think you are "fair" and correct in the persons "knowledge" factor. I have over 500 teas and I don't rush judgement and try to "learn" more everyday.

I think, in her last statement Gingko is not questioning ImmortaliTEA's knowledge on the mere subject of pu-erh, but his credibility and trustworthiness in any discussion or interaction with him, provided he is a thief, according to Gingko, and as a long time reader of her blog and customer of her shop I am inclined to trust her in what she writes here.

Chip wrote:Having fully reviewed this topic and situation, I have reinstated this topic on the general/public pu-erh forum of TeaChat, unchanged in any way.

I have contacted Gingko and did point out forum rules regarding vendor rebuttals of member's posts. She had contacted me some time ago regarding this situation, but did not contact me prior to posting yesterday. Technically this is a violation of the forum's rules. It is not too uncommon for vendors to overlook this in their zeal to post.

I contacted Gingko again today and she replied promptly and fully and courteously. Gingko remains a member in good standing.

I have always wanted members to be able to speak freely and TRUTHFULLY about vendors and their products. But when I feel a member is speaking negatively and UNTRUTHFULLY I have an issue and have defended vendors from this type of attack of a vendor which usually has some motivation that we do not know about.

Since there is an underlying motivation in this case, if Gingko was to contact me requesting immortaliTEA's posts in this topic be removed, I would consider this action.

However, as of this writing, the topic is fully intact as it was prior to my moving it earlier today.