Apology to Rob Lee

Re: Apology to Rob Lee

Andrew Pallas

>What a stand up guy Dean. It's good to see that thread rounded off nicely.

Andrew

Apology accepted.

Rob Lee

>

Re: Apology to Rob Lee

David Miller from Iowa

>Thanks Dean, I suspect it took a lot to do that and it is appreciated.

Something not neccesarily related but has been on my mind though...

I personally feel that Rob Lee's presence here on the board is benefical. He probably does get some benefit from accolade postings relating to his customer service etc., but some folks in the past have used the board as a their first communication strategy to Lee Valley, which I feel is inappropriate. I cringe when the title reads "Hey Rob Lee" and there is correspondence best done out of public view. I would encourage people to email Rob directly with logistical issues and product complaints, and use the board only when matters are resolved and it is something appropriate to share with the group.

Just my 2 cents.

David

Rob Lee's responses

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>When one looks back on the entire thread, we may assume Deanp's question about LV quality was stone throwing and thus inappropriate. But was it really a personal attack (probably) or just a poorly worded question? Did we have to assume it was personal? Even if it was, what is the response that benefits the entire WC community?

Quality is an interesting thing. Were I Rob, I would have used Dean's question to discuss LV's quality control, explain how quality effects cost, etc. From my knot hole, LV has a lot to brag about when it comes to quality, customer service and reasonable prices.

I think Rob bears some responsibility (as do we all) for his own incendiary, albeit justifiable, responses. I don't blame him for feeling the way he did. But he must have known how his responses would incite. He chose the inciteful over the topical to our disservice.

So while we justifiably tar and feather Dean, let's just make sure we understand how everyone's post effects a thread and inevitably serves or doesn't serve the WC community.

Adam

For heaven's sake...

Ted Owen, Moderator

>can we PLEASE just drop this, everyone?

No replies necessary.

Best, Ted

Re: For heaven's sake...

Greg Sloop

>Oh, no, can't allow that.

Perhaps I can come up with some other flame starters.

Like:

Democrats are sex fiends, Republicans are crack addicts, and Greens eat weed(s).

Or how about Protestants vs. Catholics - (That one's been great for like better than a thousand years!)

Or the relatively young one: Low angle bevel up vs. Bevel down planes!

Come on - we can do better - flames for all!

(Donning asbestos suit...calling the fire department...and paying up my life insurance!)

Cheers,

Greg

Re: For heaven's sake...

Greg Sloop

>That was supposed to be a reply to Ted's post - no offense Adam.

I for one...

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>...will not respond to anyone without a last name or e-mail address. Come on deanp, join the community.

There it is!

Bob Hackett

>

: )

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>

Competition

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>I think LV and LN both make exceptional products and both companies are more then willing to correct mistakes and look after the customer.

Let's face it, LN tools could be allot more expensive if it wasn't for competition. As it stands right now LN has gone to powder coating, AC Cryo blades and thicker chipbreakers without increasing the price.

From a Canadian perspective though. LN planes are getting cheaper and cheaper as the dollar increases. The price difference between the LN and LV Low Angle jack is about 10% when purchased at a woodworking show.

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

Re: I for one...

deanp

>Dean Peddle