 vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | reply to Dogfather
Re: Nothing new said by Dogfather:Meanwhile I always follow the money no matter who is telling their story. No, you're obviously not following the money going to arbitrators. Why can an arbitrator remain neutral, even though it's in their interest to rule towards the company that hires them, but a think tank must have an agenda influenced by the source of their funding.
Sounds like you have a double standard when it comes to following the money. |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | As I stated, just because the company pays them doesn't automatically mean they aren't neutral. In the course of my business pay auditors (the closest think to arbitrators I use) who are neutral. No problem.
No double standard. I always follow the money. Arbitration is far better that subscribers giving millions to greedy bloodsucking lawyers because the ISP blows up a notebook. |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | said by Dogfather:As I stated, just because the company pays them doesn't automatically mean they aren't neutral. In the course of my business pay auditors (the closest think to arbitrators I use) who are neutral. No problem. Sure it's a problem, remember Arthur Anderson? That's why we have the Sarbanes-Oxley Act now, to try to prevent auditors from getting in bed with the companies they're hired to audit. We need the same thing for arbitration.
Would you be opposed to the consumer choosing the arbitrator, with the loser paying the costs? |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | I would love nothing more than a loser pays system. It will fix everything from heathcare to patent trolling. |
|
|
|
