You could explain/justify your trust of the Google Pixel 7a towards your privacy in the Introductions category.
Because I trust Google hardware and Open Source Software (e.g. GrapheneOS which is based on AOSP), but I don’t trust the Google information-collection-for-advertising services (e.g. gmail, google drive, google contacts, …).
I’m not sure I’ll add that to the “Introductions” category. As an aside: I read your Introduction and found the LinnStrument reference very interesting. I went down that road for a few hours just yesterday. Fascinating.
1 Like
In theory his point makes sense and is logical.
You will probably have to agree to disagree with @Privacy2 on that. It’s the same when anyone is flogging a dead horse years after the event. It can be tedious for those who have to listen - in can be injurious to the person so flogging - but there is no right or wrong answer about getting over it.
1 Like
I don’t agree. How are people treating Purism as a bank? I just don’t see it.
People are treating Purism as an online hardware company that should adhere to their own policies and sales agreements as well as any regulatory policies (e.g. the FTC Mail Order Rule).
I should note that most online sales companies (e.g. Amazon, Costco, Walmart, …) don’t even charge the credit card until it is in the shipping phase (boxed and ready to mail/ship). Crowdfunding wouldn’t work with such a model, however on non-crowdfunded items (e.g. the Librem 14), there shouldn’t be questions of immediate refunds if it doesn’t ship in a timely manner. At minimum Purism should follow the FTC Mail Order Rule. When a consumer is making a product choice, the delivery time is important.
1 Like
Please provide the source.
1 Like
I think it was in this thread ( Public Offering to Become a Shareholder in Purism ). I believe it was deleted. It’s possible it was in one of the “Refund Request” thread.
2 Likes
Please provide the source then.
1 Like
The number 600 was mentioned here - Louiss Rossman on Purism - #21 by Poseidon
It came from Louiss Rossman (I don’t know anything about him, first time I heard of him was that thread).
Post is from August last year.
2 Likes
Noting that there is a dedicated topic for refund, um, discussion regarding Librem 14 and a dedicated topic for refund discussion regarding Librem 5 - and this is the latter.
OK, so a somewhat dubious mechanism and route. That doesn’t mean it’s false but it certainly isn’t supported as true by any source that is in a position to know, as far as I am aware.
1 Like
As @leetaur pointed out (thanks!), it was not JCS, it was this comment Louiss Rossman on Purism - #21 by Poseidon which referred to Louis Rossman’s video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IjUryQOlgk ) where an unofficial Purism “spokesperson” (listen to the video to understand) claiming insider knowledge wrote this in an e-mail to Louis. As read by Louis, it is between 16:54 and 17:05 in the video.
1 Like
I don’t see where you defended your comment:
And I asked: I don’t agree. How are people treating Purism as a bank? I just don’t see it.
People are treating Purism as an online hardware company that should adhere to their own policies and sales agreements as well as any regulatory policies (e.g. the FTC Mail Order Rule).
You might notice that I asked in the StartEngine thread about how many non-refunded items there were —> it is something that I think should have been disclosed since it should have been relevant to anybody purchasing equity. It was probably mingled in the accounting numbers (as short term debt), but it would be impossible to tease out the exact value from that.
It might be worth you revisiting Louis’ video and to remember, IIRC, that JCS doesn’t work for Purism officially
either. It’s also worth remembering the following statement — clearly some people know the state/number of unprocessed refunds:
1 Like
I was agreeing to disagree. You might want to argue ad infinitum. I don’t and maybe Dlonk doesn’t either.
Obviously I don’t know but the accountants may have worked out what is consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Clearly it is some kind of liability whether it’s the inventory that they are holding that is really owned by those who ordered it and paid for it, or the store credit that should be on the books, or the refunds that could get paid.
1 Like
OK. You seemed to think that “the point made sense and was logical,” but didn’t ever say why. That’s fine, but it’s not an argument/point, … it’s a “vote without discussion”.
1 Like
Just for the record, I do now work for Purism as a W2 employee.
Also, for the record, I had been informed who submitted the lengthy letter to Rossmann ultimately requesting that the video be removed, and they were not in a position to be labeled as an official public relations correspondent for Purism. I do not have any other information or insider context regarding that situation.
5 Likes
So you source is a 11 months old 11 sec snip from a dramatic youtuber who reads out a unofficial letter from a rogue Purism employee citing unofficial, rough numbers.
In other words: You are spreading inaccurate hear-say. It’s surprising you do this today because you previously refused to use Purism 2023 financial numbers because you had to read a chart.
Why?
Things get even worse because you know in the past 11 months that:
- Purism has issued some refunds.
- Some former refund requesters have accepted the orders.
- Some former refund requesters have resold the orders.
So an undisclosed amount have to be deducted from your inaccurate hear-say.
2 Likes
That’s nice to know. Congratulations!
Well, the clip is more like 20 minutes. For your convenience I provided the timestamp for the specific quote. [Edit: I added a few other snippets below. However, I recommend listening/watching the whole video.]
Before the clip, my memory was: “JCS or somebody with Purism knowledge” (and, later corrected to: “an unofficial Purism spokesperson (listen to the video)”.
So, in the interest of transparency, I guess the question to @JCS is whether JCS believes that the person who submitted the letter to Rossman was “somebody with Purism knowledge” in regard to the assertion that there approximately 600 refunds at the time. It seems like important information.
[
Edit: Other snippets from the source which, taken at face value, would indicate information.
3:23 impact purism’s future as I speak with
3:26 Todd directly therefore I would like you
3:28 to thoroughly consider my request I am
3:30 asking to have a 20 to 30 minute phone
3:31 call with you over the weekend or on
3:33 Monday to confidentially share uh what I
3:36 know on top of what you’ve mentioned
and, while vague, they essentially claim to be an employee of some sort:
5:31 when Kyle left Purism in May
5:33 Todd asked me to take over the customer
5:35 service all I write below is true and
5:37 accurate to my knowledge and I would
5:38 like you to truly try to understand me I
5:40 got curious and wanted to investigate a
5:42 paradox I’ve noticed on one hand it has
]
2 Likes
I think JCS has already said what he is going to say:::
I do not have any other information or insider context regarding that situation.
I believe that the whole situation would predate JCS, so his information would be second-hand.
I don’t think there’s any such thing as an “unofficial spokesperson”. If you are a spokesperson then you officially speak on behalf of an entity.
Does the video actually name the alleged source?
2 Likes
The OP doesn’t know he’s hidden.
1 Like
Also the OP placed his order somewhere in june or july of 2019 if the OP’s mind serves him correctly. The OP doesn’t understand the renewed interest in his post from September 2023, but has now selected an official answer to his initial question.
1 Like
The reason is that there is a limit of 1 Librem 5 refund topic and that one and only topic is this topic. Another topic sprung up and all the posts in that new topic were merged into this topic. So expect more “renewed interest” in the future. If that is bugging you, it may help for you to mute the topic.
3 Likes