Cheap Beijing Flights With a Dangerous Catch

Re:Cheap Beijing Flights With a Dangerous Catch by DonHopkins on Sunday August 06, 2017 @06:31AM (#14940746)

The real story is that the founder refused to give a straight answer to a simple, explicit "yes or no" question when directly and repeatedly asked. Where there's smoke there's fire! His non-answer shows he knows there's a problem, and he's actively trying to deflect attention away from it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheap Beijing Flights With a Dangerous Catch by sokoloff on Sunday August 06, 2017 @07:09AM (#14940836)

Have you stopped beating your significant other? I just need a simple, explicit "yes or no".

Not every question that can conceivably return a bool answer should be answered that way in PR.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheap Beijing Flights With a Dangerous Catch by chii on Sunday August 06, 2017 @07:54AM (#14940932)

> Have you stopped beating your significant other?

that's an unfair comparison, because this is a loaded question (implying you were beating your SO). The question being asked in the blogpost is asking for clarification, with no assumption behind it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheap Beijing Flights With a Dangerous Catch by sokoloff on Sunday August 06, 2017 @08:46AM (#14941071)

There is an assumption behind the blogpost's question, IMO: that only by being setup exactly as Fedex and UPS can the couriers be adequately protected.

Maybe that is the actually the case (I'm not an expert in the field), but the underlying assumption of that being a hard requirement is present. Now, if Airmule thinks that they don't need to do exactly that but have another means by which the couriers could be protected, they can't reasonably answer "yes" (because they aren't organized that way) nor "no" (because that's a misleading answer from their point of view).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheap Beijing Flights With a Dangerous Catch by idiot900 on Sunday August 06, 2017 @09:18AM (#14941171)

Easy response he could have made, but didn't:

"Not a common carrier - this page on our website describes exactly what protections are provided: <link>"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheap Beijing Flights With a Dangerous Catch by jsjohnst on Sunday August 06, 2017 @10:09AM (#14941380)

"I have never beaten my significant other" is an explicit answer that fulfills the question and doesn't hide behind the facts, unlike the founder in question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheap Beijing Flights With a Dangerous Catch by Panoramix on Sunday August 06, 2017 @07:25AM (#14940871)

That's a trivial thing, you would simply categorically deny the implicit accusation. But his answer instead did not come even close, it was "I have stopped about the same as other people".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheap Beijing Flights With a Dangerous Catch by DonHopkins on Sunday August 06, 2017 @01:37PM (#14942354)

Instead of beating them, I send them on an airline trip to Beijing with a suitcase full of contraband, and the Chinese government beats them for me.

[ Parent | on HN ]