The chips aren't anywhere near shipping yet, so he has no responsibility to sit around an monitor the forums, just in case somebody wants to change horses mid-race, or whatever. Not his responsibility. Not the job he signed up for.
He said he was going to offer PCBs, too. No news on that front.
Without digging through pages of threads, I think he indicated that he was going to try and organize assembly through some of the developer projects that are popping up. However, I don't think he promised to do this, nor would any reasonable person have used this as contingency on placing an order for chips. Irrelevant.
I travel a few times a year, and occasionally spend 15-20 days at a time without getting online beyond monitoring my phone for any legitimate emergencies. Sometimes I might jump online really quickly on my phone to check up on something of interest, etc, but that doesn't mean that I get on once, and I'm suddenly responsible to answer every single email or message I've received.
Then don't take $100k of other peoples' money.
So, I (or he) are not allowed to take a vacation, if I (or he) have orders in place? What planet are you from? If he takes a vacation when the chips show up, we have a problem. Until the chips show up, he has no obligation to you or anybody else, how he spends his time.
No, because it puts HUNDREDS of people's orders at risk, just for the convenience of ONE PERSON, who can't be bothered to stick to his commitment. That's not entitlement to look out for the group as a whole. What's entitled is expecting that it's okay to put the risk of EVERYBODY's order getting screwed up aside, in favor of benefitting ONE person, who doesn't have the testicular fortitude to complete the transaction that he agreed to. Can't keep your word? Fine. Why should that be everybody else's problem, and not YOUR problem?
Do you actually have any reason for the argument that it puts other orders at risk? The people that don't transfer their chips still have their records intact, and he can't ship more (or less, hopefully) chips than he's accounted for.
Read it in context of the quote that he was responding to. I don't personally believe that there's a major risk to other orders getting screwed up from one or two changes, but I don't discount the idea that it could happen. I think it's a legitimate concern. Especially if order changes become commonplace. Occam's razor here. The simpler we can keep things, the less likely something is to get screwed up (like accidentally double-shipping an order, because somebody's name was supposed to be dropped when another name was added. When he gets to the last few names, and he's missing x number of chips, what happens then?
Regardless, the point I was making is that the person I was responding to was calling somebody "entitled" for having a concern that changing the system to accomodate the few could have repercussions for the whole. Which is simply not true. Putting the whole at risk for the wants to the few IS selfish and entitled.
this is not about you wrenchmonkey, so save your personal stories for an audience that cares. also please stop repeating your platitudes, they're tired.
Hmm, it's not "about" you either, yet that doesn't stop you from posting. Hypocrite much?
Also, to which "platitudes" are you referring?
