- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wedding videography company denies refund after man’s fiancee dies, taunts him on website
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:28 am to Vestigial Morgan
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:28 am to Vestigial Morgan
quote:
get it rebooked
He should have them come video the funeral.
Problem solved.
0
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:34 am to Mud_Till_May
quote:Road rage brings this out in some folks.
He’s the kind of guy that if you mess with him he goes all the way. Full retard type plus some
Domestic issues too.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:37 am to Mud_Till_May
Teasing him is a bit much but the dude actively trying to create a smear campaign when he knew the contract terms (which are justifiable and reasonable) is ridiculous.
Both sides are in the wrong to some degree.
Both sides are in the wrong to some degree.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:38 am to notsince98
quote:The key word there is 'overreaction'. Most people have stated that their issue is not with the policy but with the overreaction (put mildly) of the videographer.
Both parties handled it poorly but lets not pretend the overreaction was unprovoked.
quote:
Definition of overreact:
-to react to something too strongly : to respond to something with too strong an emotion or with unnecessary or excessive action
By definition an overreaction is not justified by provocation. If it were justified it would just be a plain old reaction.
No one is claiming that the groom handled it perfectly. People are calling out the videographer for his "unnecessary or excessive" response. Not hard to grasp.
This post was edited on 5/27/20 at 8:40 am
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:40 am to TheWalrus
quote:
Going to the media to complain about not getting a refund on a signed contract is in the wrong, maybe a 2 out of 10 on the wrong scale. What the dipshits did afterwards in response is pretty damn close to a 10.
Yea all parties share some blame but the company went too far with their taunting.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:41 am to Big_Slim
Oh look, another 1st Amendment idiot. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
This post was edited on 5/27/20 at 8:42 am
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:41 am to stout
quote:
Teasing him is a bit much but the dude actively trying to create a smear campaign when he knew the contract terms (which are justifiable and reasonable) is ridiculous.
I like how you call the "teasing" a "bit much", but the finace posting on social media "ridiculous"
I think normal people might flip those adjectives in this situation
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:43 am to Henry Jones Jr
They just added all that pizzazz to try and boom the guy and go viral for the lulz
Hopefully it backfires somehow
Hopefully it backfires somehow
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:45 am to Salmon
quote:
I like how you call the "teasing" a "bit much", but the finace posting on social media "ridiculous"
IMO all parties involved are in the wrong to some degree. It's a shite situation.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:46 am to S
quote:
Hopefully it backfires somehow
when this crazy bastard goes postal in their office.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:46 am to RTRinTampa
Didn’t say it did protect a private company from economic consequences.
Read my post and the quote I responded to again, maybe slowly this time. Let me know if you need more help.
Read my post and the quote I responded to again, maybe slowly this time. Let me know if you need more help.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:50 am to Big_Slim
quote:Take a knee bubba...this ain't the one
Big_Slim
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:52 am to stout
quote:
IMO all parties involved are in the wrong to some degree.
Sure.
But one is clearly much further in the wrong than the other
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:54 am to Big_Slim
quote:
I understand their argument, until they start making fun of the dude. frick them, I hope he sues them for his money back and emotional pain and suffering
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
83 upvotes and counting for a guy that wants a company to be sued because they said some mean words.
Ladies and gentleman, the free speech warriors of the OT!
I read your post just fine. You don't think the company should be held accountable for saying "mean words".
Maybe you haven't articulated what you think you have.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:57 am to RTRinTampa
quote:
You don't think the company should be held accountable for saying "mean words".
Nope. Try again, check your work this time.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:59 am to Salmon
quote:
But one is clearly much further in the wrong than the other
Meh...that is your opinion. The dude activated a smear campaign against the company over a contract he signed. I understand his situation, and it is very sad what happened to his fiance, but to say he is less in the wrong seems to be more emotional than objective IMO. He apparently was harassing the company too.
They all seem like assholes IMO but the one guy gets sympathy because of his situation.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:07 am to Mud_Till_May
dudes fiancee died. could have cut some slack. ah well. i'm ok watching em burn. or not. but i'm entertained.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:07 am to stout
quote:
Meh...that is your opinion. The dude activated a smear campaign against the company over a contract he signed. I understand his situation, and it is very sad what happened to his fiance, but to say he is less in the wrong seems to be more emotional than objective IMO. He apparently was harassing the company too.
Read the thread dude. The guy running the videography company is career scam artist of Billy McFarland proportions
This post was edited on 5/27/20 at 9:16 am
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:11 am to stout
quote:
The dude activated a smear campaign against the company over a contract he signed. I understand his situation, and it is very sad what happened to his fiance, but to say he is less in the wrong seems to be more emotional than objective IMO. He apparently was harassing the company too.
the owner of the company has a long history of being a scam artist
I'm willing to bet the public posts "teasing" the finace wasn't the only thing he did to the fiance
the finace gets sympathy in this situation because the owner is a 100% scum bag
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:12 am to stout
quote:
Meh...that is your opinion. The dude activated a smear campaign against the company over a contract he signed. I understand his situation, and it is very sad what happened to his fiance, but to say he is less in the wrong seems to be more emotional than objective IMO. He apparently was harassing the company too.
They all seem like assholes IMO but the one guy gets sympathy because of his situation.
Smear campaign would of went nowhere had the company just said no to the refund and stopped responding. The company taking it to the level they did with the website made the situation what it is today. They have only themselves to blame for it.
Then if you look through this thread and why the company is the way it is, you will realize the owner is a gigantic twat waffle and has done far worse and it explains everything.
Page 6 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News