#1 "To Tell the Truth" vs. misrepresentation/taking advantage?
Posted: Wed, 16 Jan 19, 02:58 am
SO I dropped in over on YORF yesterday evening (which I don't get to do as much as I used to, which is okay with me more or less) and in searching for "new posts" I stumbled upon an Estes "Cosmos Mariner" someone had for sale.
Now that's all well and good; the "Cosmos Mariner" was part of a line of several kits Estes produced during all the hype about the "X-Prize" when they were trying to bank off that surge of popularity engendered by the X-Prize competition, though some of their kits were hits (the "Canadian Arrow" basically put a "lengthened V-2" in everyone's hands again and was probably the best seller of the lot, though the "Gauchito" was probably a big seller too, since it's BT-52 size was rather unusual and basically was worth more for parts to clone various Saturn vehicles, since basically it was a longer version of the CSM tube off the 1/100 Saturn V IIRC). Some were "so-so" like the clustered two motor Thunderstar. Some were real dogs and got a reputation on the forums back in the day as such-- rockets like the Rubicon (which had a spotty reputation as best I can recall).
Then there was the "Cosmos Mariner", which was supposed to be a glide-recovery model of a rocket-propelled X-Prize contender. It developed QUITE the reputation on the forums at the time that persisted until it finally passed into obscurity, as leftover kits FINALLY pretty much disappeared from hobby store shelves and rocket vendor bargain bins... I remember quite well people complaining about unpredictable flights that were usually pretty badly underpowered, would attempt to part your hair, or the rocket basically deviating from the intended flight profile in some way... usually either refusing to eject the power pod, refusing to glide, or even if you DID get it to glide, it basically "glided like a brick" and usually ended up with a shovel recovery, disintegrating or being severely damaged upon impact at "landing". It was a fairly complicated kit, with a vacuum molded plastic upper and lower body shells, and then all the attendant stuff that goes with a glide-recovery rocket (large-ish wings, winglets at the tips, power-pod (IIRC), etc. SO, in short, you had to put a LOT of work into the thing to even build it and finish it to remotely look like the package art, and then once you committed it to flight, usually what you got back was either damaged or destroyed, which doesn't contribute to a high "happiness factor"...
SO, anyway, this individual posted over on YORF a Cosmos Mariner kit for sale. What REALLY caught my attention was the artistic language used to describe the kit and the completed model, including, "graceful, soaring flights" and such. The OP even followed up with a second post comment of what a great winter project it would be for the workbench, or something to that effect.
I was thinking about another post where someone was asking about Dr. Zooch kits and some other posts with people LOOKING for various rockets and asking opinions about them, and somehow it popped into my head that the OP was ASKING about the Cosmos Mariner and I thought they were quoting the flowery "sales-language descriptions" from the catalog or something in ASKING about the Cosmos Mariner, so I quickly posted a short reply commenting about the fact that the Cosmos Mariner actually flew like a brick and usually ended in a shovel recovery... Again, facts well known in the rocket community and reiterated MANY TIMES OVER on multiple forums over the years from the time the kit came out until it basically "faded away" as it was no longer produced and disappeared from old stocks.
SO, I get around to checking on YORF this evening after feeding cows and what do I find?? A snippy reply about, "Thanks for that; hope I can help you out the same way when YOU have something for sale! " Then of course a couple other people "pile on" with similar comments... some of whom I wasn't surprised at; they're typically among the "usual suspects" I'd expect to make such comments, but one of the others rather surprised me. Oh well...
The thing is, I wasn't TRYING to deliberately RUIN someone's sale; I honestly had a "brain fart" I suppose and thought I was just offering an HONEST assessment of the Cosmos Mariner to someone asking a question about it. I guess I glossed over the "for sale" part. BUT, here's the thing-- the OP wrote quite an ode to how wonderful the Cosmos Mariner is, which of course, to an extent, is just good salesmanship... BUT, describing it as performing "graceful, soaring flights" to me is just DOWNRIGHT DISHONEST. Now, it might have been *intended* to fly that way by Estes, and they might have printed something similar in their catalog at the time when they were first putting it up for sale, and their definition of "graceful and soaring" might have been a lot more "open to interpretation" than *most* model rocketeers, so *I* for one can forgive Estes for "playing it up for all its worth" in the catalog, if indeed they did at the time. BUT, given the experience of MANY, MANY rocket hobbyists over the ensuing years when the kit was still widely available and being flown, it became almost SYNONYMOUS with broom recoveries or shovel recoveries... SO, is it *FAIR PLAY* to represent the thing NOW in such flowery, sweeping language about how "wonderful" the thing is? I mean, I understand "putting the best spin possible" on something, or "good salesmanship" or whatever you want to call it, but at *WHAT POINT* does it become "misrepresentation", either intentional or unintentional?? Is it fair to describe a kit that has a terrible reputation for augering in, crashing and burning, and shovel recoveries as making "graceful, soaring flights" solely to sell it, probably to some unsuspecting person, newbie or not, who might not have the experience or know of the kits bad reputation?? Is it fair to sell the kit to someone who's *EXPECTING* a "graceful, soaring flight" and have them spend a lot of money on the kit, pour a lot of time and effort into the construction of it, and then "more likely than not" having it malfunction and crash or "glide" in like a brick and get busted up on landing??
Or am I just an A$$HOLE for "telling the truth" because I told the TRUTH (as documented MANY times on the forums over the years) and *God forbid* it MIGHT end up ruining someone's sale of the kit??
SO what say ye?? Is "all fair in love and war" and "buyer beware" even if someone chooses to describe something as "the best thing EVAH!!" when the product is actually known to be a turd, OR, Is there anything wrong with "reminding" people that the thing had a LOT of unhappy people who bought it and built it and crashed it back in the day, to the point it sort of became an "inside joke"... IS it fair to "play something up" just hoping to unload a turd flyer on a possibly unsuspecting newbie or someone who wasn't around "back in the day" to remember all the hoopla about how many problems this thing had?? OR, should I shut up and let us all go back to reading the "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" and "once you have their money, you never give it back!"...
Honestly I get REALLY disappointed in people sometimes... I tend to think that rocketry folks, *MOST* rocketry folks, are honest and upright people who generally TRY to do the right thing... Then I see something like this that reminds me of a shady used-car dealer looking to screw someone over (my own impression of all this, after re-reading it all again today, NOT *necessarily* saying this WAS the OP's deliberate intention, ie "trying to skin a newbie" BUT *IMHO* it could certainly APPEAR that way! And, SINCE WHEN is telling the TRUTH about something, making a comment reminding people of the reputation that something had acquired over time, is a BAD THING?? I guess it's just different times now and it's acceptable to "stretch the truth" to the breaking point to sell something, and anyone who actually "looks out for the other guy" is some kind of a$$hole for telling the TRUTH and "upsetting their game"... Geez people suck nowdays...
Curious about what yall think on this one... *IS* it fair to 'take advantage' of someone who doesn't know any better or doesn't do "due diligence" to find out before they whip out their wallet, or am I just an a$$hole for telling the truth??
Later! OL J R
Now that's all well and good; the "Cosmos Mariner" was part of a line of several kits Estes produced during all the hype about the "X-Prize" when they were trying to bank off that surge of popularity engendered by the X-Prize competition, though some of their kits were hits (the "Canadian Arrow" basically put a "lengthened V-2" in everyone's hands again and was probably the best seller of the lot, though the "Gauchito" was probably a big seller too, since it's BT-52 size was rather unusual and basically was worth more for parts to clone various Saturn vehicles, since basically it was a longer version of the CSM tube off the 1/100 Saturn V IIRC). Some were "so-so" like the clustered two motor Thunderstar. Some were real dogs and got a reputation on the forums back in the day as such-- rockets like the Rubicon (which had a spotty reputation as best I can recall).
Then there was the "Cosmos Mariner", which was supposed to be a glide-recovery model of a rocket-propelled X-Prize contender. It developed QUITE the reputation on the forums at the time that persisted until it finally passed into obscurity, as leftover kits FINALLY pretty much disappeared from hobby store shelves and rocket vendor bargain bins... I remember quite well people complaining about unpredictable flights that were usually pretty badly underpowered, would attempt to part your hair, or the rocket basically deviating from the intended flight profile in some way... usually either refusing to eject the power pod, refusing to glide, or even if you DID get it to glide, it basically "glided like a brick" and usually ended up with a shovel recovery, disintegrating or being severely damaged upon impact at "landing". It was a fairly complicated kit, with a vacuum molded plastic upper and lower body shells, and then all the attendant stuff that goes with a glide-recovery rocket (large-ish wings, winglets at the tips, power-pod (IIRC), etc. SO, in short, you had to put a LOT of work into the thing to even build it and finish it to remotely look like the package art, and then once you committed it to flight, usually what you got back was either damaged or destroyed, which doesn't contribute to a high "happiness factor"...
SO, anyway, this individual posted over on YORF a Cosmos Mariner kit for sale. What REALLY caught my attention was the artistic language used to describe the kit and the completed model, including, "graceful, soaring flights" and such. The OP even followed up with a second post comment of what a great winter project it would be for the workbench, or something to that effect.
I was thinking about another post where someone was asking about Dr. Zooch kits and some other posts with people LOOKING for various rockets and asking opinions about them, and somehow it popped into my head that the OP was ASKING about the Cosmos Mariner and I thought they were quoting the flowery "sales-language descriptions" from the catalog or something in ASKING about the Cosmos Mariner, so I quickly posted a short reply commenting about the fact that the Cosmos Mariner actually flew like a brick and usually ended in a shovel recovery... Again, facts well known in the rocket community and reiterated MANY TIMES OVER on multiple forums over the years from the time the kit came out until it basically "faded away" as it was no longer produced and disappeared from old stocks.
SO, I get around to checking on YORF this evening after feeding cows and what do I find?? A snippy reply about, "Thanks for that; hope I can help you out the same way when YOU have something for sale! " Then of course a couple other people "pile on" with similar comments... some of whom I wasn't surprised at; they're typically among the "usual suspects" I'd expect to make such comments, but one of the others rather surprised me. Oh well...
The thing is, I wasn't TRYING to deliberately RUIN someone's sale; I honestly had a "brain fart" I suppose and thought I was just offering an HONEST assessment of the Cosmos Mariner to someone asking a question about it. I guess I glossed over the "for sale" part. BUT, here's the thing-- the OP wrote quite an ode to how wonderful the Cosmos Mariner is, which of course, to an extent, is just good salesmanship... BUT, describing it as performing "graceful, soaring flights" to me is just DOWNRIGHT DISHONEST. Now, it might have been *intended* to fly that way by Estes, and they might have printed something similar in their catalog at the time when they were first putting it up for sale, and their definition of "graceful and soaring" might have been a lot more "open to interpretation" than *most* model rocketeers, so *I* for one can forgive Estes for "playing it up for all its worth" in the catalog, if indeed they did at the time. BUT, given the experience of MANY, MANY rocket hobbyists over the ensuing years when the kit was still widely available and being flown, it became almost SYNONYMOUS with broom recoveries or shovel recoveries... SO, is it *FAIR PLAY* to represent the thing NOW in such flowery, sweeping language about how "wonderful" the thing is? I mean, I understand "putting the best spin possible" on something, or "good salesmanship" or whatever you want to call it, but at *WHAT POINT* does it become "misrepresentation", either intentional or unintentional?? Is it fair to describe a kit that has a terrible reputation for augering in, crashing and burning, and shovel recoveries as making "graceful, soaring flights" solely to sell it, probably to some unsuspecting person, newbie or not, who might not have the experience or know of the kits bad reputation?? Is it fair to sell the kit to someone who's *EXPECTING* a "graceful, soaring flight" and have them spend a lot of money on the kit, pour a lot of time and effort into the construction of it, and then "more likely than not" having it malfunction and crash or "glide" in like a brick and get busted up on landing??
Or am I just an A$$HOLE for "telling the truth" because I told the TRUTH (as documented MANY times on the forums over the years) and *God forbid* it MIGHT end up ruining someone's sale of the kit??
SO what say ye?? Is "all fair in love and war" and "buyer beware" even if someone chooses to describe something as "the best thing EVAH!!" when the product is actually known to be a turd, OR, Is there anything wrong with "reminding" people that the thing had a LOT of unhappy people who bought it and built it and crashed it back in the day, to the point it sort of became an "inside joke"... IS it fair to "play something up" just hoping to unload a turd flyer on a possibly unsuspecting newbie or someone who wasn't around "back in the day" to remember all the hoopla about how many problems this thing had?? OR, should I shut up and let us all go back to reading the "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" and "once you have their money, you never give it back!"...
Honestly I get REALLY disappointed in people sometimes... I tend to think that rocketry folks, *MOST* rocketry folks, are honest and upright people who generally TRY to do the right thing... Then I see something like this that reminds me of a shady used-car dealer looking to screw someone over (my own impression of all this, after re-reading it all again today, NOT *necessarily* saying this WAS the OP's deliberate intention, ie "trying to skin a newbie" BUT *IMHO* it could certainly APPEAR that way! And, SINCE WHEN is telling the TRUTH about something, making a comment reminding people of the reputation that something had acquired over time, is a BAD THING?? I guess it's just different times now and it's acceptable to "stretch the truth" to the breaking point to sell something, and anyone who actually "looks out for the other guy" is some kind of a$$hole for telling the TRUTH and "upsetting their game"... Geez people suck nowdays...
Curious about what yall think on this one... *IS* it fair to 'take advantage' of someone who doesn't know any better or doesn't do "due diligence" to find out before they whip out their wallet, or am I just an a$$hole for telling the truth??
Later! OL J R