Harvard Business School professor reacts to $4 restaurant overcharge

[MrDudeMan]

Thanks for rephrasing EXACTLY what I said.

I said the man is a complete dumb fuck for wasting his time and effort to email a restaurant owner over a mistake. I didn't miss anyone's point, but my counter point was simply that his income shouldn't be a factor in judgment on if he is a gentlemen and a scholar or a scumbag asshole.

You, obviously, are one of those toolbag's that let other peoples income cloud your judgement. It's quite apparent that the jealousy of other peoples success is prevalent in your daily thought process. Congratulations, you're liberal!

Where did either of us mention his income? I don't care how much he makes nor does it change anything. The restaurant was doing something wrong and he went about fixing it completely the wrong way. The only person who is a toolbag here is you. Also, we had to rephrase your post to make more sense because you were rambling for no apparent reason. You should relax.

Also, this:

The thing is, he pointed out that you're downplaying the crucial aspect. The reason this turned into what it did is specifically because the professor went from handling it fine to being a ridiculous asshole even after he had accomplished the part you seem to be taking issue with (the price disparity between what is charged and what the website states).

So no, he didn't paraphrase EXACTLY what you said. You downplayed the most significant aspect. You just say (and I'm paraphrasing here) "yeah his legal threats were bad and you didn't agree with them". They weren't just bad, they're the entire fucking point of why this guy got railroaded for being the monumental jackass he is.

It's quite apparent that you're letting your raging hardon for defending some rich dickhead because he's rich and not understanding the entire point is that the issue is him being a dickhead cloud your ability to actually comprehend the situation. Congratulations, you not only show that you have the logic ability of the dickhead professor but you're also doing exactly what you're chastising someone else for doing (letting something unrelated cloud your judgement, in your case it's your political bias).

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The thing is, he pointed out that you're downplaying the crucial aspect. The reason this turned into what it did is specifically because the professor went from handling it fine to being a ridiculous asshole even after he had accomplished the part you seem to be taking issue with (the price disparity between what is charged and what the website states).

So no, he didn't paraphrase EXACTLY what you said. You downplayed the most significant aspect. You just say (and I'm paraphrasing here) "yeah his legal threats were bad and you didn't agree with them". They weren't just bad, they're the entire fucking point of why this guy got railroaded for being the monumental jackass he is.

It's quite apparent that you're letting your raging hardon for defending some rich dickhead because he's rich and not understanding the entire point is that the issue is him being a dickhead cloud your ability to actually comprehend the situation. Congratulations, you not only show that you have the logic ability of the dickhead professor but you're also doing exactly what you're chastising someone else for doing (letting something unrelated cloud your judgement, in your case it's your political bias).

Whats that you say?

If this guy had hassled Comcast about overcharging $4, instead of a kindhearted mom and pop business, society would have lined up to blow him.

QED.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Whats that you say?

QED.

If he found a discrepancy in his comcast bill and approached it like he did with his restaurant bill, I would feel the exact same way about him. The only difference is that he would have uncovered a lot more money, so a class action lawsuit would probably result. He would still be just as big of an asshole for his behavior. You will still be just as big of a toolbag, too.

 

[lykaon78]

You would think such an educated man would understand that his time is money and the $4-$12 he stands to recoup pales in comparison to the value of the time he spent complaining about the overpricing.

What a douche.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

You would think such an educated man would understand that his time is money and the $4-$12 he stands to recoup pales in comparison to the value of the time he spent complaining about the overpricing.

What a douche.

No, after this he is probably going to get fired and it will actually be worth his time to recoup the money.

 

[bononos]

Its good to know that the race of the lawyer (going by his surname) isn't being brought up in this discussion about a minor difference of a few dollars.

 

[MrDudeMan]

His personal website is a site to behold (pun intended). This isn't 1993, dude.

There's a shout-out to Sichuan Garden at the top of the homepage.

Many people have seen my emails with Ran Duan of Sichuan Garden restaurant in Brookline.

Having reflected on my interaction with Ran, including what I said and how I said it, it's clear that I was very much out of line. I aspire to act with great respect and humility in dealing with others, no matter what the situation. Clearly I failed to do so. I am sorry, and I intend to do better in the future.

I have reached out to Ran and will apologize to him personally as well.

His apology doesn't sound hollow or insincere, but I'm having a lot of trouble believing he would have felt this way under different circumstances.

 

[bradley]

Too bad Mr. Edelman doesn't live near the Lucky River restaurant in San Francisco. I would pay him to eat there daily gratis.

San Francisco cook defrosts, slams meat on sidewalk
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...cook-defrosts-meat-sidewalk-article-1.2030992

Lucky River Restaurant
http://www.yelp.com/biz/lucky-river-restaurant-san-francisco

 

[vshah]

I just sent him a nice email:

beautiful

 

[SlitheryDee]

Why is anyone surprised?

Modern law schools teach that law has nothing to do with spirit or morality. It comes down to "the letter of the law". The explicit wording of the law and how it can be applied is what lawyers practice.

If you aren't scared by it, you should be. These people see nothing wrong with applying 200 year old laws to explain why they should be allowed access to your cellphone with no warrant. Not because it's right, but because they found a way for the wording to be interpreted that way.

For every law there's a person willing to pretend to be too stupid to understand what the law is trying to do in order to get around it.

The first "loophole" was probably some thief standing before a judge, pointing at a law book and saying something like "Well it doesn't say you can't steal on sundays 'specifically', so I didn't know I couldn't steal today". What the judge should have done was slapped them in the face and said "It goes for every day and you damn well DO know that".

Instead they apparently just hung their head and said "Well I guess he got me there", and proceeded to add "even on sunday" to the end of the law in question. After that the floodgates opened and the language we all call legalese had to be invented to attempt to make laws apply "explicitly" to every conceivable arrangement of people, times, places, objects, and events involved. All because we're so shameless we're perfectly willing to pretend we're certifiably insane or hopelessly retarded if it means we get to wriggle out of something we did or if it nets us a moderately sized payday.

 

[bradley]

This story as clickbate has lost traction. Yet surprisingly today's Slate has an interesting article comparing Edelman to a patent troll.

Taking a Page From the Patent Troll Playbook: The Harvard professor who went after a Chinese restaurant used some familiar tactics.
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...tics_in_going_after_a_chinese_restaurant.html


Some interesting notes that are still being lost in the translation:

Ben Edelman is not a practicing attorney with a law license, as he himself misrepresented; he is an associate business professor with a law degree. Ben also doesn't have the regulatory or judicial capacity to impose treble damages. His attempt at a pre-litigation settlement might rather be considered an extortion attempt, albeit a mild one.

Ben incorrectly cited the UDAP statute (MGL 93a) of which he likely also teaches. Treble damages aren’t automatic or even always require legal action. Double treble damages are only awarded to a willful violation, and/or refusal to reach a settlement. The statute only provides the greater of actual damages or $25. Mr. Edelman pulled the half-price off figure out of his ass.

The disclaimer on the restaurant’s website likely clears them somewhat. And yeah, this professional corporate negotiator was outwitted at his own game by a bartender. Edelman's students and clients all should be asking for a refund.

IMO, a resounding 90.83% or 99 ATOTers got this case correct.

 

[bradley]

Obviously I don't condone the opportunistic Boston.com editor for monetizing the story. She produced and attempted to sell t-shirts, and was summarily demoted. I also do question her reasoning with the decision to publish these personal emails.

But I'm sorry, the story is too funny. This Edelman guy continues to dig a hole. Ben was taught (with insularity and by rote) that his autonomous farts don't stink, therefore the real-world backlash has become too harsh and glaring for him. He's now spinning like a whirling dervish.



Harvard prof: Boston.com dis driven by cash-making clicks
https://www.bostonherald.com/busine...of_bostoncom_dis_driven_by_cash_making_clicks

The Harvard professor at the center of a $4 Chinese food bill dispute reported in a series of stories posted by the Boston Globe’s 
Boston.com said yesterday he believes the extensive coverage was driven by a desire for cash-producing clicks, not balance.

“I recognize that the news business is tough. 
Boston.com’s approach to the story gave them a much bigger story, more page views, more ad revenue. I want to see journalists and journalism thrive. But at what cost?” Ben Edelman, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, told the Herald in an email.

Edelman faced a torrent of stinging criticism on the Internet and social media after Boston.com revealed his emails demanding a refund from Sichuan Garden in Brookline over a $4 difference between his food bill and the restaurant’s prices as advertised online.

During the reporting, Boston.com staffers noted on Twitter that they had ordered takeout from the restaurant and deputy editor Hilary Sargent, who wrote the stories, designed a T-shirt mocking Edelman and put it up for sale online.

A story by Sargent alleging the professor had sent a racist email to the owner of the restaurant was pulled shortly after it was posted and replaced by an editor’s note saying that 
Boston.com could not verify Edelman had sent it. The professor denies writing or sending the email containing a racial slur, which was sent through an online form on the restaurant’s website.

Sargent was suspended for five days as a result of the T-shirt incident and the website BostInno reported that she has been demoted from deputy editor to senior writer. Neither she nor Boston.com would comment yesterday.

But Edelman said, “Boston.com wanted to paint me as a bad guy, and in general it’s their right to tell the story as they see fit. But my emails, right there for all to see, specifically indicated that I wanted the restaurant to refund all customers who had been overcharged. Somehow that key fact ended up totally missing from almost all the media coverage.”

The professor said Boston.com was out to push an “ ‘Edelman is a jerk’ narrative,” that ignored previous efforts he had made in the areas of consumer protection and privacy. He added: “From my perspective, the most distressing aspect of the media coverage was how little attention the articles paid to my true motivations.”

His track record of advocating for consumer causes, he said, shows he is “a reasonably nice guy, trying to make the world a better place in my own small way.”