Leslie or other WhiteFlash rep,
PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS ON WF THREAD (sorry, don't know how to link)
I would please like you to clarify and comment on this. Thanks.
I stated in that thread that a merchant is responsible for being reliable and that the vendors who list diamonds should HAVE ACCESS to those diamonds. While the thread was focused on WF, the comments were to ALL vendors who broker diamonds.
Vendors. Don't pass the buck, fix the problem or you, the vendor, will be seen as UNRELIABLE, not whomever you blame.
A customer of WhiteFlash tells me with my expectation that WF (and other merchants) be reliable and accountable, not to do business with WF.
Does WhiteFlash want us to take our business elsewhere because some customer who expects no accountability out of a merchant jumps to your defense because others do expect accountability from vendors, WhiteFlash included?
Here is your customer, zoobiedo's, statement:
"Blueman and original poster - you are both entitled to your opinions. Based on your experience, please don't bother to do business with Whiteflash. You will never be happy. "
READ MY POST. It state no experience, only that a vendor should be responsible and accountable. I stated that vendors need to get their act together on the stone brokering issue, and am told not to bother doing business with WF?
Your own customers tell others to go away if they expect accountability for what is advertised. I don't get it.
The expecation of accountability is not out of line in most private industry.
Please tell me we can expect more of WhiteFlash than being told, "you will never be happy" when expecting reliability in doing business, including confidence that the products advertised are accessible.
Nothing personal to any particular vendor who brokers stones, but I stand behind the bottom line, fix it or the vendors will be seen as unreliable. ALL vendors, WF and ALL others. Not personal to any particular one.
Thank you WF for your input on this issue.
p.s. I read another thread where posters referred to a 'WF bias'. I didn't get it. Now I do.
PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS ON WF THREAD (sorry, don't know how to link)
I would please like you to clarify and comment on this. Thanks.
I stated in that thread that a merchant is responsible for being reliable and that the vendors who list diamonds should HAVE ACCESS to those diamonds. While the thread was focused on WF, the comments were to ALL vendors who broker diamonds.
Vendors. Don't pass the buck, fix the problem or you, the vendor, will be seen as UNRELIABLE, not whomever you blame.
A customer of WhiteFlash tells me with my expectation that WF (and other merchants) be reliable and accountable, not to do business with WF.

Does WhiteFlash want us to take our business elsewhere because some customer who expects no accountability out of a merchant jumps to your defense because others do expect accountability from vendors, WhiteFlash included?
Here is your customer, zoobiedo's, statement:
"Blueman and original poster - you are both entitled to your opinions. Based on your experience, please don't bother to do business with Whiteflash. You will never be happy. "
READ MY POST. It state no experience, only that a vendor should be responsible and accountable. I stated that vendors need to get their act together on the stone brokering issue, and am told not to bother doing business with WF?

Your own customers tell others to go away if they expect accountability for what is advertised. I don't get it.
The expecation of accountability is not out of line in most private industry.
Please tell me we can expect more of WhiteFlash than being told, "you will never be happy" when expecting reliability in doing business, including confidence that the products advertised are accessible.
Nothing personal to any particular vendor who brokers stones, but I stand behind the bottom line, fix it or the vendors will be seen as unreliable. ALL vendors, WF and ALL others. Not personal to any particular one.
Thank you WF for your input on this issue.
p.s. I read another thread where posters referred to a 'WF bias'. I didn't get it. Now I do.