Milieux
Gothic Fashion


CLOTHING / CORSETS & PETTICOATS / FOOTWEAR & LEGWEAR /
HAIR & MAKEUP / JEWELRY & ADORNMENT/ MISCELLANY/ Pictures


I don't want to go off on a rant here, BUT:

I have made this page because one of the vendors I have linked to has gotten me rather upset. Please understand, this page contains my OPINION and the opinions of a few other readers of the alt.gothic.fashion newsgroup. This page also includes copy/pasted emails between myself and the company Barrington Brolly who makes parasols. The named signature on the emails from the company have been omitted for owners privacy, as the problem I have had is with the company, Barrington Brolly, not any particular individual.

The story thus far.....

I orignally had a link on my "Miscellany" page under "Parasols" that read as follows:

"Barrington Brolly
A variety of parasols made of Solarweave fabric for protection from the sun."


I then received an email from the company :

Since she no longer wanted the link, I deleted the direct link and put instead:

"Barrington Brolly A variety of parasols made of Solarweave fabric for protection from the sun. I have removed the link per their request as they state "our target markets are not the same" You can visit them at www.barringtonbrolly.com tho if you still want to, I just can't link to them :) "

 Why didn't I remove the reference entirely? Because I felt, and still do feel, that visitors to my site are interested in such products, and I do think that they make a nice product from what I have seen on their site. I felt that it would be a disservice to visitors to the site to not list a site that offered something they would be interested in. Additionally, I have read previous glowing reviews on the alt.gothic.fashion newsgroup about this company. I made the change removing the direct link and promtly forgot about the matter.

About a month later, I recieved this email from the company:

 Okay...... hrm. Well.... How is one to take that? I have been accused of being too sensitive, and perhaps that is true, but to me these very politely worded emails implied, in my OPINION that this company did not want to do business with the sort of folks that would visit my website. In my opinion, this company wanted to be removed because they did not wish to be associated with those that had a gothic lifestyle, or costuming interest. Well, guess what, I got a bit miffed. Perhaps a more "professionally" worded email to the company would have been recieved more favorably, but at this stage, I felt I was dealt a thinly veiled insult to my lifestyle choice, and as such, I penned off a hasty email to Barrington Brolly:
 At this time, I also posted to the alt.gothic.newsgroup as to what I perceived had happened, and asked for opinions from the readers:

There were quite a few responses to the post on the newsgroup, as well as additional topics spawned from it. If you would like to read the original thread, go HERE. New threads started for the same matter can be found: #2, and #3and a few others, you can search for them via Google/Deja search

One of the newsgroup readers, sent a copy of the post to Barrington Brolly with her own letter:


 No little chickadees, sadly, the story does not end here. I recived another email from Barrington Brolly. Please keep in mind when reading this one, that I sent them only 1 previous email myself. It was probably sent though after they received the letter from the other newsgroup reader. Here it is for your viewing pleasure. Only the signature & email headers have been altered to protect privacy and help prevent SPAM (which we all hate!) :
An aside here: If you have been reading up to this point so far, you probably noticed that I have not "attacked " this person or this business from my one email, or from my one newsgroup post. I have said nothing but complimentary things about their products. And while this person states I have so "twisted out of proprotion" the request, they do not at any time attempt to explain what they meant by " our target markets are not the same" if I interpreted it incorrectly.. Now, back to their email message...
Again, no attempt made to correct the "very very wrong perception" in this very lengthy letter. If they felt they had to explain themselves, then why didn't they just simply state their reason in plain language? Back to the email:
Um.. Hello. I am not a business. I am a private individual who has a link site to things I like with sometimes my own reviews/opinions of their wares. Additionally, I never previously requested permission to link with them. I haven't requested this from anyone I've linked to. Its a hobby to list my personal bookmarks, and make them available for others to enjoy, okay?.. Back to the email:
(To reiterate: I'm not a business, I have no customers. )  Again, the stuff at the end that they say I have suggested that they judge me or anyone else, or that I have slandered anyones name... Or the bit about being recklessly maligned? No idea where this has come from.....Dear reader, I have left nothing out of this narrative. In all fairness, the most I can be guilty of is jumping to an incorrect perception of the companys' statement of " our target markets are not the same" . And if this is the case, why the wordy letter from them instead of a simple explaination?

Additionally the company reponded to the other persons letter with:
 My final letter was in reply to the big long one:


 I received a lot of helpful email from other newsgroup readers and found out that Barrington Brolly cannot legally prevent someone from linking their site. There are many helpful organizations that help protect our civil liberties online including:
ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundaton)

There are also some interesting articles and judgements protecting individuals in their right to hyperlink:
Internet Linking Law
2600 News :this one pretty interesting-upholds the right to hold an inflammatory webaddress such as "fuckgeneralmotors.com" and the 'court further strengthens the right to hyperlink by stating that "Trademark law does not permit Plaintiff to enjoin persons from linking to its homepage simply because it does not like the domain name or other content of the linking webpage."'
Linking and Liability
The Link Controversy Page
And 2 articles about rulings on linking at Wired.com:
 "Big Stink Over a Simple Link "
 "Attention Editors: Deep Link Away "


 Additionally, I have submitted the emails from Barrington Brolly to the Canadian BBB at: http://easternontario.bbb.org/index_english.htm. Currently, this company had no listings with the BBB good or bad. The form had a section for desired resolution of problem, and I stated : "I would like this company to cease with threats of legal action for providiing a web link to her retail home page. I would also like this company to not discriminate against clientle based on their lifestyle preferences." If there are any further updates, I'll keep you all posted. Meanwhile, thanks for listening!

-Lucretia (on alt.gothic.fashion)