Template talk:A customer

• You can't use someones name as if quoting them if you've changed the text
• You've switched the word "customer" with your business name reversing his meaning

This does raise an interesting issue though - Ghandi had to have such a viewpoint to try and counteract the problem of corporations having the same rights as Humans (see w:Corporate personhood), but having no moral foundation (in fact by law they must act immorally in conforming to the current economic bottom-line principles). The project doesn't believe in overcorrection though and would say that organisations and people are both equal entities, but also that this can only work where both parties work in accord with the principles. It has to be this way due to the recursive nature of organisation, and the need for customers to be interchangeable with organisations, like wildoats.com being an important client of other organisations etc.

i understand now. i just see these articles frequently and wanted to remind myself of the intrinsic value of my customers. I didn't mean to change what Ghandi said, I was just trying to apply it to my daily work. Should I take this down, or just attribute it here in the talk page? --Phalseid 12:02, 25 Oct 2006 (NZDT)

also, (this probably belongs in the manifesto somehwere) is the point that I feel (without knowledge yet) that vendors, clients, etc. are actually partners, and that classifying them as some class other than my own self does more harm than good. Is this in line with the project's belief? --Phalseid 12:02, 25 Oct 2006 (NZDT)

Yeah that partners way is like the project, we often use the phrase '"work with" instead of "work for"'. I don't think you should remove the article or anything, its just that things should be clear when text has a signiture added - maybe by linking to his exact one or something. --Nad 14:26, 25 Oct 2006 (NZDT)