Wow, I just got in on this string....I order from Amazon all the time.  I'm
waiting on a book right now and I didn't know they keep your record on file.
That's terrible.  I'm going to cancel my account, as well, b/c I don't want
everyone knowing what I've bought either!  Thanks for the info.

Marnie Dwiggins

-----Original Message-----
From: Maureen E. Garde [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 8:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]

Since you are dumping on's lawyers (and
good for you), I thought I would take the opportunity to
dump on the company. I no longer buy anything from since I learned that they keep the information
on the books you purchase and refuse to remove it from
their system even upon request. Their justification is
"service," so that they can generate those "suggestions"
about books you may be interested in when you log on
to their site. I call this advertising, myself. I learned of this
when I logged on to check a pending order on a book, and
it displayed every book I had ever ordered from them.

Am I the only one who doesn't like the idea that somebody
has a list of the books I buy? So I asked customer service
to delete the prior orders. They said they can't, the only
way I could get them out of their online system was to cancel
my account, which I did. They said there was no way to delete
the information from their permanent files.

I now buy from the local bookstore, whether it is Border, Barnes
and Noble, or the little local shop. And I pay cash.


At 06:06 AM 10/21/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>At 10:03 AM 10/21/1999 +0200, Didi M. Melchior wrote:
> >A new story about this is available from the NY times (free
> >registration with them is required)  about's lawyers asking
> >about the Amazon bookstore's owners' sexual preferences.
> >
>Ya know, as a lawyer I constantly hear ( and sometimes
>use ) the old saw that in a deposition where you are
>"discovering" the other party's position ( like you
>did not know it before from the complaint or answer
>or affirmative defense, duh! ) you can ask anything
>that is totally irrelevant on the theory that it MIGHT
>lead to something RELEVANT or actually, inshallah,
>ADMISSIBLE at a trial.
>But this ploy on the part of lawyers
>on the spurious ground that they want to "show that
>the market is a narrow one and that they, the big
>guy, are a " general interest " online bookstore,
>while these women are catering to a "narrow audience "
>is even more insulting than asking their sexual
>Do the attorneys for think that lesbians
>read different books than straight women? Where are
>their demographics?
>Do the attorneys for think that lesbians
>can't cater to the general readership of the human
>gene pool out there?
>To paraphrase Shakespeare, " does not a lesbian bleed "?
>What if they were asexual? Does that mean they only
>sell books that contain no sexual reference or
>connotation? In that case they pose no threat to
> because their customer base only comes
>out once a year on Haloween.
>I am so tired of this sort of drivel after thirty
>years at the Bar ( and still without a decent glass
>of shiraz.) If the judge on the case has any balls
>at all she is sure to put a stop to discovery abuse
>like this.
>Although, maybe it is benign. Maybe the lawyers
>are just trying to ascertain whether they should
>send a male or female attorney to screw the little
>bookstore with a spurious time consuming motion
>for summary judgment.
>Shame on them. This is why the public thinks
>we are lower than a snake's belly.
>Hal Weiner, COLES & WEINER, P.C
>Members of the National Employment
>Lawyers Association / New York Chapter
>342 Madison Avenue  New York, NY 10173
>(212)856-9530 vox   (212)682-3770 fax
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]

Maureen E. Garde ([log in to unmask])