"The point is - she is trying to make everyone believe that there is a huge outpouring of disapproval for this policy."

Tutone, I don't have to "make everyone believe" anything. The proof is in the forums.

*"If you want an answer as to why this was implemented or how this could have been done better, well the truth is that no matter how you present something like this, the same uproar would have occured.

If we give notice that it's going to happen in x amount of days, the fact that it was still going to happen would not have softened the issue."*

Actually that's not completely true. I don't know why I'm bothering to repeat myself, none of what I've said has sunk in. But speaking personally, I don't disagree with the policy. I know that little sentence will be skipped over the next time you or Jeff of anyone decides to comment to me but it's not exactly the first time I've said it.
I disagree with the WAY this was handled. I personally am upset that I don't feel I can trust this site to be run as a professional business. Had R'osity stated the new policy, given it's reasons and a date it would be implemented THAT would have been professional and I personally, wouldn't have had a problem with it. But instead this site has demonstrated that it is more than willing to break the agreement it has with all merchants, willing to lock them out at a moments notice while still accepting payments on their products. And THAT is what I have a problem with.

You all keep saying the same thing would have happened but if you read what people are saying, they are all saying they don't like HOW this was done. Some would have disagreed with the policy, yes. But not to this extent.
Again, read what's being said. Those who are asking that this be resolved have all said it's not the policy itself.

...... Kendra