| Re: Customer had a problem with our service
Doc O'Leary spilled out in misguided self-defense:
> In article <53bmtdF1rme2...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> "Pat" <P...@faraway.com> wrote:
> > > Your mistake is to empathize with Mike because he's posting here. If
> > > you look at it from the customer's perspective, why does this moron bike
> > > mechanic think a chain has anything to do with a music player? Is is
> > > clear *now* how being an elitist ***** creates an opportunity for both
> > > sides to look foolish?
>
> > You are reading something into the original post that wasn't there! Mike
> > isn't an "elitist *****"!
>
> Yes, he clearly is. Stop defending him because he is here to defend
> himself. The person that needs to be represented here is the customer.
You are *still* reading something into Mike's post that is not there.
There is absolutely no evidence that he treated this customer with
anything but respect. Get used to it.
> > The customer didn't have an inkling that the bike
> > mechanic thought anything was out of the ordinary...he wasn't affected at
> > all! He left the shop happy.
>
> Now who is reading stuff into posts? Nothing was mentioned about how
> the incident ended, and fixing the flat was completely unrelated to
> Mike's intent to belittle the customer on Usenet.
You must use a very different definition of "belittle" than I do.
> > It seems to me that some people are reading
> > into that simple post some hurtful experience from their past. Are you
> > being honest with yourself, here? Did somebody who you call "elitist" make
> > you feel small or foolish?
>
> If so, it would mean my empathy is at least well placed. What would
> embarrass me would be to take Mike's side because I instead had some
> deep-seated desire to get revenge on a world that has treated me so
> badly . . . by being an elitist ***** to a random person who wants to
> give me money.
Where in any post is ther *anything* to suggest he's elietist? Seems
to me the only elietist here is the guy who's trying to defend someone
who has not - to the best of our knowledge - been upset, offended, or
injured in any way by anyone.
> If you *really* think a cycle of abuse is the answer,
> you need to read those psychology books over again before you attempt to
> analyze someone else.
ABUSE? You know, your post appears to be in English, but if you can
find abuse in anythign he posted, then you are not using the same
English language that I am. This statement is just beyond belief.
> > > No, I am bending over backwards because the customer is not here to
> > > defend themselves and because Mike is contributing to an unfriendly
> > > biking atmosphere, as are you.
>
> > That would only be true if the customer was made to feel uncomfortable. He
> > wasn't!
>
> Yes, because it is *so* much better to talk about them behind their back
> on a global forum!
Who was the customer? What was his name? Since identity is, in the
English I know, *required* to commit the sin you accuse of, let's have
it. Quote the post that identifies this customer.
> What's next, posting security videos on YouTube
> under the title "Look What Kind of Jerkwads We Get In Our Shop". I am
> simply amazed that you, and others, are so eager to see customers
> treated poorly, as though you are never a customer yourself.
The problem is, there is *no* evidence that *anybody* was treated
poorly.
You are full of something, and it isn't love.
Austin
|