Customer had a problem with our service - Page 2

02-12-2007, 11:13 PM

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:38:24 -0600 in rec.bicycles.misc, Doc
O'Leary <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> You're adding confusion to the issue. A lapse in logic, even one's own,
> can definitely be funny, but that is not the case here. This is a case
> of misunderstood terminology, which can be corrected simply by giving a
> definition. The only humor in the situation is laughing *with* the
> now-corrected customer if they find the misunderstanding funny, and not
> *at* the customer by posting the incident around the world on Usenet.
>
you sir, are a waste of bandwidth with your oversensitive
fussiness and judgemental attitude. PLONK.

02-12-2007, 11:28 PM

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:15:38 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, Stephen
Harding <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Fifteen years ago, buying my Trek 520 at the LBS, the owner (whom
> I grew to really detest), kept referring to the bike panniers as
> "panneeyeas" a la French pronunciation.
>
> Now I can't tell you if the French (who put their stamp on bicycle
> touring as no other nationality has) pronounce "bike bags" in that
> manner or not, but in the USA, I've always heard them referred to
> as "panneeyers".
>
> Perhaps that's the barbaric American gutting of a perfectly good
> French term, but that's how they pronounce it in these parts

well, they're ignorant. as a francophone, i think that anyone
who think's it's "arrogant" to pronounce foreign language words
correctly (i also correctly pronounce spanish, german, and
italian, even though i don't speak them, because i used to be a
classical music announcer) is full of false pride in their
ignorance and stupidity, which means that they're arrogant about
knowing nothing.

02-13-2007, 03:12 AM

Dennis P. Harris wrote:

>>Perhaps that's the barbaric American gutting of a perfectly good
>>French term, but that's how they pronounce it in these parts
>
>
> well, they're ignorant. as a francophone, i think that anyone
> who think's it's "arrogant" to pronounce foreign language words
> correctly (i also correctly pronounce spanish, german, and
> italian, even though i don't speak them, because i used to be a
> classical music announcer) is full of false pride in their
> ignorance and stupidity, which means that they're arrogant about
> knowing nothing.

I guess it must be "Leenooks" and not "Lienucks" for you then!

SMH

02-13-2007, 06:30 AM

In article <53bmtdF1rme27U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Pat" <Pat@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.

> 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.

> 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. 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.

> > 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! 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.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

02-13-2007, 06:37 AM

In article <2o8Ah.63760$Oa.56340@edtnps82>, me <me@nowhere.com> wrote:

> I would guess you haven't worked in retail before?

Probably more than you. Or maybe I just did a better job of it than you.

> Like the OP tried to
> make plain, some people JUST DON"T GET IT. They are incapable of applying
> logic to their everyday life.

What was shown was not a lack of logic, but a misunderstanding of
terminology. Given the circumstances, there is nothing particularly
funny about it, and there is no good reason to belittle a customer on a
global forum.

> If I didn't know what a "cassette" was, and someone said that to me in
> that case, my response would be "what?" or maybe look puzzled, which would
> I am sure, have resulted in the explanation required. I would NOT have
> jumped from the subject of bicycles to music storage formats because of
> the similarity of terminology.

Well bully for your thought process, but the first thing you should have
learned when dealing with customers is that neither of you are mind
readers. As I have already posted, the basic misunderstanding makes it
just as easy for the *customer* to think that it is the employee who is
changing the subject. A polite correction goes a lot farther than a
stifled laugh followed by a post to Usenet saying the customer wasn't
sane.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

02-13-2007, 06:49 AM

In article <it1Ah.2834$ov2.582@trndny06>,
Stephen Harding <smharding16@msn.com> wrote:

> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> >
> > Hardly, and it is further distasteful that you're attempting to justify
> > your bad behavior. You used a term they did not understand in one
> > context, so they tried to make sense of it in the only context they had
> > for the term. You might like to laugh at them for it, but in their eyes
> > you look just as foolish for trying to change the subject.
>
> He didn't laugh *at* the guy!
>
> They chuckled about it *afterwards*.

Yes, which is why I wrote "might like to laugh". And, again, please
explain to me how it is better to laugh at them behind their back on a
global forum?

> Funny stories *abound* in customer relations. Probably most
> often the customer never fully realizes they've made a gaff
> of some sort.

I'm all for a funny story of a bad customer getting what they deserve,
but this wasn't one. Someone misunderstood an obscure bit of mechanical
terminology, and for that they are called insane world wide?

> He didn't laugh at them! It was a humorous story that brought
> about laugher (if that) after the customer was gone. The
> customer apparently never knew he made such a gaff.

I'm just stunned that so many of you think that is a good thing! As I
have already said, the customer should have been corrected on the spot
and a laugh (if that) *shared*. What happened here, and your defense of
Mike, is just perpetual cruelty.

> >>There's a lesson for many of us there. Don't assume that someone else's
> >>world works quite the same as your own.
> >
> > Seems mostly to be a lesson for you. Seems like you haven't learned it.
>
> Seems you need to re-read the post.

I have. Perhaps it is you who needs to go back and see things from the
customer's perspective.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

02-13-2007, 08:33 AM

On Feb 13, 10:49 am, Doc O'Leary <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:
> And, again, please
> explain to me how it is better to laugh at them behind their back on a
> global forum?

The customer is not hurt in any way by this discussion. He doesn't
know about it. His name was never mentioned. In fact, the city he
lives in was never mentioned. He's completely anonymous, so he's
unharmed in any way.

The phrase "No harm, no foul" comes to mind. It's silly to get in a
huff about a supposed unkind act toward a person who can never be
harmed by that act, is unaware it ever occurred, and might not mind
even if he knew.

If Doc himself were the person in question, and discovered the tale of
his gaffe here on this newsgroup, his outrage would make some sense.
But I doubt that's the case.

- Frank Krygowski

02-13-2007, 10:00 AM

Dear Mike--I was in your store the other day, and I bought something. While
he was waiting on me, the salesperson glanced at another employee. I am sure
they talked about me after I left. I have been watching here to find out
what was said, but you guys are so sly you haven't posted anything. I just
want you to know that's a good way to lose customers.

02-13-2007, 10:44 AM

Doc O'Leary spilled out in misguided self-defense:
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>
> "Pat" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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

02-13-2007, 10:55 AM

> Dear Mike--I was in your store the other day, and I bought something.
> While he was waiting on me, the salesperson glanced at another employee. I
> am sure they talked about me after I left. I have been watching here to
> find out what was said, but you guys are so sly you haven't posted
> anything. I just want you to know that's a good way to lose customers.

Shhh. Maybe it's in our almost-daily diary section? We don't just talk about
our customers... we write 'em up! Anything that's worth talking about much
be worth documenting. :>)

I'm waiting for the thought-police to come and padlock our doors. If they
bring Jack Bauer with them, I'm concerned I'll break. Heck, if they bring
Jack Bauer with them, I'll offer to hand over the store to them if I can
leave with my life!!!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA