I was banished from a blog

[StevieJD]

To try and combat the sucky at a source, maybe? I don't know, I don't bother with those types of sites.

^-.-^

Yes, in a manner of speaking I was trying to head off SC before they could get a good head of steam and damage everybody.


For example.... I was just at Sam's Club buying bottled water. I took the last two cases and TWO minutes later an employee walked by I asked her if there was more. It took her THREE whole minutes to track down the person with the computer to find out if there was more water in the warehouse and report back to me.

And then it took the forklift guy an NINE minutes to drive his forklift to the proper overhead storage and return with a pallet of the water.

I timed him because I had nothing better to do.

And then it took him THREE minutes to shift product and place the pallet in the proper slot.

Can you imagine a privilaged customer such as myself. I am such a HUGE spender at Sam's. I could pay everybody's salary 10 times over with the $1000 that I spend every year.

Waaaa


I had to wait SEVENTEEN Minutes for my water.

Waaa Waaa.





I read crapola like that and just want to put a bullet where it belongs.




Personally I found a couple sites on a G search when a favorite company was being bashed in the press for one of those stupid, you gotta be kidding type events, like the water sprinkler accidently spraying water into somebody's convertible and their $5 million antique suede vest was ruined.

[DGoddessChardonnay]

I cant stand to read "Pro Consumer" blogs. I find the lack of understanding (and ya know.. basic humanity!) disturbing and not a little sad. The fact that people congregate and work out ways to screw over other people and consider this an OK thing to do with their time...Its just sad...

I think they're cousins to the "Consumer Watch" type segments on local news shows . . . and I make it a point NOT to watch those.

What's the kicker on those: nine times out of 10, the company which is the focal point of the segment will "refuse" to return the station's phone calls. Which gets me wondering if they actually refused to call them back or if the station never contacted them for their side and just used the "refused to return calls" as an excuse so they can boost their ratings.

[repsac]

Personally, I think y'all ought check out http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/ and see where you (and they fit) Myself, I'm a Godfather when it comes to such flame wars.

[Record Store Tough Guy]

I don't think the site in question is The Consumerist. I read the site regularly, and I don't think they are of the "encourage sucky behavior" ilk. In fact, they usually take care to remind people that CSRs are people, too.

[aurelemsrealm]

What's wrong with some people? If they didn't even win a key to the ATV, they shouldn't care about the issue. It's totally irrelevant. In my mind, at least, I'd be saying that I didn't win a key, so it's time to move on to something more interesting. Then again, the busybody types always choose to wrap themselves in drama, and I'm the type who prefers to watch drama on TV rather than live it. I'll take dull and boring so I can do my own thing and be less stressed any day!

[StevieJD]

I think they're cousins to the "Consumer Watch" type segments on local news shows . . . and I make it a point NOT to watch those.

What's the kicker on those: nine times out of 10, the company which is the focal point of the segment will "refuse" to return the station's phone calls. Which gets me wondering if they actually refused to call them back or if the station never contacted them for their side and just used the "refused to return calls" as an excuse so they can boost their ratings.

Ah yes, quality journalism.

If is fine for undercovering a WhiteHouse conspiracy, but for everyday life the press needs to give people a fair chance.

I suspect that they make a single telephone call to some overwhelmed receptionist and then go on the air 5 minutes later never giving anybody a fair chance.


I had a slimmy DEFENSE lawyer do something like that to me when I was a wet behind the ears orderly at the hospital.

Wee hours of a Sunday morning. I just happened to answer the telephone. The lawyer got my name and ID number and then told to instruct the pathologist performing an autopsy to perform specific tests on a deceased person that had been murdered by this slimmy lawyer's client.

The pathologist had performed the autopsy on Saturday Night and went home hours before this telephone call.

The pathologist later called me into his office and said don't worry about it. Common tatic of slimmy lawyers and journalists. If the tests weren't done the lawyer planned on getting his client off based upon "my" incompetance for failure to relay the message, but the pathologist didn't report to any "fucking bastard lawyer" and he sure as hell wasn't going to start.

The client plead quilty and I never got called to court. Thank God.

[Rapscallion]

To back up what Ree just said, something like that did happen a couple years ago. We got invaded by one troll after another. I banned more people in that one day than in the rest of my years as a mod. It was fun at first, but it got annoying pretty quickly.

Probably a touch earlier than that, I suspect. I took over the place around christmas 2005, and it was before then. We've had some fairly nasty incidents in that time, but we've ever had a major influx in that time.

Rapscallion

[flybye023]

I think they're cousins to the "Consumer Watch" type segments on local news shows . . . and I make it a point NOT to watch those.

What's the kicker on those: nine times out of 10, the company which is the focal point of the segment will "refuse" to return the station's phone calls. Which gets me wondering if they actually refused to call them back or if the station never contacted them for their side and just used the "refused to return calls" as an excuse so they can boost their ratings.

I really question their tactics after an incident with our church recently. I live in Pacific Time, our church headquarters are in Mountain Time, an hour later than we are. Basically, they had a late-breaking news story 4:00 p.m. our time, reported the local incident and stated that the church "hadn't responded to their calls/inquiries." Yeah. Because all the church business offices were already closed. Oh, and this was on a Friday too, so they took the whole weekend to essentially imply that the church wasn't going to respond, event though they hadn't yet had a chance to. By Monday, the story had died down and, around here anyway, they haven't brought it up again. Not quite ethical in my book.

After that incident I'm always questioning the "no response/no return calls" reporting.

[Andara Bledin]

After that incident I'm always questioning the "no response/no return calls" reporting.

Another good question: Do they say that the person they are lambasting didn't respond when legal counsel for that person responds in their stead?

Always read anything published with a close eye.

Especially as the court has actually been called in to confirm the fact that "news" outlets are not legally required to be factual in their reporting. I don't know how the hell that actually works, but there you have it.

However, any program that advertises itself as "news" and then proceeds to publish either mistruths or outright fiction as actual news, they should face charges as regards truth in advertising laws.

^-.-^

[karma_gypsy]

What's wrong with some people? If they didn't even win a key to the ATV, they shouldn't care about the issue. It's totally irrelevant. In my mind, at least, I'd be saying that I didn't win a key, so it's time to move on to something more interesting.

And it was obvious that the key holders were happy with the outcome ... heck, I would be ... that's a guaranteed $1000 in your pocket instead of a possible chance of winning an ATV ...

Plus, the ATV got donated ... it's a win/win/win situation ... or should have been ...