I really don’t see how that applies.
[h=1]Reductio ad Absurdum[/h]Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.
[QUOTE=Alagirl;7441484]
I think you are hearing the echo, it done rounded the bend and is on it’s second or third pass about…[/QUOTE]
Lmao. Judging by the continued banter, I do believe you are right!
[QUOTE=MaybeMorgan;7441506]
Guess I wasn’t clear with the red type. YOUR STEREOTYPING OF AMERICANS was distasteful to me.[/QUOTE]
I was pointing out how Dispatcher’s stereotyping of the French was distasteful to ME. It was sarcasm.
I got your point, Crowne.
For all those who were missing it, I’ll help you out. When Crowne said “Typical American judgmental, elitest, close-minded response. Bleechh.” she meant for the reader to go “I’m not like that!” and then realize that what they were doing to the French in saying “Claude’s an a**hole. And French, to boot. Bleecchh.” was also stereotyping and each individual Frenchman may say “I’m not like that!” as well. Regardless, painting an entire country with the same brush is wrong.
I’ve been wondering this and maybe I just missed it somewhere…
Did she say she originally saw the hat on someone’s head or that she saw it for sale and then wished later she’d bought it (hence thinking she would buy it this year at Devon).
Because then if she saw the hat off someone’s head and held it in her hands, she might very well have a good comparison about whether the hat(s) she received in the mail were of the same quality as the hat she saw at Devon.
[QUOTE=Dispatcher;7441513]
I really don’t see how that applies.
[h=1]Reductio ad Absurdum[/h]Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.[/QUOTE]
re·duc·ti·o ad ab·sur·dum (r?-d?k?t?-? ?d ?b-sûr?d?m, -zûr?-, -sh?-?)
n. pl. re·duc·ti·o·nes ad absurdum (-??n?z, -n?s)
Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
Noun 1. reductio ad absurdum - (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd
disproof, falsification, refutation - any evidence that helps to establish the falsity of something
[QUOTE=Perfect10;7441530]
I got your point, Crowne.
For all those who were missing it, I’ll help you out. When Crowne said “Typical American judgmental, elitest, close-minded response. Bleechh.” she meant for the reader to go “I’m not like that!” and then realize that what they were doing to the French in saying “Claude’s an a**hole. And French, to boot. Bleecchh.” was also stereotyping and each individual Frenchman may say “I’m not like that!” as well. Regardless, painting an entire country with the same brush is wrong.[/QUOTE]
Thank you.
I will try to exercise some self-restraint and really back away…now. 
[QUOTE=Alagirl;7441484]
I think you are hearing the echo, it done rounded the bend and is on it’s second or third pass about…[/QUOTE]
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/anchorman-i-dont-know-what.gif
[QUOTE=AffirmedHope;7441559]
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/anchorman-i-dont-know-what.gif[/QUOTE]
:lol:
The Voltaire rep’s response to the OP’s first email actually made me go check out and order this hat. I like a company with a backbone, I liked that the rep stood by his company, and didn’t give into the OP. I also feel bad for the OP’s boyfriend, geez he was trying to do something nice and she threw a fit, imagine how that must have felt.
[QUOTE=Angelico;7441607]
The Voltaire rep’s response to the OP’s first email actually made me go check out and order this hat. I like a company with a backbone, I liked that the rep stood by his company, and didn’t give into the OP. I also feel bad for the OP’s boyfriend, geez he was trying to do something nice and she threw a fit, imagine how that must have felt.[/QUOTE]
He probably didn’t feel to bad after being cursed at by Claude…
[QUOTE=Dispatcher;7441617]
He probably didn’t feel to bad after being cursed at by Claude…[/QUOTE]
He thought he was doing a good thing by remembering the hat. He was expecting some happiness and excitement, probably feeling pretty good himself. Instead, he gets drama. Now he’s really disappointed. No win for anyone, just a crappy Valentine’s Day for everyone, including the company rep. Which all could have been avoided if the OP had cared more about her boyfriend’s feelings than a silly cap. JMO
Liz
Amen - disgusting, she was looking for a fight and found this lovely man that loves this company with all his heart and is ALWAYS professional in a low spot. Congradulations. How many others did she pick a fight with that day and try to get their jobs.
[QUOTE=dogrider;7441676]
Amen - disgusting, she was looking for a fight and found this lovely man that loves this company with all his heart and is ALWAYS professional in a low spot. Congradulations. How many others did she pick a fight with that day and try to get their jobs.[/QUOTE]
He wasn’t professional in this exchange…
[QUOTE=prairiewind2;7441431]
Second, assuming you (generic) are not the type to let the small things slide, then fine, write a complaint letter. I don’t really think the OP’s letter was that bad. She wasn’t friendly but so it goes. Her letter had no cursing or threats of bodily harm so what’s the big deal about it? And yes, the customer is nearly always right even when they are wrong. The company guy shouldn’t have responded as he did - because the customer is always right (unless there is cursing and/or bodily harm threatened).
So in this case (imo) neither party comes off well but for different reasons.
Liz[/QUOTE]
Her original email wasn’t that bad, until you consider what she actually said. She called the hats “low” quality simply because they were not the brown color she remembered, not the shape she remembered, and she got two instead of one. That is bizarre enough, and then to throw a fit to a company rep for something that is more likely a wrong order by her boy friend is simply wrong. And then to start a thread with the expedite purple of trashing the company reputation? That’s just wrong. If she had asked politely for a return/exchange, or behaved in a mature manner online, it would have been very different.
I believe customers are always right, but not all customers are worth keeping.
I dislike trucker hats myself. In fact, I just purchased an embroidered hat with my trainer’s logo. I wrote a check, because they needed the cash up front to place the order. I was told they were baseball caps. So I thought YAY! I also received a jacket… which was gorgeous. The hat came… embroidered with the logo, and my name on the back. It is a trucker hat. Giant at the front, flat brim, not a normal baseball cap. It is now located somewhere in the depths of my car.
RIP trucker hats… RIP.
Has anyone blamed this on Obama and the muslims yet?
[QUOTE=Gloria;7441702]
Her original email wasn’t that bad, until you consider what she actually said. She called the hats “low” quality simply because they were not the brown color she remembered, not the shape she remembered, and she got two instead of one. That is very bizarre (I don’t see how that can mean low quality), and then to throw a fit to a company rep for something that is more likely a wrong order by her boy friend’s is simply wrong. If she had asked politely for a return/exchange, it would have been very different.
I believe customers are always right, but not all customers are worth keeping.[/QUOTE]
But my point isn’t that her email was suitable, correct, polite, etc. Her email may even have been bizarre to some people. It doesn’t matter! Customers are always right, within certain bounds. If the company doesn’t care about selling, well then, it can treat customers however it wants. It can insist customers act certain ways. It can throw “unreasonable” customers out the door.
Mostly, though, companies want to sell so they have to put up with crap. That is just the way it is. Life ain’t fair and neither is commerce, especially in this economy. And you might be surprised how often even dissatisfied customers will come back and buy - maybe big - if you treat them with respect when they are being unreasonable (in your opinion).
L However bad a thing it might be, the US is turning into a service economy. So people had better learn about how service works or they may not have a job in the future.
Liz
Actually smart businesses understand that they cannot satisfy all customers, and they can be more profitable excluding customers that aren’t worth having.
[QUOTE=Gloria;7441749]
Actually smart businesses understand that they cannot satisfy all customers, and they can be more profitable excluding customers that aren’t worth having.[/QUOTE]
How do they determine a customer isn’t worth having? Just because she didn’t like their hats?
Verrrrry shortsighted business, in that case.
Liz
ETA - I am beginning to understand why so many new businesses fail these days. An entitlement attitude doesn’t work any better in business than it does in personal life.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
