FL: Home Depot fired him for wearing “religious” pin
We read:
"A Florida man says he was fired from his job at The Home Depot for wearing an American flag pin that said ‘One nation under God, indivisible.’ Trevor Keezer, 20, said he had worn the button ever since he started working at the home improvement retailer 19 months ago. He said it was his way of supporting U.S. troops, the Florida Sun-Sentinel reported. Keezer, whose brother Army Spc. Steven Keezer Jr. is set to return to Iraq in December, said none of his supervisors had anything negative to say about the pin until last month when he began bringing his Bible to work, the paper reported.”
Source
78 comments:
Should have left his bible at home. Did you come to work or preach? I don't think this is the whole story.
As long as it was just the pin, he's in the right, but why is his Bible necessary at work? Is he looking for (or perhaps creating) converts on his lunch hour? I am a proud Catholic, but i dislike "anyone" pushing their religion on others, if in fact, that was his intention.
According to an article I saw yesterday, he brought the Bible to work so he could read it during lunch. In other words, it was just personal reading material that the boss didn't like.
Maybe he should have brought Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan to read instead. Maybe it would have been less "offensive".
Here's the article I saw yesterday:
Fla. man says Home Depot fired him over God button
"Earlier this month, he began bringing a Bible to read during his lunch break at the store in the rural town of Okeechobee, about 140 miles north of Miami. That's when he says The Home Depot management told him he would have to remove the button."
I suppose that if he were Moozlim and wore an explosive vest, that would be OK.
As long as it was just the pin, he's in the right,
How so?
The store is private property and is therefore not subject to any absolute First Amendment claim.
The store's policy does not allow any non-company approved pins. As long as that policy is administered across the board, the content of the pin is irrelevant.
He was given what appears to be a legal directive by a supervisor. He declined. The directive was given to him again. He declined again.
He was terminated for what is most likely insubordination.
Even if one goes with his side of the story as the absolute truth, The Home Depot is well within their rights to have terminated the guy.
The store has to have a zero tolerance policy on buttons under the NLRA, or it otherwise could be stuck with having to permit employees to wear pro-union buttons during campaigns.
"He was given what appears to be a legal directive by a supervisor. He declined. The directive was given to him again. He declined again."
---Legally they may be right, but morally they aren't. Tell me, why should anyone who believes in God buy anything at The Home Depot? If the Home Depot hates God, fine, let the satanists and secularists do their shopping there.
Besides, what's the big deal about a little pin? It's not like the pin said something offensive.
---Legally they may be right, but morally they aren't.
Who's morals?
If the Home Depot hates God, fine, let the satanists and secularists do their shopping there.
It is not about hating God or anyone. It is about the law, policy, and treating people the same under those laws and policies.
Besides, what's the big deal about a little pin? It's not like the pin said something offensive.
There ya go. Censorship based on content. That is what you are advocating.
Bobby is apparently anti-business, quite unbecoming for an alleged conservative.
Oh noes! They takes aways mah Magic Man buttons. Protection against Satan…..leaving…. Must…. shout…. PERSECUTION!
Yeah, most businesses choose not to have their employees displaying political or religious messages on their clothing that could offend customers. Perhaps he could just wear Jesus Underoos so nobody would be the wiser. Like how the Mormons do it.
The problem is that they had no issues with him wearing the button for 19 months. Its only after he began reading his Bible at lunch that had a problem with it. That is wrong.
I just don't see what Home Depot has to gain by this policy.
For every 1 thin skinned person that they save from being offended, they end up offending 1,000.
Not a good business plan if you ask me.
~darko
Its only after he began reading his Bible at lunch that had a problem with it. That is wrong.
That is his perception of the story. That doesn't mean it is true. Other factors could have contributed to this as well. You could have a new store manager that wants the dress code enforced. You could have district manager (either a new one or a old one) that noticed that non-company pins were being worn by store employees. The DM then tells the store management to enforce the policy as written.
Even if that didn't happen, it doesn't matter. The guy was given a legal directive and he refused to comply with it. He has the right to refuse and the store has the right to terminate him.
Basically your argument comes down to "they didn't enforce it before, so they can't now."
On the street my house is on, in all the time I have lived here, I have never seen a car pulled over for speeding. In over 10 years, not a one. We have had speeders, but no police pulling speeders over.
About a month ago, a guy shot down the street and as he crossed an intersection, a police car pulled out and later stopped him. He was doing 43 in a 20 mph zone.
Using the same logic you want to apply to the store, the guy should not have been stopped and certainly no ticket ever issued. After all, he was able to speed down the street all these years, so that makes it right.
It doesn't work that way.
The Home Depot guy was told to remove a non-approved pin. As long as all employees were given the same direction, he has no case at all.
Unless the company policy is in print that bans religious or any other kind of materials, pins of any sort and posted in a common area or given in an empolyee handbook, they haven't a leg to stand on. That is law.
That is law.
That is not Federal law and so it doesn't apply in all states. In Florida you can fire someone for just about anything.
However, your point is moot as there is no doubt that the wearing of the pin was not allowed by the employee handbook. There is no dispute that the employee was aware of the handbook and aware of the regulation.
"Who's morals?"
---Most Americans believe in God and country, most Americans don't mind if someone wears a pro-God pin.
"It is not about hating God or anyone. It is about the law, policy, and treating people the same under those laws and policies."
---Is it illegal for a store to allow one employee to wear a harmless pin? Does allowing one pin mean the Home Depot has to allow all pins? Can't they deal with the pins on a case by case basis?
"There ya go. Censorship based on content. That is what you are advocating."
---I see, so standing up for a Christian employee makes me a censor. First of all, I hate censorship and political correctness.
Secondly, I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-stupidity. It's stupid to offend millions of your christian costumers for the sake of a few atheist nutjobs.
Companies like The Home Depot deserve to fail for being anti-Christian and anti-freedom.
---Most Americans believe in God and country, most Americans don't mind if someone wears a pro-God pin.
Please answer the question.
---Is it illegal for a store to allow one employee to wear a harmless pin?
Who said the pin was harmless?
Does allowing one pin mean the Home Depot has to allow all pins?
They can allow or disallow pins based on their own criteria as long as the criteria is not content based and consistently applied.
Can't they deal with the pins on a case by case basis?
Which would be content based censorship. On issues like this, they have to treat employees the same.
---I see, so standing up for a Christian employee makes me a censor.
Yes, it does because you are advocating allowing a pin based on the content of its message rather than the pin itself.
First of all, I hate censorship and political correctness.
All evidence to the contrary.
It's stupid to offend millions of your christian costumers for the sake of a few atheist nutjobs.
So you would allow a pin that says "God Bless Al Queada?" A pin that says "There is No God for One Nation to be Under?" How about "One Nation, under Allah?"
Would you allow those pins?
Companies like The Home Depot deserve to fail for being anti-Christian and anti-freedom.
If they were being anti-Christian or anti-freedom you might have a point. As it is, it appears that they are following the letter and spirit of the law.
"Who said the pin was harmless?"
---You're such a contrarian.
"They can allow or disallow pins based on their own criteria as long as the criteria is not content based and consistently applied."
---Everyting in the workplace is content-based. For example, a company might let you visit websites like CNN for resarch purposes, but they won't allow you to watch porn websites at work. Another example, a company may allow an employee to send a joke, but if the joke is obscene or offensive, that person can get in trouble.
The people the employee wrote wasn't offensive. In fact, I think "one nation under God" is part of our pledge of allegiance, how can that be offensive?
"Which would be content based censorship. On issues like this, they have to treat employees the same."
---A company can have a policy: "no offensive pins" and then they get to rule what is offensive and what isn't offensive.
"Yes, it does because you are advocating allowing a pin based on the content of its message rather than the pin itself."
---You do realize companies make value judgements all the time, tattoos are a form of free speech, just like fashion, yet companies can demand that tattoos not be visible. Tell me, should a car dealer be fined for flying the US flag but not the flags of every country in the world? If a company says "press 2 for Spanish" should they be fined for not saying "press 3 for Chinese?"
"So you would allow a pin that says "God Bless Al Queada?" A pin that says "There is No God for One Nation to be Under?" How about "One Nation, under Allah?"
Would you allow those pins?"
---If that Home Depot is in a heavily muslim area like Dearborn, Michigan, then it would be good business sense to allow it there. In fact, Blockbuster stores tend to have more gay movies in gay neighborhoods like Cedar Springs in Dallas. So by the same token, since most people in this nation are Christians and according to a rasmusen poll most people are conservative, it make sense to allow pro-God, pro-America pins in those areas.
"If they were being anti-Christian or anti-freedom you might have a point. As it is, it appears that they are following the letter and spirit of the law."
---First of all, I wouldn't worry about the letter and spirit of the law unless I'm sued. Secondly, no other employee demanded to wear a controversial pin just because a christian was wearing his pin. Thirdly, there are a lot of things in business that are subjective. Abercrombie & Finch hires mostly male salesmen, all of them are young, almost all of them are white, and they're all sexy. Sometimes they've been sued but their defense is that they need their employees to look a certain way because that is their brand. Just like Victoria's Secret isn't forced to hire fat women and shoot them in their panties, Abercrombie isn't forced to hire ugly people and the marketplace so far accepts that. Another example is Hooters, those people only hire male waiters when the courts have forced them. So yes, I can understand a company forcing rules on their employees, it makes sense for Victoria, Abercrombie and Hooters to be discriminatory, but it doesn't make sense for The Home Depot to discrimiate against one employee and thus insult millions of Christian costumers.
The Home Depot is nothing without their costumers, turning against the Christian majority isn't going to help them.
A lot of people read during lunch, why would you question "why did he bring the bible to work?"
---You're such a contrarian.
So you have no answer.
---Everyting in the workplace is content-based.
Absolutely not. In fact, your own scenario shows how you don't understand the concept.
---A company can have a policy: "no offensive pins" and then they get to rule what is offensive and what isn't offensive.
Actually they can't. They are not allowed content censorship in the realm of religious expression.
---If that Home Depot is in a heavily muslim area like Dearborn, Michigan, then it would be good business sense to allow it there.
If you want to do that, you would and could be sued. You can't have different exceptions for religious expressions in the workplace. Once again, your knowledge of the law is sorely lacking.
---First of all, I wouldn't worry about the letter and spirit of the law unless I'm sued.
So now you believe in anarchy?
Secondly, no other employee demanded to wear a controversial pin just because a christian was wearing his pin.
The pin may or may not be controversial. That doesn't matter. What matters is that the company has the right to restrict the wearing of the pin. They are protecting themselves from people suing on the basis of religious freedom by banning all pins. It is consistent, legal and moral.
but it doesn't make sense for The Home Depot to discrimiate against one employee and thus insult millions of Christian costumers.
Of course the flaw in your logic is that Home Depot didn't discriminate against anyone. That is what you are missing.
The Home Depot is nothing without their costumers, turning against the Christian majority isn't going to help them.
I understand your point now. You want them to discriminate against religions depending on the circumstance and location.
So why do you support illegal conduct in discrimination?
"Absolutely not. In fact, your own scenario shows how you don't understand the concept."
---I lived the concept at my last job. I saw employees wearing pro-Obama t-shirts at work, and yes, the company lets you wear casual attire, but let me ask you this, do you think they would be tolerant of anti-Obama t-shirts? I doubt it.
"If you want to do that, you would and could be sued. You can't have different exceptions for religious expressions in the workplace. Once again, your knowledge of the law is sorely lacking."
---So you're saying there can be no religion in the workplace. We must fire every jew who wears a star of David and every Christian who wears a cross. And while we're at it, let's fine everyone who says "merry christmas" since Christmas is about Christ and God fordid we use anything remotely religious. You know, there is a reason why Jesus refered to lawyers as snakes.
So now you believe in anarchy?
---No, I believe in common sense just like Glen Beck. I believe in tolerance and not just for minorities but majorities as well. If I did believe in anarchy I woudl encourage that fired employee to commit arson and destroy that evil place. However, I don't believe in anarchy.
"The pin may or may not be controversial. That doesn't matter. What matters is that the company has the right to restrict the wearing of the pin. They are protecting themselves from people suing on the basis of religious freedom by banning all pins. It is consistent, legal and moral."
---Wal-Mart also has the right not to say Merry Christmas yet they do because the last time they didn't it cost them millions of dollars in lost sales. Wal-Mart also has the right not to sell guns yet they do because millions of Wal-Mart shoppers would be pissed off if they didn't. Chick-Fill-A also has the right to work on Sundays yet they choose not to because the CEO believes it's a holy day. And yes, The Home Depot has the right to discriminate against Christians, but just because they have the right doesn't make it right, from a moral point of view is completely wrong.
"Of course the flaw in your logic is that Home Depot didn't discriminate against anyone. That is what you are missing."
---It's not different than don't ask don't tell, The Home Depot is saying "we're ok with christians and patriots but please keep your beliefs in the closet."
"I understand your point now. You want them to discriminate against religions depending on the circumstance and location."
---And you want religion removed from the workplace completely. What you want is conformity, an Orwellian world where everyone looks and acts the same. Arbeit Mach Frei, work frees you so be a good little boy at Auschwitz Advertising, wear your uniform, keep your views to yourself, and leave your personality at home.
"So why do you support illegal conduct in discrimination?"
---If it really was illegal do you think those companies would get away with it? If a company doesn't want to hire you they're not going to hire you, end of the story. All the laws against discrimination don't mean crap, companies will find excuses not to hire you or to fire you if they don't like you.
I don't like the way Abercrombie operates, I have never bought anything at their stores because I can't relate to the models in their advertising. HOWEVER, I respect their business model, it has made them rich and there's plenty of stupid people willing to spend their money there.
The Home Depot has a different business model and target audience, their customer base is mostly blue-collar and Christian, so they should follow that model instead of crucifying a decent employee.
---I lived the concept at my last job.
Once again, your scenario shows that you don't understand the concept.
---So you're saying there can be no religion in the workplace.
Please learn to read. I said no such thing. You cannot allow expressions of religion in the workplace for one religion and then disallow similar expressions for another religion. That is religious discrimination.
We must fire every jew who wears a star of David and every Christian who wears a cross.
A pin with "one nation under God" is not the same thing as a pendant of a Star of David, cross etc. Courts recognize this yet I know you won't because it doesn't fit into your view.
And yes, The Home Depot has the right to discriminate against Christians, but just because they have the right doesn't make it right, from a moral point of view is completely wrong.
Except once again you fail to grasp that there was no discrimination here.
---It's not different than don't ask don't tell,
Actually, it is tremendously different.
The Home Depot is saying "we're ok with christians and patriots but please keep your beliefs in the closet."
You obviously didn't read the article.
---And you want religion removed from the workplace completely.
Proof please. Please show me one statement where I said I supported the removal of religion from the workplace.
---If it really was illegal do you think those companies would get away with it?
They don't. There are far more worthless complaints about discrimination than are ever proven. This case appears to be one of those worthless complaints.
The Home Depot has a different business model and target audience, their customer base is mostly blue-collar and Christian, so they should follow that model instead of crucifying a decent employee.
They followed the letter and spirit of their policy and law. No employee was crucified. The guy was terminated, according to his own recounting of the incident, because he refused the lawful directive of a supervisor several times. That's insubordination and he was let go.
Anonymous wrote:
"Proof please. Please show me one statement where I said I supported the removal of religion from the workplace."
Do I need to explain the irony of this statement?
Do I need to explain the irony of this statement?
First explain how a pin is a religion and then you can explain the "irony."
Note that even if the guy is a Christian, by definition a "pin" is not "true religion."
Then of course, you are going to have to explain how a policy of not allowing pins in the workplace means a removal of religion from the workplace.
"You cannot allow expressions of religion in the workplace for one religion and then disallow similar expressions for another religion. That is religious discrimination."
---So you're saying that if I allow a Christian to wear his pin I also have to allow a muslim to do the same. Well fine, I have no problem with that, if the pin isn't offensive and doesn't damage the reputation of the company, it's not a problem.
"A pin with "one nation under God" is not the same thing as a pendant of a Star of David, cross etc. Courts recognize this yet I know you won't because it doesn't fit into your view."
---Visual expression communicates just as well as verbal expression. A company is free to regulate the way employees dress, what they wear, etc. You keep making this about the law but it isn't about the law, it's about public relations. When The Home Depot is intolerant against the pin of one employee that intolerance extends to every shopper that believes in that pin.
"Except once again you fail to grasp that there was no discrimination here."
---The day you get fired for refusing to compromise your beliefs by taking off a pin that represents them, you'll see things differently.
"Actually, it is tremendously different."
---Then you clearly don't understand what don't ask don't tell does. You ever seen those soldiers kissing their wives and girlfriends at the airport? You think gay soldiers can do that without violating DADT? Defenders of DADT use "unit cohesion" as an excuse. Well, this is the same thing, The Home Depot also wants "unit cohesion" among their employees, they don't want any employee to reflect their individuality in any way. In fact, if they could hire robots to replace those employees they would.
"Proof please. Please show me one statement where I said I supported the removal of religion from the workplace."
---That's what you seem to be advocating based on your previous statements. You always seem to be attacking religion.
"They don't. There are far more worthless complaints about discrimination than are ever proven. This case appears to be one of those worthless complaints."
---They do get away with it. Companies can afford better lawyers than individuals, they can also find all kinds of legal excuses to justify what they do.
"They followed the letter and spirit of their policy and law. No employee was crucified. The guy was terminated, according to his own recounting of the incident, because he refused the lawful directive of a supervisor several times. That's insubordination and he was let go."
---A few months ago I think you told me that a Christian employee can refuse to sell birth control at a pharmacy even if she's ordered to do it. Yet you won't defend insubordination when it comes to this unreasonable request. I understand that an employee behavior reflects on the company, if the behavior was negative then I would be against it, but if it's positive what's the big deal?
The truth about companies today is they have no common sense. They have more fear for the ACLU and a tiny minority of God haters than they do for believers. So many companies are doing this that believers can't boycott them all, but I'll tell you this, the next time I need an air conditioner filter, I'm going to Lowe's.
It looks like Bobby's parents let him use the internet again.
---So you're saying that if I allow a Christian to wear his pin
Exactly. Yet you have said that you would allow some pins in some areas and not in others. If the policy bans all pins, there is no discrimination.
A company is free to regulate the way employees dress, what they wear, etc.
Yet you keep saying that the regulation was discriminatory. It wasn't.
You keep making this about the law but it isn't about the law, it's about public relations.
If that is your opinion, then I hope you are willing to say that the guy is wrong in filing the lawsuit as it is based on the law, not on "public relations."
---The day you get fired for refusing to compromise your beliefs by taking off a pin that represents them, you'll see things differently.
The man claims to be a Christian. Please show me in the Bible where "wearing a pin" is located. I'll wait. The pin is not central to his beliefs.
---Then you clearly don't understand what don't ask don't tell does.
Clearly you do not.
---That's what you seem to be advocating based on your previous statements. You always seem to be attacking religion.
This simply illustrates that you cannot read or comprehend beyond your experiences. I have said from the beginning that the company has the right to determine a dress code for their employees and if that dress code includes forbidding the wearing of nonapproved pins, then they are on solid ground. As long as the regulation is applied to everyone, they are fine. You keep saying that the guy is being discriminated against yet haven't shown one single case or instance where others were allowed to wear non-approved pins in that store. It appears that all people were treated the same.
---They do get away with it. Companies can afford better lawyers than individuals, they can also find all kinds of legal excuses to justify what they do.
And of course, employees like you and this guy, can try and rationalize anything that they do.
---A few months ago I think you told me that a Christian employee can refuse to sell birth control at a pharmacy even if she's ordered to do it.
That is correct because the pharmacist has a standing based upon the teachings of her religion and her recognized held beliefs. There is language in the Bible that Christians are to protect the young, the children and the unborn. There is no such language dealing with a pin.
In other words, one is protecting a recognized belief, and the other is just an employee wanted to do what they want to do outside of their belief system.
The truth about companies today is they have no common sense.
Common sense to who? YOU?
The Home Depot is a large company that started small. People put their time and money on the line to make a company that people like to work for. You on the other hand, are always angry at your life's station, the companies you work for and are always trying to tell companies what to do. You talk about common sense but you don't have the guts to put your visions and your money on the line in a real life example of the "common sense" you advocate.
Anonymous wrote:
"Proof please. Please show me one statement where I said I supported the removal of religion from the workplace."
Sigh… Apparently I do need to explain the irony.
An anonymous poster, who isn't even using a distinctive handle, demands that another poster distinguish that poster's comments from those of every other poster also hiding behind "Anonymous". So… you expect us maybe to read minds? Or use some other kind of magic?
The irony is that you are demanding that Bobby show what you have deliberately hidden. That irony is completely independent of the topic of the debate.
The simple fact is, some posters here — hiding behind Anonymous just like you are — have expressed overt hostility to Christianty and indicated that they do want to see it removed from the public square. Have any of those posts been by you? We. Don't. Know. because you're deliberately hiding everything that lets us distinguish your posts from just about everyone else.
The irony is that you are demanding that Bobby show what you have deliberately hidden. That irony is completely independent of the topic of the debate.
It must have escaped you that Bobby knows who I am and my writing style. None of the comments here are hidden so the premise of "something deliberately hidden" is false.
He and you have the option of showing a comment in this thread where someone has demanded the removal of religion from the workplace. People have said they don't like it, but no one has demanded its removal.
So perhaps the irony is that Bobby demanded something that was not written. Or perhaps the irony is that what you see as hidden is clearly in front of the face and eyes of others.
Lastly, as you are not using your real, full, complete, legal name, there is, as you stated, no way to know if you and Bobby are not one in the same. There is no way of knowing that you haven't availed yourself of posting anonymously just to rile up people or be a sock puppet.
The irony is that you place a demand on others that you yourself cannot honor.
The simple fact is, some posters here — hiding behind Anonymous just like you are — have expressed overt hostility to Christianty and indicated that they do want to see it removed from the public square.
Do what's wrong with that?
The irony is that you place a demand on others that you yourself cannot honor.
That's good ol' Luke for ya.
To whom it may concern: I don't write without a Name.
Moving on...
"Exactly. Yet you have said that you would allow some pins in some areas and not in others. If the policy bans all pins, there is no discrimination."
---So rather than allow some discrimnation you'd rather discriminate against everyone to protect us all? That's a politically correct way to see the world. That's like ABC saying "to avoid offending minorities all ethnic jokes are banned."
"Yet you keep saying that the regulation was discriminatory. It wasn't."
---Legally it wasn't but morally it is. That's why it's so hard to debate with you, all you care about is the law, not ethics, not morals, not the subjective areas of right and wrong.
"If that is your opinion, then I hope you are willing to say that the guy is wrong in filing the lawsuit as it is based on the law, not on "public relations."
---I'm not a lawyer so I'm unable to discuss the legal merits of his case.
"The man claims to be a Christian. Please show me in the Bible where "wearing a pin" is located. I'll wait. The pin is not central to his beliefs."
---So? Islam doesn't requiere that women wear burkas yet devout muslim women often do that. The New Testament doesn't say that smoking and drinking is a sin, yet some Christian denominations allow neither while others allow it. Religious freedom isn't about what your church allows, it's about what you believe provided it doesn't hurt others.
"That is correct because the pharmacist has a standing based upon the teachings of her religion and her recognized held beliefs. There is language in the Bible that Christians are to protect the young, the children and the unborn. There is no such language dealing with a pin."
---The bible allows many things, some of them controversial, some aren't even practiced (animal sacrifices, killing a disobedient child, etc. Ultimately, the bible is subject to INDIVIDUAL interpretation, if I believe the bible commands me to wear a pin my belief is just as valid as anything the Pope says. And if this country protects freedom of religion then my rights are just as important as the rights of those people that won't sell condoms.
"Common sense to who? YOU?"
---Yeah, I think I'm a pretty fair and balanced libertarian. I tolerate lots of stuff.
"The Home Depot is a large company that started small. People put their time and money on the line to make a company that people like to work for."
---Sure, and I respect that. Is later on they get arrogant and stupid, like American Airlines and Jet Blue, those companies have no problem leaving passengers stuck 8+ hours on a tarmac.
"You on the other hand, are always angry at your life's station, the companies you work for and are always trying to tell companies what to do."
---Lots of people are angry, how do you think GM employees who lost their jobs feel inspite of the bailouts? I don't mind the CEO flying in private jets and making millions of dollars, I do mind their corporate stupidity, when they allow political correctness to take over.
"You talk about common sense but you don't have the guts to put your visions and your money on the line in a real life example of the "common sense" you advocate."
---Fine, so I'm a do-nothing critic. So what? I use the power of my voice, my letters, my e-mails, my telephone calls and what little money I have to affect change. I'm a fan of Rush Limbaugh, by hearing his program I'm paying his salary and thus I allow him to air his views to a broad audience. So you see? Even the little people and pretty damn big when they join together for a cause.
Bobby,
Don't bother arguing any more. The Anonymous posters have just proven beyond all doubt that they are not interested in arguing honestly. You are just wasting your time.
Think about it. They're not even willing to take ownership of their own words, preferring to create confusion by making sure you can't even tell one writer from another, yet they have the brazen dishonesty to accuse me of precisely what they are obviously doing when it should be clear that I'm doing the exact opposite. In fact, my chosen handle is an attempt to get people to start at least using handles when posting a comment.
I used to use my actual name when posting here. In fact, I still use it everywhere but here. The only reason I'm using a pseudonym now is because of the blatant dishonesty and overt hostility demonstrated by you Anonymous posters who seem to prefer creating confusion over clarity. I long ago decided that discretion is the better part of valor when dealing with such unscrupulous people.
BTW, you Anonymous posters owe me a new irony meter. You just caused mine to explode due to extreme overload.
Don't bother arguing any more.
---Well, you're right but I can't help myself. I love arguing although sometime I think that guy disagrees with me no matter what position I take.
---So rather than allow some discrimnation you'd rather discriminate against everyone to protect us all?
By definition, a policy that applies to all cannot be discriminatory.
---Legally it wasn't but morally it is.
Once again, the lawsuit is not based on "moral grounds." It is based on legal grounds. Secondly, it is moral to treat everyone the same.
---I'm not a lawyer so I'm unable to discuss the legal merits of his case.
You have tried to make legal arguments in this entire thread Bobby. You don't get to pull back now and saw "I am not a lawyer." Have the guts to admit that you were wrong on the law and the moral issues here.
Ultimately, the bible is subject to INDIVIDUAL interpretation, if I believe the bible commands me to wear a pin my belief is just as valid as anything the Pope says.
This is not a belief espoused by any Christian and not supported by the Biblical text. In other words, you're wrong. So show me where the Bible commands that a person wear a pin or else the only conclusion is that is possible is that wearing the pin is not a tenant of the religion. Therefore by law and religious standards, the pin is not protected under any standard.
---Fine, so I'm a do-nothing critic. So what? I use the power of my voice, my letters, my e-mails, my telephone calls and what little money I have to affect change.
Bull. You have said before that you won't stand up for your beliefs in public or in the workplace. You have no clue how to run a business yet you feel that you have the right to tell others how to do so.
Even in this response you blame others for your station in life. You blame companies and executives but you don't have the guts to step out on your own and try to make it. You aren't even able to handle criticism here, and yet you feel that your "opinions" on the law and what is "moral" have more bearing and weight than real business owners who deal with the consequences of their decisions every day.
It is easy to make the calls from the cheap seats. It is much more difficult to actually play the game and make the calls under real pressure. Apparently, you don't have the guts to play the game.
Enjoy your view from the upper deck.
Think about it. They're not even willing to take ownership of their own words, preferring to create confusion by making sure you can't even tell one writer from another, yet they have the brazen dishonesty to accuse me of precisely what they are obviously doing when it should be clear that I'm doing the exact opposite. In fact, my chosen handle is an attempt to get people to start at least using handles when posting a comment.
Right.
Because a non-registered handle is uniquely yours.
Oh the irony.
---Well, you're right but I can't help myself. I love arguing although sometime I think that guy disagrees with me no matter what position I take.
When you take a position that is wrong, people will call you on it.
When you lie, people will call you on it.
When you act like a hypocrite, people will call you on it.
When you act like a gutless chicken, people will call you on that as well.
If you don't like having your points examined and challenged, then don't post on a discussion board.
That last "Use the Name Luke" is not me.
---So? Islam doesn't requiere that women wear burkas yet devout muslim women often do that.
Bobby deflects yet again. Typical crap from Bobby.
That last "Use the Name Luke" is not me.
Well DUH!!
No kidding.
Obviously while running around claiming that you can't tell one poster from another, you miss the "irony" that anyone can use your "nom de plume" here.
Got is now, Luke?
Whether you want to use your name, Bobby's name, "Anonymous," John Ray's name or whatever name you choose, unless you REGISTER that name with Google or OpenID, your name is. Not. Unique.
You tried to deflect the request for proof that Bobby posts where I have said that religion should be removed from the workplace. You tried to hide under some ridiculous standard that you yourself do not meet.
The irony is that if Bobby were able to produce anything that I said that proved his point, I would acknowledge it. Unlike Bobby, I have the integrity to stand behind what I write. What I write is not protected by a fake name.
The irony is that you don't see that.
I believe the phrase is "you just got punk'd."
"Obviously while running around claiming that you can't tell one poster from another, you miss the "irony" that anyone can use your "nom de plume" here."
Nope. Didn't miss it. I'm well aware of the ability to impersonate. What you missed in spite of the demonstration is just how easy it is to defend the handle.
I would far, far prefer that John AT LEAST get rid of the Anonymous crap. Even better would be requiring password protected IDs.
But it is what it is. At least I'm trying to be straightforward here. Can you say the same? Obviously not.
"You tried to deflect the request for proof that Bobby posts where I have said that religion should be removed from the workplace. You tried to hide under some ridiculous standard that you yourself do not meet."
Learn to read! I didn't address that argument, only the wildly ironic statement of a coward who hides behind "Anonymous".
Nope. Didn't miss it. I'm well aware of the ability to impersonate. What you missed in spite of the demonstration is just how easy it is to defend the handle.
You really think I wasn't waiting for you to say "that wasn't me?" Do you really think that was a "defense?"
You see Luke, I wrote the fake posted and after trying to demonstrate to you how your point on "anonymous" postings was irrelevant as your name could be used, I owned up to the fake name. In case that wasn't clear to you, I'll say it here - I wrote it.
It appears that the lesson was lost on you.
But it is what it is. At least I'm trying to be straightforward here. Can you say the same? Obviously not.
Obviously I can. I asked for proof and have gotten none. Unlike Bobby (and now you) I have always stood by what I write and acknowledge what I say. The "irony" here is that you did not.
Learn to read! I didn't address that argument, only the wildly ironic statement of a coward who hides behind "Anonymous".
Heifer hockey. You tried to stick your nose in and instead all you have done is proved you are a hypocrite. There is no "irony" in asking for proof of a wild accusation.
And by the way, men such as John Adams, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Franklin all had published writings that were published anonymously.
I guess you would call them cowards as well.
One other thing Luke.....
According to you, the request for proof can never be filled because of the anonymous postings.
Why didn't you address that part of the argument when the false accusation was made? Why didn't you say "Gee Bobby, it is ironic that you made a charge that can never be proven?"
Is that part of your own standard for "irony" lost on you as well?
"Heifer hockey. You tried to stick your nose in and instead all you have done is proved you are a hypocrite. There is no "irony" in asking for proof of a wild accusation."
Compare and contrast. Trolling…
"Why didn't you address that part of the argument when the false accusation was made?"
Simple, I didn't want to be drawn into your tar baby. But your "standard" was so outrageous that I just had to highlight it.
Why do you get off on dishonest argument?
Compare and contrast. Trolling…
Yes you are trolling.
Simple, I didn't want to be drawn into your tar baby. But your "standard" was so outrageous that I just had to highlight it.
I get it now. You get to play the hypocrite and demand standards on names and proofs from other people, all the while claiming that your posts are simply "misunderstood."
Tell me Luke, how is asking for proof of an accusation "outrageous?"
It is only outrageous because you cannot point to a single thing I have said in this or any other thread that supports to accusation. So instead, you decided that you would side with the accusation, instead of being intellectually honest and saying "that is an accusation without support."
Instead you hid behind the lame, discredited argument that you weren't talking about the merit of the discussion (when you clearly were) and that no proof could ever be offered because of "anonymous" postings when clearly the name attached to the post doesn't matter.
Why do you get off on dishonest argument?
It is dishonest to make an accusation without proof, yet you support not having proof. It is dishonest to say that your posts are unique simply because of the name attached to them when clearly they are not.
There is no dishonesty on my part Luke.
From what I can tell, you feel that a "dishonest argument" is one where you have been demonstrably proven wrong.
:: rolls eyes ::
All people have to do is reread the thread.
Demanding that someone point to where you said something when you refuse to allow anyone to know which words are yours is an impossible standard. At first I thought it was simply an ironic mistake, but your response shows that it's intentional dishonesty.
All people have to do is reread the thread.
I agree.
Did you take your own advice?
Demanding that someone point to where you said something when you refuse to allow anyone to know which words are yours is an impossible standard.
I repeat: READ THE THREAD.
Before Bobby's accusation, no one ever advocated removing religion from the workplace.
Even if you wanted to say that there is no way of proving I said something because of an anonymous posting, you never get to that point because no one ever makes that claim.
Got it now, Luke?
The accusation is impossible to prove not because of the red herring of "anonymous postings," but because there is no proof in this thread that anyone said anything like what Bobby is claiming I said.
Secondly, even if there were words that said what Bobby accused me of, you make the assumption that I would not own up to my own writings. Perhaps that is based upon your willingness to lie and Bobby's willingness to fling around false accusations, but your standards do not apply to me. In the past when Bobby has pointed out something I have said, I have always admitted that it was my writing and addressed his point.
At first I thought it was simply an ironic mistake, but your response shows that it's intentional dishonesty.
Right. It is intentional dishonesty to demand proof of an accusation. It is intentional dishonesty to admit to one's writings as I have always done.
Sorry Luke, the only dishonesty here is being perpetrated by you and Bobby. He makes a false accusation and you are too intellectually dishonest to call him on it.
Once again, because I know that you are having problems with this, before Bobby made his accusation no one in this thread said that religion should be removed from the workplace. Not one person. Not a single named poster. Not a single unnamed poster. Not you. Not me. Not John Ray. Not the guy in the story.
NO ONE.
The accusation is easily disproved but you won't see it. You demand that others "read the thread" when you clearly either haven't, or are so dishonest that you fail to grasp what was said because it is contrary to your supposed intellectual superiority.
It doesn't MATTER what specific statement you were asking for. What matters is that you were demanding him to point to a statement BY YOU.
You could have asking for proof that you mentioned cream cheese and the problem would be the same: Posts by "Anonymous" might, or might not, be you. Furthermore, even if you actually did write about cream cheese, you could deny it because of "Anonymous" and no one could prove any different.
It doesn't MATTER what specific statement you were asking for. What matters is that you were demanding him to point to a statement BY YOU.
You still don't get it do you? I asked because I knew that not only had I not made that statement, no one in the thread had made any such statement.
His statement was inaccurate, non-factual, and without support yet despite being shown that he was wrong, you keep trying to support your perception.
Posts by "Anonymous" might, or might not, be you. Furthermore, even if you actually did write about cream cheese, you could deny it because of "Anonymous" and no one could prove any different.
This has been addressed several times before. The idea that you would translate your morals of lying and deception to others is more of a condemnation of you than anyone else.
The bottom line is this: the accusation was wrong. It was demonstrably wrong.
Yet you still wish to hold onto some notion that the idea that the accusation was unprovable. Two things: we have already shown by using your standards of "reading the thread" and your "logic' of "any anonymous poster could have said this," (they did not) to be false.
Got it?
You were wrong on both of those accounts.
Secondly, as previously stated, even if you believe that the statement could never be proved, that means that people get to throw around accusations without any type of backing, support, or proof.
There is no honesty in your position.
Using my position and thought process the accusation was shown to be false. Using your position and thought process, the accusation could never be proven.
Either way, the accusation is not proven to be true.
So now we come to the point where most people would just respond with "yeah.... sorry." Or "I made a mistake."
You won't. (At least you haven't demonstrated that trait in this thread or in the past.)
It really is okay to admit that you made a mistake. It is okay to admit that your logic and thought processes failed you. It doesn't mean that you are a failure and that you can't think. All it means is that you made an error.
Own up to the mistake.
"By definition, a policy that applies to all cannot be discriminatory."
---Sure it can, it discriminates against everyone equally. It's like the government banning the Boy Scouts just because some people can't be part of that organization. Your solution against the pin controversy seems to forbid all pins at the workplace. That may be legal, but it isn't right .
"Secondly, it is moral to treat everyone the same."
---That's not always possible because people are different. If everyone was treated the same handicapped parking spots would be outlawed since those spaces discriminate against normal people.
"This is not a belief espoused by any Christian and not supported by the Biblical text."
---Jesus told his apostles to spread his beliefs, he didn't say how. A pin certainly expresses a poit of view, it might create questions, it might make people think. You don't have to be so simplistic when it comes to religion.
"Bull. You have said before that you won't stand up for your beliefs in public or in the workplace."
---I'll stand up for them with pseudonyms and annonymous letters that do get printed.
"You have no clue how to run a business yet you feel that you have the right to tell others how to do so."
---So what? Movie critics have no clue how to make a movie, yet that doesn't mean they don't have a right to criticize. Art and business are subject to outside criticism, in advertising we call it "focus groups."
"yet you feel that your "opinions" on the law and what is "moral" have more bearing and weight than real business owners who deal with the consequences of their decisions every day."
---Real business owners depend on millions of people like me to stay in business, so they cannot afford not to hear what we have to say.
I don't have to be a business owner, nobody tells movie critics should learn how to write and produce movies before they criticize them. If it's a product you can see and understand, then it's easy to criticize it.
Your attitude seems to be that consumers don't matter, that only CEO's matters and everyone else has to shut up and be good little costumers.
It's like the government banning the Boy Scouts just because some people can't be part of that organization.
So your example of non-discrimination is an example where a single group was singled out for a certain punishment. You just don't get it.
---That's not always possible because people are different.
So you believe in discrimination. I have long believed that. Thanks for admitting it.
---Jesus told his apostles to spread his beliefs, he didn't say how.
Source please. You'll find that you are wrong on this as well.
---I'll stand up for them with pseudonyms and annonymous letters that do get printed.
Once again, thanks for proving my point. You are full of piss and vinegar (and another brown substance) online or in situations where you can't be identified. When the rubber meets the road, you're spineless and gutless.
---So what? Movie critics have no clue how to make a movie, yet that doesn't mean they don't have a right to criticize.
You have no idea of the CV's of movie critics. This is another baseless accusation from you.
Art and business are subject to outside criticism, in advertising we call it "focus groups."
Please let me know the name of your company so I can avoid it like the plague. There is a difference that seems to escape you between "we like this product" and "Home Depot must allow people to wear pins."
---Real business owners depend on millions of people like me to stay in business, so they cannot afford not to hear what we have to say.
Right. Sure. As proof of this, when The Home Depot was founded, people all thought that the idea of a big box hardware / building supply store would fail. How did that focus group turn out for you?
You certainly have the right to criticize whatever and whomever you want. However, when the premise of your criticism is based on how you would run a company, or what you believe the law is, others have the right to call you on your lack of understanding, ignorance and experience.
Your attitude seems to be that consumers don't matter, that only CEO's matters and everyone else has to shut up and be good little costumers.
Nope. My attitude is that people who speak out of ignorance and inexperience should shut up and stop proving to the world that they are the fools and idiots they are.
"So you believe in discrimination. I have long believed that. Thanks for admitting it."
---It's a fact of life! Our armed forces have very strict requirenments on who can join based on age, physical fitness, citizenship (except for the army, they all greencard holders), mental fitness, etc. Everyone discriminates in every facet of life, including dating!
"You have no idea of the CV's of movie critics. This is another baseless accusation from you."
---Is Roger Ebert an actor, writer, director, special effects guy? No, he's a writer and movie-watcher, he goes to the movies and either loves them or rips them to pieces. In the ad industry we have Bob Garfield, he's a respected critic of commercials yet he has never worked in advertising.
"Please let me know the name of your company so I can avoid it like the plague. There is a difference that seems to escape you between "we like this product" and "Home Depot must allow people to wear pins."
---I'm unemployed and have no intention of mentioning my former employer by name. Let's just say they're one of the largest ad agencies in the country and if they where asked about this issue they would probably agree with you. After all, they don't even like to say "merry christmas" since that might offend some anti-God person.
"Right. Sure. As proof of this, when The Home Depot was founded, people all thought that the idea of a big box hardware / building supply store would fail. How did that focus group turn out for you?"
---Did I say focus groups are always right? No, yet a company that doesn't give a crap about what the customer thinks is a company that's doomed to fail sooner or later.
I bought a printer at Target, the printer was missing the USB cable, and this happened twice! So I complained to the company, I demanded a free printer or some money because I've been their customer for a long time. They wrote me a nice letter but other than refunding my purchase, they did nothing extra for me. So you know what? I will never buy a printer again from them.
They should learn from Casinos in Las Vegas, if you have a bad experience at a casino all you have to do is talk to the casino host and you might get a free room, free show, free dinner, or any number of things. At least in Las Vegas they know how to treat the customer.
---It's a fact of life!
The comments following this statement only serve to demonstrate your ignorance on what discrimination is in life and in the workplace.
---Is Roger Ebert an actor, writer, director, special effects guy?
Thank you for just proving that you have no idea of the CV's of the people you wish to dismiss. This statement alone shows how desperate you are to make stuff up and all it does is expose for the dishonest person you are.
---I'm unemployed and have no intention of mentioning my former employer by name.
I just wanted to make sure that whoever had hired you in the field of advertising and or communications was a company that I stayed far away from.
Since you aren't working (I sincerely apologize for that) it doesn't matter.
However, your working status does not take away from the fact that you talk a big game on the net, but in person, where you can really affect people, you display a cowardice and unwillingness to stand up for that which you say you believe.
---Did I say focus groups are always right? No, yet a company that doesn't give a crap about what the customer thinks is a company that's doomed to fail sooner or later.
I know that you don't understand this, but when someone like you says that the company should do something that is illegal or may get the company sued, the company shouldn't listen. You keep trying to equate what a customer likes with what a company has to do by law, or what a company wants to do to protect itself legally. Clearly, you don't have expertise in that area. You comments and opinions are based on ignorance and instead of trying to learn, you keep railing on what you want.
I bought a printer at Target, the printer was missing the USB cable, and this happened twice!
Okay. Post the name and model number of the printer. Let's see if the printer you bought was supposed to have a cable in the box. Most printers do not come with cables anymore. So let's see if you wanted something that was not supposed to be in the box. Also, when you purchased the second printer, if the box was supposed to contain a USB cable, did you open the box there to make sure it had one? A normal, thinking customer would have.
I will never buy a printer again from them.
Whew. I am sure that Target is worried that a customer that cannot read and makes unreasonable demands is not going to buy a printer from them.
How is the lack of a cable the fault of Target? (Why anyone would buy a printer from Target is a different story, but how is it their fault?) Does your great wealth of experience in the retail and advertising world not make the connection that Target doesn't make the printer? Doesn't your experience say that Target didn't package the printer?
Tell me, Bobby, why should you get something for nothing? Why should Target have to pay for either the manufacture's error or your error?
I can see your complaint now...."I bought a printer that didn't have a USB cable and I want one!"
The reason printers don't come with cables anymore is that cables seldom break. People generally keep the same cable from previous printers. Companies don't supply cables because it adds to landfills and increases the costs people pay. Yet you wanted one.
WAAA Frickin' WAAA!
You can lead an Anonymous to water…
Sigh…
:: walks away shaking head sadly ::
You can lead an Anonymous to water…
Really Luke, its okay to admit that you were wrong. No one will think less of you.
You have been proven wrong in every sense of the word and yet you stubbornly cling to the notion you were right. Come over to the light. It really is okay to admit one's mistakes.
Luke and Bobby, the new odd couple, coming to Fox TV in January. The first episode, a remake of the Monty Python argument skit. Join us for the hilarity.
"You have been proven wrong in every sense of the word…"
Silly rabbit! Didn't you know logic is for humans? You cannot "prove" anything using faulty logic such as category errors and equivocation.
Your category error: the tactics used in an argument (the demand for proof) is a very different category from the topic of an argument (the argument the proof is to be applied to). This is like pretending the hammer (or any tool) used to build a house is the same as the house itself (the object the tool is applied to).
Your equivocation also violates Logic 101. Two different objects (A and Not(A)) cannot both be the same. (This is known as The Law of Non-contradiction.) You cannot rationally pretend that a many object (multiple "Anonymous" posters) is the same as a singular object (a single poster using a distinctive handle). That's like saying a number greater than 1 is exactly the same as the number 1.
Maybe you really could prove something if you actually used valid logic.
Already stated NUMEROUS times, with the most recent being in the very message you quoted.
Strike those last five words. They should read THE VERY PARAGRAPH YOU QUOTED.
Your category error: the tactics used in an argument (the demand for proof) is a very different category from the topic of an argument (the argument the proof is to be applied to).
You attempt to separate the demand for proof and the topic. On its most basic level, the demand for proof became the topic. You made it so and now you want to back away from it.
Furthermore, you are accusing me of doing the very thing that you did when you accused another poster in another thread of violating the genetic fallacy principle. Your own source contradicted your use of that fallacy and so you reverted to another source which labeled the type of fallacy your were railing against as a part of the class of fallacies known as "genetic fallacies." When I pointed out to you this inconsistency and error, you dismissed it claiming that the class of fallacies and the individual fallacy were the same thing.
Clearly you have learned nothing from the past.
You cannot rationally pretend that a many object (multiple "Anonymous" posters) is the same as a singular object (a single poster using a distinctive handle). That's like saying a number greater than 1 is exactly the same as the number 1.
You cannot rationally pretend that a subset is not a part of the set.
For example, if one says "all of the buttons in this pile are blue," the subset of the set - a single button - must be blue as well or else it cannot be part of the set. It is a condition of the set.
Likewise, if the statement against all anonymous posters is false, it follows that the statement against a single anonymous poster within that group is false as well.
You have tried to put forth what logicians and mathematicians have known to be false for thousands of years - a subset is always part of the set.
This is quite different from what you attempted in the genetic fallacy discussion where you put forth that the subset was the entire set. In some cases it may be (some dispute that, but I'll let it go for now,) but what is clear is that a singular entity within a subset is not the whole set when the set contains multiple entities.
Your attempt to deflect and distort is simply intellectual dishonesty.
Once again, it truly is acceptable to admit that you were wrong and made a mistake.
Already stated NUMEROUS times, with the most recent being in the very message you quoted.
The problem is that you are the one violating this principle.
You are holding that a statement of belief about the members of a set, does not apply to an individual member of that set.
Your own source, and so called "logic" condemns your position.
Once again, you've proven that you can lead an Anonymous to logic, but you can't make him think.
I pity you.
Once again, you've proven that you can lead an Anonymous to logic, but you can't make him think.
I stand in total awe of your repudiation of the points raised here.
I await the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Mathematics to you for your assertion that a subset is not a part of the set. Clearly you are ahead of the rest of us peons that rely on thousands of years of logic and mathematics.
All you have done is shown that you have little understanding of the very subject matter you wish to foist on others. When asked a direct question on which part of the fallacy you were claiming was broken, you couldn't even answer that. Why that is so, I am not sure but it appears that you do not understand the subtleties of the arguments put forth.
Clearly you are incapable of admitting your errors. This is not the first time and won't be the last.
There is still time for you to do so. There is still time for redemption in this matter.
Otherwise, live in ignorance.
Anonymous claims:
"if one says "all of the buttons in this pile are blue," the subset of the set - a single button - must be blue as well"
In other words:
Set "Anonymous" is exactly equal to Set "Use the Name, Luke" and Set "Bobby" and Set "J. Birch".
It's so obvious! (if you turn your brain off) What is wrong with you?
Yes, it is acceptable to admit error. Why can't you? Or is it just easier to double-down on stupid?
"Thank you for just proving that you have no idea of the CV's of the people you wish to dismiss."
---If you have proof that I'm wrong about Roger Ebert, use it. If not, shut up.
"I just wanted to make sure that whoever had hired you in the field of advertising and or communications was a company that I stayed far away from."
---I doubt you're big enough for them, they deal with clients that spend at least $10 million a year in advertising.
"you display a cowardice and unwillingness to stand up for that which you say you believe."
---I'm not a troublemaker, that doesn't make me a coward, and when people do make me angry I will show my true colors and deal with the fallout later. I'm not afraid of yelling "f you" to a coworker that pisses me off. But I'm slow to anger nevertheless.
"Most printers do not come with cables anymore."
---That's ridiculous, most products are made with cables that only fit a particularly product. Either way, when I buy a printer I expect to have the tools I need to use it. It's just like buying a video camera, even though I'm not gonna conect it to the TV the box comes with the cables to do just that.
"Also, when you purchased the second printer, if the box was supposed to contain a USB cable, did you open the box there to make sure it had one? A normal, thinking customer would have."
---I didn't think Target would screw me twice.
"Whew. I am sure that Target is worried that a customer that cannot read and makes unreasonable demands is not going to buy a printer from them."
---Actually, they should be worried. One angry customer can affect the buying habits of many other customers. I have more than 50 friends on facebook, not to mention my own family, you think they're gonna shop at Target? Hell no, I'm sure they're gonna tell theri friends who are gonna tell their friends.
If I had the time I would post a video on youtube about it, I've seen two people that got screwed by companies, posted online complaints and got vindicated.
"How is the lack of a cable the fault of Target? (Why anyone would buy a printer from Target is a different story, but how is it their fault?)"
---Come on, you think those companies place products on shelves without knowing anything about them? Companies fight to place their products there, Wal-Mart is a great example, people from all over the world fly to Bentonville, pitch their products, make the changes Wal-Mart demands, come to the lowest possible price and then the product is sold.
"Tell me, Bobby, why should you get something for nothing? Why should Target have to pay for either the manufacture's error or your error?"
---It's called creating goodwill. Target should do it to continue enjoying my customer loyalty. 99% of my purchases come from Target, when I need clothes I refuse to go anywhere else. Besides, the lady at the complaint department was a total bitch. She gave me a refund but never said she was sorry, never gave me a smile, never gave me a coupon for my trouble. Tell me, do you think I like driving home, unpacking a printer, finding it's missing a key component and then returning it to the store?
"Companies don't supply cables because it adds to landfills and increases the costs people pay. Yet you wanted one."
---Then they should say that on the box! Why do you think toy companies say "batteries sold separately" or "batteries included." It's because they know customers get angry when they can't use the product, so they would rather know before hand.
And Target, as a reputable corporation, should ensure a happy customer experience. Wal-Mart for example listens to customers complaints, that's why they're decluttering stores and adding more cashiers to reduce wait times.
Set "Anonymous" is exactly equal to Set "Use the Name, Luke" and Set "Bobby" and Set "J. Birch".
Is there any comment in this thread that has ever said that all sets are equal? Or are you so dishonest to try and set up and argument that you know was not made and is a deliberate distortion by you?
It's so obvious! (if you turn your brain off) What is wrong with you?
I agree. You not only turned your brain off, you donated it for a cheap Halloween costume.
Yes, it is acceptable to admit error. Why can't you? Or is it just easier to double-down on stupid?
Apparently in your world it is easier to double down on stupid as you seem to have a mastered the "skill."
You still haven't addressed the argument that a subset is part of defined set, but I have come to expect that from you. You would rather go off on some other tangent than deal with points that are raised.
It really is okay to admit that you made a mistake. Honest it is. Of course now with your post on your (lack of) understanding of sets, subsets, logic and mathematics, you have something else to admit error to. And then of course there is your (lack of) reading skills that deserve an apology as well.
But we are a forgiving bunch.
C'mon. Buck up. You can do it. Be an adult and admit your errors. Life will still go on.
---If you have proof that I'm wrong about Roger Ebert, use it. If not, shut up.
You mean that you didn't review Ebert's CV? Okay. Let's put it this way...... you're wrong. Look it up.
---I doubt you're big enough for them, they deal with clients that spend at least $10 million a year in advertising.
All that money and they let you go? That says something, doesn't it?
---I'm not a troublemaker,
Standing up for what you believe is being a "troublemaker?" You are willing to stand behind the scenes and make all sort of pronouncements on what the world should be like, but when it comes to putting your beliefs into actions and in front of others, you slink away.
---That's ridiculous, most products are made with cables that only fit a particularly product.
Once again showing your ignorance of things, "USB" stands for "UNIVERSAL Serial Bus." the plugs on printers are standardized. They are not product dependent.
---I didn't think Target would screw me twice.
Twice? They didn't even screw you once. You are blaming others for your mistake here. It is typical of you not to take responsibility for your mistakes, but to falsely claim that Target or any company is at fault because they gave you exactly what you paid for i ridiculous.
Hell no, I'm sure they're gonna tell theri friends who are gonna tell their friends.
Right. Go tell your little friends that you bought a product from Target that contained what the box claimed it contained and because it didn't contain what you wanted, you feel insulted. Go ahead. Put a YouTube video up. Watch the comments from people who know that you're an idiot and just plain wrong.
---Come on, you think those companies place products on shelves without knowing anything about them?
Right. They know what the box contains. Go to WalMart and buy the same printer. It won't have the cable either. Go Office Depot, Staples, NewEgg or anywhere. The cable won't come with the printer. It isn't the companies. It's you.
She gave me a refund but never said she was sorry, never gave me a smile, never gave me a coupon for my trouble.
Once again, why should Target pay for your incompetency? Why should Target, or any other company, pay because you can't read?
Tell me, do you think I like driving home, unpacking a printer, finding it's missing a key component and then returning it to the store?
I can see your point. I have dealt with customers like you before. It is embarrassing for the CSR and associates to have a grown man stand in front of them proving that he is a moron.
---Then they should say that on the box!
They do. Each printer box lists what is in the box. If the cable is not listed as being in the box, then it isn't. It is not the fault of the seller or the manufacturer that you can't read or choose to ignore the information that is printed right on the item in your hands.
And Target, as a reputable corporation, should ensure a happy customer experience.
Let's see....... customer wants a printer. Customer buys a printer. Customer pays for what is in the box. Customer opens box. Items in box match what customer bought. Customer is unhappy?
You just can't make stupid people happy.
Wal-Mart for example listens to customers complaints,
Fair enough. WalMart can control the wait times for lines and one can argue that it is their responsibility to do so. Now, how is it their responsibility that an adult person with a communications degree cannot read or understand the contents of a box that he is holding in his hand? Not just once, mind you, but twice. How is it that this same guy who claims to know all about design, artwork, movies and advertising is so stupid that he doesn't actually read the box or just chooses to ignore it?
Scott Adams is right. You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.
You prove his point.
"All that money and they let you go? That says something, doesn't it?"
---When I got hired the account was worth $120 million, when I was downsized it was down to $30 million. That's the nature of the biz. And don't blame me, I was just a cog in the machine.
"Standing up for what you believe is being a "troublemaker?"
---Employees who complain don't always last.
"Once again showing your ignorance of things, "USB" stands for "UNIVERSAL Serial Bus." the plugs on printers are standardized. They are not product dependent."
---Fine, then why must companies assume I have the USB cable or that I have owned a printer before?
"Once again, why should Target pay for your incompetency? Why should Target, or any other company, pay because you can't read?"
----Ever heard "the customer is always right?" There's a TV show on True TV called "Rehab. Party at the Hard Rock." A waitress worked her ass off for some british jerks, after a long long day, her tip was only $300 which is very little considering the tab was $3,000. So she complained to the customer, explained that in America you're supposed to tip 15%, even 20%. You know what the manager did? He fired her, he said that no one is entitled to a tip, that no waitress complains about being over tipped and unless the customer crosses the line with sexual harassmetn or violence, the fact that he spent $3,000 on drinks makes him a good customer.
I spent way more than $3,000 at Target over a period of 4 years. I have given target my customer loyalty for a long time.
"I can see your point. I have dealt with customers like you before. It is embarrassing for the CSR and associates to have a grown man stand in front of them proving that he is a moron."
---So when the customer is a moron don't you say "hey, we can sell you a USB port" or "we're so sorry that happened, here, have a free USB cable" or do you just let him be a moron and lose him as a customer forever.
What happened to "yes sir, no sir, thank you sir, absolutely sir, we're sorry sir?" Wal-Mart may pay their employees crap, but they won't allow such ineficiency.
"Customer opens box. Items in box match what customer bought. Customer is unhappy?"
---Custtomer drives to Target, parks, finds product, waits in line, drives home, opens box, sets up printer, but can't use the printer because the most important cable is missing. That's like buying a PS3 without a controller.
"Scott Adams is right. You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public."
---What do you want? A fuhrer to lead us? Are you some kind of nazi or fascist that looks down on people?
I would rather hang out with the general public than with the stupid elites that look down on people.
Scott Adams is no different than the people who said the general public was stupid after reelecting Bush.
First, I noticed that you didn't respond to the Roger Ebert part of this? I guess you found out that you had lied and made another baseless accusation. What is that, now? About 50 of them?
---Employees who complain don't always last.
Except you have said in the past that even out on the streets you don't make your opinions known. So this it not just about being an employee, this is about life in general. You would rather cower in the corner saying "if only the world was as great as I am," and then fail to show it out in real life. It's gutless.
---Fine, then why must companies assume I have the USB cable or that I have owned a printer before?
They don't. What they assume is that the person buying the product can read above the level of a 2nd grader. Apparently they assumed wrong about you.
----Ever heard "the customer is always right?"
Yes I have. It is a lie. As your case proves, the customer isn't always right. Sometimes the customer is a whiney little rat who won't take responsibility for their own actions.
---So when the customer is a moron don't you say "hey, we can sell you a USB port" or "we're so sorry that happened, here, have a free USB cable" or do you just let him be a moron and lose him as a customer forever.
I would show the customer what the box contains and walk him over to the USB cables (not ports) and say "purchase this and your new printer will be up and running in no time."
That being said, my actions do not take away from the fact that you failed to read the box, and blamed a company for your mistake.
---Custtomer drives to Target, parks, finds product, waits in line, drives home, opens box, sets up printer, but can't use the printer because the most important cable is missing. That's like buying a PS3 without a controller.
If you look at the side of the box, you'll see that the PS3 also lists what is in the box. The controller is listed. (And also there are cables required for connecting a PS3 to certain outputs that are not contained in the box. Your own example shows how ridiculous your position and thought process is. All you are trying to do is blame the company because you were in the wrong and don't have the guts and integrity to admit it.
cont...
cont
---What do you want? A fuhrer to lead us? Are you some kind of nazi or fascist that looks down on people?
(What is it with you and Nazi references all the time? How does someone accurately labeling you an idiot in this case have anything to do with fascism? Wait.... it doesn't. It is just another sad deflection from the real problem - your lack of integrity.)
Nope. I am a person that admits mistakes when I make them, even if it costs me. That is but one difference between you and I.
Even now, you still don't have the integrity to say "yeah, I should have read the box and seen what was in it." Or even "I should have asked an associate if the box contained everything I need." Instead, you blamed the company not once, but twice for you mistake. You claimed they "screwed" you twice for providing you exactly what they said they said they would. You then went out and told 50 "friends" that Target was a terrible company because they screwed you over.
In fact, what happened here was you screwed them over. You caused them to have to either return items or resell them as open stock because you were in the wrong. Because you - Mr Communications Major - can't read a friggin' box. You cost them time and money because you were moronically stupid not only once, but twice. You then got upset because the CSR wouldn't compensate you for your mistake. You also got upset when the wouldn't apologize to you for your mistake. After all, why should she? It was your mistake.
I would rather hang out with the general public than with the stupid elites that look down on people.
Sure you would. That is why you idolize Perez Hilton and worship celebrities. Then you get a case of envy how your life sucks and theirs is so much better. After all, they have someone who can go out and buy a printer and cable for them. You have to actually do it yourself.
It just isn't fair, is it?
Grow up. Just friggin' grow up.
"First, I noticed that you didn't respond to the Roger Ebert part of this?"
---I don't debate things that no longer interest me. Furthermore, I don't have the time to research Ebert's career. Next time, when you have evidence to the contrary, use it. Say "Roger used to be a film director" and I'll believe you.
"You would rather cower in the corner saying "if only the world was as great as I am," and then fail to show it out in real life. It's gutless."
----I'm not going to respond your personal attacks.
"Yes I have. It is a lie. As your case proves, the customer isn't always right. Sometimes the customer is a whiney little rat who won't take responsibility for their own actions."
---If a customer is more trouble than he's worth, fine. That was not my case. Moreover, customers are the lifeblood of a company, every one is important and every one should be treasured. It's a lot harder to get a new customer than to protect an old one.
"I would show the customer what the box contains and walk him over to the USB cables (not ports) and say "purchase this and your new printer will be up and running in no time."
---Great, yet Target did not do that and instead of blaiming Target you're blaiming me.
"That being said, my actions do not take away from the fact that you failed to read the box, and blamed a company for your mistake."
---If a product can say in big bold letters "Batteries not included" why can't it say "Does not include USB cable."
"Your own example shows how ridiculous your position and thought process is. All you are trying to do is blame the company because you were in the wrong and don't have the guts and integrity to admit it."
---I'm not in the wrong, a few years ago I bought a printer and it came with the USB cable. How was I supposed to know companies had gotten in the environmental bandwagon?
---I don't debate things that no longer interest me. Furthermore, I don't have the time to research Ebert's career. Next time, when you have evidence to the contrary, use it. Say "Roger used to be a film director" and I'll believe you.
The only problem with that approach is that you made the accusation. You have a tendency to make wild claims without proof. The only reason you won't "debate" something is that you were wrong. Grow up.
----I'm not going to respond your personal attacks.
Then don't talk to yourself. These are concepts and ideas that you have brought into the debates we have had.
---If a customer is more trouble than he's worth, fine. That was not my case.
You're kidding, right? You wanted a new printer because you couldn't read and you think that is not being "more trouble than you are worth?" You wanted to be compensated for the error you made not once but twice? You were being unreasonable in that situation.
---Great, yet Target did not do that and instead of blaiming Target you're blaiming me.
I blame you because YOU caused the whole incident. YOU didn't read the packaging. YOU then failed to read the packaging again! YOU failed to make sure that the second box contained what you wanted it to contain. Then YOU returned to the store demanding that the store compensate you with a new printer or monetary compensation for YOUR mistakes. At the very least you wanted an apology from them for YOUR mistake.
Yeah I blame you and anyone with half a brain blames you for this. You were the cause of the whole incident and you still won't take responsibility for it and still maintain that Target was in the wrong.
---If a product can say in big bold letters "Batteries not included" why can't it say "Does not include USB cable."
More quibbling from you. How big do you want the letters to be? You didn't read them to begin with and there is not indication that you would have read at any time. How do we know this? Because you went back and did the SAME FRIGGIN' THING!
Grow up. Just grow up.
---I'm not in the wrong, a few years ago I bought a printer and it came with the USB cable.
Wow. You know, I have installed about 50 or 60 printers that communicate through USB ports, and I have never seen one that came with a cable. Cables stopped being supplied with parallel port printer cables. In other words, you are lying.
How else do I know? If you had bought one with a cable, you would have simply swapped the cable out for the new one.
Oh well.
Liars lie. Some people never grow up. And some people are gutless.
cont
(What is it with you and Nazi references all the time? How does someone accurately labeling you an idiot in this case have anything to do with fascism?
---You quoted some guy who considers the general population to be idiots. That's a fascist mindset. Fascism believes that most people are stupid thus a strong leader is needed to guide them along.
Even now, you still don't have the integrity to say "yeah, I should have read the box and seen what was in it."
---I read the freaking box, twice, and didn't see any mention of there not being a USB port.
"You cost them time and money because you were moronically stupid not only once, but twice."
---They deserve it, they cost me time and money in the form of the gas I spent driving to the store. They also cost me aggravation, in fact, I didn't even return the second printer, I threw it in the garbage, I'm glad it was cheap.
"You then got upset because the CSR wouldn't compensate you for your mistake. You also got upset when the wouldn't apologize to you for your mistake. After all, why should she? It was your mistake."
---In my life of work if the client isn't happy we don't tell the client "it was your mistake, you didn't give us enough information." We apologize and move on. If I was wrong they could have told me or at least try to fix the problem. They could have saved themselves money and time by giving me or selling me a USB that very day. But I guess the people at Target would rather shup up, give a refund, and waste money.
"Sure you would. That is why you idolize Perez Hilton and worship celebrities."
---I don't worship celebrities, I will never watch "This is it" about Michael Jackson, I didn't even give a damn about his death and I certainly did not enjoy all the unwarranted attention he's been getting. Frankly, he deserves to be dead for working too hard, not eating enough, and taking all that medication.
And yes, I do enjoy it when celebrities abuse drugs, drive drunk, cheat on their spouses, say anti-semitic crap, or make an ass of themselves because it makes them human, more like general people. In german it's called "schaddenfreude" or "shameful joy."
---You quoted some guy who considers the general population to be idiots. That's a fascist mindset. Fascism believes that most people are stupid thus a strong leader is needed to guide them along.
Actually, that is not what he said, but reading is not your strong point. It still doesn't explain your fascination with Hitler and Nazis though. Look up Godwin's Law and figure out how every time you mention Nazi's, all it does is destroy your position and argument.
---I read the freaking box, twice, and didn't see any mention of there not being a USB port.
And now the lies begin. First is was the box should contain the cable. Then it was "they ripped me off." Then it was "the letters should be bigger so you could see it." Now comes this.
By the way genius, you weren't looking for a USP port, you were looking for a cable.
You can't even keep your lies straight.
---They deserve it, they cost me time and money in the form of the gas I spent driving to the store. They also cost me aggravation, in fact, I didn't even return the second printer, I threw it in the garbage, I'm glad it was cheap.
Right. They cost you money because you couldn't read? The only one who cost you anything was you.
Oh, and by the way, your story has changed again because you said you returned both printers.
One other thing.... you tossed at least $50 in printer over a cable that is less than $5.00? You tossed a printed over a cable that you said you already had?
Gee, that sure does demonstrate intelligence and maturity.
---In my life of work if the client isn't happy we don't tell the client "it was your mistake, you didn't give us enough information."
Another lie from you. In our previous discussions, you claimed that when a customer wanted something that was "wrong" in the eyes of the ad agency, you would let the ad fail. In other words, you let the client do exactly what you did with Target. Your printer episode is much worse than a client saying to go in a certain direction because in your line of work, the agency drives the bus more. In this case, you and you alone were responsible for what happened.
If I was wrong they could have told me or at least try to fix the problem. They could have saved themselves money and time by giving me or selling me a USB that very day. But I guess the people at Target would rather shup up, give a refund, and waste money.
And you could have fixed the problem by simply reading the box. You could have fixed the problem by saying what you needed. Instead, you wanted to return the printer, demanded a free printer, or wanted some compensation for your stupidity. If I am the CSR, I am doing the same thing. I know that I have an unreasonable customer in front of me making demands that I cannot meet. CSR's will let morons like you walk away every time. You just aren't worth the effort.
---I don't worship celebrities,
Of course you do. That is why you love Perez Hilton. He is a celebrity, and you love him to death.
It would be great if you would stop trying to lie your way out of things, but we both know that isn't going to happen. But keep talking. All you do is exhibit to the rest of us how silly, moronic and childish you really are.
"One other thing.... you tossed at least $50 in printer over a cable that is less than $5.00? You tossed a printed over a cable that you said you already had?"
---No, I never had the cable, neither printer came with the cable. Long ago when I had a printer i threw it away after I got sick of it, cable and all.
"Another lie from you. In our previous discussions, you claimed that when a customer wanted something that was "wrong" in the eyes of the ad agency, you would let the ad fail. In other words, you let the client do exactly what you did with Target."
---If it's an issue like "please make the logo bigger" then fine, we'll let the client be wrong. But if the issue is "do an ad for this tomorrow" we'll say "wait a minute, you have to let us know before time."
"Your printer episode is much worse than a client saying to go in a certain direction because in your line of work, the agency drives the bus more. In this case, you and you alone were responsible for what happened."
---Whatever, everything I do is wrong in your eyes.
"Of course you do. That is why you love Perez Hilton. He is a celebrity, and you love him to death."
---Perez Hilton is not a real celebrity, he's not famous for acting or for being pretty or for having married someone famous. He's famous for blogging about celebrities, he's rich but not as rich as the typical celebrity and he's more accesible to the general population than Tom Hanks and the other big shots.
"All you do is exhibit to the rest of us how silly, moronic and childish you really are."
----Yet you always seem to reply, so what does that say about you?
---No, I never had the cable, neither printer came with the cable. Long ago when I had a printer i threw it away after I got sick of it, cable and all.
Well gee, looking back on it that wasn't a great choice to toss the old cable was it? So then, because you were too cheap to buy a cable that is less than $5, you threw at least $50 worth of printer in the trash.
Unbelievable.
----Yet you always seem to reply, so what does that say about you?
It means that someone has to try and make an adult out of you.
"Is there any comment in this thread that has ever said that all sets are equal?"
The 31st post, by Anonymous at 9:47 AM claims that the distinct sets (posts having an identifiable handle) are the same.
Furthermore, what started this war was that you demanded a reference to a post from an UNDEFINED set. (A post by you among the posts by Anonymous. This is a subset of the posts by Anonymous, but it is not a defined set.) Your error (or dishonesty) is that you refuse to admit that this set is undefined.
Post a Comment