# Name and shame



## Markjbloggs (4 Oct 2005)

For the first time in ages I was shopping in Dublin on Saturday  - after a while, I remembered why i don't go there anymore.  It was overcrowded (mostly tourists), expensive, poor range of choice in the shops (I got 3/8 things I went in for!!).  In other words, a very unsatisfactory day.

Anyway, the purpose of this post relates to one of the shops I visited - it was a food shop and I purchased a few items.  Just opened one at home today, and it is stale - out of date since May.  Not alone that, but the shop assistant short changed me - I discovered this when i got to the bus stop and I am almost certain she did it deliberately.

Is there a way of publicly naming and shaming shops that rip-off their customers like this?

M


----------



## ClubMan (4 Oct 2005)

No offence but why did you not check the best before dates and your change at the time? Have you complained to the shop after the fact and, if so, how did they respond? What sort of things were you looking for that you could only find 3 of the 8 items in _Dublin _city centre? Personally I like mixing with tourists and lots of other people while shopping and find the range of choice in _Dublin _city centre quite ample but each to their own.


----------



## Markjbloggs (4 Oct 2005)

My point is simple - I was ripped off.  

1. Should we have to check the dates on all items we buy - would it not make more sense for there to be a sanction against the shop that deliberately puts out-of-date produce on display?  

2. As for my change, I was easy prey - one of my bags had ripped and I had to buy a new (plastic) one.  With all the hassle of re-packing, the shop assistant spotted her target and swooped.


----------



## DrMoriarty (4 Oct 2005)

Suggest you 'phone the shop tomorrow, ask for a manager and explain (_without_ ranting about being 'ripped off', because you've no proof that the date issue wasn't simply an oversight and the short-changing a case of genuine (joint?) 'human error'...?)

I'd be surprised if they don't offer a refund, next time you're passing...


----------



## ClubMan (4 Oct 2005)

Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> My point is simple - I was ripped off.


 Fair enough - but have you complained to the shop yet?



> 1. Should we have to check the dates on all items we buy


Well that's precisely what  recommends that consumers should do in the circumstances:


> *"Best before"/"Use by" dates
> *
> You should always check *best before* and *use by dates* on food, especially food with a short shelf life such as dairy products. The *best before date* is the date until which the food keeps its best properties, if stored properly. The *use by date* is a warning that the food should no longer be consumed or sold once the date mentioned is passed.


Note that best before date expiry does not necessarily mean that there is a problem. Use by date expiry is another matter. Usually shops will discount goods with expired best before dates.



> would it not make more sense for there to be a sanction against the shop that deliberately puts out-of-date produce on display?


 If you think that there is a health issue here then report them to the FSAI or your local environmental health officer.



> 2. As for my change, I was easy prey - one of my bags had ripped and I had to buy a new (plastic) one. With all the hassle of re-packing, the shop assistant spotted her target and swooped.


You were almost certain before but seem absolutely certain now - how come? Presumably you didn't check your change before you left the shop so? If you kept your receipt and contact the shop they should be able to figure out if the till was over by the amount that you are missing on the day.


----------



## Markjbloggs (4 Oct 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> You were almost certain before but seem absolutely certain now - how come? Presumably you didn't check your change before you left the shop so? If you kept your receipt and contact the shop they should be able to figure out if the till was over by the amount that you are missing on the day.


 
Listen, Pal, one thing I did not ask for when I asked the original question was a public lecture from you or anyone else.  Your tone is very offensive.


----------



## Audrey (4 Oct 2005)

Markjbloggs

His (Clubman's) tone is always that way in my experience.  Seems to have a bit of a personality problem.  I think his sole reason for reading anything on askaboutmoney.com is to criticise and lecture ... it seems to cheer him up no end!!!  People!!

I sympathise with you and can easily see how you wouldn't be in a position to check change when under a bit of pressure.  Also, I think we should be able to expect that something we buy is less than 5 months old!!  For Gawds sake! C'mon!


----------



## Markjbloggs (4 Oct 2005)

Thanks, Andrew.





			
				Andrewa said:
			
		

> Markjbloggs
> 
> His (Clubman's) tone is always that way in my experience. Seems to have a bit of a personality problem. I think his sole reason for reading anything on askaboutmoney.com is to criticise and lecture ... it seems to cheer him up no end!!! People!!
> 
> I sympathise with you and can easily see how you wouldn't be in a position to check change when under a bit of pressure. Also, I think we should be able to expect that something we buy is less than 5 months old!! For Gawds sake! C'mon!


----------



## SteelBlue05 (4 Oct 2005)

Andrewa said:
			
		

> Markjbloggs
> 
> His (Clubman's) tone is always that way in my experience. Seems to have a bit of a personality problem. I think his sole reason for reading anything on askaboutmoney.com is to criticise and lecture ... it seems to cheer him up no end!!! People!!
> 
> I sympathise with you and can easily see how you wouldn't be in a position to check change when under a bit of pressure. Also, I think we should be able to expect that something we buy is less than 5 months old!! For Gawds sake! C'mon!


 
I dont think so, I think Clubman is very methodical when trying to analyse someones issue, maybe has a legal background or something, but I dont think it is deliberatly critical or trying to lecture anyone.


----------



## RainyDay (4 Oct 2005)

I think it's risky to get into a 'name-and-shame' exercise while users remain anonymous. If we're going to name shops publically, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the complainants to identify themselves publically as well.


----------



## RainyDay (4 Oct 2005)

Andrewa said:
			
		

> His (Clubman's) tone is always that way in my experience.  Seems to have a bit of a personality problem.  I think his sole reason for reading anything on askaboutmoney.com is to criticise and lecture ... it seems to cheer him up no end!!!  People!!


Hi Sophie - Can I suggest that you check back over CLubman's history of answering financial queries for 6 years and you can then revise your posting. It's just a little bit rich for someone who's been round here just a few short weeks to issue such a critical comment.


----------



## ClubMan (4 Oct 2005)

Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> Listen, Pal, one thing I did not ask for when I asked the original question was a public lecture from you or anyone else. Your tone is very offensive.


I don't see how the questions I asked could be construed as offensive. I don't see where I contravened the  but feel free to correct me if you think I'm mistaken.


			
				Andrewa said:
			
		

> His (Clubman's) tone is always that way in my experience. Seems to have a bit of a personality problem.


Can you clarify what you mean by a "personality problem"? What is the standard personality by which normality is measured?


> Also, I think we should be able to expect that something we buy is less than 5 months old!! For Gawds sake! C'mon!


It depends on the "use by" date where applicable as outlined above on _OASIS_.


			
				SteelBlue05 said:
			
		

> I dont think so, I think Clubman is very methodical when trying to analyse someones issue, maybe has a legal background or something, but I dont think it is deliberatly critical or trying to lecture anyone.


Thanks. I certainly don't have any legal background but I do like to think that I have take a skeptical, objective and analytical approach to matters as far as possible.


----------



## tall chapy (4 Oct 2005)

Good to see the auld moderator calvary, riding to the rescue again !!!

I have commented on Clubman's manner before and I am not alone in this, just ask daltonr and I am not here just a 'few weeks' and neither is daltonr.


I was extremely disappointed in the way the thread (link above)went so low, in all the years I am on this board, I have never seen it sink that low !! Unfortunately, Brendan closed the thread, before I was able to reply.
As much as I hate replying to this thread, in the manner that I am, I feel some balance needs to be applied. 
A person that starts a thread, should not have to explain themselves, except if it is complicated. Asking someone to justify their actions will only wind things up !! We should be encouraging people to join the forum.

Its like a new member joining, coming on and saying they were mugged late at night and Clubman asking what were you doing out so late or walking in that area !!
The point is that they were MUGGED !!
Compare Clubman's response with DrMoriarty. 
I have to admit that Clubman has given excellent advice in the past, but 2 'rights' does not justify 1 'wrong' and vice versa.


As for naming and shaming...go back to the shop and see what their response is and if they do not treat you fairly, name and shame...


----------



## ClubMan (4 Oct 2005)

tall chapy said:
			
		

> Good to see the auld moderator calvary, riding to the rescue again !!!


_SteelBlue05 _is not a moderator. We've dealt with this accusation thoroughly in the past so let's not rehash it here. Suffice to say that if you think that moderators (such as myself and _RainyDay_) habitually or automatically back each other up or agree with each other on all matters then you are sorely mistaken and have not been paying attention over the years.



> I have commented on Clubman's manner before and I am not alone in this, just ask daltonr and I am not here just a 'few weeks' and neither is daltonr.


You and others are perfectly entitled to your opinion but it doesn't prove anything in terms of my "manner" being the problem. Probably as many people that have had problems in this respect have complimented me and others for adopting a challenging and fact based approach to queries and discussions. Differences of opinions are a symptom of a healthy debating environment in my view.



> I was extremely disappointed in the way the thread (link above)went so low, in all the years I am on this board, I have never seen it sink that low !! Unfortunately, Brendan closed the thread, before I was able to reply.


Are you insinuating that I personally dragged that thread "low" or something? Feel free to back this up if that's what you're insinuating.


> A person that starts a thread, should not have to explain themselves, except if it is complicated. Asking someone to justify their actions will only wind things up !! We should be encouraging people to join the forum.


Who asked anybody to justify their actions?



> Its like a new member joining, coming on and saying they were mugged late at night and Clubman asking what were you doing out so late or walking in that area !!


No it's not. That's another completely hypothetical and irrelevant issue/



> Compare Clubman's response with DrMoriarty.


Why? I said more or less the same thing among other things too. Why expect everybody to adhere to what you consider acceptable standards of contribution? As long as the contributions are withing the posting guidelines and relevant/constructive/helpful they are acceptable in my view.



> I have to admit that Clubman has given excellent advice in the past, but 2 'rights' does not justify 1 'wrong' and vice versa.


What "wrong"? What specific parts of my contributions above do you consider inappropriate or irrelevant? As far as I can see I have posted several pieces of very relevant information along with some opinions and questions about the specific situation in question. Where's the problem?



> As for naming and shaming...go back to the shop and see what their response is ...


As I said above...

Maybe we should merge all these "ClubMan's tone" posts and threads into one so people can enjoy (or avoid) them in one go?


----------



## GreatDane (4 Oct 2005)

Hi

I was going to try and avoid this thread ... but, what the hell   

I've been on both sides of this age old arguement, sometimes agreeing & sometimes disagreeing, with regards to the approach taken by the Mods on this site etc.  I've even been falsely accused in the past via e-mail from an "official" on this site (another story which we dont need to get into right now & which was subsequently resolved in part).

Anyway, at this stage, I've concluded the best approach is not to waiste my time disputing what the Mods do, who is right or wrong etc ....

The bottom line here is who really cares ?

Hit the off button & go to bed ... move to another website if you dont like this one etc etc   

Remember whats really important here .. when you step away from the PC, none of these small disputes on AAM really matter 

Cheers

G>
http://www.rpoints.com/newbie


----------



## ClubMan (4 Oct 2005)

Garrettod said:
			
		

> I've even been falsely accused in the past via e-mail from an "official" on this site (another story which we dont need to get into right now & which was subsequently resolved in part).


Just in case there's any confusion, I was not the "official" involved in this incident and this is the first that I've heard of it.


----------



## Humpback (5 Oct 2005)

Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> My point is simple - I was ripped off.
> 
> 1. Should we have to check the dates on all items we buy - would it not make more sense for there to be a sanction against the shop that deliberately puts out-of-date produce on display?
> 
> 2. As for my change, I was easy prey - one of my bags had ripped and I had to buy a new (plastic) one. With all the hassle of re-packing, the shop assistant spotted her target and swooped.


 
Point is, you weren't. You were just the typical Irish shopper, oblivious to what's going on around them. You were a gullible shopper, got caught out, and now you feel a little stupid for it. Not the shops fault.

Harsh and all as it is, you bought some fresh produce (supposedly fresh fair enough), but didn't bother checking whether it was in date or not. This is your fault that you ended up buying it. You didn't have to.

If everyone who was in the store checked the date, then the produce wouldn't have been sold. I would have thought it standard practice when buying fresh goods to check the best before date? I'm not a major shopper, but even I know to do that.

As for being short changed, again, your fault. You can come up with all the excuses in the world for being "easy prey", but if you're not going to check your own change before leaving the store, I'm sorry, but it's your own fault again.

This is not a defence of the store you were in, but in fairness, if you're not going to look after your own interests by being even a little more observant when shopping, how can you expect any sympathy at all?

Would be more suitable now to name and shame yourself rather than blaming anyone else.


----------



## Grumpy (5 Oct 2005)

Markjbloggs,
You were shortchanged and sold food not fit for consumption.
Shame on the shop who provided this "service".
Tell friends etc. which shop it was...let me know!
Whether you can take any affective action is another thing.
You may or may not have been deliberately shortchanged, but you were.
Take it as far as you are inclined, even if its just to give the manager a mouthful.
You were entitled to better treatment than this, whether you were vigilant or not.


----------



## Bamhan (5 Oct 2005)

In my opinion it is up to the shopper to check his/her change at the counter.
On the item being so far out of date, that is unacceptable.
I always check the date on things out of habit and have had cause to draw attention to the staff in my local store on a number of occasions where food has been out of date.....I would return to the shop with my receipt and the item and ask for a refund.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Oct 2005)

Grumpy said:
			
		

> You were shortchanged and sold food not fit for consumption.


It's not clear that the second point is actually the case. If it was the "best before" date and not the "use by" date that had expired then there is nothing untoward in that respect. See the _OASIS _link that I posted earlier. However, many stores will discount such goods in my experience. I bought two jars of olives for €0.69 each reduced from €1.99 the other day in the _Asian _store on _Mary Street_ the other day which had just reached their "best before" date for example. In fact the shop assistant was mistakenly (an honest mistake as far as I could see) charging me full price for them when I pointed out the discounted price and he charged that instead. No drama involved.

In terms of naming and shaming we have to be careful to remember the  (in particular 8 and 9) and only do this in clear cut cases of misbehaviour on the part of retailers/service providers. In this case it's not obvious how clear cut the case is to be honest given (a) the lack of clarity about whether or not it was the best before or use by date that had expired and (b) the initial doubts that there seemed to be about the short changing issue.

By the way - people who have objected to my "tone" here and elsewhere might like to note that I have been far from the most robust in terms of airing my opinions in this thread. I have no problem with any of the most recent posts here but have so say that they certainly seem more forceful than mine and yet people still seem to prefer to concentrate on "ClubMan's tone" rather than just accepting it and other forceful posts as part of the cut and thrust of healthy discussion...


----------



## Markjbloggs (5 Oct 2005)

This thread got controversial really quickly, didn't it?

You are incorrect when you state that that "It's not clear that the second point is actually the case. If it was the "best before" date and not the "use by" date that had expired ..."  If you had read my original post, I did state clearly that the item was stale.

Other people and yourself have made the point that the onus is on the shopper to check sell-by dates.  In my case, if I had complained at the time, there is nothing to prevent the shop from putting the same item back on the shelf for some other sucker to come along and buy it.  A name & shame scheme or an effective inspection regimen may go some way to preventing this, but merely complaining will not eliminate the practice when basic dishonesty on the part of the shopkeeper is to blame, the same dishonesty that lead them to rip me off in my change

M




			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> It's not clear that the second point is actually the case. If it was the "best before" date and not the "use by" date that had expired then there is nothing untoward in that respect. See the _OASIS _link that I posted earlier. However, many stores will discount such goods in my experience. I bought two jars of olives for €0.69 each reduced from €1.99 the other day in the _Asian _store on _Mary Street_ the other day which had just reached their "best before" date for example. In fact the shop assistant was mistakenly (an honest mistake as far as I could see) charging me full price for them when I pointed out the discounted price and he charged that instead. No drama involved.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Oct 2005)

Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> You are incorrect when you state that that "It's not clear that the second point is actually the case. If it was the "best before" date and not the "use by" date that had expired ..." If you had read my original post, I did state clearly that the item was stale.


You mentioned it being out of date but didn't say which date had expired. If it was stale then bring it back and get a refund as is your statutory right.


> Anyway, the purpose of this post relates to one of the shops I visited - it was a food shop and I purchased a few items. Just opened one at home today, and it is stale - out of date since May.


 


> Other people and yourself have made the point that the onus is on the shopper to check sell-by dates. In my case, if I had complained at the time, there is nothing to prevent the shop from putting the same item back on the shelf for some other sucker to come along and buy it.


Perhaps but you could still follow it up with the _FSAI _or local health inspector if you were so inclined as I mentioned earlier. In any case all you can realistically do is adhere to caveat emptor on your own behalf and assume that others will do so for themselves. If you are interested in protecting the consumer in general and not just dealing with your own issues then you could join the _Consumers' Association _or some other consumer oriented lobby or representative group.



> A name & shame scheme or an effective inspection regimen may go some way to preventing this, but merely complaining will not eliminate the practice when basic dishonesty on the part of the shopkeeper is to blame, the same dishonesty that lead them to rip me off in my change


Why not report them to the _ODCA _so and/or the _FSAI _and local health inspector as mentioned above?

I trust that these constructive suggestions might be of some assistance to you and others reading this thread?


----------



## DrMoriarty (5 Oct 2005)

Just my final 2c, since Clubman's response has been unfavourably compared to my own...

I did actually suggest that the shortchanging was possibly '(joint?) human error', and that the OP should contact the shop '_without_ ranting about being 'ripped off', because you've no proof...' [etc.] So I don't see how Clubman's response was any more critical or 'offensive' (?) than my own.

Examples abound on AAM of posters getting annoyed (or worse) with Clubman's famously 'skeptical, objective and analytical approach'. Personally, I can't see how these qualities constitute failings in a financial forum — much less evidence of a 'personality disorder'. But I realise they may irritate people who prefer emotive outburst to reasoned debate.

I don't accept the OP's premise — _'My point is simple - I was ripped off [by a ]shop that deliberately puts out-of-date produce on display [...] I was easy prey [...] the shop assistant spotted her target and swooped... [...] basic dishonesty on the part of the shopkeeper is to blame, the same dishonesty that lead them to rip me off in my change...[etc.]. _You can't back up any of these assertions, so don't expect people to accept them unquestioningly, and try not to get so huffy (_'Listen Pal...[etc.]'_) when they're challenged.

Exactly the same kind of thing has happened to me a few times, but I went back to the shop and had the situation redressed. Where I occasionally met with resistance — or even the lack of an apology — I'd just raise my voice slightly, to a level where other queuing customers could hear me...

But what's to be gained by coming on to a discussion board and whingeing (sorry!) about how 'them shysters ripped me off'...?


----------



## Markjbloggs (5 Oct 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> But what's to be gained by coming on to a discussion board and whingeing (sorry!) about how 'them shysters ripped me off'...?


 
Dr,

(if you really are a doctor) what was to be gained was to ask the question - is there was some form of public sanction against dishonest shopkeepers?

hope this helps,

M


----------



## Thrifty (5 Oct 2005)

Hi,


Don't really know all the history on the objections to the tone of replys but couldn't see anything wrong with the reply Clubman gave in this instance. he was just giving a valid opinion about checking your change. Didn't see the point in going off on a tangent and discussing previous replies. 

I personally think its a bit of a dangerous thing having a name and shame site/thread whatever. People make mistakes whether its in change or out of date products. Customers can also be mistaken. I think it's important if you have a problem with a shop or company that you actually bring it to their attention. Don't think its fair to complain if you don't give the shop or company a chance to rectify it. But it has to be within reason - don't see any problem going back with the out of date product but in relation to the short change. If you don't go back straight away then i can't really see how the shop could be expected to take your word for it if you go back a few days later. Would still bring it up with them - they may be able to check if there was extra in the till that day. But you've got to look at it from their point of view.

I'm not sure why you think the shop assistant deliberatly shortchanged you. Wondered why you thought this?

don't get me wrong there are times when i do go through the proper channels and can get so infuriated with customer service etc that i would love to name and shame but when i consider how open to abuse this could be i think differently. it could result in being accused and found guilty in others eyes without a fair trial.


----------



## Audrey (5 Oct 2005)

I'm really surprised at some of these responses, including yours Ronan D John.  Why am I surprised?  Well simply because you leave no room for honesty on the part of the shopkeeper or owner - you completely accept that if someone tries to get away with dishonesty, and succeeds in getting away with it, then it's the fault of the victim for letting him get away with it!  Where is the morality?  Have we all lost sight of honesty, trust, morality, kindness to our fellow man, decency ?????  I really can't believe how clinical our society has become when we blame a victim for being victimised!!  And as for the "..shame yourself rather than blaming somebody else"  - well shame on YOU Ronan D John.





			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Point is, you weren't. You were just the typical Irish shopper, oblivious to what's going on around them. You were a gullible shopper, got caught out, and now you feel a little stupid for it. Not the shops fault.
> 
> Harsh and all as it is, you bought some fresh produce (supposedly fresh fair enough), but didn't bother checking whether it was in date or not. This is your fault that you ended up buying it. You didn't have to.
> 
> ...


----------



## ClubMan (5 Oct 2005)

Sorry to labour this point but those who make insinuations (or explicit claims) that there is some sort of moderator conspiracy to back each other up when challenged might like to take note of the fact that most of the comments in support of my posts have come from non moderators with whom I am not personally acquainted in any way (in fact I am only personally acquainted with two of the moderators in any case - _Brendan _and _Liam D_). As it happens, and without getting into the details, another thread is currently quarantined in the _Moderators Forum _for review because _RainyDay _felt that I had breached one of our posting guidelines.


----------



## DrMoriarty (5 Oct 2005)

Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> Dr,
> 
> (if you really are a doctor) what was to be gained was to ask the question - is there was some form of public sanction against dishonest shopkeepers?
> 
> ...


Yes, of course there is. Where you have evidence, you can report them to the [broken link removed] and/or the RGDATA. And copy your complaint to the shop owner/manager, especially if it's a chain store or a franchise.

You can also 'vote with your feet' and not shop there again.

_P.S. Since you ask, I'm a 'Doctor' of Philosophy... _


----------



## Humpback (5 Oct 2005)

Andrewa said:
			
		

> I really can't believe how clinical our society has become when we blame a victim for being victimised!! And as for the "..shame yourself rather than blaming somebody else" - well shame on YOU Ronan D John.


 
I shall consider my wrists slapped here then shall I?

I do believe that most, if not all, of us here are aware of all the media coverage regarding "rip off Ireland" and how many/most businesses are out to make as much money as possible of our (or their employees) backs.

There is nothing wrong with this. 

Obviously however, if these businesses do anything illegal to make this money, then there is an issue there, and as ClubMan has pointed out, our complainer here has the option of doing that - a bulletin board is no place to be seeking justice.

In this particular case, nothing illegal has happened.

Therefore, it is simply that we are in a situation where most people in this country now know that they are dealing with businesses out to make the quickest and easiest buck possible. 

Therefore then, we should all be on the look out (on our own behalves at least as per Clubman) to make sure that we're not caught out by this.

You are defending a consumer who didn't do two of the most basic and simplest things that any consumer would do - inform themselves about what they are buying, and checking their change.

I find it staggering that people are jumping to this persons defence because they acted stupidly when out shopping.


----------



## Humpback (5 Oct 2005)

Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> In my case, if I had complained at the time, there is nothing to prevent the shop from putting the same item back on the shelf for some other sucker to come along and buy it.



Well, considering that the item was 5 months out of date, it's obvious that you're actually the first "sucker" to have come along in 5 months to have actually picked the item up and purchased it.

Having been there for 5 months already, that's 5 months of "suckers" who avoided purchasing the item, leaving it there for you to merrily pick up, not check the dates, and take to the checkout.

Shops don't get away with stuff like this if they're dealing with intelligent, careful, and informed consumers. 

Shops these days get away with the stuff they get away with because Irish people have become overly "comsumerised" with our excess money in our pockets and our wish to spend our money, not matter what, no matter when. Irish consumer don't value the money in their pockets any more and shops are taking advantage of them. 

As I've said before here, "a fool and their money are easily parted".


----------



## podgerodge (5 Oct 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Shops these days get away with the stuff they get away with because ......and shops are taking advantage of them.



You're now proving the case of the original poster in my opinion - doesn't matter how careless (maybe you should call people this instead of "stupid" or "fool") someone has been, the shop is still at fault - there is no excuse for selling out of date food and expecting the customer to do the shops job for them.


----------



## Humpback (5 Oct 2005)

podgerodge said:
			
		

> You're now proving the case of the original poster in my opinion - doesn't matter how careless (maybe you should call people this instead of "stupid" or "fool") someone has been, the shop is still at fault - there is no excuse for selling out of date food and expecting the customer to do the shops job for them.


 
I'm not defending the shops here. I'm saying that we know that they might do something like this. 

If it's illegal, catch them and report them. 

If it's just dubious practices they're engaging in, and we know they might try it, then it's careless of us to still fall victim to it.


----------



## Bamhan (5 Oct 2005)

Surely it is not expecting too much to expect shops to display only food which is within it's sell by dates.
Quite a lot of food has a sell by date on it which is months ahead if not years so having food in stock which is so far out of date is unacceptable.
The shop is at fault here in my opinion not the person  who picks up the item.


----------



## Thrifty (5 Oct 2005)

I can't believe how blown up this argument has become out of an out of date product and being short changed - after all who hasn't at some stage been short-changed or bought an out of date product. While i'm not defending it (under health and safety not allowed sell out of date food) but if it happens you bring it up with the shop or report it to one of the many regulator bodies if you feel strongly about it and you're just a little more careful next time. I was short changed once or twice as a child and believe me that was before the celtic tiger and 'rip off ireland'. 

This talk of victims in relation to incidents such as this and using the tag 'rip off ireland' for every minor incident dilutes the whole debate and takes away from the real rip off in far more important areas such as the price we pay for our utilities where we have little or no choice or control. Incidents like the above are annoying its needs to be put in perspective and realise that verybody has a certain amount of personal responsibility themselves (can't hire eddie hobbs to go with you every time go shopping).  I'm sure i sound preachy but there thats my tuppence worth anyway.


----------



## Bamhan (5 Oct 2005)

But why accept second rate service in any area.
Sure we are ripped off on a wide scale but do we now have to check the small print on each and every tiem we buy.
I find regularly that what is advertised as a super de dooper special offer in a shop is not what it seems at all.
For example when the items are scanned the saving is not given.
Now I am the sort of person who checks her receiptbut not everyone does so shops get away with it on a huge scale.
Yesterday evening in my local shop I noticed three separate items which were labelled special offers but were nothing of the sort.
I brought it to the attention of the manager and he said he would sort it out but how many people bought these special offer items thinking they were saving.
We pay enough, in fact a lot would say too much for groceries as it is but we should be able to expect at the very least that we will be able to consume the item once purchased without having to return it at our own expense.


----------



## Audrey (5 Oct 2005)

Ronan

_"I do believe that most, if not all, of us here are aware of all the media coverage regarding "rip off Ireland" and how many/most businesses are out to make as much money as possible of our (or their employees) backs.

There is nothing wrong with this"._

Are you talking "wrong" as in illegal or "wrong" as in immoral?  I'm talking "wrong" as in immoral.  My point was in relation to morality ...  caring, human kindness, decency.  Must we reduce everything to two levels - legal or illegal?  Black or white?  Why not moral or immoral?  Are you familiar with these words?  Actually, when you are so patronising as to use words like "sucker" and "fool" you have already answered my question.


----------



## Thrifty (5 Oct 2005)

Fair point Bamhan and i agree with we shouldn't have to accept a second rate service. But unfortunately its the customer that has to point out and demand the first rate service from the shop directly. Kindof got to vote with your feet. I think its a bit of a universal problem.


----------



## Humpback (5 Oct 2005)

Andrewa said:
			
		

> Actually, when you are so patronising as to use words like "sucker" and "fool" you have already answered my question.


 
Sucker was used by someone else before me - not my term.

And fool was used in context of a quotation rather than describing anyone in particular here.

As for your particular question, regarding moral or immoral.

For the third time, I'm not debating the morality or otherwise of what these shops are doing. I don't agree with what they're alleged to have done (intentionally or accidentally). However, as a consumer, there's nothing I can do about that. And as immorral isn't illegal (in the case of what we're discussing), nobody else can do anything about it.

All I can do is manage the situation (immoral as it may be), and there are three options, frequently mentioned already in this thread.

1. Watch out for yourself, and take care of your money and your purchases.
2. Complain and make your discomfort known.
3. Shop elsewhere.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Oct 2005)

Andrewa said:
			
		

> Why not moral or immoral?


Because these are subjective and dependent on the individual's value system which varies from person to person. Legal and illegal at least have the advantage of being objective measures of acceptability or otherwsise as determined by the society/state in which we live and amenable to change as we collectively see fit. Not that these should be the only measure of acceptability or otherwise but as a base standard they are a good start and certainly better than subjective assessments of "morality". If others like to supplement these with their own views on morality then all well and good but they should not arbitrarily assume that others adhere to the same codes of conduct, morality or values as they do.

(All this from a single contentious shopping spree! )


----------



## Humpback (5 Oct 2005)

Thrifty said:
			
		

> Fair point Bamhan and i agree with we shouldn't have to accept a second rate service. But unfortunately its the customer that has to point out and demand the first rate service from the shop directly.


 
And the problem in this situation, is that the customer who had the problem, thought it better to log in to a discussion forum to complain about the problems he's had, rather than going back into the shop to detail his concerns, explain what he might expect to happen to resolve the situation, and allow the shop the right of reply.

So, the shop in question, while having a very unhappy customer on their hands, doesn't know about it. Businesses can't address customer dissatisfaction if they don't know that their customers are dissatisfied.

They may have been genuine mistakes that have caused the customer to be unhappy, but having not been told about it, they can't action on it at all.

And I would say now that there is no point complaining at this stage, well, maybe about the out of date food, but definitely not about the alleged intentional short changing. The most effective way of complaining is in person, and as soon as possible after the event.


----------



## Audrey (5 Oct 2005)

In the hopes that we can now put this to bed, just two small points.


Ronan - Option 4 - debate it with people on AAM - it's a free country.

You're right - there's nothing you can do about it and nobody else can do anything about it.  However, what we can "do" about it is not the only question - that's all I'm saying.  We can actually think beyond the "do".

Clubman - what's wrong with "subjective and dependent upon the individual's value system...."?  Yes, I am supplementing with my own views on morality - what's wrong with that?  I didn't assume that others adhere to the same codes of morality/values as I do.  I simply expressed mine, and expressed a view that we're losing sight of something in society if we lose sight of moral issues.

That's all!  Over and under!  Tally ho!  [Are you still there - original poster??


----------



## DrMoriarty (5 Oct 2005)

Whaddya mean, 'spree'?!? What evidence can you adduce in support of this scandalous allegation, Clubman?


----------



## Markjbloggs (5 Oct 2005)

Hold on there a minute, Ronan, firstly, I did not log on here to complain about being ripped off - I logged on here to ask if there was a way of publicising the dishonest practices of a shopkeeper. I accept that I was not vigilant, but that does not detract from the fact that this was theft from me by a shopkeeper, who will, regardless of me complaining or not, will do the same to others.

Secondly, the inconvenience of getting on a bus and going into Dublin again mitigates against going back and complaining.  A more effective way for me "to get my own back" would have been a forum to bring this to others attention.


Learn to properly read posts before you go off ranting about your won agenda.




			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> And the problem in this situation, is that the customer who had the problem, thought it better to log in to a discussion forum to complain about the problems he's had, rather than going back into the shop to detail his concerns, explain what he might expect to happen to resolve the situation, and allow the shop the right of reply.
> 
> So, the shop in question, while having a very unhappy customer on their hands, doesn't know about it. Businesses can't address customer dissatisfaction if they don't know that their customers are dissatisfied.
> 
> ...


----------



## ClubMan (5 Oct 2005)

Andrewa said:
			
		

> Clubman - what's wrong with "subjective and dependent upon the individual's value system...."? Yes, I am supplementing with my own views on morality - what's wrong with that?


I never said that there was anything wrong with it. 



> I didn't assume that others adhere to the same codes of morality/values as I do. I simply expressed mine, and expressed a view that we're losing sight of something in society if we lose sight of moral issues.


By expressing your view on "morality" thus:


			
				Andrewa said:
			
		

> My point was in relation to morality ... caring, human kindness, decency. Must we reduce everything to two levels - legal or illegal? Black or white? Why not moral or immoral? Are you familiar with these words?


and asking if another contributor is familiar with "these words ['moral' and 'immoral']" it seems to me that you are assuming that the values that you hold in this context are in common or even universal currency.



			
				Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> Hold on there a minute, Ronan, firstly, I did not log on here to complain about being ripped off - I logged on here to ask if there was a way of publicising the dishonest practices of a shopkeeper.


Yes - and several people including myself have suggested practical steps that you can take in this regard including contacting the shop itself to complain and/or various statutory and other agencies such as the _FSAI, ODCA, CAI, _local health inspector etc. In fact, if you feel that your money was stolen by being deliberately short changed then you could also contact the _Gardaí_. In spite of such constructive suggestions it seems that you and a few others are still not happy with the responses given for some reason...


----------



## Humpback (5 Oct 2005)

Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> but that does not detract from the fact that this was theft from me by a shopkeeper, who will, regardless of me complaining or not, will do the same to others.


 
Your original comment was slightly less forceful and definitive.



			
				Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> Not alone that, but the shop assistant short changed me - I discovered this when i got to the bus stop and I am almost certain she did it deliberately.


 
Are you now suggesting that the shopkeeper mentioned in the first quote has it as his policy and training for the shop assistant mentioned in your original quote to routinely short change customers in order to make money?

If you believe this to be the case, I would (as suggested by ClubMan) most definitely report this to the Gardai. This is fraud or something, has to be. I can smell a Tribunal in the offing here.



			
				Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> Secondly, the inconvenience of getting on a bus and going into Dublin again mitigates against going back and complaining. A more effective way for me "to get my own back" would have been a forum to bring this to others attention.


 
"Getting my own back". I find this a curious way to put this. To me it makes a lie of your previous comments with regards to being on the look out for other consumers who may also end up buying stale produce. Strikes me as pure self interest more than anything else, for them catching you out in the way that they did.

With regards to getting on the bus, could you instead make a phone call? Send a letter? Send an e-mail? Do all three?



			
				Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> Learn to properly read posts before you go off ranting about your won agenda.


 
I read your post. I've read it again. You started off by complaining, and then asked how you could get your own back.

If you were legitimately concerned for consumer welfare fair enough, but since you're only concerned with getting your own back, I'm even less inclined to be concerned about your plight.


----------



## Bamhan (5 Oct 2005)

ronan d John please stop I am getting funny looks here for laughing while I should be carrying out some routine work at my PC./.....


----------



## Markjbloggs (5 Oct 2005)

I did not make it clear so far that I do appreciate that you and others have satisfactorily answered my original question, ie a recourse for being ripped-off - thanks for that, I will follow up accordingly.

As for Ronan, keep taking the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX....  Talk about a pi**ing contest,





			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Yes - and several people including myself have suggested practical steps that you can take in this regard including contacting the shop itself to complain and/or various statutory and other agencies such as the _FSAI, ODCA, CAI, _local health inspector etc. In fact, if you feel that your money was stolen by being deliberately short changed then you could also contact the _Gardaí_. In spite of such constructive suggestions it seems that you and a few others are still not happy with the responses given for some reason...


----------



## ClubMan (5 Oct 2005)

Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> I did not make it clear so far that I do appreciate that you and others have satisfactorily answered my original question, ie a recourse for being ripped-off - thanks for that, I will follow up accordingly.


Fair enough - Pal!


----------



## DrMoriarty (5 Oct 2005)

Can't believe this one is still 'running'...  

Markjbloggs — look, for what it's worth, I suspect most of us actually _can_ sympathise, perhaps more than we're letting on here. Nobody likes being swizzed, and especially not by the kind of money-grubbing, over-charging, price-fixing, mis-labelling, corner-cutting, penny-pinching, tax-fiddling, slave-driving, minimum-wage-paying, PD-voting, BMW-driving 'hoors' that seem to populate the small retailer sector.

That caricature - like all myths - is partly grounded in reality. But for every shopkeeper that fits that description, there are also plenty of honest-dealing, hard-working, community-serving individuals in the same business. I don't complain that they charge more than the supermarkets; I just avoid buying anything from them that isn't urgently needed. As for the first kind — and I know a few — I won't buy so much as a box of matches from them. I haven't set foot in my local Spar for eight years, following a petty dispute over an incident a bit like the one you originally described... (and which I reported, to absolutely zero effect, unfortunately.) And if my wife & kids have followed my urging, the guy has probably lost a couple of grand's worth of custom over the years. _That's_ how you 'get even'...

No matter where you shop, _always_ check the sell-by date (where applicable) and count your change. 'Bad' retailers, as someone pointed out above, only get away with sharp practice because Joe/Jill Soap lets them.


----------



## daltonr (5 Oct 2005)

I've recently found Dublin city to be almost empty on Saturdays.   
I had presumed it was the Shopping Center effect kicking in.   But last Saturday I did notice things were very very busy.  Perhaps the overpriced shopping center effect driving people back????

>It's not clear that the second point is actually the case. If it was the 
>"best before" date and not the "use by" date that had expired

I don't know of any food where the Use By date would be 5 Months after the Best Before date.   But I'm not that well up on Shelf Life so someone can correct me.

Would agree with Rainyday that naming and Shaming on AAM isn't a good idea as it is anonymous.   Nothing would stop competitors naming and shaming each other with no foundation.

If the food genuinely was out of date then certainly tell your friends to be careful when shopping there.   Mention it to the manager in a friendly way and see how he/she reacts.

As for change.   I used to be pretty bad at checking change, I'm getting better at it.   My policy on that is that if you only notice it after leaving the shop then there's no use in complaining.   Hopefully it was a small amount and if so it's a small price to pay for a valuable lesson.

My worst experience with incorrect change was in a certain Cinema that will remain Nameless, but it wasn't in Dublin.   I paid with a £20 Note but only received change as if I had paid with a £10.   I pointed it out there and then and was told I had paid with a £10.   I had just taken the cash from an ATM so I know how much it was.

After arguing for a few minutes I was told to come back after the film and they'd have counted the Till.  When I came back they told me the Till Balanced,  Still claiming I hadn't been shortchanged.

So complaining there and then doesn't always work.   In that situation withdrawing your custom and spreading the word is the only avenue left.
BTW the Cinema Manager was the guy behind the Till.

I've also been given too much change in my time.   I usually own up and set them straight.  But I was delighted to get a 70c bonus last week at a StatOil Garage because the girl behind the counter was on her mobile talking about the previous nights events.

Incidently this week is national Customer Service Week.
If that kind of thin turns you on.
http://www.customerserviceweek.com/

Seems to have started in America but I heard it being discussed on Morning Ireland this week.   Strange how we take America's Celebration of Customer Service, but not the Customer Service itself.

-Rd


----------



## tall chapy (5 Oct 2005)

> _SteelBlue05 _is not a moderator. We've dealt with this accusation thoroughly in the past so let's not rehash it here. Suffice to say that if you think that moderators (such as myself and _RainyDay_) habitually or automatically back each other up or agree with each other on all matters then you are sorely mistaken and have not been paying attention over the years.


At what point did I say that non-moderators don't back you.(You need to pay attention !!) There are more forum members, than moderators so by the law of averages you will always get more non-moderators agreeing with what ever point you are raising whether it be right or wrong.

So its an accusation !!! LOL
Upping the ante ??
So are you denying that you have never been backed up by a moderator in the past and remember "habitually or automatically" are your insinuations not mine !
Throughly dealt with in the past, where ??



> You and others are perfectly entitled to your opinion but it doesn't prove anything in terms of my "manner" being the problem. Probably as many people that have had problems in this respect have complimented me and others for adopting a challenging and fact based approach to queries and discussions. Differences of opinions are a symptom of a healthy debating environment in my view.


and you do not disprove my opinion neither, as it is different things to different people as this thread is also proving and I do agree that differences of opinions are a symptom of a healthy debating environment . But then there is goading of the Ronan_d_John intermingled with debate. Telling people that they are gullible,stupid,sucker and insinuated that he was a 'fool' adds nothing to a real debate.


> You were a gullible shopper





> acted stupidly





> you're actually the first "sucker"





> As I've said before here, "a fool and their money are easily parted".





> Would be more suitable now to name and shame yourself rather than blaming anyone else.


 
 As I said before we should be encouraging people to join the forum and not winding them up. 



> Quote:
> I was extremely disappointed in the way the thread (link above)went so low, in all the years I am on this board, I have never seen it sink that low !! Unfortunately, Brendan closed the thread, before I was able to reply.
> 
> Are you insinuating that I personally dragged that thread "low" or something? Feel free to back this up if that's what you're insinuating.


If I was insinuating that you personally dragged the thread 'low'. Then surely my Quote above would have said "I was extremely disappointed in the way you dragged the the thread so low". 
If you wish to up the ante more and since we must adopt a ' challenging and fact based cross examination approach !!! Do you deny any hand in dragging it 'low'..we could play this game forever. We could call witnesses for the prosecution !! especially since everything is dragged down to legal and illegal and having 'the advantage of being objective measures of acceptability or otherwsise as determined by the society/state in which we live'. Whom amomgst this 'courtroom forum' is a solicitor or barrister and as you freely admit 





> I certainly don't have any legal background


and upping the ante with your reply, you are only moving this thread towards being closed and proving my original point. When people come on to the forum they do not want a challenging, fact based cross examination in the witness box, they will want there bona fides accepted up front. 
Depending on the debate it maybe appropriate, but for a incident of purchasing out of date food and being short changed !!!



> A person that starts a thread, should not have to explain themselves, except if it is complicated. Asking someone to justify their actions will only wind things up !! We should be encouraging people to join the forum.
> 
> Who asked anybody to justify their actions?


Maybe I should have changed it to justifying their inaction









"why did you not check the best before dates and your change at the time? "
"Have you complained to the shop after the fact and, if so, how did they respond? "
"What sort of things were you looking for that you could only find 3 of the 8 items in _Dublin _city centre? "



> Quote:
> Compare Clubman's response with DrMoriarty.
> Why? I said more or less the same thing among other things too. Why expect everybody to adhere to what you consider acceptable standards of contribution? As long as the contributions are withing the posting guidelines and relevant/constructive/helpful they are acceptable in my view.


and vice versa, I dont expect everyone to adhere to what you consider acceptable standards of contribution . I asked people to compare and make up their own mind. I did not demand or ask that they agree with me.



> Quote:
> Its like a new member joining, coming on and saying they were mugged late at night and Clubman asking what were you doing out so late or walking in that area !!
> No it's not. That's another completely hypothetical and irrelevant issue/


 I was going to start a with a Pantomine reply...but I agree with you it is hypothetical..



> Quote:
> I have to admit that Clubman has given excellent advice in the past, but 2 'rights' does not justify 1 'wrong' and vice versa.
> What "wrong"? What specific parts of my contributions above do you consider inappropriate or irrelevant? As far as I can see I have posted several pieces of very relevant information along with some opinions and questions about the specific situation in question. Where's the problem?



Ok, this one maybe I need to clarify,'wrong' was probably the wrong  word.
It was more in response to Rainyday,What I was trying to say was that you have given tons of good advice before, but your 'style' of cross-examination negates some of your good work IMHO.

Just thinking...LOL (In a nice way..)
Must all products (ie: two jars of olives ) have a "best before" date and a "use by" date. Otherwise when would you know when it is unsafe to eat.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Oct 2005)

tall chapy said:
			
		

> At what point did I say that non-moderators don't back you.


And where did *I *say that? 



> So are you denying that you have never been backed up by a moderator in the past...


No. Just as I have been backed up by other contributors too. And criticised or challenged by both moderators and other contributors in my time. And censured/censored by moderators the odd time. Basically I have been treated the same way that any other genuine contributor has been treated. Neither I nor any of the other moderators get preferential treatment. But your reference here to the _"the auld moderator calvary, riding to the rescue again" _seems to me to be some sort of insinuation that this sort of backup occurs as a matter of course (habitually or automatically if you like) and seems to be a reference to a previous _"moderators circle the wagons" _thread a while back which somebody (perhaps you? I can't remember) started in order to attack the moderation policy of the site and undermine the moderators in general, and myself and _RainyDay _in particular, and which _Brendan _eventually removed.



> Throughly dealt with in the past, where ??


We have had several threads which started out or ended up discussing the whole "ClubMan's tone" (q.v.) issue and I have always dealt with the accusations and criticisms directly. I don't expect people to agree with or like all of my posts and I am not immune to transgressing the posting guidelines from time to time (as I mentioned earlier) but I don't think that my "tone" is a problem or that I regularly or deliberately flout the posting guidelines or cause a nuisance of myself on the site.



> But then there is goading of the Ronan_d_John intermingled with debate. Telling people that they are gullible,stupid,sucker and insinuated that he was a 'fool' adds nothing to a real debate.


None of the extracts that you quote above at this point were mine. Please don't try to misrepresent my contribution to this thread. It would be fairer if you used the _vBulletin _quote facility to properly attribute quotations to their originators instead of making it look like somebody said something that they did not.



> As I said before we should be encouraging people to join the forum and not winding them up. [broken link removed]


You quote posting guideline 11 and yet I have not posted uncivil comments or attacked any other poster. Maybe you can explain yourself?



> Do you deny any hand in dragging it 'low'..


Yes. 



> We could call witnesses for the prosecution !! especially since everything is dragged down to legal and illegal and having 'the advantage of being objective measures of acceptability or otherwsise as determined by the society/state in which we live'. Whom amomgst this 'courtroom forum' is a solicitor or barrister and as you freely admit


I don't get your point here but if you don't like my comments/posts then feel free to ignore them. I'm sure that many others manage to do this without undue hardship. Just read read the posts that you like or agree with and maybe you'll feel better.



> and upping the ante with your reply


What is all this talk of upping the ante about? Upping the ante how!? Somebody wondered if I had some sort of legal background and I simply clarified that I did not. You seem a bit more fixated on it than merits such as passing comment though. Not sure why to be honest.



> you are only moving this thread towards being closed and proving my original point.


How am I moving the thread towards being closed? Even if I say so myself, far from moving this thread towards closure I have made some quite constructive suggestions during this thread. Unfortunately responding to misplaced criticisms such as yours is obfuscating the thread and distracting from its original purpose. If such criticisms were posted in their own thread then everybody would be better off. I did also suggest this earlier.



> When people come on to the forum they do not want a challenging, fact based cross examination in the witness box, they will want there bona fides accepted up front.


Where did I not accept the bona fides of the original poster?



> Depending on the debate it maybe appropriate, but for a incident of purchasing out of date food and being short changed !!!


Your opinion. Many others have taken part in this discussion without raising the objections and concerns that you have. Even the original poster has thanked me and others for practical, constructive suggestions in relation to the original query/comment. Have you made any?



> Maybe I should have changed it to justifying their inaction


I simply asked a few questions of the original poster in an attempt to clarify some of the issues at the time and subsequently. I was not asking them to justify themselves. And they were free to ignore the questions if they so chose.



> "why did you not check the best before dates and your change at the time? "
> "Have you complained to the shop after the fact and, if so, how did they respond? "
> "What sort of things were you looking for that you could only find 3 of the 8 items in _Dublin _city centre? "


What's your problem with those questions? Note also that they were prefixed with _"no offence but" _just in case the infamous "tone" is blamed as the problem (yet again).



> and vice versa, I dont expect everyone to adhere to what you consider acceptable standards of contribution . I asked people to compare and make up their own mind. I did not demand or ask that they agree with me.


Neither did I... 



> I was going to start a with a Pantomine reply...but I agree with you it is hypothetical..


 And irrelevant?



> Ok, this one maybe I need to clarify,'wrong' was probably the wrong  word.


So that's yet another inappropriately chosen word? Maybe you should be more careful when you dash off a post criticising another contributor.



> It was more in response to Rainyday,


So why did you say _"I have to admit that Clubman has given excellent advice in the past, but 2 'rights' does not justify 1 'wrong' and vice versa."_? That's clearly directed at me and yet you admit that there was no 'wrong' in the first place. So there are only 'rights'. Thanks goodness my reputation has survived intact in the face of your sustained criticism.



> What I was trying to say was that you have given tons of good advice before, but your 'style' of cross-examination negates some of your good work IMHO.


 Yes - in *your *humble opinion. Many others disagree with your analysis. Obviously I do.



> Must all products (ie: two jars of olives ) have a "best before" date and a "use by" date. Otherwise when would you know when it is unsafe to eat.


Perhaps if *you *did something constructive in the context of this thread for a change and researched the topic/legislation you could inform us. So far you have posted a lot of text but little or nothing by way of constructive input to this thread. I think that fact speaks for itself and puts your criticism of me and others on issues of style, delivery and content in context.


----------



## GreatDane (5 Oct 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Just in case there's any confusion, I was not the "official" involved in this incident and this is the first that I've heard of it.


 

Hi

Very true indeed, sorry Clubman, there was no intention to suggest you were the person involved in that incident.


Regards


G>
http://www.rpoints.com/newbie


----------



## tiger (6 Oct 2005)

God, people here seem to have alot of time on their hands.  I've handed in my notice and finish my job tomorrow.  What's everyone else's excuse?


----------



## tall chapy (7 Oct 2005)

> No. Just as I have been backed up by other contributors too. And criticised or challenged by both moderators and other contributors in my time. And censured/censored by moderators the odd time. Basically I have been treated the same way that any other genuine contributor has been treated. Neither I nor any of the other moderators get preferential treatment. But your reference here to the _"the auld moderator calvary, riding to the rescue again" _seems to me to be some sort of insinuation that this sort of backup occurs as a matter of course (habitually or automatically if you like) and seems to be a reference to a previous _"moderators circle the wagons" _thread a while back which somebody (perhaps you? I can't remember) started in order to attack the moderation policy of the site and undermine the moderators in general, and myself and _RainyDay _in particular, and which _Brendan _eventually removed.


I am sure moderators have criticised, challenged, censured and censored some of your replies. But when your 'tone' is not appreciated, it is usually, a moderator that replies. As for the last bit about 'undermining the moderators in general' are you accusing me or not, make up your mind.


> We have had several threads which started out or ended up discussing the whole "ClubMan's tone" (q.v.) issue and I have always dealt with the accusations and criticisms directly. I don't expect people to agree with or like all of my posts and I am not immune to transgressing the posting guidelines from time to time (as I mentioned earlier) but I don't think that my "tone" is a problem or that I regularly or deliberately flout the posting guidelines or cause a nuisance of myself on the site.


Dealt with before...This has not been dealt with in the past. 
You do always deal with the accusations and criticisms directly. This only means that they have been debated and not dealt with. I have no agenda or desire to have you censured or removed from this forum. 
Some people disagree with your cross examination of posters in this forum and some people don't.


> Quote:
> But then there is goading of the Ronan_d_John intermingled with debate. Telling people that they are gullible,stupid,sucker and insinuated that he was a 'fool' adds nothing to a real debate.
> 
> None of the extracts that you quote above at this point were mine. Please don't try to misrepresent my contribution to this thread. It would be fairer if you used the _vBulletin _quote facility to properly attribute quotations to their originators instead of making it look like somebody said something that they did not./QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## ClubMan (7 Oct 2005)

My suggestion about contacting the Gardai if he thought that he had been short changed was indeed serious. He never mentioned how much was involved but if it was a large sum then this would be merited. Another poster also seconded this suggestion.

And the suggestions about joining advocacy groups were also made in earnest since the issue of warning other consumers cropped up as an issue during the discussion.

Basically this all seems to boil down to one substantive point - some people (including you, it seems) have problems with my tone/style/delivery while others don't. So be it I guess. That's life and we'll all just have to live with it.

I think we've done this issue to death yet again.


----------



## extopia (7 Oct 2005)

Boring, boring..

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. (Snore)


----------



## ClubMan (7 Oct 2005)

So boring that you had to post about it?


----------



## extopia (7 Oct 2005)

Sorry - I won't be drawn into this one. Over and out.


----------



## Audrey (7 Oct 2005)

Oh dear Clubman - you really do have a problem.  Get a life!!
Oh and (of course) we'll all be expecting you to respond to THIS post because you simply must have the last word, mustn't you!!  Go on .. prove it.


			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> So boring that you had to post about it?


----------



## ClubMan (7 Oct 2005)

Andrewa said:
			
		

> Oh dear Clubman - you really do have a problem.  Get a life!!
> Oh and (of course) we'll all be expecting you to respond to THIS post because you simply must have the last word, mustn't you!! Go on .. prove it.


Please respect the .


----------



## Audrey (7 Oct 2005)

I'm respecting those guidelines as we speak.  Thank you for pointing that out to me.  It was very important and needed to be said.  I'm grateful that you took the time to post that last post pointing out to me that I should respect the guidelines - thank you .... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  !!!!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Oct 2005)

AndrewA

I am drawing your specific attention to the following posting guideline:

11. Please be civil - avoid causing offenceControversy and argument are welcome. But please keep your comments civil. Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion.


If you want to attack people rather than arguments, please find another site in which to do so. We do our best to maintain a civil atmosphere while allowing people to express themselves. If you persist in personalised comments, you will be banned from Askaboutoney.


----------



## Audrey (7 Oct 2005)

Fair enough Brendan - if you want to remove me because of what I've said, then you must do so.  Others please note.  I would, however, be disappointed if you removed me for transgressing the posting guidelines considering that Clubman himself tells us (_quote "... and I am not immune to transgressing the posting guidelines from time to time...")_.  I do find Clubman's tone offensive - I honestly do.  Apparently I'm not the only one (_quote from MarkjBloggs - ".. I didn't ask for a lecture from you ... your tone is very offensive")._


----------



## Seagull (7 Oct 2005)

It's boring because we've seen this same quarrel in numerous other threads. Rather than hijacking a thread to discuss the rights and wrongs of Clubman's style, open a new thread. For those of you who really don't like it, try to ignore his posts. I know that could be difficult given the number.
Personally, I find the information/advice ne provides is generally useful, but find that his style of breaking up the previous poster's mail and answering bit by bit is difficult to read, and can give the impression that he is nitpicking.


----------



## ClubMan (7 Oct 2005)

_Andrewa _- it's a bit ironic you accusing me of offending people. You have accused me of having a "problem" (and needing to "get a life") here and of having a "personality problem", no less, here. These comments are offensive, uncalled for, outrageous and obviously in breach of posting guideline 11. Please withdraw these comments and/or apologise for them. If you can point to any breach of the posting guidelines by me in this thread or elsewhere let me know and I will sort it out likewise.

_Seagull _- I agree that it is boring but I feel obliged to respond to unwarranted criticism and outrageous personal attacks such as those above. I don't think that yet another thread on this topic will serve any useful purpose other than to prevent other threads being pulled off topic. I accept that you and others seem to get an unintended impression from my (non exclusive) use of the quoting mechanism when responding to posts but I (and others obviously) find it a useful way to keep the preceding context intact when responding to specific points in earlier posts.


----------



## Audrey (7 Oct 2005)

Clubman

All right... OK ...  - here is what you need from me.

I apologise herewith, profusely, humbly and in full, for calling you names and offending you outrageously.

Please post your acceptance of my deepest apology and let's get on with what really matters!


----------



## ClubMan (7 Oct 2005)

I accept your apology and would be grateful if you could remove the offending comments by editing your posts. Thank you.


----------



## Audrey (7 Oct 2005)

Don't know how.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Oct 2005)

And with that all sorted out, I am closing this thread


Brendan


----------



## ClubMan (7 Oct 2005)

explains how to do it. If editing is too difficult for you then deleting them might be simpler.


----------

