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.
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And I would say now that there is no point complaining at this stage, well, maybe about the out of date food, but definitely not about the alleged intentional short changing.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.
I never said that there was anything wrong with it.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?
By expressing your view on "morality" thus: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.
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.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?
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...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.
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.
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.
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.
Markjbloggs said:Learn to properly read posts before you go off ranting about your won agenda.
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...
Fair enough - Pal!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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
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".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.
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.I certainly don't have any legal background
Maybe I should have changed it to justifying their inactionA 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?
and vice versa, I dont expect everyone to adhere to what you consider acceptable standards of contributionQuote:
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 was going to start a with a Pantomine reply...but I agree with you it is hypothetical..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/
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?
And where did I say that?tall chapy said:At what point did I say that non-moderators don't back you.
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.So are you denying that you have never been backed up by a moderator in the past...
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.Throughly dealt with in the past, where ??
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.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 quote posting guideline 11 and yet I have not posted uncivil comments or attacked any other poster. Maybe you can explain yourself?As I said before we should be encouraging people to join the forum and not winding them up. [broken link removed]
Yes.Do you deny any hand in dragging it 'low'..
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.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
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.and upping the ante with your reply
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.you are only moving this thread towards being closed and proving my original point.
Where did I not accept the bona fides of the original poster?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.
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?Depending on the debate it maybe appropriate, but for a incident of purchasing out of date food and being short changed !!!
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.Maybe I should have changed it to justifying their inaction
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).
- "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? "
Neither did I...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.
And irrelevant?I was going to start a with a Pantomine reply...but I agree with you it is hypothetical..
So that's yet another inappropriately chosen word? Maybe you should be more careful when you dash off a post criticising another contributor.Ok, this one maybe I need to clarify,'wrong' was probably the wrongword.
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.It was more in response to Rainyday,
Yes - in your humble opinion. Many others disagree with your analysis. Obviously I do.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.
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.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 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.
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.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.
Dealt with before...This has not been dealt with in the past.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.
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]
I stated clearly who said what and as for Misrepresentation look in the mirror on this one.
As above , I do not accuse you of any uncivil comments or of attacking any poster. Though being a administrator, would you call the 'uncivil comments' a breach of guidelines ??Quote:
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?
By your style of cross examination of the poster.Some may feel that this ok and others don't. This small matter has attracted nearly 60 replies, with many drifting away from the original thread. Misplaced criticism is subjective. As for 'your own' personal thread, very noble, but not practicableHow 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.
IMHO by cross examining his statements.Where did I not accept the bona fides of the original poster?
"go back to the shop and see what their response is and if they do not treat you fairly, name and shame..."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?
obviously, we are free to ignore the questions, but that removes the debate ?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.
I think if you count the text you will find that you posted a lot more text than me. You version of a constructive input is definately different than mine. You have suggested many things. Some practical, some no one can take seriously, like going to the Gardai about being short changed.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.You honestly believe the Gardai would take him seriously !!if you feel that your money was stolen by being deliberately short changed then you could also contact the Gardaí.
As for suggesting the original poster join a consumer advocacy group.
This real style, delivery and content in context.LOL - good nightIf 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.
ClubMan said:So boring that you had to post about it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?