# Reality doesn't change because you don't want to hear it **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 26, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816 "2010-03-26T00:07:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/241 "2010-03-30T19:52:48Z")
Well, we’ll be sure to point out how that incident’s all your fault too within another couple pages, never fear! ---
**Author:** ![BubbaDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bubbadog/32/333_2.png) [@BubbaDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BubbaDog)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/242 "2010-03-30T20:06:38Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I don’t agree. There’s no good reason to assume the worst without additional information. That’s what some did about a subject they don’t seem to know anything about. > Admittedly my perspective is different because of my experience in CS but I thought any fair minded person wouldn’t resort to assuming details not in evidence and then drawing negative conclusions. In fact several people stopped by to say that. I thought the OP spelled it out fairly clearly, with no need to infer anything. You’ll notice those who simply got the details dead wrong or suspected Chimera of lying. What unnessecary bullshit. They got it details wrong for a reason. _Something_ in the OP looked fishy to them. The tone? I myself can’t explain it but I found it hard to believe that a CS rep doing their job correctly would warrant that reaction from a customer. Maybe it’s because we haven’t had a mile in his shoes. > [@](#): > > Noted. I have no idea what Chimera’s schedule is do you? How does a lack of information justify making up your own? {not that you did, but others} I don’t need to know his schedule. All I had to do is see that he made numerous visits to the thread without addressing my questions. > [@](#): > > Again I don’t agree. Why should Chimera or anyone feel compelled to defend themselves against those who seem eager to make negative assumptions. So, why did YOU feel compelled to defend Chimera? > [@](#): > > You were smart enough to not assume the worst and ask for details. Not getting any answers means you don’t know. It doesn’t mean assume the worst now. Not getting any answers from a person who continues to make statements is an indication that they are unwilling to discuss the subject. Right or wrong human nature kicks in and one begins to second guess the reason for the silent treatment. > [@](#): > > Although I get your point I don’t think the analogy works. > As I said, I understood the OP and thought it was a fairly clear venting frustration style post. I thought it was clearly written ,even with minimum details, to express that this customer didn’t just get angry, but became an incoherent screaming maniac. > If you posted some guy half your size was screaming obscenities at you and you tried to talk him down but finally just walked away, would you expect a pile on about what an asshole you were and how badly you handled it. > > Then I’ll explain. > > It’s clear in the OP that the plan she \*wanted \* was canceled and \*\*refunded \*\*, which means money back to her. It’s also a fairly obvious deduction that canceling the plan she wanted canceled will also result in money back to her. with you so far > [@](#): > > If, and it’s up to her, she still wants the plan that was mistakenly canceled the way to get it is to buy it back, you interpret the term\* another plan \* to be the same plan (it) I didn’t. When he said sell another plan I immediatley thought of an other plan. > [@](#): > > with the money that was accidentally refunded. IOW, she gets the plan she wants back and gets the other plan canceled at no cost to her. Now you are wandering away from the OP’s statements towards your interpretation. > [@](#): > > I understand how these things can get complicated with prorating and all so I did not automatically assume there would be no cost to her. I took the OP to say that they never even got to that discussion because at the sound of the “can’t and sell” she launched the maniac salvo and didn’t turn back. Not even sure how you jumped to this or why you would if you already believed that \*another plan \*was _the same plan._ > [@](#): > > I also noted that \*\*Chimera \*\* said, "I have the authority " so I assumed any disparities could be ironed out. That was later verified. > > Is it the same plan, and will it cost extra ,are perfectly legitimate questions, but there was absolutely no reason for anyone to assume the negative{s} as true. Again refusal to answer simple straightforward questions. Human nature etc > [@](#): > > Such as “you want to charge her more, or sell her something else” > Nobody ever said that. Agreed > [@](#): > > “You refused to solve her problem and later admitted you could if you wanted to” > That never happened. > > “You told her the problem couldn’t be fixed so of course she’s pissed” > That never happened either. > That’s the reading comprehension thing I keep mentioning. How and why would we assume things not evident in the OP and restate them as if they were true and something the OP actually said? Why would people be so seemingly eager to believe the negative that isn’t there and join in the pile on? I don’t think the OP has any obligation to defend themselves against that kind of bullshit. > > I hope I’ve explained that clearly. Well, while we’re at it, why not? The OP certainly had no problem attacking the customer in this thread? At least the OP is given the opportunity to defend themselves. The customer isn’t allowed that luxury. The OP didn’t provide some needed details and appeared to want to gloss over them so why shouldn’t the board members call him on it? > [@](#): > > I’ll also note that Chimera never said anger wasn’t justified. And didn’t say it was. > [@](#): > > every decent CS rep has dealt with angry customers and learned not to take it personal. In fact he noted in the OP that he tried to explain over and through the screaming, which is the correct thing to do. You give the angry customer a chance to vent a little while patiently trying to calm them down and assure them you can and will solve the problem. If they refuse to listen and escalate into abuse rather than just vented anger and frustration you have to cut it off. We agree on this > [@](#): > > That’s exactly what is described in the OP and later expanded on in more detail. Again, your interpretation of the OP and mine were different. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/243 "2010-03-30T20:26:40Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Man, you’d think people in the Pit would have thicker skin. And yet. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/244 "2010-03-30T20:39:15Z")
> [@BubbaDog](#): > > Again refusal to answer simple straightforward questions. Human nature etc You can say all you want that other people “refusing” to answer questions allows you to assume anything you want. This is your choice and I think you’ll find that it carries no weight with a lot of people. Other people are just as likely to think “Why does this clown think he has the right to pull shit out of the air and make judgement based on it?” and/or “Why does this guy think his opinion and judgement means anything here?” ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/245 "2010-03-30T21:03:14Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > “Why does this guy think his opinion and judgement means anything here?” Because you’re posting on a forum, not scribbling entries in a journal you keep in your bedside table. If you don’t want people to judge you and comment on your actions, don’t fucking post here. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/246 "2010-03-30T21:04:21Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Because I’m merely abrasive and not a threadshitter, I’ll decline to make an issue of the irony of you being the one with reading-comprehension problems. 😃 Well, it’s only a reading comprehension issue if I read it right? > [@](#): > > Apparently your sole definition of threadshitting is someone disagreeing with you. Not at all. It’s the unnecessary practice of calling people stupid and retarded, tongue up someone’s ass, shitty, that kind of thing. You can’t just disagree, You have to be nasty while you’re at it. Perhaps to you that’s abrasive and not thread shitting. Note; I didn’t call you a troll. > [@](#): > > I didn’t assume the worst–I took the OP at his word, and considered it to be pretty damning when he refused to answer questions that were asked repeatedly when the answers could have cast him in a better light. So that’s when you assumed the worst? Because he refused to defend himself against baseless assumptions? So, if someone doesn’t answer and you still don’t have the correct information then it’s evidence to support bogus assumptions? Nice guideline there. > [@](#): > > The reason I think you’re a moron is that your sole criterion for who is a threadshitting-pileon appears to be that they assessed the same post you did and came to a different conclusion. That’s not the reason and I’ve explained in detail. Some very legitimate questions were asked in a reasonable manner. When those questions aren’t answered that means you still don’t know. It doesn’t mean you should conclude the negative is true. Having an opinion that **Chimera** handled it badly is reasonable and I have no objection even though I disagree. Accusations of lying, refusing to solve the problem, or a complete misreading of the post such as I detailed to **Bubba** is more than a disagreement. A The sky is blue. B “Why did you say the sky is yellow?” B is not a simple disagreement with A. It’s a blatant misrepresentation of what A says. That happened repeatedly in this thread. Another example from your own post 68 > [@](#): > > So, you refused to do your job and correct a situation that your company fucked up, That’s not what the OP said. The OP says he kept trying to explain and solve the problem while she was screaming. > [@](#): > > ETA: And ISTM that it was your poor handling of the situation that got her screaming at you in the first place. Not that it wasn’t ultimately her choice to behave like a child, but the screaming could have been completely sidestepped if the first words out of your mouth were, “I’m so sorry ma’am, let me fix that for you” instead of “Durrrrrr, can’t do it, let me SELL you something else.” Once again , it’s easy after the fact to say, if you had chosen different words this all would have been avoided and, after all, that’s your job. The reality is we can’t know that. Even if Chimera had started with the words. “Our mistake, I apologize, let me fix that for you” the conversation had to come around to reality. I can’t undo the cancellation because the refund has already gone through {you know, the thread title} but I can solve the problem by reinstating {not selling} that policy which will show up as a charge on your CC. Sure, maybe , _just maybe_ a choice of different words \*might have \* avoided the craziness, but I doubt anyone can be so sure that someone that is capable of being totally incoherent and irrational would have calmly accepted a different choice of words. To imply that that’s the case is foolish. > [@](#): > > Plenty of us have worked in service-industry or specifically customer-service jobs, but you’re blatantly asserting that if we disagree with you, then it \*must \*be because we just have no idea what we’re talking about. Point taken. People can have experience in the field and still honestly disagree. I have to wonder about the extent of that experience, and wonder more about those blatant misrepresentations of what the OP actually says. I’ve got over 20 years of dealing with the public and fielding complaints and problems and I’m still surprised occasionally when customers go from decent to ridiculous and screaming nuts. It’s just not behavior you come to anticipate very readily. btw post 60 > [@](#): > > She shouldn’t have been re-charged, period. The company fucked up; they need to eat the incorrect repayment. This makes me wonder about your customer service experience but let’s just call it a disagreement. I repeat, there’s no reason legally or ethically for them to eat this under the circumstances. As a CS rep our job is to solve customer problem but also mitigate the companies losses within the solution. If a company _mistakenly_ gave you a used defective TV for the new one you paid for would you expect to get the TV you paid for or would you expect them to refund your money and still give you the TV you paid for? The lady was inconvenienced by a mistake and had to make a phone call. It became a major hassle largely because of her attitude. How much compensation does a phone call warrant? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/247 "2010-03-30T21:12:37Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > And yet. It doesn’t mean you can’t take it, just because you’re not willing to take it quietly. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/248 "2010-03-30T21:28:44Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Not at all. It’s the unnecessary practice of calling people stupid and retarded, tongue up someone’s ass, shitty, that kind of thing. You can’t just disagree, You have to be nasty while you’re at it. Perhaps to you that’s abrasive and not thread shitting. Threadshitting, IMO, is coming into a thread to drag it off-topic and contribute nothing while insulting people. I, on the other hand, enjoy being insulting \*while \*being on-topic. If you don’t like insults, _don’t come into the Pit_. It’s pretty much what it’s here for. If this were a GD thread, you’d be perfectly within your rights to be pissed off at me, but it’s not. So, I guess, get over yourself? > [@](#): > > So that’s when you assumed the worst? Because he refused to defend himself against baseless assumptions? So, if someone doesn’t answer and you still don’t have the correct information then it’s evidence to support bogus assumptions? I assume “the worst” (i.e., that he’s an incompetent asshole) because he gave a description of the way he’d phrased things to the customer that was \*deeply \*stupid and goes against every rule I have for treating your customers well. Now, perhaps it’s ‘cause my customer service ethic was very much framed by having a grandfather who owned his own pharmacy and was thus able to guarantee a level of service that won’t always be feasible in a big honkin’ company in which you are but a tiny cog. However, ISTM that no matter how faceless and profits-oriented the company is, it will never be a good idea to in any way suggest that to a customer whose account your company has just made a mistake with that they will in any way have to give you money to rectify the mistake–even if it’s money that you shouldn’t have given back to them. That’s why I (and other people) have said that the company should have just eaten the loss. As for the questions… Heh. I went back and looked to see if I were misremembering them, but nope. They’re quite innocuous, and the post explicitly says that the poster will be more inclined to sympathize with the OP if certain things are clarified: > [@BubbaDog](#): > > **Chimera** did you leave out any important info? > > Does this new plan you need to sell her cost more? > Does it extend the contract further than the one that was canceled? > Will she have to spend any of her time setting up a new plan? > Will she have to visit a retail store to buy the new plan? > > You gave us a story on how horrible the customer was to you but what exactly is the amount of inconvenience or extra cost that was placed on the customer by your company’s error. > > If its minimal I can sympathize with your cause. > > If it’s substantial then I don’t understand why you find it remarkable that this person reacted negatively. When someone sulks instead of answering simple questions that could make them come off as much better, to me, yes, that means they’re refusing to answer because the answers would, in fact, make them look worse. And you’ll note that none of those questions are anything remotely like your “Why did you say the sky is yellow?” strawman. > [@](#): > > Another example from your own post 68 > That’s not what the OP said. The OP says he kept trying to explain and solve the problem while she was screaming. If you’ll note what I quotes in my post, it was in response to \*\*Chimera \*\*saying, “If she’d have been reasonable, I’d have done what I could to resolve in her favor.” When your company has fucked up, and you’re the face of that company to the customer, _it is your job to do what you can to resolve in the customer’s favor **from the get-go** _. It should never have gotten to the point where the customer was pissed off, because the OP should have already been busting his ass to make things right, instead of half-assing some excuse about having to \*sell \*another policy. > [@](#): > > Once again , it’s easy after the fact to say, if you had chosen different words this all would have been avoided and, after all, that’s your job. The reality is we can’t know that. No, we can’t know that, but we can make educated guesses. Are you seriously going to tell me that if I walk up to some guy in a bar with a Confederate flag hat and call him a faggot, and he punches me in the mouth, we have no way of knowing that if I would have said “hi” instead, that he wouldn’t have still punched me? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > If a company _mistakenly_ gave you a used defective TV for the new one you paid for would you expect to get the TV you paid for or would you expect them to refund your money and still give you the TV you paid for? It’s not a comparable situation. The mistake \*was \*the refund–so, in your example, the OP’s customer’s refund is the equivalent of the used defective TV. And in your example, the company would \*not \*be allowed to require me to return the used defective TV in order to get the new one I actually ordered. Depending on my relationship with the company, I may \*choose \*to return the other TV that was mistakenly shipped, but \*legally speaking \*(in the U.S., anyway), unordered items are considered gifts. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/249 "2010-03-30T21:36:47Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > If a company _mistakenly_ gave you a used defective TV for the new one you paid for would you expect to get the TV you paid for or would you expect them to refund your money and still give you the TV you paid for? If a company _mistakenly_ gave me a used, defective TV when I paid for a new one, and their response was to “sell” me a new one, I would stop doing business with the company. Because, in that situation, the company isn’t taking responsibility for their mistake and compensating me for the time and aggravation involved. The ideal solution to that (and this) situation would be a discount on the product, as an apology for putting the customer out. That’s good customer service. It wouldn’t have to be a lot, but to expect the customer to swallow the costs (either financial or time wise or annoyance wise) of a company’s screw up with no attempt at recompense is just bad customer service. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/250 "2010-03-30T22:23:54Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s clear in the OP that the plan she wanted was canceled and refunded , which means money back to her. It’s also a fairly obvious deduction that canceling the plan she wanted canceled will also result in money back to her. If the customer had two plans – call them the one she did want and the one she didn’t want – and the one she did want was mistakenly cancelled (see the OP), why couldn’t they just switch her from the one she didn’t want (which is, at that point, still active and has not been refund) back to the one she did want, without any additional money going back to her? That is, based on the OP, the customer had two plans. One plan was cancelled, and she was given a refund. The other plan had not been cancelled. Why would cancelling the other plan result in a SECOND refund back to her? Why couldn’t the company just use the money that was already being applied to the bad plan to sign her up for the good plan? Why did they have to “sell” her a new plan? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/251 "2010-03-30T22:27:32Z")
> [@BubbaDog](#): > > They got it details wrong for a reason. I know. The reason is they chose to make false assumptions about things not in evidence. > [@](#): > > _Something_ in the OP looked fishy to them. The tone? I myself can’t explain it but I found it hard to believe that a CS rep doing their job correctly would warrant that reaction from a customer. Maybe it’s because we haven’t had a mile in his shoes. I honestly expect that’s it. I recognize that if you’re the type of person who would never behave so badly and have never experienced it , it seems hard to believe. It’s just curious isn’t it that the choice is to believe the story teller is full of shit purposely withholding pertinent info rather than simply be surprised. > [@](#): > > I don’t need to know his schedule. All I had to do is see that he made numerous visits to the thread without addressing my questions. Fair enough. You mean the 26th. Nobody posted on the 27th and **Chimera** pretty much answered them the morning of the 28th. > [@](#): > > So, why did YOU feel compelled to defend Chimera? Because I have walked in his shoes and understand the desire to vent about those rare idiots we eventually deal with. Because I was annoyed by the negative assumptions and posters misrepresenting what was actually said. > [@](#): > > Not getting any answers from a person who continues to make statements is an indication that they are unwilling to discuss the subject. Right or wrong human nature kicks in and one begins to second guess the reason for the silent treatment. It may be human nature but it’s not right or wrong. Assuming the negative about someone is true without evidence is wrong and his not answering or clarifying is not adequate justification for that. It’s not a huge deal. It just irritated me so I said so. > [@](#): > > with you so far > > you interpret the term\* another plan \* to be the same plan (it) I didn’t. When he said sell another plan I immediately thought of an other plan. evidently she did too. It may technically be an other plan since the original was canceled but I assumed that solving the problem {what he said in the OP} meant giving her something as close to the original as possible with little or no cost because that’s what customer service is. I suppose I \*assumed \*that a customer service rep who said he actually wanted to solve the problem would have done so if the lady had been rational. > [@](#): > > Now you are wandering away from the OP’s statements towards your interpretation. true enough. Since Chimera told us up front he’s empowered to handle the situation I assumed this was the proper and desired result he would shoot for. > [@](#): > > Not even sure how you jumped to this or why you would if you already believed that \*another plan \*was _the same plan._ The details can be a pain in the ass. It’s possible that the same plan didn’t even exist anymore like your model printer doesn’t exist anymore when it dies so you get a comparable, almost always better model. It also has to do with what the OP was about and how it was told. It was a venting thread about an irrational customer, which is pretty easy for me to believe, so I have zero reason to suspect the worst of the OP. > [@](#): > > Again refusal to answer simple straightforward questions. Human nature etc again. not an adequate justification or reason to state negatives not in evidence are true. > [@](#): > > Well, while we’re at it, why not? The OP certainly had no problem attacking the customer in this thread? At least the OP is given the opportunity to defend themselves. The customer isn’t allowed that luxury. The OP didn’t provide some needed details and appeared to want to gloss over them so why shouldn’t the board members call him on it? This is the proper forum for venting isn’t it? Asking for details is reasonable and quite different from the things I’ve noted and complained about. > [@](#): > > And didn’t say it was. anyone might deduce that a CS rep gets a regular does of irate customers and has some skills in dealing with them in order to keep that job. The thread wasn’t about justified anger and frustration. The customer didn’t go ballistic because she heard a \*solution \*she didn’t like. She never bothered to hear the solution period. > [@](#): > > Again, your interpretation of the OP and mine were different. Sure, that’s how language works. You patiently asked questions rather than jump to bogus conclusions. What was bugging me was people posting conclusions that clearly weren’t in the OP and being so happy about “exposing” Chimera when they were really spouting BS they made up. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/252 "2010-03-30T22:31:27Z")
> [@villa](#): > > If a company _mistakenly_ gave me a used, defective TV when I paid for a new one, and their response was to “sell” me a new one, I would stop doing business with the company. This is just getting retarded. Even the analogies are getting retarded. A drugged-up monkey hooker would still know the correct analogy in this case: “_If a company mistakenly gave me a used, defective TV when I paid for a new one, **gave me my money back and then offered to** “sell” me a new one, I would shrug my shoulders and get on with watching whatever it is you idiots watch on my new TV_.” ---
**Author:** ![BubbaDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bubbadog/32/333_2.png) [@BubbaDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BubbaDog)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/253 "2010-03-30T22:54:10Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > This is just getting retarded. Even the analogies are getting retarded. > > A drugged-up monkey hooker would still know the correct analogy in this case: > > “_If a company mistakenly gave me a used, defective TV when I paid for a new one, **gave me my money back and then offered to** “sell” me a new one, I would shrug my shoulders and get on with watching whatever it is you idiots watch on my new TV_.” I would most certainly be setting my Tivo to the\* “Drugged up Monkey Hooker Show”\* ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/254 "2010-03-30T23:02:50Z")
> [@BubbaDog](#): > > I would most certainly be setting my Tivo to the\* “Drugged up Monkey Hooker Show”\* Geez people, Hollywood is so far out of ideas that some jackass wannabe writer will probably latch onto it and sell it as some fading C level star’s next vehicle. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/255 "2010-03-30T23:09:01Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not a huge deal. It would seem to be a HUGE deal to you. I’m just saying. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/256 "2010-03-30T23:16:22Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Sure, that’s how language works. You patiently asked questions rather than jump to bogus conclusions. > What was bugging me was people posting conclusions that clearly weren’t in the OP and being so happy about “exposing” Chimera when they were really spouting BS they made up. The “funny” thing to me is most of the people attacking Chimera here were being the exact same kind of assume the worst / reactionary / I can’t HEAR YOUUUUU jackasses that Chimera was complaining about in the OP in the first place… ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/257 "2010-03-30T23:49:15Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Threadshitting, IMO, is coming into a thread to drag it off-topic and contribute nothing while insulting people. I, on the other hand, enjoy being insulting \*while \*being on-topic. If you don’t like insults, _don’t come into the Pit_. It’s pretty much what it’s here for. If this were a GD thread, you’d be perfectly within your rights to be pissed off at me, but it’s not. So, I guess, get over yourself? Well because it is the pit I am still perfectly within my rights to be pissed even if I don’t have a good reason. Right? I understand and accept the distinctions in your explanation. I saw thread shitting as arguing and resorting to unnecessary nastiness for personal entertainment. I’ll accept that even with your choice of words you’re expressing an honest opinion overall and that changes things for me. Is that okay,…bitch? {hmm that’s not half bad}😃 > [@](#): > > I assume “the worst” (i.e., that he’s an incompetent asshole) because he gave a description of the way he’d phrased things to the customer that was \*deeply \*stupid and goes against every rule I have for treating your customers well. I get that and expressed as much. Most customer service reps will tell you you’re advised not to use negative words such as can’t. In this case though the specific thing she asked for was actually something he can’t do. Somewhere along the way to a solution he had to explain that. I understand the lady’s initial negative reaction to “can’t and sell.” but the assumption that phrasing it differently would’ve made it all go away goes too far. I suspect if that was the case she would have listened as he tried to explain through her screaming. But, I can’t really know either. I just don’t buy the “oh you were so fucking stupid to assume your customer might be a reasonable human being with basic comprehension, so it’s all your fault.” > [@](#): > > Now, perhaps it’s ‘cause my customer service ethic was very much framed by having a grandfather who owned his own pharmacy and was thus able to guarantee a level of service that won’t always be feasible in a big honkin’ company in which you are but a tiny cog. However, ISTM that no matter how faceless and profits-oriented the company is, it will never be a good idea to in any way suggest that to a customer whose account your company has just made a mistake with that they will in any way have to give you money to rectify the mistake–even if it’s money that you shouldn’t have given back to them. That’s why I (and other people) have said that the company should have just eaten the loss. This all seems very sensible but what it boils down to is you’re suggesting they eat it because a customer probably won’t be reasonable and rational enough to understand a perfectly reasonable solution that gets them what they want at no additional cost. I might say Chimera violated the CS guidelines by saying “I can’t” even when it was true, but he made up for that initial error by trying patiently trying to explain while the lady screamed. That fact that she refused to listen is on her not him. Less than perfect CS hardly seems the same as shitty and stupid. > [@](#): > > As for the questions… Heh. I went back and looked to see if I were misremembering them, but nope. They’re quite innocuous, and the post explicitly says that the poster will be more inclined to sympathize with the OP if certain things are clarified: I’m not sure where you misunderstood me. I never complained about those questions > [@](#): > > When someone sulks instead of answering simple questions that could make them come off as much better exactly how do you judge sulking from non existing posts on a message board? > [@](#): > > , to me, yes, that means they’re refusing to answer because the answers would, in fact, make them look worse. Then that’s an unnecessary and very possibly incorrect assumption on your part. In fact ISTM that **Chimera** ’s explanations have shown you to be incorrect. > [@](#): > > And you’ll note that none of those questions are anything remotely like your “Why did you say the sky is yellow?” strawman. That was not about those questions at all. That was about those posters who completely misrepresented what \*\*Chimera \*\*wrote. check out my response to Bubba in which I list some of them. > [@](#): > > If you’ll note what I quotes in my post, it was in response to \*\*Chimera \*\*saying, “If she’d have been reasonable, I’d have done what I could to resolve in her favor.” When your company has fucked up, and you’re the face of that company to the customer, _it is your job to do what you can to resolve in the customer’s favor **from the get-go** _. It should never have gotten to the point where the customer was pissed off, because the OP should have already been busting his ass to make things right, instead of half-assing some excuse about having to \*sell \*another policy. Another after the fact armchair judgment. Chimera was willing and able to solve the problem from the get go. It was not an excuse. it was the reality of the situation if she was to get the policy she said she wanted back. The only difference might have been exactly how that reality was phrased. and the customer was a bit more than pissed off wasn’t she. That’s kinda the point. > [@](#): > > No, we can’t know that, but we can make educated guesses. Are you seriously going to tell me that if I walk up to some guy in a bar with a Confederate flag hat and call him a faggot, and he punches me in the mouth, we have no way of knowing that if I would have said “hi” instead, that he wouldn’t have still punched me? :rolleyes: LOL! holy shit! and you have the nerve to say my analogy is not comparable. Comon. 😃 Do we know customers bristle at negatives. Clearly we do know that. Bristle , angry, and incoherent out of control screaming are vastly different. > [@](#): > > It’s not a comparable situation. Well it’s not calling a rebel a fagot sir sure. 🙂 > [@](#): > > The mistake \*was \*the refund–so, in your example, the OP’s customer’s refund is the equivalent of the used defective TV. And in your example, the company would \*not \*be allowed to require me to return the used defective TV in order to get the new one I actually ordered. Depending on my relationship with the company, I may \*choose \*to return the other TV that was mistakenly shipped, but \*legally speaking \*(in the U.S., anyway), unordered items are considered gifts. so you’re suggesting the unrequested refund, even though she requested \*\*a \*\*refund, should be a gift and they should give her the policy and the refund she originally requested as well. Better look at US law again. I confess I don’t know for sure but let’s say you did order something form a company and they sent you the wrong thing by mistake. Does the law consider that a mistake and a gift and they are also compelled to send you the correct item? Or can they reasonably request that you return the incorrect item, at their expense, before they ship the correct one. I think you’ll find you **are not** allowed to unfairly exploit their mistake to your advantage, by law. So, I think my analogy serves okay and here’s why. Customer wants something policy A not policy B {the new TV} they get something they don’t want policy B rather than policy A. {the defective TV} the company is at fault, they made the mistake. The customer should not have to pay to return the mistake but should they get the new TV they originally wanted for free? Suppose you call the company and tell they you have the wrong TV and they say, we’ll deliver the correct one, {policy A} and pick up the defective one {policy B} Should you get the TV for free? Let’s say they tell you “whoops, we made a mistake and already refunded what you wanted” {policy A} {the new TV} and you say, “listen dumb ass I still want that” should you get it for free now or could they reasonably expect to charge you again? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/258 "2010-03-30T23:54:59Z")
> [@villa](#): > > If a company _mistakenly_ gave me a used, defective TV when I paid for a new one, and their response was to “sell” me a new one, I would stop doing business with the company. if they had refunded your money and you still wanted the TV would you expect to pay for it? > [@](#): > > Because, in that situation, the company isn’t taking responsibility for their mistake and compensating me for the time and aggravation involved. > > The ideal solution to that (and this) situation would be a discount on the product, as an apology for putting the customer out. That’s good customer service. It wouldn’t have to be a lot, but to expect the customer to swallow the costs (either financial or time wise or annoyance wise) of a company’s screw up with no attempt at recompense is just bad customer service. I agree that reasonable compensation is good customer service. What’s reasonable compensation for having to make a phone call? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/259 "2010-03-30T23:57:34Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > This is just getting retarded. Even the analogies are getting retarded. > > A drugged-up monkey hooker would still know the correct analogy in this case: > > “_If a company mistakenly gave me a used, defective TV when I paid for a new one, **gave me my money back and then offered to** “sell” me a new one, I would shrug my shoulders and get on with watching whatever it is you idiots watch on my new TV_.” I hope this isn’t out of line , but,…do have that monkey hookers number? My TV is broken. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816/260 "2010-03-31T00:02:24Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > The “funny” thing to me is most of the people attacking Chimera here were being the exact same kind of assume the worst / reactionary / I can’t HEAR YOUUUUU jackasses that Chimera was complaining about in the OP in the first place… Good catch. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-doesnt-change-because-you-dont-want-to-hear-it/533816.md?page=14)