Search similar:
|
|
uniqs 14808 |
|
|
|
ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV. Premium Member join:2004-08-03 Keller, TX 2 edits |
to John K
Re: I got a refund check and now they want the money backsaid by John K : I'm going to have to leave it there, as I've already done my best to show you how it might appear to an onlooker. It's not a pretty picture. Any idea how you appear to an onlooker (me)? Just state your case. I might even agree with some of your points, but all the "my friend" and the "you frighten me" stuff makes you look condescending and passive aggressive. That's not pretty either. | actions · 2011-Jan-2 6:09 am · (locked) | | |
John K to KrK
Anon
2011-Jan-2 7:11 am
to KrK
quote: Actually, the more I read your post, I think you're just trying to rationalize and justify your own position, and attack the people who don't agree with your position,
I only attempted to point out the glaring inconsistencies in your own postion and for your -own- benefit at that (for the reasons I mentioned earlier). I'm sure you think I'm kidding here, but I'm not. The good news is that, if there aren't any inconsistencies present, well then, you have nothing to worry about, and all I was doing was looking foolish all along. However, if I can't be useful or informative, I can at least be entertaining, eh? As far as my own position goes, you can think anything you like about me (people often do, in fact) and I won't be particularly worried. I'm only worried about holes in my logic, not in my morality (or any absence thereof). I can assure you that I have no problems with taking up ideas I like, and that includes any you wave past me, too. quote: while at the same time acting like you're morally superior and yet pragmatic.
The nice thing about this board is that we all have the ability to quote previous posts to eliminate any confusion. And frankly, I'm confused on how someone can be "morally superior and yet pragmatic" at the same time. Could you please quote back to me what I wrote that created that impression for you? That way, you could both prove your point and, at the same time, allow me to be impressed with myself. I didn't think I had it in me to claim to be both "morally superior and yet pragmatic," but perhaps I have hidden depths I didn't appreciate? quote: A good honest crook? Since there isn't any, I can't say I've ever met one.
I can assure you that not only do good honest crooks exist, but that they constitute an entire class of people, and a highly visible one at that: just turn on your TV. You may know them by another name: politicians. Stick around a while longer and I've no doubt you'll meet one. As far as your not -yet- having met one, well, you have my every sympathy and I'm entirely serious here: few people are as much fun to be around as a good honest crook. -Never- a dull moment with those folks. quote: It's interesting you assume and label people as "goody two shoes" for being in the honest camp, while commenting they are probably crooked and dishonest...
I'm afraid you missed my point entirely there, my friend. My point is that it's easy enough to be in the "honest camp" (you guys have a -camp- now?) on a message board. I, too, can talk (type) all day long about how honest I am, how honest everyone -else- should be, etc., but it doesn't really get us anywhere. Talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey. What actually matters is what people -do-. On Internet message boards, people can claim to do just about anything, and that includes being honest, too. However, it's one thing to scold someone else for cashing a $200 they may or may not have a right to, quite another to have such a check in your own hands, and a similar opportunity available to -you-. All I'm saying is that human nature (for good or ill) plays a part in human affairs and we can -all- talk a great game in the locker room. quote: Kind of reflects back onto you more then anything. You're pretty much incorrect about everything you just posted, including your assumptions about me
The only "assumptions" I've made about you are based on what you've written because that's all I have to go on. However, I'm sure your own writings reflect back on you, too. (-I- certainly found them to be quite telling. If you were trying to scare me, sir, you certainly succeeded: I nearly wet my Dr. Dentons.) quote: and your condescending remarks.
If my remarks were condescending, then I apologize for that: I'm sorry. That was not my intent and I did not mean to come across that way. I think it's important to bear in mind that, in the final analysis, we're just talking here. Try not to take anything you read on these boards to heart and, yes, that includes anything I might write, too. I've always contended that there's a way to get your point across without making the other person feel bad. So if I've failed at that, I will try to work harder on it in the future. quote: So let me just finish up by saying I hope you get everything you have coming to you. What you read into that is all up to you and your knowledge of your actions.
Have a nice day.
You know, I wonder if I can talk my local supermarket into having their bag boys say that to all their departing customers: "I hope you get everything you have coming to you. What you read into that is all up to you and your knowledge of your actions. Have a nice day!" Seriously, that has to be one of the most -qualified- "have a nice day" wishes I've ever heard. Anyway you'll be relieved to learn that, yes, you -did- make me laugh. Somehow, I doubt you intended to, but there's nothing funnier than unintentional humor, right? (I'm sure my posts have had the exact same effect on you). I think the best way to close out this post is to wish -you- a "pleasant day" -without- any qualifications: have a pleasant day. (I mean it. I know what a privilege it is to post here, and while I know I won't see eyeball to eyeball with -everyone,- I value these chats nonetheless. We're all doing the best we can, whether we are honest, dishonest, or somewhere between the two.) | actions · 2011-Jan-2 7:11 am · (locked) | John K |
John K to Thespis
Anon
2011-Jan-2 10:08 am
to Thespis
quote: Any idea how -you- appear to an onlooker (me)?
Can you please re-examine what I wrote? I said I've done my best to "show you how -it- might look" not "how -you- might look": quote: I've already done my best to show you how it might appear to an onlooker.
"It" refers to the ideas being discussed. That means I'm taking issue with what someone wrote, not with them, personally. Here's the paragraph that sentence was a part of: quote: I do want to make it clear that I don't think you're a bad guy, or anything like that at all. I just don't think you fully realize what you're saying, and the -implications- of what it means. But as I say, I'm going to have to leave it there, as I've already done my best to show you how it might appear to an onlooker. It's not a pretty picture.
Isn't it clear that I'm taking issue with what is being said rather than the -person- who is saying it in the above paragraph? I hope so, because I can't make it any clearer. quote: Just state your case.
I thought that's what I -was- doing. quote: I might even agree with some of your points, but all the "my friend"
I consider anyone I chat with here to be my friend. Naturally, being friends does not mean that you are always going to see eye-to-eye, but I don't think any the less of someone just because their ideas don't happen to match mine. I read what everyone has to say here, because their ideas could be better than the ones I have, and I'm always on the lookout for better ideas. So when I use the phrase "my friend," I mean it. If it sounds insincere to you, well, I can't help that. I type the way I talk, for better or for worse. quote: and the "you frighten me" stuff
Well, how do -you- know he wasn't frightening me? That's rather taking a liberty on your part, don't you think? I don't say anything I don't mean. And anyone who believes that bad guys are any less deserving of justice than good guys are really -does- frighten me, or at least, their support of such an idea does. I'm not just saying "you frighten me" for the sake of saying it, if -that's- what you thought. If you think it's a phrase I use often, or throw around lightly, please go back and read any/all of my other posts and you'll discover just how seldom I make use of it. I won't pretend it's not satisfying to see bad things happen to bad people. But if a pickpocket loses his own wallet, then he's no less deserving of having it returned than you or I are if you profess to believe in "justice." Sure, everyone laughs when a car thief has his car stolen, but that doesn't mean that a theft hasn't taken place. That's what makes justice so difficult: if you really believe in it, you have to be willing to apply it to those people you -don't- like, just as you would to people you do. So while I might understand the emotional appeal of "playing favorites," I -am- genuinely frightened by people who think it's a good idea. That doesn't mean I think that someone who frightens me with such an idea is a terrible person. Only that they may not have thought through the implications of such a belief as thoroughly and completely as they might. And sometimes, when you repeat back to other people what they've told you, they re-examine what they've said, what they were thinking when they said it, and they change their minds (it's happened to me, too). That's how both people and ideas improve. quote: makes you look condescending and passive aggressive. That's not pretty either.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but with so many different people and viewpoints here on the boards, I don't think I stand a chance of being able to please everyone with what I write, and that includes you, too. I guess I can't always expect to speak my mind and be well-liked at the same time, so if I have to choose between the two, I'll choose the former, "pretty" or otherwise. If nothing else, I hope that you might consider my ideas to be worthy, even if you don't consider the person presenting them to be so. However, as I pointed out at the beginning of my post, it was the -ideas- being expressed that I was taking exception to, -not- the poster expressing them. I hope that's clearer to you now, and I hope you're willing to extend to me the same courtesy. | actions · 2011-Jan-2 10:08 am · (locked) | Mce Saint Premium Member join:2007-10-03 Saint Louis, MO |
to cableties
quote: businesses should have some accountability for their mistake
The company that processes 97% of its checks correctly is less efficient than the company that processes 99% of its checks correctly. Some people appear to be asserting that it's ONLY by losing the underlying money that the 97% company suffers any "consequences" from it's failure to process checks 100% correctly. But, that's not true. As the OP's case demonstrates, the 97% company is expending time and resources on "correcting its mistake." That is time and resources the company processing checks at the 99% level isn't spending. Even if the 97% level company GETS the underlying money back, it's still out the time and resources it took to recover the money. And that's not to mention that the company actually OWES someone else the refund. It's not going to wait until it recovers the money from the OP to pay the correct person. So, for a period of time, the company pays out $400 while it SHOULD have paid out just $200. Since money has a time value (a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow), the company is still out even if it recovers the "mistakenly paid" $200 without incurring additional collection costs. Any ONE inefficiency may be so small that it doesn't effect competitiveness, but multiply even a small inefficiency over a large number of transactions and the effect can be substantial. | actions · 2011-Jan-2 10:22 am · (locked) | Mce Saint |
to John K
quote: To be frank, I myself am not clear on why, exactly, you told us the story about the check.
You're OP suggests that it is, effectively, only "moralizing" goody two-shoes who would return the money. Facing a similar situation, I engaged in the *behavior* you associate with "goody two-shoeism." As for myself, I dunno whether I didn't cash the check (or, more accurately, the wife didn't) because I am "more moral." Indeed, I suspect that I'm no more (nor less) moral than the next person. If your point is: nobody knows exactly what they'll do in a given situation until they are actually IN the situation . . . I believe that too is true. But it cuts both ways, in my experience. Some "moralizer" posters may ultimately cash the check. Some "screw the company" posters may ultimately not cash the check. quote: In my case, I've found that trying to understand motivations (both the motivations of others -and- my own) can simply be good a way to find common ground when at first glance it doesn't appear that there is any.
Um, trying to find "common ground" is nothing more than a "atrategy" in trying to get to an end result. There's no purpose in trying to find "common ground" except as a mechanism to influence another's thinking (and, possibly, your own) so that you can reach an agreement or, at least, a better understanding. In some (perhaps many) cases, there is no "common ground." | actions · 2011-Jan-2 10:52 am · (locked) | ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV. Premium Member join:2004-08-03 Keller, TX |
to John K
I'll agree that I should have said "your posts" instead of "you". I don't know you personally, so I can't like or dislike you as a person. I simply used your metric and commented on how the presentations of your ideas appeared to me, an onlooker. Nothing personal; just an opinion based on your posts. Your posts come across as patronizing and condescending. Like it or not, that has an effect on how others receive your ideas. Just another opinion; take it or leave it... | actions · 2011-Jan-2 10:57 am · (locked) | |
to Mce Saint
quote: You're OP suggests that it is, effectively, only "moralizing" goody two-shoes who would return the money.
I suggested that it is easy enough to appear to be a "goody two shoes" on a message board and that Real World behavior is not always in line with what people post on message boards. quote: If your point is: nobody knows exactly what they'll do in a given situation until they are actually IN the situation . . . I believe that too is true.
But it cuts both ways, in my experience. Some "moralizer" posters may ultimately cash the check. Some "screw the company" posters may ultimately not cash the check.
Exactly: until that check (or a similar opportunity) is in someone's hands, there is -no telling- what they will and won't do. I suspect that's the reason why this thread has gone on for so long: everyone has an opinion on this. quote: Um, trying to find "common ground" is nothing more than a "atrategy" in trying to get to an end result.
There's no such thing as simply "being friendly?" Don't you ever stop and chat with people merely because they look interesting? Or are doing something interesting? Or you're simply bored and would like someone to talk to? There has to be an "end result" in mind -every time- a conversation takes place? quote: There's no purpose in trying to find "common ground" except as a mechanism to influence another's thinking (and, possibly, your own) so that you can reach an agreement or, at least, a better understanding.
There seems to be an strong implication there that finding common ground is useless except as a means to "influence another's thinking." Well, I've run into plenty of folks with whom I simply wanted to pass the time of day, and I wasn't in the least interested in "influencing their thinking." I guess what I'm trying to say here is that finding common ground with people is part of being a member of the human race: there's not always necessarily an ulterior motive. I agree that very -often- people who talk to you might want something from you, (even if it's only the time of day) but people talking to each other isn't -always- a matter of them manuevering for influence, or trying to understand who they're talking to better: people often talk simply for the -sake- of talking. As an experiment, try listening to some of the conversations around you in a coffee shop sometime about 11am, when everyone's nice and wired on caffeine. Anyhow, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. quote: In some (perhaps many) cases, there is no "common ground."
We all eat, sleep, and shit (though hopefully not all at the same time): those are three things we -all- have in common. Do people like being cold, hungry, or stuck in traffic? Probably not: those might be three more. I'm of the opinion that if you can't find something to talk about with someone, (well, bathroom habits may not be the -best- conversation starter) you're simply not trying hard enough. Well, maybe "trying" is the wrong word. Sometimes we're so sunk in our own personal misery that it's difficult to get past that and simply -open up- to other people. Of course, that's just my own outlook. I don't expect everyone else to share it, as trying to be friendly does take time and effort, there's no doubt about it. And I admit that in some social situations, it can be tough to find that common ground (try talking with a recently released ex-con who is under the influence: whoa). However, I believe we owe it to each other to at least give it our best shot. As I say, that's my own outlook, it's just that life is so short, I feel compelled to make the effort. I also have to admit that it doesn't always work. | actions · 2011-Jan-2 1:47 pm · (locked) | |
to SpicedUped
I would not have cashed the cheque if I thought I didn't 'deserve' it and expected a follow up from the sender.
...but the most i'd do is promise to rip up and not cash the cheque. If they wanted the cheque back, they'd have to send someone in a car or something. I wouldn't take one step to a mailbox even with a SASE, unless it included another cheque made out to me for $20 that I COULD cash. | actions · 2011-Jan-2 10:39 pm · (locked) | vircotto Premium Member join:2002-06-04 searching... |
to John K
said by John K :quote: My position is simple: Do what's right, but if you insist on not doing that, then I hope it comes back to bite you on the butt... in a nutshell.
I'm quite clear on what you've been saying, sir, and you couldn't have put it any plainer: not everyone deserves to get their wallet back should they lose it. Only -some- people do. Well, if you're genuinely interested in justice, then, my friend, I'm sorry to tell you that what you're advocating is something else entirely. If you are genuinely interested in seeing justice prevail, either -everyone- should get their wallet back, or no one should. One of the cornerstones of justice is that it is -impartial- and evenly applied. FWIW, John K, I think you have correctly isolated it. However, it appears to me that you two simply have different ideas about just what constitutes "justice". | actions · 2011-Jan-3 12:13 am · (locked) | |
to SpicedUped
Well my friend as per the law they can call for the money back. But if you want you can take good advice from a legal practitioner. | actions · 2011-Jan-3 2:06 am · (locked) | |
to Duramax08
said by Duramax08:Its only $200. If the company decides to move on with some kind of charges, they already spent much more then that trying to get it back. I can't count the number of times that a team of people have been involved for HOURS trying to get a $10 charge processed so that the company can get its money. Just saying that it's not always the "worth" of the transaction that makes the decision to pursue it or not... | actions · 2011-Jan-3 7:33 am · (locked) | AVDRespice, Adspice, Prospice Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Onion, NJ |
AVD to KrK
Premium Member
2011-Jan-3 10:32 am
to KrK
said by KrK:All you have to do is show the money paid was a mistake. Bingo. Judgement for the plaintiff. Nothing in the legal/court system is "BINGO" | actions · 2011-Jan-3 10:32 am · (locked) |
your moderator at work
hidden : hidden :
|
|