A Call to the Bullpen (I was the SC)

[NightAngel]

Okay, this thread has been reported twice now so maybe it's just time for it to end.

Closed.

[Anthony K. S.]

Folks, I'd like to tell you a story...

Last year, I received a visit from an old friend, who had just moved back to New York. I'll call her "Lynn" (not her real name, for privacy reasons). She was with her husband, who I was meeting for the first time.

We had a great day together, with just one little wrinkle :

At a department store, Lynn's husband got into an argument with a sales associate. Long story short ... Lynn's husband had found a $10 blanket that had been mislabelled, "$0.00." (Don't ask me how.) He wanted them to honor that price (i.e. give it to him for free). The associate offered him a discount, but she said they couldn't give it to him for less than cost, much less for free. Lynn's husband argued that they should honor the marked price, whatever it was, and whether or not it was a mistake.

I honestly felt that he was being unreasonable, but I was reluctant to say so. I didn't want to get into an argument with Lynn's husband, certainly not on the first day I met him.

Lynn, however, didn't hesitate. She told her husband that he should take the discount they offered him, but it wasn't fair to expect them to give him the blanket for free. But he wouldn't budge, and neither would the associate.

He became belligerent, and began raising his voice at the associate. Lynn tried to calm him down, to no avail. Then, Lynn lost her temper and told her husband...

...Well, I don't think that I need to use her exact words ... She basically told him, "Honey, you are being a real jerk about this!"

(In slightly more colorful language.)

Lynn loves her husband dearly, and she will move heaven and earth to protect him . . . But she will not support him when she believes that he is wrong.

The same goes for all of Lynn's family and friends . . . She loves them all and will do everything she can to protect them . . . But if she believes that they are wrong or out of line, she will tell them so, whether in public or in private.

And she has always made it clear that she wants and expects her family and friends to do the same with her, when they believe that she is wrong about something.

Now, you may ask, why am I telling you all of this? Well, it is because of this rather curious statement :

Originally Posted by Getoutofmylobby :

If you think it’s a bad thing for a loved one to defend you regardless of whether you are right or wrong, then you my friend are doomed.

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong?

You know, up until now, I had thought that the reason that the OP's wife had acted as she did was because she believed that her husband was being mistreated. (Although I didn't agree with that opinion.) But, apparently, it doesn't even matter if somebody is right or wrong, their friends and family should support them anyway.

This may have to be one of those "agree to disagree" moments, but I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to support me if they felt I was wrong. If my loved ones thought I was out of line, I would expect them to call me on it. (I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would understand it.)

Doomed? Hardly. Lynn and her husband certainly don't appear doomed to me. They're two of the happiest people I know. As I said, this may have to be one of those "agree to disagree" moments . . .

EDIT :

After I wrote this post, it occurred to me that I might have been misinterpreting what Getoutofmylobby was saying, when he said "to defend you regardless of whether you are right or wrong" . . .

By the word "defend," he might not have meant supporting a loved one unconditionally, or automatically taking their side in any kind of dispute they may have with somebody else. He might, instead, have meant protecting a loved one from harm.

(For example, if a man was arrested and tried for a crime . . . You would, naturally, expect his family and friends to help and support him through this ordeal, even if he was actually guilty. They certainly done have to condone what he did (and shouldn't)... But they still love him, after all, and it's understandable that they would want him to have the best possible defense, as light a punishment as possible, and come home as soon as he can.)

If so, I would agree... to a certain extent.

Actually, there have been cases where people committed serious crimes and their families chose not to support them, or actually supported the prosecution. That's a deeply personal choice, and I respect these people for making it.

Anyway... Just my opinion, but a guy being stranded outside his own residence and facing a long walk in the cold... I honestly don't feel that this qualifies as a situation where loved ones should defend him unconditionally. Maybe if he was stranded on a highway or a place far from home, or if he had a health condition that makes a long walk in the cold dangerous...

But in general, I don't think this is serious enough to justify ignoring "right and wrong" to support your loved one. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I wanted you guys to rip into me and tell me exactly what I did wrong

Well, you got your wish, then. What are you so upset about?

you clearly spent alot of effort debunking my every word

Actually, it took about ten minutes. Most of my arguments pretty much wrote themselves.

For example, when you said "I wouldn't just let them leave without trying," it was pretty much an automatic reaction to point out that the sales agent had tried to call maintenance and offered to call a taxi for you, which IMO does indeed qualify as trying to help. Most of what I wrote in my first post was similarly automatic in nature.

Wow, I must have really hit a nerve with you Anthony K.S.

Anthony K.S. seems to have more of a problem than most.

Indeed? And what makes you think that?

Was it the sheer length of my post? Well, I do tend to write too much at times, a habit that I've tried (with little success) to curb.

Was it the fact that I used a line-by-line format to respond to your posts? I just thought it would provide the greatest clarity, and ensure that I didn't leave anything out. If you don't like the format... Sorry, but I happen to like it, and I'll continue using it.

Was it the tone of my post? Granted, it was rough at times (with phrases like "completely out of line" and "so rudely")... But, on the whole, I didn't think it was all that harsh.

You didn't strike a nerve with me, and I don't have a problem. I just had a lot to say, and I type fast.

You split alot of hairs here Anthony K.S. is everything ok?

Did I? Well, I will admit...

(Which, by the way, would mean that this . . .

And my impression at the time was he said no simply because he didn't want to be bothered with me.

. . . was actually WRONG. Something that you have consistently failed to acknowledge.)

So? Merely posting it on a website like this should be acknowledgement enough that I was wrong in my assumption.

I was, arguably, splitting hairs here. But I stand by everything else I've written.

what happened to selfless acts of kindness?

If you don't mind my answering that question with a question... Whatever happened to the idea that selfless acts of kindness should be done purely out of the generosity of one's heart?

I'm really not trying to give you a hard time here, but I keep coming back to this... You say that the sales agent wasn't obligated to help you, but you act as if he was.

Of course, people should help each other. But those who choose not to should not be forced into it.

To me, an act of kindness wouldn't mean anything if a person is coerced into doing it.

I try my best to help people, too, you know. In fact, I've often gone pretty far out of my way to help people.

And I encourage other people to do the same. But if they choose not to, that's their decision to make, however much I disagree with it. I don't believe that it automatically makes them bad people, nor do I believe that it means they deserve to be threatened for it.

I certainly wouldn't expect a stranger to place himself or his property at risk to help me. You said it yourself... When you found out about the earlier incident (the blown up battery), you understood why he didn't want to give you a jump start.

But, as I said before... A battery getting damaged in a failed jumpstart was a foreseeable possibility even at the time, was it not?

Now, the reason I brought that up in the first place was because you insisted that the agent could have helped you "with little trouble"... I didn't believe that was the case here, and I still don't. Even if he didn't have any other work to do... Giving you a jump start would have still required him to place his personal safety at risk, to place his property at risk of damage, and to place himself at risk of being held liable for damage to somebody else's property.

If somebody refuses to help you even though it would cause them little or no difficulty to do so... Perhaps you do have cause to be angry. But I don't believe that was the case here.

Of course I was sucky! Not just for my FU response but for committing the gravest of errors, deluding myself into thinking I was totally in the right. . . .

. . . I "assumed" I was being blown off. Regardless of whether or not he was an employee of ANYTHING how could I NOT be mad about that?

Let me be candid here. If you had just said, "I know I was wrong to swear at him, but I really thought he was just blowing me off, and I was angry" . . . Then I honestly don't think that anybody (certainly not me) would have come down on you so hard.

Am I "splitting hairs" again? Perhaps. But since we're talking about perceptions "at the time" ... The fact that you focused almost exclusively on the agent's behavior (rather than your own) ... The fact that you never explicitly acknowledged that you were wrong to swear at the agent or for your wife to threaten him ... The fact that you applauded your wife's actions and argued that the sales agent "deserved" what he got (or, at least, that you seemed to do this) ...

All of this, honestly, made it look to me like you were trying to argue that your actions were justified. If that was not your intention, then I was wrong, and I apologize. But, as you say, it was what I thought at the time, and it was what I acted on.

his "taxi" comment was meant to be funny to his co-workers in earshot

I'm not even going to try to understand what that was about.

. . . the building needs heavy maintenance. If they plan on doing it then why don't they say that?

Possibly because if the manager says, "We plan on fixing it," then the automatic response from the resident would be, "When?"

That would force the manager to commit to a time frame, which may not be possible . . . Or tell the resident that he can't give a specific time, in which case the resident is almost certainly going to think that management really isn't going to fix it after all.

Since they don't, we can only "assume" they aren't going to do anything about it.

A lot of residents would have reached that conclusion no matter what the management told them. How were they to know that you wouldn't have?

If he really had more important things to do then why didn't he say so?

"Excuse me, my car is stalled out there. Could you please give me a jump start?"
"Sorry, but I have more important things to do."

Oh, yes, that would have gone over marvelously.

Wait, wait, wait, let me put it into less emotive terms :

I would have taken the truth alot better.

Yes, but just because you would have, doesn't mean everybody would.

If the agent had explained about the previous incident he had (the battery blown up) . . . You would've understood, but there are plenty of other people who wouldn't. They would've said :

"Oh, come on, I know what I'm doing, it's perfectly safe."
"Well, it's not my fault somebody blew up your battery!"
"Are you calling me an idiot? I know how to jumpstart a car! I want to talk to your supervisor!"

To me, it's perfectly understandable that the agent was reluctant to tell you the truth. I mean, how was he to know that you would, in fact, have understood?

And if the agent had had other work to do . . . Again, you might have understood, but other people wouldn't have. So the agent might, understandably, have been reluctant to say that.

So he didn't have any other work to do, after all? Very well . . . Still, the fact that he didn't say he had other work to do does not constitute proof that he didn't.

As somebody else pointed out, he may have been wrong to lie about the "liability issues" . . . But it was his best chance of getting out of the situation without a prolonged argument.

And as for the fact that it looked like he was just trying to blow you off . . . So he was a lousy liar. What a pity. He won't get very far in sales work that way.

(In case anybody misunderstands . . . That was a joke. I didn't actually mean that.)

Let me provide some more fallacies and hasty generalizations in case you get bored . . .

I'm going to ignore that.

. . . and I told him I had a friend looking to move into the area that I would send his way.

. . . Absolutely none of my business . . . but why in the world you advise a friend to move into an apartment building that has a track record of being extremely slow to conduct major repairs?

All is right with the world.

Glad to hear it. Now, as I've repeatedly stated, this is clearly going to have to be an "agree to disagree" matter.

And, personally, I am getting rather bored with this whole issue anyway. So, for better or for worse, this will be final post on this thread. I will let everything that I've said stand on its own.

[NightAngel]

In the Mod Mode:
Just a reminder that civil debate on this issue is fine- but let's not turn this into an actual argument. You all know what I mean. If not- PM me and I make myself extremely clear.

In the Me Mode:
Getoutofmylobby, I'm thinking you need to buy a new battery. Yours has died twice this week- maybe it's just time?

[Getoutofmylobby]

Perhaps...

Perhaps...

Perhaps...

Perhaps...

Additional flaming... etc... yadda yadda yadda... the OP is a retard...

I apologized to the sales clerk. Actually, we had a mutual apology. Yesterday on the way in to work, my battery died again. I was fiddling with my car when the same sales clerk (who from 40 feet away can clearly see my car in the parking lot from his office window) drove over to help me.

As he got out of his car, I told him I was sorry for the way me and my wife acted toward him, he said the same, we shook hands and had a semi-awkward schoolyard-rivalry-into-friendship-moment. He told me he said no because another resident blew his battery up and I told him I totally understood. More than that, he said he really was just wasting time on MySpace, could have helped me and still didn't. I told him that I knew it wasn't his job to jump-start customers' cars and he said that he gets paid for it anyway. Then he confessed his "taxi" comment was meant to be funny to his co-workers in earshot and that he was really sorry about that. I told him it was ok, my wife and I got a good laugh out of her verbal motivation. He said he would seriously ask the ownership about when they planned on fixing our roof and I told him I had a friend looking to move into the area that I would send his way. We exchanged e-mail addresses, found out we both used to play ice hockey in high school and the conversation moved to that. All is right with the world.

Wow, I must have really hit a nerve with you Anthony K.S. I won't go into a line by line defense of myself, I’ll just say this:

Of course I was sucky! Not just for my FU response but for committing the gravest of errors, deluding myself into thinking I was totally in the right. And you're right, I wasn't. You talk of my "assumptions" but let's be honest, I "assumed" I was being blown off. Regardless of whether or not he was an employee of ANYTHING how could I NOT be mad about that? If he really had more important things to do then why didn't he say so? I would have taken the truth alot better. "Dude, sorry, I can't help you right now, but i'll send maintenance over when i get ahold of them."

Furthermore, my mama told me that if someone needs help, a jump start, some spare change, extra towels for their hotel room, CPR, then you should help them if you can. If, Anthony K.S., you see anything wrong with this then please tell me and I’ll be sure to notify my mom. Of course, of course, personal property, "reasonable requests," so on, I know what you posted. But tell me, what kind of people will we be if EVERYBODY acted this way. I'm not saying it should be Christmas every day, but what happened to selfless acts of kindness? Or should everyone just look out for Number One. Screw that, had the roles been switched and I was the sales agent, I would have helped him. I suppose that was the second mistake I made; I applied my behaviors to a total stranger.

I said i wasn't going to go line by line but after re-reading your posts, i can't let things like this stand.

Surely, it is not the sales agent's fault that the management has been so slow to repair your roof, is it?

It is. Everytime we've call them about it we get stiff armed, usually by him. And its not like its a loose door knob or something inconsequential, the roof is leaking, which means the building needs heavy maintenance. If they plan on doing it then why don't they say that? Since they don't, we can only "assume" they aren't going to do anything about it. We were in the wrong to transfer our frustration about that into this. That old "Those people are idiots," classic SC mentality. Thanks for kicking me while i'm down.

(Which, by the way, would mean that this . . .

And my impression at the time was he said no simply because he didn't want to be bothered with me.

. . . was actually WRONG. Something that you have consistently failed to acknowledge.)

So? Merely posting it on a website like this should be acknowledgement enough that I was wrong in my assumption.

I don't see what your wife being red-haired or cute has to do with anything, either.

I do.

And on behalf of my wife, she did what she did because she was defending me. If you think it’s a bad thing for a loved one to defend you regardless of whether you are right or wrong, then you my friend are doomed. I said I was sorry, my wife doesn't feel as if she needs to apologize for anything.

You split alot of hairs here Anthony K.S. is everything ok? it's not as if i mind detailed flaming but you clearly spent alot of effort debunking my every word. Let me provide some more fallacies and hasty generalizations in case you get bored.

The sky is always orange.

Dukes of Hazzard is the greatest TV show ever.

People who have one continuous eyebrow instead of two distinct eyebrows are stupid.

Cricket is a dumb sport.

Dogs are better than cats.

And again, I didn't post this story because I wanted validation for my actions, I wanted you guys to rip into me and tell me exactly what I did wrong even if Anthony K.S. seems to have more of a problem than most. Isn't that the point of this website? To understand, through mutual experiences and camaraderie, exactly why the hell people are such assholes to each other? (Or is everyone just trying to top Vinegar Boy...)

I love internet debate!

[KaeZoo]

Also, I don't think it's very fair or nice to automatically presume to think you know what the OP is going to say. I say let him post first before making judgements.

JMO

Kibbles

He has posted twice more in this thread, after the original post. Most of the comments are reactions to his follow-up posts, not the original.

[kibbles]

Sorry but I totally disagree, the OP acted suckily for sure. But as I said I can understand his frustration then and now with someone not helping him when he was in need of help. Now, before anyone accuses me of saying that sales agent should of put his job on the line and did something he wasn't supposed to, I don't mean that at all.

The sales agent had no obligation at all, but I can understand the OP's frustration at the situation and continued frustration. Also, I don't think it's very fair or nice to automatically presume to think you know what the OP is going to say. I say let him post first before making judgements.

JMO

Kibbles

[Anthony K. S.]

Originally Posted by kibbles :

everyone has sucky moments

Yes, but most of us don't try to defend them afterward.

Originally Posted by kibbles :

I think by the very fact that the OP posted this story . . . shows that he recognized his sucky behavior.

I disagree.

The phrase "I was the SC" in the title of this thread strikes me as rather hollow, in light of the fact that the OP has spent the entire thread trying to defend his behavior (and his wife's behavior), and argue that they were justified.

The very first words of his original post were not about his own conduct, but an attack on the sales agent's.

The OP has consistently tried to portray himself as the injured party, insisting that he had only made a simple and reasonable request, and that the sales agent was the one who was at fault, for not granting it.

The OP even applauded his wife's SC behavior (threatening the sales agent), and argued that the sales agent deserved the treatment that he got.

Not even once in any of his posts has the OP even acknowledged that he or his wife have done anything wrong, much less apologized for it.

Originally Posted by BusBus :

The only way to redeem your sucky behaviour would be to go and apologize to the agent in person.

I agree with this.

The OP said that he was posting his story on this board because he wanted to be absolved of any "Sucky Customer karma."

But nobody here has the power to do that for him, because none of us here were the injured party. If the OP really wants to make amends and be absolved for his behavior, then he should go see the agent and apologize. And his wife should apologize for her behavior, as well.

However . . . At this point, I can't help but think that the OP is probably going to respond to this by arguing that the sales agent should apologize to him, for not giving him the jump start when he asked for it.

And if the OP does respond that way, then I think we can pretty much close the book on this entire matter.

[KaeZoo]

The fact is that the OP was asking the employee to perform a service that:
-isn't part of his job;
-he isn't remotely trained for;
-he may not be capable of performing properly;
-involves some risk of damage to personal property, both his own and someone else's;
-involves some risk of personal injury;
-is a service available from other, trained providers.

He had plenty of reasons to feel uncomfortable about jump-starting the car. He had every right to refuse. If he'd brought out any of the real reasons, he had every reason to expect an argument ("c'mon, I know how to do it, it only takes a minute, why should I have to pay someone when you're right here). His best option, at short notice, for getting out of the situation with minimum conflict was to claim that company policy forbade him to assist. You can argue about whether he was right or wrong to lie, but in fact it was his best chance of escaping without an unpleasant confrontation.

At my job I'm often asked to help a customer who's locked his keys in his vehicle. I have to refuse, every time; if I attempt to unlock the vehicle, and I damage something, my employer wouldn't stand behind me. They would be correct not to. It's not that I don't sympathize with stranded customers; it's not that I'm too lazy to help. It's just a set of risks I'm not willing to take.

[BusBus]

I believe that the reason that everyone is coming down so hard on the OP is that he has attempted to defend and justify his sucky behaviour, which others here disagree with. I also agree that he was a really sucky customer. I sure as hell would not open my car hood to someone that I don't know, even if they were a customer. Period. The best that I would do is look up a towing service in the phone book and/or call them for you (that is, if you do not have a phone with you).

The only way to redeem your sucky behaviour would be to go and apologize to the agent in person.

[The Wanderer]

I work in a property management/sales office. I think I can shed some light on why the agent treated you in such a fashion.

Our lives, essentially, are that of a butler. People call us for anything and everything that needs doing or that they are unsure about. I'm dead serious about this. To some tenants, we are directory assistance, triple-A, the labor board, tech support for any piece of equipment that they may have, and any thing else you can think of. Have you ever read the children's book "If you give a mouse a cookie"?

We are also massively deep pockets, in most people's perception. We are sued at least a few times a year for things that are completely out of our control. These suits usually start with involvment with things like the situation you have described.

I realize that it may seem frustrating that this person would not help you, but you have to understand that there are a million good reasons that he didn't until your wife threatened him.

Oh, and next time you think about asking this person for a "five minute favor", think about how many tenants that office may manage, and then think about why your roof may not be fixed. Our days are broken up into constant "5 minute favors".

[kibbles]

I really don't understand why everyone is coming down so hard on the OP, what he did was sucky behavior and wasn't called for, but he admitted to his sucky behavior and from what I can understand did not come here expecting people to agree with what he did.

If people did agree with what he did, that's their opinion that they are entitled to but everyone has sucky moments. I think by the very fact that the OP posted this story admitting what he did, shows that he recognized his sucky behavior.

I just don't understand why everyone is coming down so hard on him, when he has already admitted to acting suckily.

[Anthony K. S.]

Originally Posted by Getoutofmylobby :

And it's not as if i felt i deserved it or was entitled, but come on, what was i asking for? 5 minutes of his time?

I am reminded of something that happened a couple of years ago in the bookstore I work in.

One of the services that our store provides is free gift wrapping for our customers.

Now, it certainly doesn't take long to gift wrap one, two, three items . . . Five minutes, tops. Usually, we can do it with little or no difficulty.

On this particular day, however, we had an unusually large number of people requesting gift wrapping. It only took five minutes to wrap gifts for any ONE customer, but with so many people asking for it, the time expended on it added up very fast . . .

There eventually came a point when the managers had to look at the clock, look at the amount of work (shelving, straightening, recovery, projects) that still needed to be done, and decide that we were just falling too far behind.

And they instructed us not to do any more gift wrapping, but just give the customers the paper (again, for free) . . . And, of course, when we explained to the customers that we could give them the paper but we didn't have anybody available to actually do the wrapping, the customers would say, "But it would only take five minutes!"


Yes, yes, I know what you're all going to say.

There's a huge difference between gift wrapping (which is a minor courtesy) and jump-starting somebody's car (which, depending on the circumstances, can be a matter of great importance).

And, yes, I know, it is highly unlikely that the sales agent had received a large number of requests for jump-starting cars that day.

But that's not the point.

The point that I'm trying to make is that it is very easy to say, "It would only take five minutes" . . . But we have no way of knowing what the circumstances were.

Perhaps the sales agents had already gotten several interruptions to their work that day and were falling too far behind in whatever paperwork, appointments, scheduling, etc. that they had to get done.

Who knows? Sometimes, a delay of five minutes is a lot more significant than you might realize . . . Especially if there's a good chance that there's going to be yet another delay of five minutes right behind it, and another one behind that . . .


All of which leads me to my next point . . .

What the hell? Did he think he was going to lose out on a potential sale or something?

It just seemed stupid to me that after i left the office, I was left with my dead battery while this guy was going to go back to looking at his MySpace page.

If someone clearly needs your help (and you can provide it with little trouble) . . .

You are making an awful lot of assumptions here.

On what grounds, exactly, do you draw the conclusion that the sales agent could provide you with a jump start "with little trouble"?

It certainly is possible that the agent could have done so "with little trouble" . . . But you say that as if it was an indisputable fact.

It most certainly is not.

Perhaps the agent had an appointment (to show an apartment, to fill out paperwork, to sign a lease, to close a deal, etc.), and was afraid that he would miss it.

(As a matter of fact, I would say that it WAS, in fact, possible that he was afraid he would "lose out on a potential sale or something" . . .)

Perhaps he was waiting for an important phone call, or a delivery, or something of that nature.

Perhaps he was having some sort of problems with his car, and wanted to avoid driving it if possible, or avoid doing anything that might worsen the problem . . .

Again, who knows? We don't know what the circumstances were.

The point, Getoutofmylobby, is that you are assuming that taking out five minutes to give your car a jump start could not possibly have caused the sales agent any significant difficulty. That is simply not true.


And, by the way, the comment about looking at his MySpace page was completely out of line.

Did you actually see such a web page on his computer screen?

Even if you did, it doesn't prove anything. Perhaps he was downloading or receiving a file from somewhere and was just checking his messages or e-mail while he was waiting for it.

As far as I can tell here, there is no reason to assume that the agent didn't have work to do.

I could see if my request was an unreasonable one . . . But it wasn't.

I beg your pardon, Getoutofmylobby, but I will decide what does (and does not) constitute a "reasonable" request when it comes to the use of my personal property.

That decision is not yours to make, especially when I don't even know you.

And if I decide that your request is not reasonable, then I am not under any obligation to explain, much less defend, my decision to you.

If the sales agent decided that your request was not a reasonable one . . . You are perfectly free to disagree, but that was still his decision to make. And he didn't need to justify that decision to you.

. . . if someone came to me for help, i'd do my best to see it resolved regardless of whether it was within the scope of my job or not. I wouldn't just let them leave without trying.

Without trying?

The agent called maintenance to see if anybody there could help you. It wasn't the agent's fault that there was nobody in maintenance at that moment.

He also offered to call a taxi for you. And, I might add, that was after you so rudely told him, "Thanks for nothing."

I think that that constitutes trying to help.

According to the apartment maintenance man, this particular guy had some bad luck a while ago when a resident switched the cables and blew his battery up.

So, i understand now his not wanting to jump start my car.

You acknowledge that . . . And, yet, you keep insisting that the agent deserved the treatment he got because it would have only taken "5 minutes" for him to help you, and that he could have done so "with little trouble."

The amount of time and effort that it would have taken for the agent to give you a jump start was not the issue, then. It was the risk of damage to the car itself.

(Which, by the way, would mean that this . . .

And my impression at the time was he said no simply because he didn't want to be bothered with me.

. . . was actually WRONG. Something that you have consistently failed to acknowledge.)

Let me ask you something, Getoutofmylobby.

If the agent's car battery had been damaged in the jumpstart attempt, would you have offered to pay the cost of repairing or replacing it?

Perhaps you would, but there are plenty of people in the world who wouldn't, and the agent would have been stuck with the bill for it.

And if your car battery had been damaged, would you have blamed the agent and sued him and the management of the apartment complex for it?

Perhaps you wouldn't, but again, there are plenty of people in the world who would.

Now, granted, at the time that you asked the agent for a jump start, you had no way of knowing about that previous incident that the agent had had.

But one of the car batteries getting damaged by a failed jump start was a foreseeable possibility even then, was it not?

Once again, Getoutofmylobby, you keep saying that the agent could have helped you with little trouble, but you totally overlook the fact that he would have been placing his own personal property at risk, as well as accepting the danger of being held liable for damage to somebody else's.

It was not as simple a request, or as clear-cut a matter, as you keep making it out to be.

And a major problem with our apartment complex is that they are really slow to fix things. For example, everytime it rains/snows our roof leaks. My wife's threatening came largely from that. Because it sucks to pay hundreds of dollars a month to live under a leaky roof that management shows no signs of fixing (since we first told them in August).

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Surely, it is not the sales agent's fault that the management has been so slow to repair your roof, is it?

Taking out your frustrations on somebody who has NOTHING to do with what you're angry about is, of course, another classic SC behavior.

. . . then you are a sucky person and deserve what's coming to you. Especially if it's a (harmless) threat from a (cute) redhead over the phone.

I don't see what your wife being red-haired or cute has to do with anything, either.

Harmless? So it was an empty threat, was it? And how, exactly, was the agent supposed to know this?

If I had been working in that office and the agent told me that a resident had threatened him . . .

I would have advised the agent to take a sheet of paper and document every detail of what happened, and then notify the management of the apartment complex ASAP.

And if it was a threat of physical harm or vandalism of property . . . And yes, saying "You don't want me to come down there" can, indeed, be interpreted as a threat of physical harm . . . I would have advised him to notify the police.

Sure, the resident was probably just blowing out hot air, but why take chances with something like that?


There are certain types of behavior that are just plain wrong, no matter what kind of provocation you've been given, and no matter how much you believe that the other person deserves it.

I sincerely believe that threatening people in this manner (even if it's just an empty threat) falls into this category.

I guess that made him understand his suckyness.

Are you sure about that?

To me, it sounds more like the classic situation of an employee or manager deciding that it would be more trouble to argue with an SC than it would be to just give them what they want, and get rid of them.


And, one final thought . . .

And it's not as if i felt i deserved it or was entitled . . .

You keep saying that, but you keep acting as if you were entitled to it.

[Getoutofmylobby]

Sure, the guy didn't have to help me if he didn't want to. And it's not as if i felt i deserved it or was entitled, but come on, what was i asking for? 5 minutes of his time?

I could see if my request was an unreasonable one, like if i were asking to borrow his car for the weekend. But it wasn't. And my impression at the time was he said no simply because he didn't want to be bothered with me. If someone clearly needs your help (and you can provide it with little trouble) and you say no for that reason alone, then you are a sucky person and deserve what's coming to you. Especially if it's a (harmless) threat from a (cute) redhead over the phone.

And for the record she didn't say she was going to kill him or anything, she simply said "You don't want me to come down there."

I guess that made him understand his suckyness.

[NightAngel]

But what about situations where a person is in a situation where he/she is entitled to something that the place of business is there to provide? What is the recourse of the customer who isn't getting what they in all honesty deserve?

Certainly every person has had an SC moment- sure. I have.

But even if you deserve something- even if you're actually entitled- it's never right to threaten people. Period.

I doubt the OP was actually entitled to having that guy jump start his car. Unless there is some clause in the lease that says so- I've never lived anywhere that had a clause like that. Nor have I ever been employed anywhere that had me sign an agreement to use my own vehicle to do so. If they did- I'd respectfully decline employment. My employer cannot and will not tell me what to do with my own personal property. Especially my car.

You've already solved your problem which was very different than the problem here. You know what your recourses were and you chose one of them. None of which had anything to do with an employee's property or you threatening anyone.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Threatening employees to get what you want IS sucky behavior. The fact that the behavior was committed by someone who happens to be a member, or spouse of a member, of this board makes it no less sucky.

But what about situations where a person is in a situation where he/she is entitled to something that the place of business is there to provide? What is the recourse of the customer who isn't getting what they in all honesty deserve?

Case in point. (didn't want to threadjack)

The difference between a sucky customer and a person having a sucky moment (and granted that sucky behavior is sucky behavior) s the simple fact that most of us on these boards do not do so without exploring other ways of dealing with the situation. Many (if not most) of us will come out and say "Hey, could you help me with this little problem please" in a polite fashion to start and in the hope that the jaded, stressed-out retail clerk will be willing to help someone who is not being yet another jackass in his life.

Whereas the Sucky customer comes out of the woodwork, opens up the conversation with something in the neighborhood of "You [censored]! Why the [censored] did you sell me this [censored] broken piece of crap! You should be fired!" All without even attempting to see if the clerk is willing to help first.

As with many things there are times and places to use Sucky behavior. It's like a policeman and his sidearm. If he shoots anything that moves then he's using excessive force. If he sees a person holding a gun and he orders him to put it down and back slowly away from it, the perp points it at him, then it's justified. Sucky customers use their negative behavior in an excessive manner.

M