Thursday, April 7, 2011

Update on Lowes

Hey all...

You remember a couple of weeks ago in the "Riding around in the Rock bus..." post I had a little head to head with Lowes...?

Well after much wrangling with their corporate customer care, I finally managed to get them to apparently waterboard, magneto, threaten families or whatever, and I got an email from the store manager. Apparently the mail I got from Lowes corporate on the 23rd March saying I'd get a response from the store manager within 24 hours "got lost" (or they had to use physical torture methods). So I asked them to ask the manager to reforward that mail.

Here is the mail I received (the names have been changed to protect the guilty)

-----Original Message-----
From: R Sole
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:06 PM
Subject: Blower

Mr Gungnir esq.,

I would like to apologize for you not receiving the first email from us. We
are more than happy to reimburse you the $150 you spent I would also like to
offer you and additional $50 for the inconvenience for a total of $200.00.
Please just let me know
how you would like that and when you would be coming in to pick it up.
Please use me as your point of contact going forward. Sorry for the
inconvenience of this situation.


R Sole
Fairbanks Ak.
All information in and attached to the e-mail(s) below may be proprietary,
confidential, privileged and otherwise protected from improper or erroneous
disclosure. If you are not the sender's intended recipient, you are not
authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate
this message. If you have erroneously received this communication, please
notify the sender immediately by phone
(704-555-1000) or by e-mail and destroy all copies of this message
(electronic, paper, or otherwise). Thank you.

Ok so my first question was... Where's the header from the forward...? Unknown, so I checked the mail header itself...

Received: from ( [])
by (Postfix) with ESMTP
for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:06:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-AuditID: ac148405-b7c8eae00000649c-0c-4d9b8527a295
Received: from (Unknown_Domain [])
by (SMTP Banner) with SMTP id 25.5A.25756.7258B9D4; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:09:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
8.1.375.2; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:06:16 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Tue, 5 Apr 2011
17:06:16 -0400

So What you all cry...

Ok so two things, firstly IT Guys are remarkably unimaginitive, or incredibly imaginitive, mail server names have two possible types, something totally arcane for instance, or something partially descriptive, for instance So no the server wasn't named msex because it's short for Mmmmm... Sex! It's probably named such because it's a Microsoft Exchange machine, and I'd hazard a guess it's Microsoft Exchange 2007 too (which I got a ship it award for while at Microsoft). So it's all just conjecture right... No there's also "Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)" meaning that it's almost certainly using Exchange Server 2003 or later (google it, don't take my word for it).

What this means is the mail that was allegedly sent wasn't sent. Of course it is entirely possible that Mr R Sole of Lowes doesn't know where his "Sent Items" folder is, or their IT Monkeys can't query through WebDAV, but that's unlikely.

So I responded with this...

-----Original Message-----
From: Mr Gungnir Esq.
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:56 PM
To: R Sole
Subject: Re: Blower

I'm not sure you're dealing with the core of my grievance.

The core of my grievance was that Ken made a statement that I had agreed to something that I had not and then argued with me that I had agreed to this. As far as I was aware at the time he left the only agreement was on the method of reimbursement, not the amount. However if the money was the core issue then I would have taken what I could have got and left. It was more
the attitude and belligerence that was the issue. You should have tapes that confirm my statement from your surveillance systems.

There is also an apparent discrepancy between the information we were provided at time of sale of the insulation, that the blower would be available for a reasonable period of time (a couple of weeks or more) for free due to our remote location and the amount of product we purchased. This was confirmed several times with several cashiers and assistants, yet was
contradicted by Ken during our discussion but only after we began arguing about the reimbursement value.

Now as to fair reimbursement for my costs based upon the good faith purchase I made of the Thermo-Kool insulation, I'm to my mind $240 down for the hire of the blower from Spenards. Which at time of purchase I was expecting to loan for free from Lowes. It's also ignoring any personal inconvenience of multiple trips to Fairbanks (including costs of transport) and sourcing at an alternate location. Incidentally Spenards were very gracious in not charging us the full fee for the length of time we had the blower (due to our location) which is an example of good customer service you may learn from, that actual cost should have been $650.

So my full list of grievances
1) No blower available multiple times when attempting to obtain from Lowes
2) Having to locate alternate source of blower
3) Having a statement from a manager that they would reimburse the costs of renting that blower due to inability of Lowes to deliver on their commitment (this is only a grievance due to later events)
4) Having a manager become belligerent and hostile about a trifling difference in expectations ($60) on the reimbursement value
5) Contacting Lowes Corporate, getting a response from them that I would get a response in 24 hours and not getting that response
6) Re-contacting Lowes Corporate about lack of contact from your store, and being told that there was a mail sent (the check is in the mail)
7) Not being forwarded the original mail, that would have proven the claim that the original mail from your store was sent

I'll be perfectly honest, for the argued difference (at the time of the incident I was arguing for $210 due to an expected 7 day rental and a reimbursement maximum of $30/day) this has cost Lowes significantly more than that, for your time, for the Corporate time, and certainly in lost
business. This seems counter productive to me.

Now based on all of that, if you will send me what you consider to be fair compensation for the inconvenience and loss of good faith, then I will let you know whether I find that acceptable.

So two days have passed, and no contact so I've kicked my Corporate contact again. The thing I love the most is that Lowes has the following policy...

Each Employee will conduct all dealings with Lowe's customers and suppliers fairly and will compete honestly and ethically. Employees should not seek to obtain any advantage for the company by manipulating or concealing facts, misusing privileged information, misrepresenting material facts or otherwise acting illegally, unfairly, dishonestly or unethically.
Well when I had an agreement with one of the senior managers on something, and another manager doesn't live up to that agreement and indeed argues that the agreement wasn't as I was led to believe, is that misrepresenting a material fact...? Well I don't know...

I will keep you posted however, whether you're interested or not. I'm pretty much neutral on the issue and the only reason I'm still pursuing it is to bring a small degree of sadistic joy into my life knowing that someone somewhere in Lowes corporate might go and repeatedly kick Mr Sole in the gonads, with steel toe capped boots. Once this happens there is also the sadistic joy knowing Mr Sole once he has joined his local choir as a mezzo-soprano will go and take out his steel toe capped boots and perform the same service to the idiot who p*ssed me off.


Gungnir said...

So firstly lets state we moderate comments to avoid any conflicts between the authors and commentators or followers.

So I moderated a comment saying "oh but you're only out a few bucks, and with comments like you made I'm not surprised yada-yada"

Ok lets address the few buck first shall we... I'm out $240 for a blower, 3 trips to Fairbanks by truck at $175 per trip, 2 trips by bus at $40 a trip. That's $845 in expenses, I'm also out around about 40 hours at my last billing rate that's $4240, not to mention we're way behind schedule in our construction and that may lead to more costs (for instance currently 3 months extra rental on a storage unit at $150 per month).

However I don't want that back, what I do want is for Lowes to say "we made a mistake, and we're working on fixing the problem". What I don't want them to say is "here's another 50 bucks hope this is ok." it's not about the money, it's about the service and customer respect.

Lets be honest here folks Lowes sell a product that comes with a service, THEY failed to provide that service, and at no time attempted work with us on fixing the issue. We HAD to work on an alternative otherwise this time next year we'd be in the same situation. We presented this to them, they agreed to reimburse us on that service.

You know the thing I don't get about people complaining about other people complaining is this. How the hell do you expect a company to honor a customers agreement with them if you don't hold them accountable? People are only accountable if they are held accountable, it's basic human nature.

Just to be clear to the person who commented, this ISN'T about money. It's about Lowes failing to deliver on a contractual obligation to us we purchased blown insulation with use of a blower. The Blower isn't property of Lowes, it's property of Thermo-Kool the same as the one we got from Spenards, big sticker with a Thermo-Kool asset number. Thermo-Kool provide these to the retailers so that purchasers of their product can install. They failed to maintain their equipment, and failed to have enough on hand. That's the primary cause of all this. The secondary cause is failing to treat their customer with respect and being deceptive as to their lending/hiring practices regarding this equipment.

Cont... Below

Gungnir said...

Look if no cashier of the several we spoke to had ever rung up a charge for a blower rental with purchase of insulation, then either Lowes has turnover like crazy, or someone isn't telling the truth. I'm betting it's the person saying they always charge, not the several who say they never have.

Finally of course there is the delay in trying to rectify the situation. Yes things happen, I know this. I used to work in the Windows Core Operating system division and know how Customer requests need to be handled, because I've handled a few. Many times just a "hey sorry for the delay I'll get back to you before the end of the week" is more than sufficient to calm down some irate customer with an issue. If you don't do that then don't be surprised to see your manager at the door in the next 24 hours asking you WTF is going on, and why you haven't resolved that customers issue, because it's now your P1S1 issue and nothing short of death can prevent you from resolving it before you leave. Admittedly the customers I dealt with were customers like Dell, HP, Toshiba not retail customers, but they're still customers, and the principle still applies, if not applying better because its more personal.

Ultimately they failed to be responsible for their part in the situation. So according to one commentator I'm a bad person for holding them accountable, hey that's great and that's your opinion. I happen to believe its totally and mind-numbingly wrong to behave like some sheep and just agree with their improved payout, but that's fine it's your opinion.

My opinion is that companies who are only beholden to their shareholders need to be held accountable by their customers; all of their customers; it's our responsibility to hold them accountable. If we do not we're going to be paying for vaporware sometime soon. These companies don't really care about you, they've never really cared about you, they care about your money, they care that they haven't upset anyone enough to complain to anyone else and lose them business. However you, the person, you're not even a line on an accounting register.

One final point is that just because Spenards cut us a good deal, does not let Lowes off the hook. Hell no, that's like not prosecuting a mugger because the person who helped out the victim gave them $30 for a taxi ride home.

neighbor lady said...

Alot of people who commented must not have read your original post about the behavior that prompted all of this.
Having worked at Lowes the only charge that was ever charged was a deposit that was refunded upon return of the blower (whether broken or not).
People don't get that it was the fact that a MANAGER gave you such an attitude about it and argued with you, which is a HUGE NO-NO in the Lowes corporate policy, that is the problem, not the money. An apology (from the store manager AND the manager who commited the grievance)would/should at least have been given regarding the situation. I am guessing that they did not fully investigate the complaint or that would have happened. At least thats how they used to do it.

Anonymous said...

Pass the popcorn!

I read your first post about the jerk at Lowes and I'm glad to hear you're putting the squeeze on them to be accountable. I really, really like it when someone takes it to the moon and back over principle. Here's hoping the good guy wins.

Oh, and I don't choose anonymous because I'm a squirrel - I don't have Google or OpenID.

Anonymous said...

That's some seriously grandiose math you've got going on. Adding your old wages in? You don't work anymore so your wage is zilch or at the very best minimum wage, unless of course you do still work? I personally think you have a serious flare for the dramatic and have noticed that just about the only posts you make are complaining about something or someone.

I've never understood someone doing that in the first place, anyway. It's as if people believe they're entitled in some way.

I'm fairly sure you'll mod this to your benefit. It's cool, it's your prerogative. It's just very telling but hey "They" won't see it and that's all that counts. :)

As for sheep: I just believe in counting your blessings. Not like your going to get much and even if you do. At what price? I mean, I thought you guys left the rat race? It seems you've got a little residue on your hands.

Hope you get what's bothering you resolved.

Anonymous said...

No Gugnir,

I don't think you're a bad person in the greater sense of the word. I just think your personality might be a little off and people are responding to it as such. You just might have rubbed the guy the wrong way because of it.

Sorry to publish twice but I didn't see an edit.

Plickety Cat said...

I'm publishing and fielding this one because I'm less emotionally involved :)

Even if we removed the "hourly rate" from the cost of this whole fiasco, we're still out a significant amount of cash (fuel, transportation, and fees)and time. The majority of which would not have been lost if the business in question had honored its prior agreement, communicated with us in a timely fashion, or maintained its equipment properly.

The objection isn't specifically about the money, we're happy that we could get what we wanted done even though it did cost us (we don't expect anything for free without reason). The problem is the lack of respect and customer service that was shown. It's the principle of the thing. If we, the consumers, don't hold businesses accountable for providing us quality merchandise and service, and hold them to their agreements, businesses will continue to take advantage. The only way to hold them accountable is to complain, both through official channels and through word-of-mouth.

We don't feel a *sense of entitlement* at all, we actually *are entitled* to the quality and service because we *paid for it*.

A sense of entitlement is a narcissistic belief that you deserve some special benefit or reward without any real basis.

An entitlement is a guarantee of benefit based on a real and established right. When you pay for something and you have a made an agreement, you have the right to expect it.

We weren't entitled to the discount at SBS because it wasn't part of the agreement, so we didn't expect it... ergo, we were happy to get it. However, we were entitled to the full reimbursement by Lowe's because we had made a qualifying purchase and had a prior agreement... ergo, we had a right to it, and justification to be ticked off that we didn't get it. It's a perfect example of the type of shenanigans that urged us to leave the rat race in the first place. There is absolutely no excuse for an employee, especially no a manager, to flame out on a rational customer simply for asserting their rights in a non-violent manner.

As for G only posting to complain and being overly dramatic. Well, since we share this blog, we each write to our strengths. I'm the amusing and/or explanatory writer, and I enjoy simply sharing info (although I can go off on a rant myself at times). G is much better at debate and challenge, so he tends to write more rants. You'll notice that I post more than he does... he only rarely gets so worked up about something that he finds it necessary to communicate it. Otherwise, he leaves the info posts to me, even if it's his topic idea, because I'm better at writing them.

Anonymous said...

I'm actually glad you chose to respond. Last thing I wanted is a word war.

I do believe you were shorted a bit and sadly that's service these days. I'm not saying roll over but what I am saying is, using grandiose math isn't going to further things with your future Lowe's relationship. It's totally unrealistic to think that one could use such claims to garner an edge in any form. If you go into discussions with someone with that kind of math in the back of your mind. It's no doubt going to manifest itself negatively.

Nobody likes to be told one thing and wind up getting something different. Nobody likes to waist their time and expenses either.

Gungnir said...

"sadly that's service these days"...

Why is that...? Why is this accepted...?

The interesting thing is this, about 20 years ago, I used to date an assistant manager of a bar/restaurant in a very popular tourist destination of my home town back in the UK. The most difficult customers she had were Americans, the beer was too warm, too cold, too fizzy or not fizzy enough, the food was taking too long, was too hot, too cold, too greasy, to dry or a million other nit-picks. Americans were famous all over the world for complaining about service and quality.

20 years fast forward, and we're getting bad service even here. Perhaps because people don't complain, and don't hold people accountable to their responsibilities and promises. Or is it that Americans only complained while outside the US, because it's perfectly ok to question the quality or service of a non-US company run by non-Americans, but a US company run by Americans... Hmmm...

Anyway to my time spent, well it was a bit of hyperbolae, however, just because I'm "retired" doesn't mean that my time should not necessarily hold a dollar value.

For instance if you know a retired lawyer or judge who is still bar certified and over a coffee and chat you get him to draft a contract, he would be expected to be paid a reasonable rate for the work he did on the contract (not $8/hr or whatever minimum wage is). If he was in this situation, he might file for compensation for the time he spent trying to rectify the situation and it wouldn't be filed at minimum wage either, most likely his final hourly billing rate.

However on the discussion I had with the manager, you're drawing too many conclusions on no available data. I was told by the manager I originally negotiated with I had agreed to a payment value, which I had absolutely not. It was only then that I got even remotely irritated, because the dufus was trying to browbeat me into accepting what he considered acceptable by whatever arbitrary parameters he was considering. That was the problem, I'm far more intimidating than intimidated, if you're going to intimidate me expect to receive the same or more back, or at least highly negative response. So the negative reaction was caused by the store manager.

Unfortunately as to how I approached the discussion, well all you have is subjective assumptions and my description of events which may or may not have omitted something important. You're reading my commentary, which colors your view, then the actual mail, and putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 because you're adding in an extra bit from your response to my commentary.

As it happens, I said to Lowes, make me an offer of what you consider fair given the specific points I listed. I did not include ANY pricing with ANY expectation of what I considered fair, hey they could have come back and said fifty bucks all in. They didn't they actually wanted receipt information (which I got asked for yesterday), which means the offer they initially made they think is not fair. If they did, they wouldn't have asked for receipt information, they would just have said the current offer we have made we think is fair.

To come to a statement you made in your previous comment; the only entitlement I expect from Lowes was that they provided me with the correct blower for me to install my insulation, in a timely fashion. They failed to meet that, thus the only thing I'm now trying to pursue is some form of recompense for out of pocket expenses, an apology, and some action on their part that will prevent this happening again to someone else.

Anonymous said...

You said: Why is that...? Why is this accepted...?

It's not accepted. I and many others I'm sure stand their ground. You're not blazing a revolutionary trail here. Service is the way it is because the companies know they don't have to do anything if they don't want to. They've chosen the path of negative service because it saves them money perhaps or maybe it's all trickle down attitudes from various encounters from customers who want something for nothing. Maybe 1000's of potential variables there. Who knows.

Your waitress story brought to mind this and who knows maybe another possibility as to what companies have to deal with. My sister to my dismay use to complain at restaurants because she thought she could take advantage of their service. She did on a regular basis I was told. I wasn't happy with that one bit and on top of it our Mother was a waitress for 25 years. When she invited me to dinner upon our reunion I jumped at the opportunity. Let's just say, I don't get invites to dinner anymore. I'm okay with that. So you see, the customer isn't always right.

On to the retired lawyer/judge bit and a few more points thrown in: He didn't ask you to do anything remotely in your field. That's why it was hyperbole as you've mentioned. This is also where I add another point to the equation because even if you don't come out and say so in conversations with the manager, you can't help but come from the attitude that you were due in some way. Hence the entitlement. If that's not actually how you feel or have felt then maybe you shouldn't post such things. No further discussion is needed on that as far as I'm concerned.

See this is where sheeply behavior would have come in. If I were remotely such a thing I would've gladly patted you on the back. Instead I question things the same way you seem to be proud that you're doing. Just depends on personal perceptions.

On the last paragraph and in closing. If that's what you want, I hope you get it. I thought though it wasn't about the money. Also don't delude yourself into thinking it won't happen again.

Hopefully I didn't miss anything.

Gungnir said...

Last word on this particular subject.

Firstly we have evidence that the people do not complain, if they did Corporations could not use a least service strategy and be successful. It appears we're not voting with our dollars, we get what we pay for, and that appears to be least service.

The girl I dated wasn't a waitress, she was an assistant manager, to do similarly the manager I discussed this situation with was a cashier. Why you chose to denigrate her position isn't clear to me other than to be an ass.

You may choose it assume or infer whatever you like on what happened during the discussion, the only salient facts you have are from me, who apparently isn't a credible source from your comments, so whatever I say you may choose to assume or infer whatever you damn well please. Not playing this anymore, did that before with an idiot known as QwikSigns, had some stalker like behavior, was kind of embarrassing he was apparently all freaked about logins to our blog. Look I'm not holding a gun to your head to read this blog, you don't like it, don't like me, then please don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave.

So... to the money, what do I want, I want to have zero sum. I paid for a product that comes with an associated service, that service wasn't supplied. Same as you would expect in a similar situation.

Anonymous said...

You need medication, dude. My comment about waitresses was just to show you a point. Obviously you're so stuck on defense/aggression mode you can't tell what's what in the real world. Good luck with that.

We can table this "discussion"..agreed.

Anonymous said...

I'm not seeing any denigration going on.

Plickety Cat said...

Fielding... again ;)

The Waitress/Manager correlation got made because you assumed ("In your waitress story...") that the woman he mentioned was a waitress, when she was in fact a manager. Denigration is implied/inferred because waitresses are beneath managers in the social/economic power structure, and is further compounded by your assumption that she was a "lowly waitress" simply because she was female.

By your own admission, waitresses are treated horribly in many cases and have minimal empowerment in the workplace... and this appears to be a commonplace and socially acceptable practice. The implication made was that such treatment is to be expected by someone "in her position" -- since she wasn't in that position (and we don't agree that it's appropriate behavior in any case) G took offense.

Neither G nor I agree with or engage in the practice of maliciously abusing the system to for our own gains (as you provide the example of your sister). We don't expect something for nothing, and certainly don't manipulate the situation to achieve it. However, this sort of irresponsible and self-serving behavior is exactly what you are accusing us of... and we take offense. So, I'm going to break it down, nice and simple:

We purchased goods that came with an additional service included in the sales price at not additional charge.

The business used that included service to promote/increase sales, which affected our purchase and patronage decision.

The business was unable to provide this service; and after repeated opportunities to fulfill their obligation failed, we amicably worked with them to find an alternate solution.

Once the alternative solution was determined, the business agreed to reimburse us for the out-of-pocket expenses we incurred by their inability to provide the service they had promised in the original transaction, and thus fulfill their obligation to the best of their ability.

When we returned with documentation of our out-of-pocket expense for reimbursement, which we were more than willing to accept in store credit not cash, the business failed to fully honor its agreement.

When we politely questioned the discrepancy, a representative of the business acted unacceptably towards us without provocation.

At no time were we attempting to obtain a good, service or capital benefit that was not part of the original or subsequent agreements.

We were not seeking any punitive damages (i.e. transportation costs), only the reimbursement of the direct additional costs as agreed.

We did not use force or intimidation in any of our dealings with this business, and proactively cooperated with them so both parties could reach an equitable arrangement.

It was only after the representative's initial unprovoked attack, that we reacted with any animosity... which was in self defense.

Anonymous said...

The Waitress/Manager correlation got made because you assumed ("In your waitress story...") that the woman he mentioned was a waitress, when she was in fact a manager. Denigration is implied/inferred because waitresses are beneath managers in the social/economic power structure, and is further compounded by your assumption that she was a "lowly waitress" simply because she was female.

No Plickety, there was no denigration intended. I simply mistyped or misread and then tried to convey an experience of my own to show another possible side.

I have a feeling He takes offense on as regular basis. No harm..Some people are wired differently than others.

I personally prefer your approach. You come off as extremely laid back and emotionally logical.

I believe what you've written to be true.

Gungnir said...

I have a feeling you can kiss my ass. If you can ever pull yourself out from your parents basement and have the gumption to meet me face to face.

Sure I take offense more than my wife you moron, because she has Aspergers Syndrome, look it up. Please get a life and go and haunt someone else's blog for a while, join a forum where your debating is a more appropriate venue, or better yet, go meet someone in real life, and discuss their perceived issues like you seem to enjoy discussing mine face to face, and see just how quickly people take offense. It's easy to discuss something with someone when you think you're anonymous.

Consider yourself banned, if I even smell another post that could be from you, it's getting moderated.

Anonymous said...

Thump thump goes the chest. Okay monkey, I'll scoot but don't you go feeling like you've intimidated someone into doing so. It just isn't so. You're about as scary as as my 2 year old nephew and slightly less emotionally secure.

Gungnir said...


You do realize we're laughing at you, not with you, don't you...?

Go away little boy...

Plickety Cat said...

OK - now I've got to pull the car over and separate you two! (See this is why we moderate -- not hide information from people, but to avoid flame wars over stylistic/temperament conflicts)

G rarely gets offended, but when he does, he gets deeply offended. Anything less than a deep offense isn't something that he wastes his energy on. Because he has an INTJ temperament, the principles of independence, personal accountability and personal rights are extremely important to him. He prefers to communicate in a debate style, is rationally logical (to a fault sometimes!), and because he is extremely self-confident he rarely responds emotionally to conflicts or feels the need to intimidate others. However, because he is so rational, when something pushes his emotional buttons and he has to post about it, he cannot communicate as effectively because he is out of his element in two ways (emotional exposition rather than rational debate). This temperament and communication style can be perceived as aggressive, confrontational, condescending and extreme by more interdependent perceiving types.

I, on the other hand, have an INFP temperament. I'm much more comfortable simply sharing information and dealing with things on an emotional level. I tend to appear calm and tranquil because I abhor conflict and rarely devote or share the strongest of my inner-most feelings with anyone. But this certainly doesn't mean that I can't be offended or that I don't take offense just as strongly as my husband (probably more so)... I just don't enjoy discussing it in a debate format. When put in a position where confrontation rational debate is required, I suck so bad that I melt down and shut off. This temperament and communication style can be perceived as passive, avoidant, obsequious and marginal by more confrontation judging types.

The personality types and communication styles we appreciate and seek to use in interaction are personal preferences. Preference -- there is no right or wrong.

Just because you may not appreciate someone's temperament or the way they communicate because it conflict with your personal preference does not give you the right to attack them or cast aspersions on their conduct... especially not if you are the one voluntarily initiating the interaction on their personal blog not a public discussion forum. If you want to debate the issues, that's fine... if you want to sling mud and insult us, please move along.

Plickety Cat said...

And on a final note... :D

I do have Aspergers, but I am a "rare" verbal Aspie. In written communications, I am hyper-aware of what I'm saying, how I'm saying it, and how it may possibly be mis-perceived. (gotta love copy/paste/delete/edit) This is from years and years of being unable to do this while talking and getting hostile responses. While I may be able to write eloquent, persuasive, amusing, and logical posts... if we were to have a face-to-face conversation, it's likely that I'd offend you almost immediately and set off your hinky vibe meter. While I may seem approachable at first in person, people usually notice that there is something not quite right and just a tiny bit off about me pretty quickly and it sets them on edge.

G doesn't have the same gifts with the written word, but he far exceeds my meager skills with the spoken word. In person, he may not seem as approachable at first but once they get past his surface "distance", most folks find him the easier of the two of us to deal with. If people do feel intimidated by him, it's usually because the force of his personality is so strong... it's their internal deal, not anything he's doing to them. (I should note that folks who feel intimidated by him before they get to know him are also likely to feel intimidated by me once they do get to know me for the exactly the same reasons).

I'm a perfect example of someone who looks good on paper, but can be a real hot mess in person :) I know it, I accept it, I've learned to embrace it!

So I guess it's a good thing that G & I have so many supplementary strengths, in addition to those that overlap and compliment each other. We make a formidable team (well, when we're actually working together, that is ROFL).