Stuff We Feel Like Bitching About

[MilesAhead]

In spite of the alliteration I feel "pet peeve" is kind of trite.  Therefore I opted for the above subject line.  Since this isn't the basement I suggest the amplitude be kept below a rant and above a stupor.

As my first bitch I select guns.  Not should or should not the populous be allowed to carry concealed or revealed, but as in why are there so many around me all the time?

I have no grappling hook to scale the wall but I feel it's only a matter of time before the gun turrets are added to "ordinary" government buildings, business establishments, schools, airports and picnic areas.  Tourists at The Grand Canyon will pay extra to see The Grand Cannon fired at noon taking out a section of canyon wall.  The conductors on trains no longer perform a service to the public.  Instead they dress as prison guards and pack pistols.  I'm afraid to find out what the grammar school Hall Monitor is packing these days.  Got to protect that milk money!

In Miami the Transit Cops don't even have the power to arrest but carry a Glock.  It's insane.  The whole thing makes me think of Reno 911 with live ammo.

Ok.  I'll quit here to stay below the rant threshold. 

Feel free to opine at will. 

[cranioscopical]

Don't forget the quiet guy on the plane with a gun tucked away... I think they call him the pistolero.

And then there's the flying squirrel that leaps on and off of my bedroom window sill all night long. I think it wears hobnail boots. I'd cheerfully use a gun on him, except he belongs to an endangered species.

[Renegade]

You start a thread about bitching... That's just an open invitation for me to rant!

Since this isn't the basement I suggest the amplitude be kept below a rant and above a stupor.

-MilesAhead (June 06, 2014, 04:40 PM)

My rant is actually pretty tame. I don't say what I really think. So... tame. But, perhaps "rant" for candy-ass pansies that hate reality.

Rant

As my first bitch I select guns.  Not should or should not the populous be allowed to carry concealed or revealed, but as in why are there so many around me all the time?

-MilesAhead (June 06, 2014, 04:40 PM)

More and more government workers are being armed. In a Canadian court the other day there was a jackboot with a fully automatic rifle. In court. Huh? In Canada? Seriously?

Bastard didn't even say he was sorry!

I have no grappling hook to scale the wall but I feel it's only a matter of time before the gun turrets are added to "ordinary" government buildings, business establishments, schools, airports and picnic areas.  Tourists at The Grand Canyon will pay extra to see The Grand Cannon fired at noon taking out a section of canyon wall.  The conductors on trains no longer perform a service to the public.  Instead they dress as prison guards and pack pistols.  I'm afraid to find out what the grammar school Hall Monitor is packing these days.  Got to protect that milk money!

-MilesAhead (June 06, 2014, 04:40 PM)

It's actually much, much worse in the US. The police forces are being militarized with armoured vehicles and military weaponry. Regular government workers for agencies like the Department of Agriculture are also being armed.

Hollow point ammunition is illegal to use in war, but that's what they are ordering by the BILLIONS!

For domestic use. i.e. Against civilians.

If you've ever seen what hollow point ammunition does, it's devastating. Tiny hole in front. Massive hole where it exits followed by a trail of guts and blood everywhere.

When people talk about "stopping power" of a round, that doesn't apply to hollow points - they have only 1 thing - killing power.

But things really do get worse.

Think I'm exaggerating? Ask the 18 month old who got a flash bang grenade thrown at him. It exploded in his face and ripped open his face & chest. I would strongly caution about searching for more on that story as many news stories have pictures and they are graphic. It's pretty disturbing to see an infant that horribly disfigured by police.

But, y'know... F**k the kid because he was resisting and posed a threat to the officers...  

Ever see a video where a cop is putting someone quietly into handcuffs and then the cop says, "Stop resisting?" A beating ensues. Usually with about a half dozen cops on top of the handcuffed "criminal". Sometimes the "criminal" dies. For crimes like walking down the street, etc.

Cops break into wrong house. Shoot dog. That's not a unique story -- there are many like that.

I could go on virtually forever about this with countless examples. They happen every single day. Every day. Non stop.

Enjoy your remaining freedoms while they last. You'll have a great time telling your grandchildren about them as they stare at you in disbelief.


So, what do I want to bitch about? The increasing and accelerating loss of freedom. You touched on a symptom of it.

[wraith808]

Mine is actually posted in the silly humor thread.

What's the big deal with the world and celebrity apologies?  You know in most cases they're insincere... so what?  Is the rant for an apology just to drag them through the dirt and debase them?

You make a bad joke or have an unfortunate choice of words.  So what... everyone does.  And if you believe that everyone doesn't... well, I have a bridge to sell you.  All we're doing with our 'righteous outrage' is guaranteeing that the MSM will keep reporting on them as much as possible.  Because money.

And in the meantime, you're not changing minds, you're just forcing them to be more surreptitious in their thinking and doing.

In all reality, if you think bad things because of me for any characteristic, or truly think these bad things- I want to know, so I can stay the HELL away from you if I choose.

[MilesAhead]

@Renegade the gun that shocked me most was maybe 7 or 8 years ago.  I picked someone up at the airport.  Not only was the arriving passengers area separated from those waiting by a storm fence from floor to ceiling, but a 200 LB female security guard paced up and down with a Thompson submachine gun.  I hope they didn't give her live ammo.  Perhaps it was a bluff deterrent but it sure felt like America was spelled with a 'k' all of a sudden.  Cheap air fares came at a really high price. 

[MilesAhead]

@wraith808 your post makes me think about censorship.  There used to be George Carlin's 7 dirty words. But the situation has deteriorated to the point where radio call-in shows are censoring euphemisms for the forbidden words.  Imagine if Clark Gable didn't give us the ability to say "damn" then all euphemisms for it would now also be banned.  So on the sports talk show when the radio personality asks "why the heck did the coach call such a stupid darned play?" they would have to bleep the word "darned" and after a year or so they would ban "hell" so the word "heck" would have to be bleeped.  And of course forget about a word starting with 'p' that sometimes refers to felines but often not.  

At some point the talk shows will sound like midi sampling with some dialog mixed in.

But on your apology point, what I don't quite get is the double think that allows celebrity "scum" who had their names dragged through the scandal press(probably a redundancy these days I admit) to go about their jobs as if someone lifted the film on the magic slate.  If none of the stuff was true how is it that guys like Marv Albert weren't awarded millions for defamation?  Something is really strange.

But it does look like the Clippers owner messed up his chance to cry for Barbara Walters.  But his "punishment" may be selling his team for the most money for an NBA team ever.  Maybe that made it tough for him to shed a tear if he knew that deal was in the offing.  Makes me wonder how I can screw up royally so I can set myself up for a lavish retirement.  

[wraith808]

@Renegade the gun that shocked me most was maybe 7 or 8 years ago.  I picked someone up at the airport.  Not only was the arriving passengers area separated from those waiting by a storm fence from floor to ceiling, but a 200 LB female security guard paced up and down with a Thompson submachine gun.  I hope they didn't give her live ammo.  Perhaps it was a bluff deterrent but it sure felt like America was spelled with a 'k' all of a sudden.  Cheap air fares came at a really high price. 

-MilesAhead (June 07, 2014, 04:59 PM)

The gun that shocked me the most was the one that was pointed at me with a shaking hand behind it from a security guard.  See, I went to an all male college.  And I had friends at the all women's college next door.  I was walking a friend back to campus after studying at the library.  She got back before curfew, and we stood on opposite sides of the fence, still talking about our work.  The security guard said that I'd have to step away from the fence.  So I did.  'Far enough' in that 18 year old kid mentality... but not so far that we couldn't talk.  So then he said that's not far enough, and I needed to leave.  I told him that I went to the college right across the street (which was pretty obvious) and we were talking about our project and needed to get the final touches and she was in on time for curfew... and all we were doing was talking...

...and all while I was saying that, he was unfastening his holster, pulled out the biggest gun I'd ever seen (I hadn't seen any other than on tv, so take that for what it is- but it looked dirty harry size), pulled back the hammer with shaking hands, and said I needed to go.

... so I did what any sensible person would do when faced with senselessness.  I backed away.  I didn't turn my back on him, but I backed away slowly.  And only after I was gone, did I start to breathe again.

I have nothing against guns.  It's just certain people should not be allowed to (mis)handle them.

Oh, and I found out later that the security guard was on trial for shooting a student in the bathroom in a sketchy situation, and had been fired.  I dodged a not-just-metaphorical bullet with that one.

[wraith808]

@wraith808 your post makes me think about censorship.  There used to be George Carlin's 7 dirty words. But the situation has deteriorated to the point where radio call-in shows are censoring euphemisms for the forbidden words.  Imagine if Clark Gable didn't give us the ability to say "damn" then all euphemisms for it would now also be banned.  So on the sports talk show when the radio personality asks "why the heck did the coach call such a stupid darned play?" they would have to bleep the word "darned" and after a year or so they would ban "hell" so the word "heck" would have to be bleeped.  And of course forget about a word starting with 'p' that sometimes refers to felines but often not. 

At some point the talk shows will sound like midi sampling with some dialog mixed in.

But on your apology point, what I don't quite get is the double think that allows celebrity "scum" who had their names dragged through the scandal press(probably a redundancy these days I admit) to go about their jobs as if someone lifted the film on the magic slate.  If none of the stuff was true how is it that guys like Marv Albert weren't awarded millions for defamation?  Something is really strange.

But it does look like the Clippers owner messed up his chance to cry for Barbara Walters.  But his "punishment" may be selling his team for the most money for an NBA team ever.  Maybe that made it tough for him to shed a tear if he knew that deal was in the offing.  Makes me wonder how I can screw up royally so I can set myself up for a lavish retirement. 

-MilesAhead (June 07, 2014, 05:17 PM)

I remember an interview with Alec Baldwin.  OK... so he's crazy at times.  But in this interview, he recounted something that happened after one of his supposed rampages against Anderson Cooper (or someone... I forget.  Like I said, he's crazy at times).

But on this particular one, they called him out for calling someone... well a *sucker, which is apparently an anti-gay slur (who knew?  I didn't).  So he walks into a GLAAD office and has a sit down with someone there, and they start in on him doing more for GLAAD and getting his PR fixed... and he basically said, I don't want any of that.  That he wasn't going to represent them in exchange for washing his image.  He wanted to be truly educated on what they wanted (from the perspective of making sure that he wasn't portraying himself as anti-gay), and then armed with true knowledge, he'd then divorce himself from their causes period.

Now see, that's a form of truth.  Educate... don't hold hostage.  Especially not in exchange for washing their sins away.  No tit for tat, no money for keeping your mailing lists from boycotting me.  Anything else other than education is blackmail of another stripe.

[Renegade]

But on this particular one, they called him out for calling someone... well a *sucker, which is apparently an anti-gay slur (who knew?  I didn't). 

-wraith808 (June 07, 2014, 05:39 PM)

PC crap drives me nuts.

The South Park episode "The 'F' Word" is really good. All the kids run around calling a bunch of loud bikers "faggots". I remember when I was a kid before I had any idea what sex was, much less any idea about homosexuality, that everyone said "fag" and it was pretty much the same as "jerk" or "spaz".

What I see quite often is a bunch of thin-skinned candy-ass pansies that are just looking for a reason to be "offended".

Here's a good example of a bunch of whiny &*%^*&^s (check the cartoon at the link):

http://www.huffingto...o-sun_n_5454325.html

The Toronto Sun sparked controversy Thursday with a controversial cartoon mocking Ontario Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne.

The illustration by longtime Sun cartoonist Andy Donato — showing broken glasses, bloody teeth and a Wynne pin — ran just two days after the provincial leaders' debate.

Polls from both Ipsos and Forum Research suggest PC Leader Tim Hudak was seen as the night's winner.

While it's not clear if the illustration was making a point about the debate, it nonetheless left more than a few people with the impression the newspaper was making light of violence against women.

The perpetual victims look for any opportunity to turn any situation into some "social issue".

The fact there is that the Premiere of Ontario had her ass handed to her in the debate. The fact that she's a woman has zero to do with it. But... you know the whiners... MUST.FIND.VICTIMIZATION.IN.EVERYTHING!

What I've found, in general, is that these kinds of people cannot be reasoned with. At all. Ever. They are incapable of trying to understand what anyone is saying unless it's just one massive circle jerk. You can point out that the skies are particularly clear today and they'll accuse you of saying it's raining. (Go on Reddit and you'll see a lot of this - I'm not exaggerating - people will accuse you of saying the exact opposite of what you said.) They have no ability to give anything a charitable read and only hear what they want to hear, which is invariably that you're a racist/sexist/homophobic/elitist/child-beating/whatever SOB.

[Stoic Joker]

PC crap drives me nuts.

The South Park episode "The 'F' Word" is really good. All the kids run around calling a bunch of loud bikers "faggots". I remember when I was a kid before I had any idea what sex was, much less any idea about homosexuality, that everyone said "fag" and it was pretty much the same as "jerk" or "spaz".

-Renegade (June 07, 2014, 09:12 PM)

Yes, but you see that was back in our day when the colloquial wisdom of the time persisted that sticks and stones would break ones bones, but words would never hurt you.

Now however we have the hyper reactive shrinking violet movement's new-think assertion that [affect theatrical crying jag] Words Hurt! [/end theatrical crying jag] ...Which is just flat out retarded on so many levels I can't even begin to try counting them. The whole thing is just devolving into an idiotic witch hunt spearheaded by a bunch of smug completely out of touch with reality assholes that think that they are morally superior simply because they haven't been caught up in their own machine yet.

What I see quite often is a bunch of thin-skinned candy-ass pansies that are just looking for a reason to be "offended".

-Renegade (June 07, 2014, 09:12 PM)

And the really funny part about all this is that ^they^ are the very same people that created the problem in the ****ing first place by forcing the previously established and working system to start persecuting the actual victims. Because back in the day everybody knew who the real bullies were, and when they occasionally ran into someone that had the panache to call their bluff...the then well deserved beating was quietly overlooked as it should be. But then in came the stampede of whine-pants idiots that can't accept the simple fact that their "little angel" just so happens to be a total asshole.

So the environment now is one in which the only "acceptable" form of recourse is to run crying with piss filled knickers to "mommy" - be that a teacher cop or other authority figure - to "protect" you from bad people because of the harsh penalties that are levied against anyone foolish enough to stand up for themselves.

I say screw all the hand holding nonsense, and stiffen the penalties for bothering the police with petty bullshit. Then make it perfectly legal to punch someone in the face (only once) for saying something that is incredibly rude or stupid. I bet it won't take more than 6 months for folks to start falling back into the 1950's era version of polite interaction.

[wraith808]

Now however we have the hyper reactive shrinking violet movement's new-think assertion that [affect theatrical crying jag] Words Hurt! [/end theatrical crying jag] ...Which is just flat out retarded on so many levels I can't even begin to try counting them. The whole thing is just devolving into an idiotic witch hunt spearheaded by a bunch of smug completely out of touch with reality assholes that think that they are morally superior simply because they haven't been caught up in their own machine yet.

-Stoic Joker (June 08, 2014, 09:13 AM)

The reason we're back around to the words hurt mentality?

Technology.  It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

People don't have that level of personal connection they had before technology made them 'social'.  And so in the mistaken view that 'we're more social than ever', we equate words with the same sort of level that 'actions' used to be associated with.  While it is true that you can turn harass/stalk people online, I don't see why we don't focus on the actions rather than the words.

Oh, right.  Because words can't hurt you.

[Stoic Joker]

People don't have that level of personal connection they had before technology made them 'social'.  And so in the mistaken view that 'we're more social than ever', we equate words with the same sort of level that 'actions' used to be associated with.  While it is true that you can turn harass/stalk people online, I don't see why we don't focus on the actions rather than the words.

-wraith808 (June 08, 2014, 01:30 PM)

  And that rather cleanly cuts to the quick of it!

electronic communication has made it easier for people to react to each other, and completely incapable of interacting with each other. And it's not that it's necessarily bad that body language, expression, and inflection is/has been stripped away from these types encounters. It's that devoid of these handy cues regarding the actual intent of the speaker...people (or at least a general cross section of them) seem to persist in wanting to reflexively assume the worse about the intentions of their fellow man.

The sadly hysterical part of all this is it is generally done under the banner of tolerance ... Which is of course a strictly enforced utopian ideal ... With a zero tolerance policy.

[Renegade]

I don't see why we don't focus on the actions rather than the words.

-wraith808 (June 08, 2014, 01:30 PM)

Wandering off a bit, there you remind me about how everyone is expected to be polite and nice to be point of being obsequious when dealing with people that work for companies/organisations that have wronged you. i.e. You get screwed, but you're not allowed to be upset about it.

I get that it's not directly the individual person's fault, but they're the front face of the machine. Perhaps if enough abuse made the job intolerable, it might raise the pay for those people and organisations with problems might actually try to solve them. Not a good solution, but I just can't stand the BS entitlement CS reps seem to have -- they represent the organisation and should take it as such -- if you work for an org that deserves getting yelled at, well, then duh!?

I don't actually yell & scream at people, but I'll certainly say when something is f**ked up, and it ticks me off when some rep says, "I don't appreciate that language." (At that point I want to just start screaming. It's extremely difficult not to.) Yeah, well that's that it is -- f**ked up -- if you don't like the language, FIX IT!

[40hz]

Wandering off a bit, there you remind me about how everyone is expected to be polite and nice to be point of being obsequious when dealing with people that work for companies/organisations that have wronged you. i.e. You get screwed, but you're not allowed to be upset about it.

-Renegade (June 08, 2014, 09:28 PM)

Seriously?

I don't get the part where you say "everyone is expected to be polite and nice" and "you're not allowed to be upset" about things.

I don't know where you're sitting. But where I live hardly anyone expects to be polite or nice about anything they don't like. And I haven't run into anyone (yet) that seems to feel the need to get permission before getting upset. Flying off the handle at the drop of a hat, and being just plain petulant and rude, seems to be more the norm around here.

You must live in a far more mannerly locale than I do.  

[Stoic Joker]

@40hz

I don't actually yell & scream at people, but I'll certainly say when something is f**ked up, and it ticks me off when some rep says, "I don't appreciate that language." (At that point I want to just start screaming. It's extremely difficult not to.) Yeah, well that's that it is -- f**ked up -- if you don't like the language, FIX IT!

-Renegade (June 08, 2014, 09:28 PM)

I believe he is referring more specifically to this particular - really annoying moral high ground - tactic being used to try and shame someone into curbing their aggression when they're complaining about getting bent over by big faceless corporation X. I too have encountered this on occasions when I didn't quite feel up to being tactful about some idiots failure to pry their head out of their ass.  Which oddly enough is almost the exact phrasing used the last time I encountered this passive aggressive nonsense.

[wraith808]

^ This.

[Renegade]

Seriously?

-40hz (June 09, 2014, 05:56 AM)

Yes.

I don't get the part where you say "everyone is expected to be polite and nice" and "you're not allowed to be upset" about things.

I don't know where you're sitting. But where I live hardly anyone expects to be polite or nice about anything they don't like. And I haven't run into anyone (yet) that seems to feel the need to get permission before getting upset. Flying off the handle at the drop of a hat, and being just plain petulant and rude, seems to be more the norm around here.

You must live in a far more mannerly locale than I do.  

-40hz (June 09, 2014, 05:56 AM)

40, I have a little experiment for you.

Find one of the following:

• A local issue of complete insanity
• A state issue of complete insanity
• A federal issue of complete insanity

That shouldn't be hard.

Next, call the appropriate office. (You might want to use Skype to mask your phone number to avoid retaliation. etc. You know the drill.)

Bitch vehemently about the insane issue. Use profanity and direct your anger at the appropriate targets.

Listen as the trained monkey behind the phone says, "I don't appreciate that language." etc. etc.

Yeah. It's like that. Literally.

Company or government. Same s**t.

I called one office and had a total friggin' breakdown s**tfit rant. It was well beyond warranted. The nonsense and insanity would justify far, far, far more than just a few profanities. I got the standard line then responded with more of the same along the lines of, "Just how f**ked do things need to be before it's ok to speak like this? This is pretty g***amn serious and abso-f**king-lutely unacceptable. Just what part of <details> is acceptable?" No argument from the other end. Because I was right. If anything, I was under-reacting.

You can bully these drones when you want to. But you have to just push it and put them in your shoes. Make them feel your rage. They then have no response. (From what I've seen so far anyways.)

I believe he is referring more specifically to this particular - really annoying moral high ground - tactic being used to try and shame someone into curbing their aggression when they're complaining about getting bent over by big faceless corporation X.

-Stoic Joker (June 09, 2014, 06:50 AM)

Exactly. The thing to do there is to turn it around on them.

When you get the "but I just work here" nonsense, then you push that & say it's just a part of their job - if they can't handle getting yelled at when they screw their customers, etc. etc. etc.

Anyways, since that other incident above, I've tried some other tactics, and will try others. At the end of the day, I just want to get what I paid for.

[tomos]

^ you can bet that the average person in that kind of job, is not overly enamoured by it. Why should they listen to you or anyone getting angry and using 'language' - that's abusive. Who you're angry about and whether you're right or wrong is besides the point.
(It would be funny though, if they joined in: stupid mf corporation/government/whoever )

I've made calls where I was seriously upset - and started out that way (angry/extremely upset), but managed to cool myself down, still getting my message across - making my point strongly, but also noting that it has nothing to do with the person I'm talking to. I've had success like that - I imagine they appreciated that I reigned things in a bit because I was taking their position into account.
Of course sometimes you just want to make a point. Whatever.

I dont know about you all, but if someone approaches me an angry/aggressive/abusive manner, I'm naturally going to take that as an attack, and get defensive or attack back. That's human nature (I think). Their job only allows one option there. I can completely relate to their position.

[wraith808]

I dont know about you all, but if someone approaches me an angry/aggressive/abusive manner, I'm naturally going to take that as an attack, and get defensive or attack back. That's human nature (I think). Their job only allows one option there. I can completely relate to their position.

-tomos (June 09, 2014, 10:28 AM)

I think the truth (as with most things) lies somewhere in the middle.  I'm totally fine usually when I call.  I relate my position and problem in rational terms- it's just better for communication.  But when someone tries to jerk me around with a script, or not wanting to escalate if they can't take care of it, and not even wanting to admit the problem... well, sometimes a less reasoned approach is called for.

I'm close to that with GoDaddy right now, for an example.  On a client's wordpress (they chose to host with GoDaddy... sigh), the contact form doesn't work.  So I did some troubleshooting, and found out that mail() wasn't working.  I did some further troubleshooting to make it obvious that it wasn't anything with wordpress or anything- just their service.  Then I gave the client the information to relay (since they won't talk to me without the client giving me a lot more information than I'd even *want* them to give me).

Their response?  We don't offer support on Wordpress.

You really expect me to to stay calm with that kind of response?  When it's the fact that I can't access the mail() function because of your configuration?  And I see *several* posts on stackexchange about the same thing and the fact that GoDaddy in a lot of cases doesn't enable it unless you ask?

[tomos]

^ cant argue with that

[Stoic Joker]

I dont know about you all, but if someone approaches me an angry/aggressive/abusive manner, I'm naturally going to take that as an attack, and get defensive or attack back. That's human nature (I think). Their job only allows one option there. I can completely relate to their position.

-tomos (June 09, 2014, 10:28 AM)

I think the truth (as with most things) lies somewhere in the middle.  I'm totally fine usually when I call.  I relate my position and problem in rational terms- it's just better for communication.  But when someone tries to jerk me around with a script, or not wanting to escalate if they can't take care of it, and not even wanting to admit the problem... well, sometimes a less reasoned approach is called for.

-wraith808 (June 09, 2014, 10:41 AM)

 

[MilesAhead]

... so I did what any sensible person would do when faced with senselessness.  I backed away.  I didn't turn my back on him, but I backed away slowly.  And only after I was gone, did I start to breathe again.

That's hairy.  I've never been there.  There is a Transit guard I see all the time.  I've dubbed him Nomar for the former Red Sox player Nomar Garciapara.  He wears these leather gloves all the time.  I'm hoping it's to hide a skin disease on his hands and not because he's a gun nut.  I've only said Good Morning passing by.  He seemed sane when replying.  I'll hope for the best. 

[MilesAhead]

I've done the customer support thing a couple of places.  The person taking the incoming call is totally considered a flak catcher.  Usually you are hamstrung by a procedure as they like to take warm bodies, give them a bit of training, and stick headsets on them.

Even if you have skills you have to go by the numbers.  Sometimes you are able to help the customer fix an easy problem or send them a disc etc..  Anything complicated has to go to an analyst, if the customer can avoid being fobbed off.

Some things most customers don't know or realize:

The flak catcher is not involved in the decision making process.  But the flak catcher may not point this out to the customer.  The only reason I can fathom for this policy is that management enjoys leaving the flak catcher's ass hanging out.  One example.. the customer wants to know why XYZ Corp. has such a stupid policy.. the only truthful response the flak catcher could make is to point out that he or she is never invited to the XYZ Corp. Board of Directors meetings where such reasons are discussed.  Also forbidden is to note to the customer that even if the flak catcher was given a reason to justify said policy, it's probably a lie.  Management is not going to justify itself to low level employees.  So usually the justification varies from some good sounding PR to some explanation deliberately designed to insult the intelligence(see above about leaving the flak catcher's ass hanging out.)

Most of these setups where the flak catcher works incoming calls, (s)he does not get paid when using the rest room, coffee machine, water cooler etc..  (s)he gets paid when the computer tracks that the flak catcher is available to take calls or is working an incoming call.  So although it might seem logical to the customer to ask the flak catcher to call back with some bit of information, the customer is unknowingly asking the person to work his case off the clock.  Again, the flak catcher is not allowed to inform the customer of such details(ass hung out yet again.)

One easy way to dump a customer(if you don't care how pissed they get as in your supervisor may be the one suggesting it) is to ask if they are running any third party software on the computer.  As idiotic as it seems, in this circumstance always answer NO.  Often you being willing to lie that brazenly will silence them long enough to give you whatever it is you're supposed to get.

Now and then, once in awhile, maybe on the eighth day of the week, the flak catcher gets to solve a real problem for a really nice person.  But it's no accident the turnover in that position is high.  No worry about quarterly reviews since most don't last a quarter.  Those who stick it out and perhaps can avoid must of the losing calls due to family connection, or "juice" may end up being promoted to team leader or analyst.

[40hz]

@Ren - I still don't see what subjecting somebody (who often lacks any real authority) to a barrage of obscenity and spleen is going to accomplish. Maybe it's cathartic for some people to vent. But I usually find I feel far worse, after having lost my temper, than I did before. So I guess this is one of those YMMV things.

I'm not trying to say outrage is never justified or needed. But to adopt it as a default policy or 'game plan' strikes me as being counterproductive in the long run. Shock only works once or twice on most people. Then the psychological calluses start to form. After that, a caller's aggressive or abusive behavior rolls off the back like a cold drop of rain - an unpleasant sensation perhaps, but little else.

Most of my life's experience seems to tell me you can: get whatever you want - or - say whatever you want.

But not both.

At least not when dealing with the most people.

[wraith808]

Most of my life's experience seems to tell me you can: get whatever you want - or - say whatever you want.

But not both.

At least not when dealing with the most people.

-40hz (June 09, 2014, 04:15 PM)

But when the better option isn't available, you can at least get it out of your system.

Godaddy is still telling the client that they don't support wordpress.  When I gave her clear instructions on what to say and she quoted verbatim that it had nothing to do with wordpress... it has to do with php.  

I'm on the verge...