I know this is terribly immature, but he started it.
Read the thing again. He had already asked me the question a second time while ignoring my answer when I was "patronizing". So you can hardly say that I caused the problem.
God, I love all the amateur fucking psychologists on this site. You get a few dozen words out of me and somehow manage to know more about my mental state than my wife, my parents, or any of my friends!
I agree completely, which is why I had no compunctions about correcting his use of "MAC" after he had completely ignored me and asked for my operating system version despite the fact that I had already given it to him very clearly, and this was in fact quoted in his e-mail.
If you're going to use the "I can be a jerk if you're a jerk" card against me, you need to realize who did what first.
I understand and accept that. I don't get upset when the 1st tier does their job of filtering. But what happened to me was that they were not doing their job of filtering in any way. They were essentially trying to get rid of me, by asking me for information and to perform diagnostics and completely ignoring all of my responses.
If it's not a valid answer then he needs to tell me this and ask me to restate it in a different way. Ignoring my answer altogether and simply repeating the question is an utterly stupid tactic, let alone doing so repeatedly. I guarantee you that their company policy did not require them to ignore my answer altogether just because it wasn't on their list.
Please do not presume to know how the conversation went. You merely make yourself look like a fool.
I went back into my archives and found the e-mails. Here is a line from the very first e-mail I sent:
Operating System: Mac OS X 10.4.8
And a line from a subsequent e-mail:
Please reply back with details, so that the issue can be resolved at the earliest and also confirm which version of [software] are you using and what is the version of your MAC OS.
Please, I've already given this information previously. I am using Mac OS (Mac is not an acronym, by the way) 10.4.8, and I am not using [software].
As you can see, I am clearly answering his question completely. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your being a total asshole.
That's pretty good advice, I'd say. Even if you can't get a supervisor right away (because they don't know enough about your problem yet), I've found that simply asking for one has a way of making the person you're talking to far more attentive and eager to help.
Let me state this again for clarity, because I'm not sure that you've actually understood it:
In my initial e-mail, I mentioned what operating system version I was running. In his reply the customer service agent asked me what operating system version I was running. In my reply, I told him again. Then he asked me again. This repeated a couple more times. In every single reply he would ask me about the version, and in every single reply I would answer him. This continued until I asked his supervisor to fire him, at which point they shipped me a replacement unit I didn't need.
There is no policy, procedure, flowchart, or anything else which requires customer service agents to ask the same question repeatedly and ignore all answers to it.
I understand the reasoning that causes people to ask me to reboot when it's unrelated to the problem, or who ask me to power-cycle something a second time even if I tell them I already did it before I call them. This makes sense from the big-picture point of view, as you describe. But there is absolutely no reasoning to justify the treatment I received in the case I described.
I understand the reasons why lambdas are the way they are, but that doesn't make it any better. A shortcoming that's really difficult to overcome is still a shortcoming, just a justified one.
They're not being very useful to the company as a whole when they waste an enormous amount of my time, cause an unnecessary replacement to be shipped (I discovered that I didn't need the replacement after I had already received it, and eventually discovered the problem myself, with no help from the worthless customer service people), and convince me that their company is not worth buying from in the future. If destroying customer loyalty is their job then whoever came up with that job needs to be fired too.
If the supervisor thought I was wrong in requesting that somebody who asked me for my operating system version four times in a row when replying to an e-mail in which I explicitly stated my operating system version, then he should be fired too.
Once is chance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. If this guy can't figure out that I am telling him my operating system version four times in a row, then he needs to find a new line of work. If there are somehow procedures which require him to ignore my answer and ask me the same question every time I reply, which I highly doubt, then whoever created that procedure needs to be fired too.
But let's be honest, there is no such procedure. Don't defend this idiot. There was nothing which required him to ask me the exact same question repeatedly after I gave him the answer to it repeatedly.
It would be really great if they would send you an e-mail telling you that they were shipping you a replacement motherboard and firing the representative who handled your case initially.
I've been through similar trouble with other companies. I had one idiot drone ask me what version of the operating system I was running four or five times in a row, when I was answering him each time. I finally asked for a supervisor and directly asked the supervisor to fire this moron. I doubt it happened, though. Most companies care not even the slightest bit for providing non-terrible customer service.
Tesla has developed the first practical all electric car that can run 200 plus miles on a charge using (mostly) existing technology. You know, something that the big three for the last 20 years has said couldn't be done.
What they have said is that it can't be done affordably. Tesla has cleverly proven them wrong by building an electric car that costs as much as a house!
Nice technique, thanks, I'll have to remember that. Still, it would be nice if lambdas had the same basic syntax as regular functions so you could do multiple lines in the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
You think you're funny, but you're not.
Are there no exercises that you can do from a sitting or lying position?
A "function" that does two things is a contradiction in terms, and yet here we are....
Hey genius, ever consider that I act differently on Slashdot than when dealing with the rest of the world?
I know this is terribly immature, but he started it.
Read the thing again. He had already asked me the question a second time while ignoring my answer when I was "patronizing". So you can hardly say that I caused the problem.
God, I love all the amateur fucking psychologists on this site. You get a few dozen words out of me and somehow manage to know more about my mental state than my wife, my parents, or any of my friends!
I agree completely, which is why I had no compunctions about correcting his use of "MAC" after he had completely ignored me and asked for my operating system version despite the fact that I had already given it to him very clearly, and this was in fact quoted in his e-mail.
If you're going to use the "I can be a jerk if you're a jerk" card against me, you need to realize who did what first.
How about him just being "American", and only mention his heritage when it is relevant, like when asked where his parents were born.
How about when describing what he looks like, are we allowed to use color adjectives then?
I understand and accept that. I don't get upset when the 1st tier does their job of filtering. But what happened to me was that they were not doing their job of filtering in any way. They were essentially trying to get rid of me, by asking me for information and to perform diagnostics and completely ignoring all of my responses.
Click the Options button and tell it to use Plain Old Text instead of HTML.
Two points:
1) It shouldn't matter. The agent should do his damned job whether I'm a jerk or not.
2) Pointing out that someone has made a spelling error is not generally considered sufficient to be a pompous ass.
I'm not so sure. As little as a few minutes of my wasted time can result in hundreds of dollars in lost profits over the long term.
Of course this cost is not immediately visible, particularly to the support department, which is part of the whole problem.
If it's not a valid answer then he needs to tell me this and ask me to restate it in a different way. Ignoring my answer altogether and simply repeating the question is an utterly stupid tactic, let alone doing so repeatedly. I guarantee you that their company policy did not require them to ignore my answer altogether just because it wasn't on their list.
False dichotomy. It's a design decision on the part of the language designers and it's a shortcoming in my eyes.
No, it was more like:
Me: "Hi, here's my problem, etc. and I'm using Mac OS X 10.4.8."
Moron: "Please follow these steps. Also what version of Mac OS are you running?"
And so forth.
Way to follow the conversation, you idiot. My story does not involve Dell at all.
Please do not presume to know how the conversation went. You merely make yourself look like a fool.
I went back into my archives and found the e-mails. Here is a line from the very first e-mail I sent:
Operating System: Mac OS X 10.4.8
And a line from a subsequent e-mail:
Please reply back with details, so that the issue can be resolved at the earliest and also confirm which version of [software] are you using and what is the version of your MAC OS.
Please, I've already given this information previously. I am using Mac OS (Mac is not an acronym, by the way) 10.4.8, and I am not using [software].
As you can see, I am clearly answering his question completely. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your being a total asshole.
That's pretty good advice, I'd say. Even if you can't get a supervisor right away (because they don't know enough about your problem yet), I've found that simply asking for one has a way of making the person you're talking to far more attentive and eager to help.
Let me state this again for clarity, because I'm not sure that you've actually understood it:
In my initial e-mail, I mentioned what operating system version I was running. In his reply the customer service agent asked me what operating system version I was running. In my reply, I told him again. Then he asked me again. This repeated a couple more times. In every single reply he would ask me about the version, and in every single reply I would answer him. This continued until I asked his supervisor to fire him, at which point they shipped me a replacement unit I didn't need.
There is no policy, procedure, flowchart, or anything else which requires customer service agents to ask the same question repeatedly and ignore all answers to it.
I understand the reasoning that causes people to ask me to reboot when it's unrelated to the problem, or who ask me to power-cycle something a second time even if I tell them I already did it before I call them. This makes sense from the big-picture point of view, as you describe. But there is absolutely no reasoning to justify the treatment I received in the case I described.
I understand the reasons why lambdas are the way they are, but that doesn't make it any better. A shortcoming that's really difficult to overcome is still a shortcoming, just a justified one.
They're not being very useful to the company as a whole when they waste an enormous amount of my time, cause an unnecessary replacement to be shipped (I discovered that I didn't need the replacement after I had already received it, and eventually discovered the problem myself, with no help from the worthless customer service people), and convince me that their company is not worth buying from in the future. If destroying customer loyalty is their job then whoever came up with that job needs to be fired too.
If the supervisor thought I was wrong in requesting that somebody who asked me for my operating system version four times in a row when replying to an e-mail in which I explicitly stated my operating system version, then he should be fired too.
Once is chance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. If this guy can't figure out that I am telling him my operating system version four times in a row, then he needs to find a new line of work. If there are somehow procedures which require him to ignore my answer and ask me the same question every time I reply, which I highly doubt, then whoever created that procedure needs to be fired too.
But let's be honest, there is no such procedure. Don't defend this idiot. There was nothing which required him to ask me the exact same question repeatedly after I gave him the answer to it repeatedly.
It would be really great if they would send you an e-mail telling you that they were shipping you a replacement motherboard and firing the representative who handled your case initially.
I've been through similar trouble with other companies. I had one idiot drone ask me what version of the operating system I was running four or five times in a row, when I was answering him each time. I finally asked for a supervisor and directly asked the supervisor to fire this moron. I doubt it happened, though. Most companies care not even the slightest bit for providing non-terrible customer service.
Tesla has developed the first practical all electric car that can run 200 plus miles on a charge using (mostly) existing technology. You know, something that the big three for the last 20 years has said couldn't be done.
What they have said is that it can't be done affordably. Tesla has cleverly proven them wrong by building an electric car that costs as much as a house!
Nice technique, thanks, I'll have to remember that. Still, it would be nice if lambdas had the same basic syntax as regular functions so you could do multiple lines in the same way.