So...

By -
It turns out that being violently abusive to your customers is NOT a good business practice!


Comments

  1. Anonymous6:02 PM

    The other side of the story, from store manager Jed Hershon:

    "For the record, I have many customers who like me fine, it's usually the really demanding, childish, touchy people with an enormously warped sense of their own importance who get upset when not treated as royalty...the complaints are few, except for blogs where people can anonymously whine and 'get even' in their tiny minds."

    Source: http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/19/dtg_bookstoreclosed_2011_5_13_bk.html (comments section)

    Sounds like they've got your number, bra. ahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah6:40 PM

    Bra?

    In any case, Jed worked every day in a cloud of marijuana smoke and alcohol fumes. As people in the article comments section said:

    "Jed is getting what he deserves. Always has been a bitter person to deal with."

    "Jed, almost everyone I know who went to your bookstore mentioned the same thing - that you were more concerned with having another cigarette than any kind of actual customer service. I always got the sense that you didn't really care."

    "ALMOST EVERYONE" said this. Isn't it funny that so many other customers had the same problems as me, PEOPLE STOPPED COMING IN THE STORE, as Jed admits, the store had to go out of business... but the problem was with ME!

    I think the problem is that Jed thought ANY requests for service were demanding and childish!

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah7:01 PM

    Think about it, FPS Doug: When they opened, they were doing great. But gradually, one after another, all of their customers disappeared. Finally, they lost so many customers they had to shut down.

    Hmmm... what could that mean?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more