On 27 Apr 2007 10:53:43 -0700, we won't stay dead wrote:
> On Apr 26, 8:49 am, "Peter H. Coffin" <hell...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2007 07:45:53 -0700, we won't stay dead wrote:
>>
>> > Here's another assumption....
>>
>> > Beating a dead horse ain't going to result in that horse getting up
>> > to give you a ride.
>>
>> > ...but hey, good luck with that!
>>
>> > Cheers!
>>
>> > Jett Black - NocturnalMovements.net
>>
>> This from a fellow that launched a campaign of letterwriting over poor
>> service at... what was it? Burger King? Seems we've both got a Quixotic
>> streak....
>>
>
>
> Ah, yes, but poor service is something that can be remedied.
>
> Late night fiends that flock together may sometimes receive poor
> service due to whatever baggage personnel may carry around with
> attitudes. That can reflect poorly upon an establishment and a
> boycott explained with accompanying letter writing can be very
> effective in accompli****ng an improvement in service delviered.
>
> But that's perhaps an example a bit off the beaten path for some
> readers here.
I'm not entirely sure that it is that far off. A lot of the reason that
we're deal with this is apathetic service and a marginalization of
old-school for a larger pot of "normal" in the form of the
pointy-clickyclique instead of those that have been doing this for a
Very Long Time.
> So, let's take another look at poor service as it directly impacts
> folks who attended Convergence 4 and who stayed at the EMI.
>
> Anyone? Anyone?
>
> What happened?
>
> If you were there, I need it out.
Minor annoyance, and common stories that can bring memories back with a
single shout of "You go to sleep now!"
> And, if you were paying attention after the events to postings, then
> you will recall that letters were written complaining about the poor
> service.
The real question is have you been back to check? If not, then what does
it serve? It's not like Hallowmass was going to choose there anyway.
> I'm going to assume NOW that this means a bit MORE to those who were
> there and to those who remember than perhaps the example about "burger
> King" (wrong fast food chain, but does it really matter?)
I dunno, your self-created Lord of the Fries role has become pretty
famous, and it's a lot more recent. Wendy's was it, then?
> Anyway... the letter writing campaign was nothing new... it's
> something that has become necessary within this scene for reasons of
> stereotyping that we struggle to see change. If we did not believe
> that change could be realised and that the efforts are both validated
> by prior successes and worthwhile in general, then we simply would not
> bother to complain about deplorable, intolerable services rendered to
> those who have paid for quality services, same as any others.
Habib didn't seem to be intolerable. Just really annoying. And really,
really overwhelmed. That's part of the lessons learned: Brief the staff
well on exactly what they should expect from this crowd. Fixed now.
> The difference between such an example as the EMI/C4 scenario and
> that espoused by the current thread is that entitlement to those C4
> registrants staying at the EMI had already been secured financially
> prior to the harassment endured while services were rendered, or
> expected. Herein, all proceedings have been prologue to approval,
> prologue to the official ballot, prologue to the vote itself wherein
> the only surety that any potential nominations may have is within
> strict compliance with established protocols, which a governing body
> has now determined to have been in violation.
I think I'm going to need more time to parse that.
--
186,000 Miles per Second. It's not just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW.
|
