WELLINGTON (Reuters) - New Zealand's largest phone company Telecom Corp. of NZ on Wednesday apologized and offered compensation to a customer after charging him a "penalty for being an arrogant bastard". Telecom has ordered an investigation into how Auckland businessman James Storrie received the $140 charge shown on his monthly mobile phone bill.
"How can they speak to their clients like this? It's downright rude," Storrie told the New Zealand Herald newspaper, which carried his photograph holding the objectionable bill.
Telecom spokesman Martin Freeth said the company was appalled and embarrassed by the rude statement and had made an offer of compensation.
"We've apologized and taking steps to stop anything like this...it's an aberration," Freeth told Reuters.
Edited:
"And we are very sorry that this person is such an arrogant bastard, concluded Freeth.
Dear TEd: I wonder what Mr. Storne's chances would have been of seeking legal redress. It would also have been of interest to know how abusive he had been to precipitate the incident. Many phone customers think they can be abusive to telephone operators, though nowadays you rarely get to talk to them.
In the real world, the bastard wouldn't have a chance. After all, what he got was a private correspondence merely stating an opinion of him. And it's a private matter even though it came from the biggest phone company in NZ. If he publishes it, he's the one who is revealing to the world someone else's opinion of him.
And I apologize for the edit that made it seem as if Freeth really said that about the guy's parentage. It was meant solely as a joke on my part. I think I'll stick to puns.
After all, what he got was a private correspondence merely stating an opinion of him. And it's a private matter...If he publishes it, he's the one who is revealing to the world someone else's opinion of him.[EA]
RumShotGiles, I'm impressed! Never before have I seen a new person who, after only 3 posts, had already learned to use colors and bold-font. You are a quick study!
any legal redress for the arrogant bastard, wwh wonders I doubt it, wwh. A statement is not libelous unless it is published and the 'arrogant bastard' was the author of his own libel when he broke the story to the newspapers. If he had simply asked the paper for a reversal of the $140 charge, no-one would have been the wiser. I suspect his outrage was less compelling than his rage for publicity, and he got exactly what he bargained for.
I suspect his outrage was less compelling than his rage for publicity, and he got exactly what he bargained for.[E.A.]
Well, one would certainly hope so. On the other hand, it could well be that his arrogance is so excessive that he's blind to the world's opinion of him.
[Edit: quoted words (colored) added, to clarify per Helen's note below.]
ASp: there's always one in every crowd. MisterGhouls: one what, AnnaStrophic? ASp: Goodness, the antecedent wasn't very clear ... An arrogant bastard. [notwink]
Hey kieva, you better watch out.. this sounds almost like a FART How do you know who cut the cheese? Easy, its alwasy the guy who loudly asks "Who cut the cheese?"!
So when you post and who would that be, anna? [notwink] it sure sounds like a FART to me!
Besides who the hell gave you permission usurp the arrogant bastard position here-- why can't it be me?
No more mister nice guy, i want to be an arrogant bastard in the croud every once in a while!
So it wasn't you that cut the cheese? you're sure about that?
aren't arrogant bastards supposed to give you grief? not believe your protestations of in no scents?) i have a new rephewtation to uphold! maybe i'll go and get a whip. Crack! that's what you get for farting around here!
That sounds possible, but it could refer by extension to any such humorless git or self-obsessed moron without the sense to realise how stupid he makes himself appear by drawing attention to himself in such a sadly unfavorable light.
Is there a word for this rhetorical sort of meaning, where the meaning is understood to extend to a person (or persons) unnamed?
As for the question about rhetoric, you ask in the right place Ego - there are several folks here who really love this stuff, and are sure to find the correct term. It's a great question - so you mean we could be *apparently talking about Person A while everyone is supposed to know we are *actually talking about Person K ~ and laughing their asses off at the irony that the subject can't protest without admitting he's a deranged nutter for imagining such behaviour? wow - yes, there must be a term - are our search squad or our rhetoricians online?
everyone is supposed to know we are *actually talking about Person K ... the subject can't protest without admitting he's a deranged nutter for imagining such behaviour
Of course, all the subject need do is wait until it becomes obvious to all that Person A is engaging in such behavior. I'd think most people are smart enough to draw their own conclusions.
er, sorry Helen! Do you know what this term of referring indirectly to a humorless git is then? ~ hey, the last thing I would want to do is insult anyone unintentionally.
edit: sorry caradea, I hadn't seen your post properly before replying to Helen. Where did you git that information from?
but since you asked nicely, here's where i came up with that:
prolepsis: The anticipation and answering of an objection or argument before one's opponent has put it forward. {AHD}
paralipsis: rhetorical device of emphasizing something by omitting it or mentioning it only cursorily. (DODW)
Thus, the AB's defensive arguments are obviated by the fact that in order to defend himself he would first have to identify himself as the AB ~ effectively requesting a directed verdict against himself (pardon the legal terminology).
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
to you! Glad to have you with us...
!
