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).
laughing their asses off at the irony that the subject can't protest without admitting he's a deranged nutter for imagining such behaviour?
mav, they may be "laughing their asses off", but they merely demonstrate that they lack sufficicent confidence in their argument to subject it to open debate. Howevermuch they enjoy thinking themselves clever, they in fact show the reader that they have nothing better to offer than rhetoric and adjectives. Hence their "subject" need not trouble to refute; res ipsa loquitur.
But I wonder what this guy's life is going to be like now.
Will people around him think "ha, good for you James you sure suckered that big corporation," OR "our tax money is paying that a**h**e James." My money’s on the latter.
Will strangers on the street call him an idiot or will they totally ignore him.
the break up our telephone monopoly, Ma Bell (Bell Telephone) was supposed to lower costs, increase services, and the best thing since slice bread.
well, cost are lower for the provider, but not to the user-- since now the unregulated companies can pass on the cost of advertizing, and they do lots!
service better? different--partly because of Cellphones, DSL and other new ways to charge more for new services.
has the comsumer (or stockholder) benefitted? no. long distance services are slightly cheaper, but household service stinks, and cost a fortune. the baby bells have recombined (NYNEX (new york &New England) has merged, NJ/MD/DE(atlantic,) merged with Southern (carolinas and georgia, which then merge with NYNex to Verizon, which then bought a big cell company, and 40% of Ma Bell is one company again..
one of the small bells, decided to go hi tech to compete with Verizon, and made big investment in Optical Cable.. and then went bankrupt-- and many small stockholder, used to the idea that utilities were safe, suddenly found themselves holding worthless paper.. lots of telephone companies have folded.. and if your phone service is provided by one, or if your network/webserver is served by one.. or if you invested in one ...don't go looking for a dial tone!
well, the as bad as NZ Telecom is, free market telecom is worse.. and as bad as my story is.. the stories i've heard about what has happened in UK, makes everything in US seem tame.. UK is the wild wild west of telecom horror stories!
do want a telephone number? would you like another? and how about changing it again in a few months.. and then, how about changing all the area codes, and then, not liking the change, change them again! some companies had 4 telephone numbers in 2 years time..
Will strangers on the street call him an idiot or will they totally ignore him
That's an interesting question, bel - but are they mutually exclusive? Please forgive if this sounds remotely like a legalistic quibble (or two), but surely it's highly likely that all those people who recognise such an arrogant bastard for the sad sack he is, will both think of him as an idiot *and completely ignore him!
I suspect his outrage was less compelling than his rage for publicity, and he got exactly what he bargained for.[E.A.]
when I first read this I wondered about that "E.A" and pondered briefly what it could mean, but quickly forgot about it. but when it was subsequently copied, complete with bolding, I considered the possibility that it could perhaps mean Emphasis Added.
-joe (no authority) friday [with an assist to ron (three(3) times) obvious]
to tsuwm and faldage: do you now agree that we have a poltergiest, and are merely questioning who it may be?
And please note that as a careful lawyer I listed facts but took pains not to "accuse" -- yet. It would of course be premature to conclude until all had opportunity to review, critique and/or supplement the evidence presented. It would be good to see all facts that can best identify the culprit(s).
Have you any other facts to point to?
------------------- Jazzo, our anagramic poster actually used [EA] and [E.A.], and I suspect you searched only the letters, without the brackets. [byw, BYB's use was quite different, was referring to Edgar Allen Poe.]
------------------- For convenience, I am cross-linking this back into the previous discussion.
Working for an itty-bitty telco as I do, it was interesting to note your post Max, to whit: Telecom NZ is privately, not state, owned. It is also widely loathed and resented here as the bully-boy monopolist, making very healty(sic) profits at the expense of its customers, and cynically crushing attempts at establishing real competition. It is held in the same sort of esteem that M$ is in the software world. I supect that most NZers are simply wishing that Telecom had so addressed them. (I know I am)
Substitute Telecom for Telstra (the O$$ie equivalent) and you've got the situation here.
Just add a bit of spin to what seems to be a widespread impression about monopolistic telco's and you have the key ingredient to a sales pitch! I never fail to mention in my opening remarks to prospective clients that we are a competitor to Telstra. You can just see them thinking, "I hate those arrogant bastards , maybe these blokes are one way of not having to use Telstra anymore".
Does anybody out there actually like their telephone service provider? (Our customers are excluded from this survey!)
Sure, I like Bell Canada. The service is good and the long distance rates are o.k. You can get different packages depending upons your use.
I'm sure there are some secondary companies that can offer you a savings of a dollar or so on long distance calls but generally you wind up having to dial some twelve numbers in addition to your usual.
I'm sure there are some people who have had a hard time with them but with 27 million people it's bound to happen.
Does anybody out there actually like their telephone service provider?
In Canada some of the phone companies are still Crown corporations. As for liking them - well, for an additional $20 a month on top of my local service rate, I get unlimited long distance during evenings and weekends within Canada. Since most people I talk to live elsewhere, and my family is known to be loquacious, that is the best deal in the world, as far as I can tell!
The latest uproar about Telstra is that a young boy died of an asthma attack - 10 days after his parents had asked for their telephone service to be fixed. They lived in a semi rural district and could not call out when he was struck by the fatal attack.
A tragic tale - and maybe unfair to blame Telstra (perceptions are distorted by grief) - but it serves as an example of how willing the media and public are to sink the slipper into big corportations around here.
So are you saying people are unjustly upset (ie. kicking the telco while it's down)? That's the bit I don't get.
I've never kicked anyone with my slippers on either. (Slippers = soft comfy footwear to wear around the house, especially with pyjamas!) OK, never is a bit strong, but a bit of light Taekwondo sparring against my husband in the kitchen while waiting for water to boil doesn't count.
Sorry - I obviously deleted the reference to kicking whilst (Telstra) was down after you read it.
What I was trying to say in Strine was that perhaps it was unfair to be hasty in allocating blame to Telstra. People take whatever opportunity they can to speak against it - it's our iconoclastic nature.
I think it's the alliteration of the saying that appeals - rather than the practicalities of the image.
Yup, not very threatening, slippers. Usually pink fuzzy, floofy things. Often with bunny ears and cute button noses on the ends. Slipping somebody the slipper sound vaguely fetishy.
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". "How can they speak to their clients like this? It's downright rude," Storrie told the New Zealand Herald.
This just in yesterday, from Wales:
Guest disputes hotel bill addressed to 'Mr Bastard'
A hotel guest who rowed with a receptionist had a bill addressed to Mr Bastard put under his door. Colin Bastick says he became involved in a late-night argument after being accused of charging drinks to another room. The manager of the Celtic Manor Hotel in Newport, Gwent, says she doesn't know how the incident happened. Mr Bastick told The Sun he's now disputing the £182.85 bill for the night. The 37-year-old foreign exchange dealer, from Ilford, said: "I'm not paying to be insulted."
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...
!
.
, maybe these blokes are one way of not having to use Telstra anymore".
