So you call my shop, looking for an update on the service we are providing. But instead of politely asking, you demand to speak to a “supervisor” or owner, without letting me inform you that we have almost completed your “job.” You seriously looked and sounded like an ass. I think I will call your work and ask to speak to your supervisor. How will that make you feel? Karma will come back and I hope a customer makes you feel the way I felt today. Yelling at the “receptionist” was sure to make YOU feel better, bitch. —I’m always pleasant
This article appears in Jul 3-9, 2014.
Is it possible this person has had to follow up a few times already and hasn’t gotten an answer?
Years ago I worked for a person who refused to follow up with customer requests in a timely fashion, and since I was always the first person to answer the phone, I worked hard to get my boss to actually DO his job, which, he, unfortunately, never did. People stopped trusting me to get things done (which I really couldn’t anyway), and would ask to speak to my supervisor (who was actually the person dropping the ball).
It’s not necessarily a reflection on you. Oh, and since you’re the first point of contact, you should probably get used to this kind of shit.
I always want to talk to the supervisor or boss. They are the ones with the power to do something.
Sounds like your typical teenager working at a customer service place bitch. Op’s Kinda right cause next time the person comes along i’d give them a fake name and tell them their job is done and go outa my way to make sure it wasn’t!! But i’m an asshole that got outa customer service a while ago.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS KARMA.
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
This, of course, is a perennial question in philosophy, i.e., the ontology of identity. In other words, how is one’s real identity to be determined? There are two possibilities.
(1) The Homunculus Theory
Here one sees one’s identity in terms of a “homunculus” or little person inhabiting one’s consciousness. The homunculus consists of a steady ontological state, one not affected by circumstances however defined. Some call it one’s “essence. “The motto of subscribing to the Homunculus Theory would be, “One is who one is.” The difficulty with the Homunculus Theory, however, is that it cannot account for change. One is forever destined to be who one is, regardless. It is reminiscent, as I am sure you will agree, of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination – you’re going to heaven (or hell) no matter what you do.
(2) The Existentialist Theory
The existentialists, on the other hand, reject any idea of an “essence,” human or otherwise. As Sartre once famously said, “Existence preceded essence.” So one’s “identity” – an existentialist would not use that term – is a fluid sort of thing. The existentialist motto would be, “One is what one does.” However, the difficulty with the existentialist theory is that it cannot account for continuity. Existence is contingent on one’s acts and one’s acts are contingent on the circumstances of the moment. It is fluid. As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus once famously said, “You cannot step twice into the same river for fresh waters are forever flowing in upon you.”
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
(2)
Correction!!
: Paragraph 2, line 3: “precedes” for “preceded”
Thank you once again for your patience and understanding.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!