How to contact Trader Joe's by email



"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:32:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:00:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:07:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:44:18 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:35:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>>>>><[email protected]> whined:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My dad's company had a file full of these people.
>>>>>>>>>The same ones would find something wrong with a food product every
>>>>>>>>>3
>>>>>>>>>weeks.
>>>>>>>>>Perhaps Trader Joe's finds that if person has to lift an arm to put
>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>stamp, and then go to a mail box, they actually have something
>>>>>>>>>valid
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>say.
>>>>>>>>>Maybe e-mail makes it too easy to whine for no reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Good thing newsgroups don't allow that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe if it COST you 39 AMERICAN CENTS and the TIME it takes to BUY
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> stamp every time you wanted to point out some APPARENT contradiction
>>>>>>> between what IS and WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your
>>>>>>> IVORY
>>>>>>> TOWERES probably think of as IRONY) then maybe you wouldn't be so
>>>>>>> quick to point out some APPARENT contradiction between what IS and
>>>>>>> WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY TOWERES probably
>>>>>>> think of as IRONY)!!1!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe you'd like to explain what you're thinking. Maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He did not assemble them in a meaningful way.
>>>
>>> Actually, he did.
>>>
>>>>You know that. If you don't
>>>>agree, explain the point he believes he's making.
>>>
>>> It's all there in his sentence. Maybe that's what threw you--the fact
>>> that it's a long sentence. It is, however, perfectly formed and
>>> logical.
>>>
>>> P.S. "TOWERES" means "TOWERS." The rest is all quite clear, if you
>>> can process sentences more complicated than "See Jane run and find
>>> Spot, who is hiding behind a tree."
>>>
>>> BW
>>
>>Sorry. If you can't explain what he's saying, the only possible assumption
>>is that you don't understand it, either.
>>
> Another would be that she doesn't feel obligated to do your homework
> for you, nor assist you with remedial tutoring.
>
> You know, you have a bad habit of overstating things. "Inarguably
> perfect." "The only possible assumption."
>
> You should stop doing that. It makes you look dumm.

So does suggesting that you leave your house and buy one stamp at a time.
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:00:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:03:22 -0700, The Ranger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:50:25 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:53:13 -0700, The Ranger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:32:26 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>> >[snip]
>>> > > > All you bases are belong to us.
>>> > > >
>>> > > You can't even get a ubiquitous meme right
>>> > >
>>> > Irony is always best exhibited through example.
>>> >
>>> So go ahead. Provide one.
>>>
>>You're doing so well on your own, you don't need my help.
>>
>Ah, so you DON'T know what irony is. Thought so, Alanis.
>Thanks for confirming.

You've provided yet another sterling example. You're right; I can't
beat you in this game.

Thanks for playing.

ObFood: Gruel.

The Ranger
--
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then
I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the
terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve
them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and
unfairness of the universe."
-+-+-+ Marcus, 'A Late Delivery From Avalon', Babylon 5
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:48:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:32:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:00:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:07:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:44:18 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:35:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>>>>>><[email protected]> whined:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My dad's company had a file full of these people.
>>>>>>>>>>The same ones would find something wrong with a food product every
>>>>>>>>>>3
>>>>>>>>>>weeks.
>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps Trader Joe's finds that if person has to lift an arm to put
>>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>stamp, and then go to a mail box, they actually have something
>>>>>>>>>>valid
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>say.
>>>>>>>>>>Maybe e-mail makes it too easy to whine for no reason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Good thing newsgroups don't allow that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe if it COST you 39 AMERICAN CENTS and the TIME it takes to BUY
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> stamp every time you wanted to point out some APPARENT contradiction
>>>>>>>> between what IS and WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your
>>>>>>>> IVORY
>>>>>>>> TOWERES probably think of as IRONY) then maybe you wouldn't be so
>>>>>>>> quick to point out some APPARENT contradiction between what IS and
>>>>>>>> WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY TOWERES probably
>>>>>>>> think of as IRONY)!!1!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe you'd like to explain what you're thinking. Maybe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He did not assemble them in a meaningful way.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, he did.
>>>>
>>>>>You know that. If you don't
>>>>>agree, explain the point he believes he's making.
>>>>
>>>> It's all there in his sentence. Maybe that's what threw you--the fact
>>>> that it's a long sentence. It is, however, perfectly formed and
>>>> logical.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. "TOWERES" means "TOWERS." The rest is all quite clear, if you
>>>> can process sentences more complicated than "See Jane run and find
>>>> Spot, who is hiding behind a tree."
>>>>
>>>> BW
>>>
>>>Sorry. If you can't explain what he's saying, the only possible assumption
>>>is that you don't understand it, either.
>>
>> Why is that the only possible assumption? I can think of at least two
>> more, right off the bat.
>>
>> BW
>
>
>I'll help you. There is not, nor could there EVER be a business which would
>gain Kevin's respect. He believes he's been dealt a lousy hand too often, so
>all businesses suck. And, no matter how hard someone else worked to become
>enormously sucessful, he thinks their success is undeserved, and perhaps
>even stolen.

And you're who, again, Chuckles? Where was it you said we met?

>This is why, in his little diatribe, he included such words as
>"ivory tower" and "eggheads".

There are many, many people looking on who could explain to you
PRECISELY why I included those words. You are not among them, though
eventually you may come to understand. It'll be too late then, of
course.

>Notice, too, that he has yet to explain
>"APPARENT contradiction between what IS and WHAT should be". He cannot
>explain what this means.
>
Your mind admits no alternatives, huh? That's kind of skeery.
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:07:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:48:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I'll help you. There is not, nor could there EVER be a business which
>>>would
>>>gain Kevin's respect. He believes he's been dealt a lousy hand too often,
>>>so
>>>all businesses suck. And, no matter how hard someone else worked to become
>>>enormously sucessful, he thinks their success is undeserved, and perhaps
>>>even stolen. This is why, in his little diatribe, he included such words
>>>as
>>>"ivory tower" and "eggheads".
>>
>> Where on earth are you getting these bizarre ideas about Kevin? Are
>> you his wife's ex-husband or something?
>>
>> BW
>
>Look at the specific words he chose to use. Are they negative words, or
>positive words, in that context?
>
That is an amazing power you possess. From a handful of words, you've
gained enormous insight into me, my life, my pscyche, my wants, my
needs, my dreams, my desires, my vitamin regimen, my wardrobe color
palette, and my succeptibility to static cling. Tell me, please, what
do you divine from the following words and my use thereof?

DOIDY DOIDY WOX WOX.
 
"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>>>>>He did not assemble them in a meaningful way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, he did.
>>>>>
>>>>>>You know that. If you don't
>>>>>>agree, explain the point he believes he's making.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all there in his sentence. Maybe that's what threw you--the fact
>>>>> that it's a long sentence. It is, however, perfectly formed and
>>>>> logical.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. "TOWERES" means "TOWERS." The rest is all quite clear, if you
>>>>> can process sentences more complicated than "See Jane run and find
>>>>> Spot, who is hiding behind a tree."
>>>>>
>>>>> BW
>>>>
>>>>Sorry. If you can't explain what he's saying, the only possible
>>>>assumption
>>>>is that you don't understand it, either.
>>>
>>> Why is that the only possible assumption? I can think of at least two
>>> more, right off the bat.
>>>
>>> BW
>>
>>
>>I'll help you. There is not, nor could there EVER be a business which
>>would
>>gain Kevin's respect. He believes he's been dealt a lousy hand too often,
>>so
>>all businesses suck. And, no matter how hard someone else worked to become
>>enormously sucessful, he thinks their success is undeserved, and perhaps
>>even stolen.
>
> And you're who, again, Chuckles? Where was it you said we met?
>
>>This is why, in his little diatribe, he included such words as
>>"ivory tower" and "eggheads".
>
> There are many, many people looking on who could explain to you
> PRECISELY why I included those words. You are not among them, though
> eventually you may come to understand. It'll be too late then, of
> course.
>
>>Notice, too, that he has yet to explain
>>"APPARENT contradiction between what IS and WHAT should be". He cannot
>>explain what this means.
>>
> Your mind admits no alternatives, huh? That's kind of skeery.
>

OK. Last chance. You explain your rant, and if I think you're right, I'll
admit it. Pretend you're being asked to do this by your English teacher, and
if you do it well, you get a full scholarship that takes you not just
through the first 4 years of college, but all the way to your doctorate. It
even includes an unlimited supply of fruit roll-ups - the dinosaur shapes.

Go!
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:53:13 -0700, The Ranger <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:32:26 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>[snip]
>> > All you bases are belong to us.
>> >
>> You can't even get a ubiquitous meme right
>
>Irony is always best exhibited through example.

Typing "I meant to do that" requires fewer keystrokes.

>Don't flop about too much, dear.

Uh-huh. Right. Gotcha. You da man.
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:00:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:03:22 -0700, The Ranger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:50:25 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:53:13 -0700, The Ranger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:32:26 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>> >[snip]
>>> > > > All you bases are belong to us.
>>> > > >
>>> > > You can't even get a ubiquitous meme right
>>> > >
>>> > Irony is always best exhibited through example.
>>> >
>>> So go ahead. Provide one.
>>
>>You're doing so well on your own, you don't need my help.
>
>Ah, so you DON'T know what irony is. Thought so, Alanis. Thanks for
>confirming.

Isn't it, like, rain on the day of your Bris or something?
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:22:59 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:05:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dee Randall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> So you meant "inarguably perfect from a management point of view."
>>>> Wegman's is hardly perfect from a customer's point of view. Too damn
>>>> big, for one thing. And those weimaraners-they're way too
>>>> skeevy-looking.
>>>>
>>>> BW
>>>
>>> Wegman's is not perfect from this consumer's POV. If so, why am I
>>> shopping also at Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and a number of other large
>>> grocery stores; certainly not because I'm checking prices.
>>> Dee Dee
>>>
>>
>>That's two.
>>
>Let me get this straight. Are you seriously suggesting that the
>truthiness of your assertion is somehow supported by the fact that
>only two people have bothered to question it?

Of course he isn't. He's conceding that the store isn't perfect. He
could be a **** and continue to insist that it is, but I don't think
he's that stupid, do you?

BW
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:37:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OK. Last chance. You explain your rant, and if I think you're right, I'll
>admit it

You've said some fatuous things in the course of all the preening and
laboring to take the one-up position you've been doing in this thread,
but that one takes the cake.

BW
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:37:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>OK. Last chance. You explain your rant, and if I think you're right, I'll
>>admit it
>
> You've said some fatuous things in the course of all the preening and
> laboring to take the one-up position you've been doing in this thread,
> but that one takes the cake.
>
> BW

It's a great game, and it's so easy to play.
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:57:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

<snip>

>> Nothing he has said in this thread backs up any of those statements.
>> So you either got them from somewhere else or made them up out of your
>> imagination. Which is it?

>I derived my observation solely from the paragraph above.

Okay, so you're saying you made them up out of your imagination. Got
it.

>Now: Would you say those are positive or negative comments?

No, I wouldn't.

Okay, I think we've got this all sorted out. I hope you're as happy
with the outcome as I am.

BW
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:00:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:37:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>OK. Last chance. You explain your rant, and if I think you're right, I'll
>>>admit it
>>
>> You've said some fatuous things in the course of all the preening and
>> laboring to take the one-up position you've been doing in this thread,
>> but that one takes the cake.
>>
>> BW
>
>It's a great game, and it's so easy to play.

Indeed! And I salute you for being a reasonably gracious loser.

BW
 
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:24:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Employees seem to agree, since they've voted Wegman's into the Fortune "Best
>>Companies to Work For" list for the 9th year in a row. They were #1 last
>>year and #2 this year. This type of employee attitude is almost always
>>reflected in a visible way to customers.
>>
>>http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/index.html
>
> So you meant "inarguably perfect from a management point of view."
> Wegman's is hardly perfect from a customer's point of view. Too damn
> big, for one thing. And those weimaraners-they're way too
> skeevy-looking.

ya missed it: internal evidence suggests he meant "seems to be almost
always inarguably perfect from a management point of view."


butting

--
I am very new to programming drivers so if I sound un-knowledgeable
then it's because I am.
-- first4internet's Ceri Coburn on writing Sony's DRM rootkit
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>Now: Would you say those are positive or negative comments?
>
> No, I wouldn't.
>
> Okay, I think we've got this all sorted out. I hope you're as happy
> with the outcome as I am.
>
> BW


OK. Now, we'll play by YOUR rules. Below is the paragraph I wrote, which he
was apparently responding to. Can you summarize & explain what it is in MY
writing that generated his little tantrum?

Here it is:

"My dad's company had a file full of these people.
The same ones would find something wrong with a food product every 3 weeks.
Perhaps Trader Joe's finds that if person has to lift an arm to put on a
stamp, and then go to a mail box, they actually have something valid to say.
Maybe e-mail makes it too easy to whine for no reason."
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:26:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:48:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Sounds like you may have a knack for the grocery business. How would you
>>>improve the stores, besides making them smaller?
>>
>> DON'T DO IT, BARBARA! IT'S A TRICK!!!
>>
>> He wants you to answer the question because he figures your answer
>> will be something silly that only someone unfamiliar with the grocery
>> business would suggest, like "free candy on Thursdays" or "topless
>> produce managers." Then he'll ANNIHILATE you when he unleashes the
>> mighty power of his Wegman-Sized Brane and explains that your idea is
>> not just silly, but also dumm, leaving you sobbing in the dust at his
>> feet, stricken and repentant for being so foolish as to ever question
>> his vision of the Perfect Grocery Storm.
>
>
>Don't worry. She won't respond to that particular question.
>
By way of contrast, there seems to be no limit to the number of times
you'll respond in this thread.
 
"Bryce Utting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:24:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Employees seem to agree, since they've voted Wegman's into the Fortune
>>>"Best
>>>Companies to Work For" list for the 9th year in a row. They were #1 last
>>>year and #2 this year. This type of employee attitude is almost always
>>>reflected in a visible way to customers.
>>>
>>>http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/index.html
>>
>> So you meant "inarguably perfect from a management point of view."
>> Wegman's is hardly perfect from a customer's point of view. Too damn
>> big, for one thing. And those weimaraners-they're way too
>> skeevy-looking.
>
> ya missed it: internal evidence suggests he meant "seems to be almost
> always inarguably perfect from a management point of view."

Allegedly. :)
 
Doug Kanter wrote:
> I derived my observation solely from the paragraph above. In case you've
> gotten lost yet again, it's reprinted below:
>
> "Maybe if it COST you 39 AMERICAN CENTS and the TIME it takes to BUY a
> stamp every time you wanted to point out some APPARENT contradiction
> between what IS and WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY
> TOWERES probably think of as IRONY) then maybe you wouldn't be so
> quick to point out some APPARENT contradiction between what IS and
> WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY TOWERES probably
> think of as IRONY)!!1!"
>
>
> Now: Would you say those are positive or negative comments? This is an easy
> exercise. Everyone who took an intro to psychology course in college has
> done something like this.

His writing looks pretty positive to me. He seems positive
that people who spend all their time whining because they
think it makes them look clever wouldn't be so quick to
show off their giant branes if it cost them actual money
to do so.

I think this is a great idea. We should set up the UserNet
with a giant cookie jar, and everytime someone wants to
whine about something, they have to use PayPal to drop a
quarter in the cookie jar first. This thread would die
a particularly swift death.
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:27:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:05:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dee Randall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> So you meant "inarguably perfect from a management point of view."
>>>>> Wegman's is hardly perfect from a customer's point of view. Too damn
>>>>> big, for one thing. And those weimaraners-they're way too
>>>>> skeevy-looking.
>>>>>
>>>>> BW
>>>>
>>>> Wegman's is not perfect from this consumer's POV. If so, why am I
>>>> shopping also at Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and a number of other large
>>>> grocery stores; certainly not because I'm checking prices.
>>>> Dee Dee
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's two.
>>>
>> Let me get this straight. Are you seriously suggesting that the
>> truthiness of your assertion is somehow supported by the fact that
>> only two people have bothered to question it?
>>
>> Do the lurkers also support you in e-mail?
>
>Yawn..........
>
No, hang in there, son. We're not quite done with you yet.
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:33:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:32:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:00:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:07:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:44:18 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:35:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>>>>>>>><[email protected]> whined:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My dad's company had a file full of these people.
>>>>>>>>>>The same ones would find something wrong with a food product every
>>>>>>>>>>3
>>>>>>>>>>weeks.
>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps Trader Joe's finds that if person has to lift an arm to put
>>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>stamp, and then go to a mail box, they actually have something
>>>>>>>>>>valid
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>say.
>>>>>>>>>>Maybe e-mail makes it too easy to whine for no reason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Good thing newsgroups don't allow that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe if it COST you 39 AMERICAN CENTS and the TIME it takes to BUY
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> stamp every time you wanted to point out some APPARENT contradiction
>>>>>>>> between what IS and WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your
>>>>>>>> IVORY
>>>>>>>> TOWERES probably think of as IRONY) then maybe you wouldn't be so
>>>>>>>> quick to point out some APPARENT contradiction between what IS and
>>>>>>>> WHAT should be (or what you EGGHEADS in your IVORY TOWERES probably
>>>>>>>> think of as IRONY)!!1!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe you'd like to explain what you're thinking. Maybe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He did not assemble them in a meaningful way.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, he did.
>>>>
>>>>>You know that. If you don't
>>>>>agree, explain the point he believes he's making.
>>>>
>>>> It's all there in his sentence. Maybe that's what threw you--the fact
>>>> that it's a long sentence. It is, however, perfectly formed and
>>>> logical.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. "TOWERES" means "TOWERS." The rest is all quite clear, if you
>>>> can process sentences more complicated than "See Jane run and find
>>>> Spot, who is hiding behind a tree."
>>>>
>>>> BW
>>>
>>>Sorry. If you can't explain what he's saying, the only possible assumption
>>>is that you don't understand it, either.
>>>
>> Another would be that she doesn't feel obligated to do your homework
>> for you, nor assist you with remedial tutoring.
>>
>> You know, you have a bad habit of overstating things. "Inarguably
>> perfect." "The only possible assumption."
>>
>> You should stop doing that. It makes you look dumm.
>
>So does suggesting that you leave your house and buy one stamp at a time.

You noticed that, huh? Actually, I thought that was the best part of
what I posted.
 
"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:26:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:48:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sounds like you may have a knack for the grocery business. How would you
>>>>improve the stores, besides making them smaller?
>>>
>>> DON'T DO IT, BARBARA! IT'S A TRICK!!!
>>>
>>> He wants you to answer the question because he figures your answer
>>> will be something silly that only someone unfamiliar with the grocery
>>> business would suggest, like "free candy on Thursdays" or "topless
>>> produce managers." Then he'll ANNIHILATE you when he unleashes the
>>> mighty power of his Wegman-Sized Brane and explains that your idea is
>>> not just silly, but also dumm, leaving you sobbing in the dust at his
>>> feet, stricken and repentant for being so foolish as to ever question
>>> his vision of the Perfect Grocery Storm.
>>
>>
>>Don't worry. She won't respond to that particular question.
>>
> By way of contrast, there seems to be no limit to the number of times
> you'll respond in this thread.

It's so easy, Kevin. Ask 100 people to explain something they said in a
different way, and probably 90 of them will have the ability and willingness
to do so. You seem to have neither. But, I'll beat this to death endlessly
until you begin flailing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back