How to contact Trader Joe's by email



Doug Kanter wrote:
> 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.

If this is true, it's a sad commentary on the state
of the UserNet. If only 10% of people agree that
the proper treatment for idiots is to tie them up
in a burlap bag and throw them in the river, then
it's no wonder the gene pool is filled with rejects
from the Jerry Springer show and Rush Limbaugh
ditto-heads. Coddling morons by explaining everything
to them only creates more morons, a fact that you
yourself seem to illustrate perfectly.
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:37:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"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.

Or what?

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

When it's explained to you, you may then realize that there's nothing
for you to admit to one way or the other. It just will Have Been (tm).

On the other hand, maybe you won't realize it. Your track record so
far doesn't inspire confidence.

>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.

Though I have no doctorate, nor any desire to possess one, I have to
wonder why you would think reliving my time at college would be some
sort of incentive. The dope's better these days, of course, but by
itself that doesn't seem reason enough.

>It
>even includes an unlimited supply of fruit roll-ups - the dinosaur shapes.
>
Please stick to the subject at hand. Those "What's On My Desk Right
Now" posts are SO boring.
 
"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

Oh yeah. That was a standout.
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:19:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The only thing I have is a paragraph in which you call people "eggheads" and
>remark about "ivory toweres" (your spelling). "Ivory toweres" in particular
>reflects an oddly negative attitude toward corporations.

"Oddly negative" only in the sense that it reflects no attitude of any
kind toward corporations. But you knew that. What are you going to
do next: pretend that you think "eggheads" reflects an attitude toward
poultry producers?

BW
 
"Marc Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote

>> 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.
>
> If this is true, it's a sad commentary on the state
> of the UserNet.
^^^^^^^^^^^
IBYM: the Usenet.

> If only 10% of people agree that
> the proper treatment for idiots is to tie them up
> in a burlap bag and throw them in the river, then
> it's no wonder the gene pool is filled with rejects
> from the Jerry Springer show and Rush Limbaugh
> ditto-heads. Coddling morons by explaining everything
> to them only creates more morons, a fact that you
> yourself seem to illustrate perfectly.

How Byronic!

--oTTo--
 
Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> No, stupid. It would be people who'd lived their entire lives without
> setting foot in a supermarket that was inarguably perfect. Not trendy like
> Whole Foods, but perfect.

And how long have you worked for this alleged company, Ms. Kanter (if
that is your real name)?
 
Kevin S. Wilson wrote:

> I'm beginning to suspect that you either work for Wegmans

A theory I just posited.

BTW - isn't Wegman that photographer with the Weimaraners?
 
TMG wrote:
> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>> I'm beginning to suspect that you either work for Wegmans
>
>
> A theory I just posited.
>
> BTW - isn't Wegman that photographer with the Weimaraners?

Barbara does this better than you.
 
Doug Kanter wrote:

> Sorry. If you can't explain what he's saying, the only possible assumption
> is that you don't understand it, either.

I can think of another assumption.

What do I win?
 
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:40:03 -0400, Marc Goodman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>TMG wrote:
>> Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> I'm beginning to suspect that you either work for Wegmans
>>
>>
>> A theory I just posited.
>>
>> BTW - isn't Wegman that photographer with the Weimaraners?
>
>Barbara does this better than you.

I thought I was overplaying my hand with that one, too. Turned out I
was wrong.

BW
 
Doug Kanter wrote:

> My comment reflects reality: A neighborhood's affluence is in no way an
> indicator of the quality of grocery stores available.

See, this is how one spots a troll. You just went too far with that one.

Please lest for me the Whole Foods, Wegmanns, Bread and Circus, or other
high end retail outlet with an address within Roxbury MA, Harlem NY, or
Watts CA.

Type your response:

Here: -->
 
"Kevin S. Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>>>>>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.
>
> Or what?
>
>>You explain your rant, and if I think you're right, I'll
>>admit it.
>
> When it's explained to you, you may then realize that there's nothing
> for you to admit to one way or the other. It just will Have Been (tm).
>
> On the other hand, maybe you won't realize it. Your track record so
> far doesn't inspire confidence.
>
>>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.
>
> Though I have no doctorate, nor any desire to possess one, I have to
> wonder why you would think reliving my time at college would be some
> sort of incentive. The dope's better these days, of course, but by
> itself that doesn't seem reason enough.

[Shrug]

Works for me.

>>even includes an unlimited supply of fruit roll-ups - the dinosaur shapes.

Fruit roll-ups?! I'm there!

--oTTo--
 
Doug Kanter wrote:
But, I'll beat this to death endlessly

Man, it just doesn't get better than this.

Congrats Kev, BW, et al.
 
Nancy Young wrote:

> "Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Or, to elaborate further, "to reach whom, about what?", since this
> > information might be helpful in answering the original question.
>
> I take it from all the crossposting it's nothing but someone being
> annoying.


Yup...and the tip - off is "alt.religion.kibology"...

--
Best
Greg
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:40:03 -0400, Marc Goodman
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Barbara does this better than you.
>
>
> I thought I was overplaying my hand with that one, too. Turned out I
> was wrong.

Sorry - there were just toooo many posts. I've back read and see that,
yes, the obvious had been previously stated.

Shocking,...etc.
 
"Gregory Morrow" <[email protected]>
wrote

>> > Or, to elaborate further, "to reach whom, about what?", since this
>> > information might be helpful in answering the original question.
>>
>> I take it from all the crossposting it's nothing but someone being
>> annoying.
>
>
> Yup...and the tip - off is "alt.religion.kibology"...

What's that?

--oTTo--
 
"TMG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>> No, stupid. It would be people who'd lived their entire lives without
>> setting foot in a supermarket that was inarguably perfect. Not trendy
>> like Whole Foods, but perfect.
>
> And how long have you worked for this alleged company, Ms. Kanter (if that
> is your real name)?

It's my real name, I don't work them them, and perhaps I have different
insights than you about the spectrum of quality within the industry. Or, to
be more accurate, I have some insights.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Trader Joe's is ridiculously frustrating. Anybody with any sense knows
> they could expand, oh, ten-fold before they'd saturate the market.
> Instead they've built like three new stores while Whole Foods has
> quadrupled. They've been around probably twenty years but FINALLY
> build a store in Manhattan -- and it's a half-hour wait to get inside
> on weekend afternoons. They're privately held so they can do what they
> want, but it'd be nice if they listened to us and EXPANDED already.

A lot of businesses prefer to be very cautious in their expansion plans.
This is because its easy for a successful business to grow beyond the
point that it can be effectively managed. Boston Market is the perfect
example of a business that grew too fast.

The store in Manhattan is new. Give it a few more weeks and the lines
will improve there. The same thing happened when the TJ's opened in
Philadelphia and the place was absolutely packed. I can go in now and
although that TJ's is almost ways busy, its rare that I have to wait
more than five minutes in line.
 
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "TMG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Doug Kanter wrote:

> It's my real name, I don't work them them, and perhaps I have different
> insights than you about the spectrum of quality within the industry. Or, to
> be more accurate, I have some insights.

Careful climbing out on that limb son. 31 years in that particular industry.

Moved out of Idaho after 20 years with Albertsons, to MA with BJs.

You were saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back