Jim O
Careful with that axe...
I meant specifically either posting "good" words about people or not. Again, you criticized him for not posting about his "good" transactions but then criticized Mickey's good guy post because Mickey was just like Jim. I suspect that somebody might have taken the opportunity to do the same to Jim had he posted "good guys" on Mickey, or on anyone else for that matter.critical bill said:I have many answers to this question Jim. I can only state the simplest though. He's smart enough to know he doesnt defend himself well and has openly admitted he's a poor communicator. My answer is he should have remained silent through much of both threads.Jim O said:So my question to you, Chuck, is this: is there any way Jim could have acted that would have been "OK"?
Then why attack Mickey's when he did that? Where was that "nod and a shrug"?critical bill said:I would probably ignore it but acknowledge it the way a correction officer would seeing two inmates embracing behind bars. Ya know... with a nod and a shrug.Jim O said:Or would you have attacked his kind words about someone the same way you attacked Mickey's?
So was I, well...for a while anyway. But it had nothing to do with answering the question I asked.critical bill said:It is a very fair question. I think it could be answered by saying I was very happy to see this thread started. It was a start in the right direction for Jim and thats always a positive thing.Jim O said:Since you already criticized Jim for not posting kind words about people he deals with it is a fair question.
I am not defending anyone here. Sorry that some people see it differently, including and especially you, Matt. Please read each of my posts through and through and nowhere do any of them take Jim S's side on anything. I reported a good transaction and excellent service and packaging. I even posted a photo as evidence of what I was talking about so no one would condemn my words as untrue. That is what the BOI is for. Even you would agree that Jim's good deeds should be acknowledged. That had nothing to do with defending his actions with respect to Matt or Matt's mother or Casey or anyone else.
Jim S's words and deeds speak for themselves. He needs no assistance from me or from anyone else. What I have asked for is fairness and consistency. If Jim would be slammed for not posting a "good guy" or slammed (like Mickey was in a thread that was not even about him) for posting a "good guy" I really want to know how he could even break even. Seems to me there was no way. Maybe I am missing something, it is possible. But my point is that while we sit in judgement, let us judge fairly, beacuse as I also said, Jim needs no one's assistance, helpful or otherwise. The deck needs no further stacking than what Jim has done to himself.