Al,
I was very surprised to read this reply today, since I posted my review over four months ago.
In addition to it being a blatant non-apology apology, which does not show contrition, and rather attempts to placate me based on your perception of my feelings, I find it a fascinating display of logical fallacies committed through a colorful array of cognitive biases. I've highlighted a few for your benefit:
First is your comical attempt at an emotional appeal under a selective perception bias, as if one polite phone call should be considered "much unnecessary and unfounded harassment." Once it was clear that the owners of this business shared the same antiquated and shady values as the staff, and did not welcome the opportunity to apologize for the unacceptable way I was treated, I posted a review. Your claims of persecution are hyperbolic and unsubstantiated.
Second, your reply is a textbook straw-man argument; your misinterpretation of the incident as a dissatisfaction with my bill made it easy to attack me as being a cheapskate, as noted by "we sent you a check for a full refund even after having discounted the work so deeply in the first place to try and help you out of your bad budget scenario as you described." This logic fails, as my review addresses sexism, misinformation, and shysterism. None of these were addressed in my follow-up call, or are addressed in your reply.
Further weakening your argument is your need for tu quoque, or arguing a criticism with criticism. Instead of addressing the issue of how I was treated by your staff, you attacked the condition of my vehicle, namely in stating "horribly maintained PT Cruiser needing some TLC." Your attempt to assign blame to me for neglecting to maintain my vehicle fails, as neither the need for an oil change or an estimate in repairing/replacing the passenger headlamp assembly suggest a state of disrepair.
Also, your retort relies heavily on the gambler's fallacy, with a strong cognitive bias toward clustering illusion. You remark several times about previous displays of excellence, such as "Absolutely no complaint is ever not handled to the customer's satisfaction," and "we take it personal and always attempt to make it right for that person," and assume this pattern to be gospel, with no deviation. Your premise allows for neither the natural randomness in incidents, nor for the complaints that you haven't heard. This ostrich-effect bias bleeds into the ad hominem.
To tie this pitiful attempt to a close is your appeal to authority in claiming "Christian values." According to you, Jesus thinks your behavior is awesome, and so should we all. What is most unfortunate is that, in your fallacy-riddled and thus underhanded attempt to discredit me, you violate the most basic in Christian values. I hope readers of your reply will consider John 10:37: "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does." (Even an atheist knows that one!)
Your weak, unsubstantiated retort is further marked by repetition of transitional phrases (overuse of "for the record,") poor sentence structure (ending sentences with prepositions,) and grammar (misuse of adjective for adverbs,) which demonstrate your unfortunate level of education. What's most puzzling to me is that you and your company keep trying to throw money at the problem, when all that is needed is respect, honesty, and courtesy!
Thank you, Al, for this miserable display of ignorance, crudeness, and misogyny. You've proved my point! read more