Advice on John Lewis fiasco please

Azari

Hmm71 wrote: »

Syco in your first post you asked for advice, as far as I can see Frustrated has given you some excellent advice on how to resolve your situation. Why not say thank you and follow that advice instead of being sarcastic?
You do come across as a bit highly strung in your original post.

mad_dr wrote: »

There you go, frustratedexjlemployee - that'll teach you for trying to offer some helpful advice! I'd let this guy get on with it and sort it out by himself - your advice and assistance is clearly not wanted...

Offering helpful advice is fine.

Telling people they are 'highly strung' is unhelpful and antagonistic, particularly if you do not know their particular circumstances.

People who are ill, or poor, or who have other major stresses in their lives can find situations that most of us would not bother about extremely stressful.

So, by all means offer helpful advice but why not leave the psychiatric diagnostics to a professional?

mad_dr

Azari wrote: »

Offering helpful advice is fine.

Telling people they are 'highly strung' is unhelpful and antagonistic, particularly if you do not know their particular circumstances.

People who are ill, or poor, or who have other major stresses in their lives can find situations that most of us would not bother about extremely stressful.

So, by all means offer helpful advice but why not leave the psychiatric diagnostics to a professional?

I appreciate your advice on communicating with people with stressful circumstances, although my entire day is spent doing precisely that. It's necessary for those of us with stressful and challenging situations to continue to be civil to one another whilst communicating, not to resort to sarcasm and rudeness. I'm sure that the OP normally manages to do this, despite their reply to the advice-giver.

The point was that the overall issue raised by the OP was in danger of being clouded by his emotional response to it. The advice given, although put slightly bluntly, was valid, practical and advised to stick to the facts and try to avoid falling into the trap of allowing emotion to dilute a justifiable grievance.

However this advice was rudely rejected without any consideration for the helpful aspects of the reply (which made up a significant proportion of it).

It's difficult therefore to imagine that the OP will follow any advice and appears (through their original post and subsequent reply) to be inclined towards responding to the issue in a manner that is less likely to result in the outcome they're hoping for. Therefore, what use is it to pile further advice on top of what has already been given? As the original post was to seek advice on how to address a valid issue, I'd have thought it sensible to take the salient points of the advice offered, even allowing for the emotionally fragile state, rather than rudely reject it entirely, no?

Anyway - my next patient arrives in 5 minutes so I must dash!

Azari

mad_dr wrote: »

I appreciate your advice on communicating with people with stressful circumstances, although my entire day is spent doing precisely that. It's necessary for those of us with stressful and challenging situations to continue to be civil to one another whilst communicating, not to resort to sarcasm and rudeness. I'm sure that the OP normally manages to do this, despite their reply to the advice-giver.

The point was that the overall issue raised by the OP was in danger of being clouded by his emotional response to it. The advice given, although put slightly bluntly, was valid, practical and advised to stick to the facts and try to avoid falling into the trap of allowing emotion to dilute a justifiable grievance.

However this advice was rudely rejected without any consideration for the helpful aspects of the reply (which made up a significant proportion of it).

It's difficult therefore to imagine that the OP will follow any advice and appears (through their original post and subsequent reply) to be inclined towards responding to the issue in a manner that is less likely to result in the outcome they're hoping for. Therefore, what use is it to pile further advice on top of what has already been given? As the original post was to seek advice on how to address a valid issue, I'd have thought it sensible to take the salient points of the advice offered, even allowing for the emotionally fragile state, rather than rudely reject it entirely, no?

Anyway - my next patient arrives in 5 minutes so I must dash!

Your point would be valid if Syco had given any indication that he was intending to reject the advice.

However he didn't.

He simply objected to the patronising and arrogant tone of the post. With considerable justification.

frustratedexjlemployee

I apologize if my post came off as offensive, patronising or arrogant, I didn't intend it to be. I'm naturally pretty blunt and saw no point in dancing around the issue, that in terms of resolution, the details about the heart condition are totally irrelevant. JL can't cure it, and a gift voucher isn't going to make it go away, so in practical terms, what's the point?

I was simply pointing out that if OP is calling the situation a fiasco, accusing them of fraud and of "taking" him "for a fool" then it's a fair indicator that any correspondence with JL will be charged with similar emotion and exaggeration. This is a course best avoided, because if he throws accusations at JL, they'll be spending more time checking their legal standpoint than actually resolving the situation, so it won't benefit OP at all, never mind telephone conversations where if OP cries fraud, the operator will deny fraud, and it'll turn into an argument about symantics rather than dealing with the issue at hand.

Perhaps I should have just said, "dude, chill out and read this. It'll benefit you," but I doubt that would have gone over too well either.

jayship

I am fairly confident that you would be able to resolve your concern with John Lewis. My experience sorting out any issues has always been satisfactory.