"flagpole"time and time again you feel it's acceptable to insult and belittle other members of this forum, other customers of VSO, for not complying with your arbitrary personal moral code.
The post of Bernie's that you were responding to was very clear 'VSO owes an HONEST explanation to their loyal customers' it is in return for loyalty that he feels an explanation is owed. you appear to think that loyalty is worth nothing and the transaction is purely financial.
I'm sure VSO are quite capable of defending themselves. seeing you do it is a little embarrassing to watch.
Then you're easily embarassed. I trust that @Bernie doesn't find it "a little embarrassing" to watch you jumping to his defense.
I was not "defending" VSO. I was responding to a poster who said that he was "owed" some specific information simply because he was a loyal customer. At my age I'm pretty well fed up with people who think the world (or some part of it) "owes" them whatever it is they think they're "owed". They may feel that, for whatever reason, they "deserve" something, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the other party "owes" it to them. There is a difference you know.
If I find a valuable lost object and spend time and effort in trying to locate the owner and end up being able to return it to the owner, I (and maybe others) may be correct in feeling that I "deserve" some reward for my time and effort, but that doesn't mean the owner of the property "owes" me a reward or even reimbursement for any expenses I might have incurred in locating him, much as I may feel I deserve something.
Perhaps @Bernie simply used the wrong word and did, in fact, mean that he felt that loyal customers "deserved" a better explanation, which I could then understand and, in fact, wouldn't have prompted the reply I made. I just responded to the post as written.
So I stand by my point. YMMV.
Regards,
JoeB
