From "THE LETTER:"
I think it's pretty clear from The Letter that providers do not want us to expect "special treatment;" that this is, first and foremost, a business. I don't have a problem with that. That is a given. While I have never shorted a lady on money, nor gone over on time, nor ever expected any kind of "special treatment," it appears quite plainly here that babee infers "special treatment" is available. I have always abided by The Letter's summary regarding: (1) screening, (2) punctuality and duration, (3) post-visit rules, (4) references, (5) fees and (6) hygiene.
It seems quite apparent that The Letter's plain purpose is to say "this is a business" and "these are the rules." I don't have a problem with that. But, apparently, when I refer back to The Letter in this thread, babee seems to indicate the opposite is true. I can't tell if she is outraged at the thread or the fact that a hobbyist referred to The Letter as authority.
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
Your post is intellectually dishonest.
Does "special treatment" in its potentially infinite forms exist as an exception to the rule? Of course it does. In Hobbyland this is commonly known as "YMMV". (Meaning the potential for activities or other perks above and beyond those advertised and/or offerred on a regular basis.)
Is it a reasonable
expectation that any given client will experience "special treatment"? Of course not. You acknowledge this.
- providers do not want us to expect "special treatment;"....I don't have a problem with that. That is a given.
- nor (have I) ever expected any kind of "special treatment"
However, you also state, "
it appears quite plainly here that babee infers "special treatment" is available." As though this is some sort of profound revelation and somehow wrong.
Or, in this case and in context, you infer that special treatment should be available to those who always follow "the rules" of conduct. That, sir, is an unreasonable expectation.
Accusing Babee of being outraged is textbook projection.
You made a dozen posts in a matter of minutes to intentionally "bury" Bebee's initial posting of the letter from providers (including your post #28 and the true meaning of Babee's post #29).
You simply have a sour attitude. Fortunately, you are not a "typical" hobbyist.