No, the store owner was being arrogant, claiming to know what was best for the customer.<quoted text>
Why do you view it that way?
I see it as not punishing the snooty customer, but as giving him a chance to re-evaluate his initial behavior. Remember, the guest was the smug one and was being sneaky and under-handed about it. The shop owner merely gave the snooter an opportunity to realize it for himself.
if the customer was *actually* snooty, instead of simply realizing that the store didn't have what was required, then the customer was being rude. The store owner was, on the other hand, being arrogant, and cruel by wasting the time of the customer.When I reiterated that the out-of-towner had been smug and condescending you replied "So?" as if the out-of-towner had every right to treat the store owner this way without any penalty or sense of accountability. Your reply seems, on the surface, to endorse the actions of the snooty customer as somehow socially acceptable. Am I interpreting that correctly?
Which would have been much better than sending the customer on a wild goose chase back to the same location.I'm curious as to how that view is any less arrogant than that of the store owner. The store owner could have kicked the snooty customer out.
On the contrary, as you told it the store owner was closing up just as the customer returned. Arrogant, mean, and pretentious.And then what would the customer learn? Would he learn humility or would he learn that he just isn't welcome in that store any longer? My thoughts upon first hearing that were that the store owner was still willing to allow the customer to come back,
If the customer asked for a store that had other items, then the store owner had the option of not giving an answer (saying he didn't know of one) instead of wasting the customer's time and energy.but instead of pointing out the customer's behavior, let him do a little work that shows him he's not as smart as he thought he was. There is no better teacher than self induced humiliation. The snooty man was not obligated to follow the owner's instructions.
Garbage. The store owner was the one that needs correcting: we was rude to a customer. He wasted the customer's time and energy. He assumed he knew better than the customer what was good for him. He set out to teach the customer a 'lesson' instead of realizing his store might not have been what the customer required.The best lessons are the ones that cause us discomfort and embarrassment, because they cause us (if we're honestly observant) to realize that we're no better than the next guy, and they hold us accountable. If we're so smug and snooty that we don't recognize it for ourselves, what's the better choice? Are we to be banished by the owner with no hope of redemption; or do we learn a lasting lesson from a journey in which we come to realize it by experience and humility?
In the end, the store owner did our a snooty customer a favor, not a disservice.
Much better than the arrogant wold goose chase he sent the customer on.The disservice would have been to kick the customer out with no redemption,
If I were the store owner? I would have sent him to a store that was better equipped or said I didn't know of one. perhaps I would have asked what the customer was looking for and figured out a suitable place to send him. Even if the customer was rude, the reply should be politeness and helpfulness, not the type of condescension the store owner showed.or to let him continue with his condescending behavior which would only encourage him to continue such behavior in the future.
What would you have done?