Re: OT--No more Sam's Club for me, ever

On May 8, 10:15=A0am, Chris H <ch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Also you have no idea if it is to do with you or not. =A0 Quite often
the
> tags are not neutralised when you buy things. =A0This will be YOUR
problem=

> if you go into another shop and set their alarms off.
>
> ALL shoplifters blag that they are innocent and it is nothing to do with
> them. =A0Especially decoys who tie up staff whilst others get away.
>
> >It doesn't happen that often, obvioulsy, but on one notable
> >occasion I was pursued down the street by a security guard who
> >demanded to see inside my bag and to see my receipt
>
> Quite correct too.

++++I had no problem with this either.
>
> >(fortunately for
> >him he had the sense not to touch me, and was reasonably polite).
>
> You sound like a right prat who is self righteous and makes things
> difficult for everyone else.

++++Really. How interesting.
>
> >After the futile search I asked him why he had accosted me, walking
> >away at a stately pace
>
> Because that is what good shoplifters do.
>
> >and looking (up to a point) respectable
>
> No such thing. =A0You are judging by superficial looks. The best con
> artists look very respectable.
>
> >and
> >with a store bag, rather than the chap who had run out of the store at
> >the same time in the opposite direction, with no bag but an unseemly
> >bulge under his top.
>
> He was the other plain cloths store detective going after the other
> respectably dressed shoplifter who also had a bag from the shop.

++++Drifting into your own private fantasy world here.
>
> He was the decoy designed to get the security to chase him whilst the
> shoplifter with the goods walked away quietly.
>
> You are prejudging =A0the situation again with bias and with information
> that is unqualified
>
> > Displaying a rare honesty,
>
> You have no idea if it was rare. You seem to be making an awful lot of
> judgements based on bias and no information.
>
> > he said it was because
> >he didn't think have caught the other bloke...
>
> So he went for the one of the two suspects he could obtain. Sensible
> strategy. Sounds like a professional.

++++Ah, well. Perhaps you had to be there. Or perhaps I could have
been more explicit about the attitude and the exchange of dialogue. My
fault. "Rare" honesty, by the way, does not allude to the honesty of
the specific person in question, but the rarity of honesty in general.
Although I would only consider using "rare" in the latter context, it
might have occured to me that others might interpret it in the former
which, again, is my fault.
>
> Also if the obvious runner was designed to get security to chase him
> whilst the real shop lifter walked away he would have been right.
>
> I would probably ban you from the shop on the grounds that with your
> attitude and actions you were probably the decoy for the shoplifters.

++++I think that might possibly blow your membership of of the Master
Detectives Society. And also rather rebound upon you, having accused
me of being superficial and making judgements based on bias and
unqualified information. Still, never mind. Not the sort of thing
worth getting into an argument over, I'd have thought. Especially
since "superficial" is kinder than most things said about me...