All you've done so far during my tenure on this forum is hop from thread to thread saying CT sucks, CT doesn't care about customers, CT sucks.
Ah, “CT Me”, your diligence hath been rewarded.
By painstakingly reviewing all my posts (well, some of them, anyway), you have cleverly discerned the deeply-hidden theme of my postings in the “Canadian Tire Sucks” forum.
Yes, it’s “Canadian Tire Sucks”.
Bravo!
But, you seem to have done a less-than adequate job in your review of my postings. Yes, you seem to have missed many of them. Oh, and invented some that aren’t even there …
Yes same old song and dance DavidLer
Canadian Tire is terrible. Nobody that works for CT has any intelligence, everyone earns minimum wage, we're all crooked, we never provide good service to anyone, we break every car that comes into our shops, all returns are a problem, every product is Chinese and breaks.
Are you seriously suggesting that I’ve stated all of the above in my postings? Really?
Or are you instead just putting my name at the front of a long list of commonly-expressed views of Canadian Tire? Huh?
Because I challenge you to find even one posting where I’ve written:
Nobody that works for CT has any intelligence
I never wrote anything like that.
everyone earns minimum wage
I’ve never discussed wages.
every product is Chinese and breaks
Not my words at all. In fact, I wrote on this topic, “I agree that CT carries many fine products, and many of those are from China.”
Shall I continue?
Do you dare to admit that you’ve attributed to me a number of statements that I’ve never made?
Or will you try to weasel out of it by saying, “Oh, I never claimed YOU said that; just that others in these threads have”?
I see, too, that you’ve learned the standard high-school debating tactic:
1 - Claim (falsely, if you must) that the other party is using words like “all”, “always” and “never”.
2 - Point out that, logically, that nothing is ever “all”, “always” or “never”.
3 - Conclude that the other person can no longer be believed.
Too bad it’s flawed logic. Oh, and that your list is basically.
You must be a lot of fun to deal with at the Returns Desk. I bet you are one of those people who tear open the box, then tell the poor customer the item can't be returned because the box is open! (See the analogy?)
Unfortunately for you, Mr. Consumer, and fortunately for us.... you represent a VERY small portion of the Canadian consumer.
Um, how is that bad for me, exactly? That I’ve decided to forego the glorious benefit of being cheated by a consumer-hostile organization? I miss out on the Saturday door-crasher specials on toilet-paper?
Yeah, I’ve heard this spiel before: I’m only 1 guy, and you don’t need my money.
How’s this for a slogan: “Alienating Canada, on disgruntled customer at a time”.
In our 89th year and still adding new stores.... surely doesn't sound like we're failing to me.
Well, talk about an old sang & dance. And more flawed logic, to boot.
- Being 89-years-old doesn’t automatically make your company a successful retailer. How old was Eaton’s when it went under?
- Adding too many stores can be a recipe for disaster. Remember the U.S. expansion fiasco?
- Being big doesn’t make you good. Actually, it tends to make you bad. Just check out some of the many (other) consumer complaints sites, such as EllenRoseman.com
Results speak for themselves. If we sucked at everything, we'd be out of business.
Have you even bothered to look at that article I posted quoting CEO Stephen Wetmore who said (in essence) that Canadian Tire sucks? It’s still at this link:
"Canadian Tire chief shuffles management, tells employees to shape up - thestar.com".
An interesting read for someone who seems to want to stay in business. It says how retail profits are down, and contradicts many of your other statement. Happy reading!
Oh, and about your tenure? Sure, I've posted on this site's main topic. But, I've also discussed thermodynamics, specific store policies, tried to help other (ex)customers, explained the Scanning Code Of Practice, and many other topic.
Not that it’s any concern of yours, but I don’t “jump from thread to thread”. Actually, one of the things I do, is look for especially absurd statements, which I then challenge. Sorry if your keeps coming up – maybe try to be less absurd?