Finally somebody is letting a banker have it - love that woman!
Shown below, is an actual letter that was sent to a bank by an 86 year old woman. (This lady must be an attorney or an extraordinarily gifted debater!)
The bank manager thought it amusing enough to have it published in the New York Times.
----------------
Dear Sir:
I am writing to thank you for bouncing my check with which I endeavored to pay my
plumber last month.
By my calculations, three nanoseconds must have elapsed between his presenting the
check and the arrival in my account of the funds needed to honor it..
I refer, of course, to the automatic monthly deposit of my entire pension, an arrangement
which, I admit, has been in place for only eight years.
You are to be commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and also for
debiting my account $30 by way of penalty for the inconvenience caused to your bank.
My thankfulness springs from the manner in which this incident has caused me to rethink
my errant financial ways.
I noticed that whereas I personally answer your telephone calls and letters, --- when I
try to contact you, I am confronted by the impersonal, overcharging, pre-recorded,
faceless entity which your bank has become.
From now on, I, like you, choose only to deal with a flesh-and-blood person.
My mortgage and loan repayments will therefore and hereafter no longer be automatic,
but will arrive at your bank, by check, addressed personally and confidentially to an
employee at your bank whom you must nominate.
Be aware that it is an OFFENSE under the Postal Act for any other person to open
such an envelope.
Please find attached an Application Contact which I require your chosen employee to complete.
I am sorry it runs to eight pages, but in order that I know as much about him or her as
your bank knows about me, there is no alternative.
Please note that all copies of his or her medical history must be countersigned by a
Notary Public, and the mandatory details of his/her financial situation (income, debts,
assets and liabilities) must be accompanied by documented proof.
In due course, at MY convenience, I will issue your employee with a PIN number which
he/she must quote in dealings with me.
I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits but, again, I have modeled it on the number
of button presses required of me to access my account balance on your phone bank service.
As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Let me level the playing field even further.
When you call me, press buttons as follows:
IMMEDIATELY AFTER DIALLING, PRESS THE STAR (*) BUTTON FOR ENGLISH
#1. To make an appointment to see me
#2. To query a missing payment.
#3. To transfer the call to my living room in case I am there.
#4 To transfer the call to my bedroom in case I am sleeping
#5. To transfer the call to my toilet in case I am attending to nature.
#6. To transfer the call to my mobile phone if I am not at home
#7. To leave a message on my computer, a password to access my computer is required.
Password will be communicated to you at a later date to that Authorized Contact
mentioned earlier.
#8. To return to the main menu and to listen to options 1 through 7.
#9. To make a general complaint or inquiry.
The contact will then be put on hold, pending the attention of my automated
answering service.
#10. This is a second reminder to press* for English.
While this may, on occasion, involve a lengthy wait, uplifting music will play for
the duration of the call.
Regrettably, but again following your example, I must also levy an establishment fee to
cover the setting up of this new arrangement.
May I wish you a happy, if ever so slightly less prosperous New Year?
Your Humble Client
And remember: Don't make old People mad.
We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to tick us off.
Think About It
ReplyDeleteA Member of Congress was seated next to a little girl on an air plane so he turned to her and said,
"Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow
passenger." The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger,
"What would you want to talk about?" "Oh, I don't know," said the congressman. "How about global
warming, universal health care, or stimulus packages?" as he smiled smugly. "OK," she said. "Those
could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat
the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but
a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?" The legislator, visibly surprised by the
little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." To which the little
girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss global warming, universal health care, or the
economy, when you don't know shit?" And then she went back to reading her book.
If we turn to those restrictions that only apply to certain classes of society
ReplyDelete“If we turn to those restrictions that only apply to certain classes of society, we encounter a state of things which is glaringly obvious and has always been recognized. It is to be expected that the neglected classes will grudge the favored ones their privileges and that they will do everything in their power to rid themselves of their own surplus of privation. Where this is not possible a lasting measure of discontent will obtain within this culture, and this may lead to dangerous outbreaks. But if a culture has not got beyond the stage in which the satisfaction of one group of its members necessarily involves the suppression of another, perhaps the majority---and this is the case in all modern cultures,---it is intelligible that these suppressed classes should develop an intense hostility to the culture; a culture, whose existence they make possible by their labor, but in whose resources they have too small a share. In such conditions one must not expect to find an internalization of the cultural prohibitions among the suppressed classes; indeed they are not even prepared to acknowledge these prohibitions, intent, as they are, on the destruction of the culture itself and perhaps even of the assumptions on which it rests. These classes are so manifestly hostile to culture that on that account the more latent hostility of the better provided social strata has been overlooked. It need not be said that a culture which leaves unsatisfied and drives to rebelliousness so large a number of its members neither has a prospect of continued existence, nor deserves it.”
ReplyDelete