<< <i>As a CEO/President who deals with similar customer issues I do appreciate Don's reply in the thread. I certainly understand what he was trying to say, but unfortunately he chose his words poorly. CU really needs to get their executives some PR training. HRH was even worse at addressing these situations. Threads like this are softballs to trained executives when it comes to making lemonade out of lemons. >>
I agree completely. I think that Don meant to say the right thing, but it came out wrong.
Actions do speak louder than words, and I have noticed PCGS become increasingly customer friendly over the last year. Let's hope that this continues.
While I did not think your original post was over the "line," it was a bit much (volume-wise) for anyone including Don Willis, President to handle in one session.
Keep in mind, he offered you the following:
(1) His direct telephone number. (2) A preliminary response which does offer you a lot of information (3) A reminder that he has issues at PCGS which he admits he is working on.
I do not feel Don Willis was demeaning to you and he offered you his direct telephone number.
Certainly, you know Rome was not built in a day.
My primary concern with your post was it gave me a little bit of a headache. LOL. It was TOO much to digest in one thread. Perhaps in the future you can break them down. Some of your issues should be discussed directly with Mr. Willis.
As for myself, i never understood the value of the Platinum membership vis a vis the silver membership. Have you investigated the silver membership? I think it is a bargain.
<< <i>As a CEO/President who deals with similar customer issues I do appreciate Don's reply in the thread. I certainly understand what he was trying to say, but unfortunately he chose his words poorly. CU really needs to get their executives some PR training. HRH was even worse at addressing these situations. Threads like this are softballs to trained executives when it comes to making lemonade out of lemons. >>
I agree completely. I think that Don meant to say the right thing, but it came out wrong.
Actions do speak louder than words, and I have noticed PCGS become increasingly customer friendly over the last year. Let's hope that this continues.
I was pleasantly surprised that someone from PCGS replied. And then I read the reply.
*sigh*
Instead of any attempt to address ANY of the concerns/issues raised by the OP, Mr. Willis's response unfortunately comes off as somewhat arrogant.
"But, but, he gave his direct phone number! That proves he CAAAAAAAARES!"... if he had only done that instead of providing the alienating preamble, it would have had a much more profound and positive effect.
To those attacking the OP: get real. To say that this forum is not the place for cogent and reasoned disagreement, feedback, or criticism, is ludicrous. This is THE perfect place for just such a discussion. Just because PCGS has a track record of censoring public criticism of their services and products, does not invalidate this. The OP was not rude, did not use obscenities, did not use the F-word (fraud), or write anything libelous.
PCGS has historically been resistant to open and candid discussion, much more so than on other company-sponsored boards I am a member of. I am hoping that Mr. Willis's presence here indicates that under his tenure, communication will be more forthcoming. It is a double-edged sword, however, in that by communicating more, he (or PCGS' represenatives) need to be more aware and careful of HOW they phrase things and the potential implication of their remarks (it's like being a politician: frequently, it's better to NOT completely speak your mind ).
Of course I could be completely wrong, and he meant his remarks exactly as they seemed.
It will be interesting to see if (1) there's any clarification or redaction, or (2) this thread goes *poof*, or (3) bammings ensue based upon candid opinions expressed in this thread. That will tell us if it's a new age at PCGS or not...
<< <i>To say that this forum is not the place for cogent and reasoned disagreement, feedback, or criticism, is ludicrous. >>
This forum is the place for whatever PCGS says is appropriate.
Choose to enter my house, you play by my rules. If you don't like that, you're free to not enter my house. I may not like all of their rules and restrictions at all times, but it's their right to set them, and my right to leave if I don't accept them.
The "censorship/freedom of speech" card doesn't play on private property when the property owner sets the rules.
I think that Don offering his phone number was a very strong move. No one has ever done that before, and I always felt like I was at a disadvantage to the better-connected collectors (ie. SaintGuru, TahoeDale, etc.) who had access to the top brass at PCGS. I certainly would only call him as a last resort, but there would have been times over the last five years that I would have called, rather than posting about problems here.
<< <i>Crap I wanted to edit the thread and I am not able to do so, at any rate. My point is that the same people offering their opinion is the very same people that have made PCGS number One, it is kind of absurd to feel comfortable on that spot to the point that constructive criticism is viewed as a negative or bad thing. >>
I'll stop short of saying you are wrong and simply state that PCGS's position of being number one was never based upon individual collector submissions.
One more time, PCGS was formed by dealers and for dealers. The company was formed for inter-dealer coin trading and buying and not necessarily individual collector submissions for sets.
Coin Dealers are the foundation for a majority of submissions to PCGS and the quality of the grading is what has made PCGS number one, certainly not posters on the PCGS supplied message boards.
I think Mr. Willis's point about going somewhere else is simply an invitation to shop around. Find a company whose slabs typically bring more money and deal with them.
BTW, volume of business has never been the reason that PCGS is number one.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>To say that this forum is not the place for cogent and reasoned disagreement, feedback, or criticism, is ludicrous. >>
This forum is the place for whatever PCGS says is appropriate.
Choose to enter my house, you play by my rules. If you don't like that, you're free to not enter my house. I may not like all of their rules and restrictions at all times, but it's their right to set them, and my right to leave if I don't accept them.
The "censorship/freedom of speech" card doesn't play on private property when the property owner sets the rules. >>
Ziggy, you are absolutely correct...it's their playground and their rules. I often read about first amendment rights on this forum and I can't help to wonder what planet these people are from.
With that said, PCGS is missing a great opportunity by not encouraging this type of discussion. It is certainly to their advantage to have this discussion take place where they can respond and control the situation. As I mentioned above, the OP was a softball for any trained executive to handle and the correct response would have resulted in a much greater percentage of forum members eating out of their hand. By condemning such posts here they are in essence pushing the discussion to another venue where they have no control. I have been in business long enough to know that is not wise.
<< <i>To say that this forum is not the place for cogent and reasoned disagreement, feedback, or criticism, is ludicrous. >>
This forum is the place for whatever PCGS says is appropriate.
Choose to enter my house, you play by my rules. If you don't like that, you're free to not enter my house. I may not like all of their rules and restrictions at all times, but it's their right to set them, and my right to leave if I don't accept them.
The "censorship/freedom of speech" card doesn't play on private property when the property owner sets the rules. >>
I disagree. As Crito said in a previous post, this forum is for all practical purposes open to the public, even though it is run by a private entity. To me, the forum is like the editorial section of a major newspaper. The newspaper controls all of the other sections, but the editorial section consists of opinions (sometimes negative to the newspaper or its employees itself). As long as criticism is done in a tasteful manner, not libelous, and not vulgar or profane, I believe it should be allowed.
As to PCGS, I don't have any real issues with them. They provide an excellent quality product and they do their best at getting the products delivered within the estimated time frame.
<< <i>As a CEO/President who deals with similar customer issues I do appreciate Don's reply in the thread. I certainly understand what he was trying to say, but unfortunately he chose his words poorly. CU really needs to get their executives some PR training. HRH was even worse at addressing these situations. Threads like this are softballs to trained executives when it comes to making lemonade out of lemons. >>
I agree.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>Choose to enter my house, you play by my rules. If you don't like that, you're free to not enter my house. I may not like all of their rules and restrictions at all times, but it's their right to set them, and my right to leave if I don't accept them. >>
I would be fine with that... if the rules were actually posted. But they're not. No one knows what the rules are because there are no formal policies here. Threads and people spontaneously combust around here and people just speculate why after the fact. If there were a big honking "NO CRITICISM OF PCGS OR ITS PRODUCTS OR SERVICES WILL BE TOLERATED!" header across the top of the page, at least it would be spelled out in black and white. I could deal with that. Would I like it? No, but I would follow the policy. Right now, it's seemingly random as to what is permissible and what is not.
<< <i>The "censorship/freedom of speech" card doesn't play on private property when the property owner sets the rules. >>
Please don't use the "freedom of speech" strawman argument. I never used that term, and I hate when people do in circumstances like this. Stating my opinion that the OP was not out of bounds in his post is NOT using a "freedom of speech" card. Did I state that PCGS has a history of censorship? Yes. But that's different from invoking "freedom of speech". Two distinctly different issues.
<< <i>I disagree. As Crito said in a previous post, this forum is for all practical purposes open to the public, even though it is run by a private entity. To me, the forum is like the editorial section of a major newspaper. The newspaper controls all of the other sections, but the editorial section consists of opinions (sometimes negative to the newspaper or its employees itself). As long as criticism is done in a tasteful manner, not libelous, and not vulgar or profane, I believe it should be allowed. >>
Should be allowed, I'll agree. As long as the criticism is respectful and constructive, I agree that it is a good policy to allow it. My only point is that there is no *right* to demand a private entity grant use of its own property in a manner inconsistent with their policies.
As such, "freedom of speech" is a red herring. I'm not disagreeing with the substance of much of what's being said. I just don't agree that we should have the right to say what we want on someone else's property if the property owner doesn't consent to it.
<< <i>Please don't use the "freedom of speech" strawman argument. I never used that term, and I hate when people do in circumstances like this. Stating my opinion that the OP was not out of bounds in his post is NOT using a "freedom of speech" card. Did I state that PCGS has a history of censorship? Yes. But that's different from invoking "freedom of speech". Two distinctly different issues. >>
Sorry if I made it sound like I was specifically claiming you did. I happened to be responding to your post, but I had been seeing that "freedom of speech" argument made elsewhere in the thread.
It's not my company so I just suggest things I would like to see. If it were my company I would encourage suggesstions. Does not mean I would I would change but would see how they could make the company better for the customer.
One thing that seems to slip by is coins are not always in the holder correctly. Some are just plain misaligned . Others are just a littlle off, these just annoying, like capped bust halfs....there should be one way the the date and obverse is lined up in the holder and the reverse sould end up how it was struck.
I was told I would be getting something to replace the magazine , but never saw anything.
But PCGS is the best there is. Sure it could get better, everything can be improved. My whole set is PCGS and will continue to be. If they could find a way to reduce shipping charges when the multiply coin submissions come back that would be great. Charge a $5-$10.00 consolidation fee, it would allow me to send more in more often.
But I have to let people know that overall PCGS has some pretty good customer service. They have worked with a me on occasion and I was very satisied with the outcome.
I will be renewing my Platinum membership this year as the now slab coins as genuine, no more BB's Thank You PCGS for that change.
And Don, Thanks for your post and phone # , some people do realize how lucky they are to have direct access to somone in charge.
<< <i>I can understand being loyal to the brand and I am all for it, however I have an issue with people trying to censor those displeased with the service they have been receiving. >>
Huh?
As far as I can see the OP has not been "censored".
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>..."PCGS is not perfect but somehow has been fairly successful for the past 20 years - never an unprofitable quarter - always cash flow positive..."
Does he mean PCGS or CLCT? >>
He means PCGS, in this case he chose his words carefully.
<< <i>As a CEO/President who deals with similar customer issues I do appreciate Don's reply in the thread. I certainly understand what he was trying to say, but unfortunately he chose his words poorly. CU really needs to get their executives some PR training. HRH was even worse at addressing these situations. Threads like this are softballs to trained executives when it comes to making lemonade out of lemons. >>
In my opinion, with a company of this size, the management and PR in far more important than their numismatic knowledge. We are not talking a company of 15 employees. They have experts on staff. What this company has lacked (and this is not to say Don doesn't have it. I don't know Don at all) is any face to it. The customer service has been poor for years and it has been discussed here at length from a variety of people and it has fallen on deaf ears at CU. From what I can see, nothing has changed. Maybe Don can get that done. I hope Don can get that done. Don's response came across very harsh to me.
<< <i>MY ONLY ISSUE IS THE.... MECHANICAL ERRORS.......I HAVE HAD TOO SEND BACK SEVERAL SUBMISSIONS.......REGISTERED MAIL ISN'T CHEAP >>
PCGS would cover the mailing costs (on approval before mailing from a customer service representative) on any mechanical error within 7 days of receipt of your submission. I've used this many times.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>As a CEO/President who deals with similar customer issues I do appreciate Don's reply in the thread. I certainly understand what he was trying to say, but unfortunately he chose his words poorly. CU really needs to get their executives some PR training. HRH was even worse at addressing these situations. Threads like this are softballs to trained executives when it comes to making lemonade out of lemons. >>
I agree completely. I think that Don meant to say the right thing, but it came out wrong.
Sometimes you first speak is from your rear end ,and the brain uses the mouth to correct the 1st words
Comments
<< <i>As a CEO/President who deals with similar customer issues I do appreciate Don's reply in the thread. I certainly understand what he was trying to say, but unfortunately he chose his words poorly. CU really needs to get their executives some PR training. HRH was even worse at addressing these situations. Threads like this are softballs to trained executives when it comes to making lemonade out of lemons. >>
I agree completely. I think that Don meant to say the right thing, but it came out wrong.
Actions do speak louder than words, and I have noticed PCGS become increasingly customer friendly over the last year. Let's hope that this continues.
100
While I did not think your original post was over the "line," it was a bit much (volume-wise) for anyone including Don Willis, President to handle in one session.
Keep in mind, he offered you the following:
(1) His direct telephone number.
(2) A preliminary response which does offer you a lot of information
(3) A reminder that he has issues at PCGS which he admits he is working on.
I do not feel Don Willis was demeaning to you and he offered you his direct telephone number.
Certainly, you know Rome was not built in a day.
My primary concern with your post was it gave me a little bit of a headache. LOL. It was TOO much to digest in one thread. Perhaps in the future you can break them down. Some of your issues should be discussed directly with Mr. Willis.
As for myself, i never understood the value of the Platinum membership vis a vis the silver membership. Have you investigated the silver membership? I think it is a bargain.
sp?
that's what we've all got to get better at being for a while until all this market and economy bs subsides.
hang on and don't let the little stuff get to you.
<< <i>
<< <i>As a CEO/President who deals with similar customer issues I do appreciate Don's reply in the thread. I certainly understand what he was trying to say, but unfortunately he chose his words poorly. CU really needs to get their executives some PR training. HRH was even worse at addressing these situations. Threads like this are softballs to trained executives when it comes to making lemonade out of lemons. >>
I agree completely. I think that Don meant to say the right thing, but it came out wrong.
Actions do speak louder than words, and I have noticed PCGS become increasingly customer friendly over the last year. Let's hope that this continues.
100 >>
a liitle late boss on the 100
just bumping my thread count
*sigh*
Instead of any attempt to address ANY of the concerns/issues raised by the OP, Mr. Willis's response unfortunately comes off as somewhat arrogant.
"But, but, he gave his direct phone number! That proves he CAAAAAAAARES!"... if he had only done that instead of providing the alienating preamble, it would have had a much more profound and positive effect.
To those attacking the OP: get real. To say that this forum is not the place for cogent and reasoned disagreement, feedback, or criticism, is ludicrous. This is THE perfect place for just such a discussion. Just because PCGS has a track record of censoring public criticism of their services and products, does not invalidate this. The OP was not rude, did not use obscenities, did not use the F-word (fraud), or write anything libelous.
PCGS has historically been resistant to open and candid discussion, much more so than on other company-sponsored boards I am a member of. I am hoping that Mr. Willis's presence here indicates that under his tenure, communication will be more forthcoming. It is a double-edged sword, however, in that by communicating more, he (or PCGS' represenatives) need to be more aware and careful of HOW they phrase things and the potential implication of their remarks (it's like being a politician: frequently, it's better to NOT completely speak your mind
Of course I could be completely wrong, and he meant his remarks exactly as they seemed.
It will be interesting to see if (1) there's any clarification or redaction, or (2) this thread goes *poof*, or (3) bammings ensue based upon candid opinions expressed in this thread. That will tell us if it's a new age at PCGS or not...
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>To say that this forum is not the place for cogent and reasoned disagreement, feedback, or criticism, is ludicrous. >>
This forum is the place for whatever PCGS says is appropriate.
Choose to enter my house, you play by my rules. If you don't like that, you're free to not enter my house. I may not like all of their rules and restrictions at all times, but it's their right to set them, and my right to leave if I don't accept them.
The "censorship/freedom of speech" card doesn't play on private property when the property owner sets the rules.
<< <i>Crap I wanted to edit the thread and I am not able to do so, at any rate. My point is that the same people offering their opinion is the very same people that have made PCGS number One, it is kind of absurd to feel comfortable on that spot to the point that constructive criticism is viewed as a negative or bad thing. >>
I'll stop short of saying you are wrong and simply state that PCGS's position of being number one was never based upon individual collector submissions.
One more time, PCGS was formed by dealers and for dealers. The company was formed for inter-dealer coin trading and buying and not necessarily individual collector submissions for sets.
Coin Dealers are the foundation for a majority of submissions to PCGS and the quality of the grading is what has made PCGS number one, certainly not posters on the PCGS supplied message boards.
I think Mr. Willis's point about going somewhere else is simply an invitation to shop around. Find a company whose slabs typically bring more money and deal with them.
BTW, volume of business has never been the reason that PCGS is number one.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>To say that this forum is not the place for cogent and reasoned disagreement, feedback, or criticism, is ludicrous. >>
This forum is the place for whatever PCGS says is appropriate.
Choose to enter my house, you play by my rules. If you don't like that, you're free to not enter my house. I may not like all of their rules and restrictions at all times, but it's their right to set them, and my right to leave if I don't accept them.
The "censorship/freedom of speech" card doesn't play on private property when the property owner sets the rules. >>
Ziggy, you are absolutely correct...it's their playground and their rules. I often read about first amendment rights on this forum and I can't help to wonder what planet these people are from.
With that said, PCGS is missing a great opportunity by not encouraging this type of discussion. It is certainly to their advantage to have this discussion take place where they can respond and control the situation. As I mentioned above, the OP was a softball for any trained executive to handle and the correct response would have resulted in a much greater percentage of forum members eating out of their hand. By condemning such posts here they are in essence pushing the discussion to another venue where they have no control. I have been in business long enough to know that is not wise.
<< <i>
<< <i>To say that this forum is not the place for cogent and reasoned disagreement, feedback, or criticism, is ludicrous. >>
This forum is the place for whatever PCGS says is appropriate.
Choose to enter my house, you play by my rules. If you don't like that, you're free to not enter my house. I may not like all of their rules and restrictions at all times, but it's their right to set them, and my right to leave if I don't accept them.
The "censorship/freedom of speech" card doesn't play on private property when the property owner sets the rules. >>
I disagree. As Crito said in a previous post, this forum is for all practical purposes open to the public, even though it is run by a private entity. To me, the forum is like the editorial section of a major newspaper. The newspaper controls all of the other sections, but the editorial section consists of opinions (sometimes negative to the newspaper or its employees itself). As long as criticism is done in a tasteful manner, not libelous, and not vulgar or profane, I believe it should be allowed.
As to PCGS, I don't have any real issues with them. They provide an excellent quality product and they do their best at getting the products delivered within the estimated time frame.
Mike
<< <i>As a CEO/President who deals with similar customer issues I do appreciate Don's reply in the thread. I certainly understand what he was trying to say, but unfortunately he chose his words poorly. CU really needs to get their executives some PR training. HRH was even worse at addressing these situations. Threads like this are softballs to trained executives when it comes to making lemonade out of lemons. >>
I agree.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>Choose to enter my house, you play by my rules. If you don't like that, you're free to not enter my house. I may not like all of their rules and restrictions at all times, but it's their right to set them, and my right to leave if I don't accept them. >>
I would be fine with that... if the rules were actually posted. But they're not. No one knows what the rules are because there are no formal policies here. Threads and people spontaneously combust around here and people just speculate why after the fact. If there were a big honking "NO CRITICISM OF PCGS OR ITS PRODUCTS OR SERVICES WILL BE TOLERATED!" header across the top of the page, at least it would be spelled out in black and white. I could deal with that. Would I like it? No, but I would follow the policy. Right now, it's seemingly random as to what is permissible and what is not.
<< <i>The "censorship/freedom of speech" card doesn't play on private property when the property owner sets the rules. >>
Please don't use the "freedom of speech" strawman argument. I never used that term, and I hate when people do in circumstances like this. Stating my opinion that the OP was not out of bounds in his post is NOT using a "freedom of speech" card. Did I state that PCGS has a history of censorship? Yes. But that's different from invoking "freedom of speech". Two distinctly different issues.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>I disagree. As Crito said in a previous post, this forum is for all practical purposes open to the public, even though it is run by a private entity. To me, the forum is like the editorial section of a major newspaper. The newspaper controls all of the other sections, but the editorial section consists of opinions (sometimes negative to the newspaper or its employees itself). As long as criticism is done in a tasteful manner, not libelous, and not vulgar or profane, I believe it should be allowed. >>
Should be allowed, I'll agree. As long as the criticism is respectful and constructive, I agree that it is a good policy to allow it. My only point is that there is no *right* to demand a private entity grant use of its own property in a manner inconsistent with their policies.
As such, "freedom of speech" is a red herring. I'm not disagreeing with the substance of much of what's being said. I just don't agree that we should have the right to say what we want on someone else's property if the property owner doesn't consent to it.
<< <i>Please don't use the "freedom of speech" strawman argument. I never used that term, and I hate when people do in circumstances like this. Stating my opinion that the OP was not out of bounds in his post is NOT using a "freedom of speech" card. Did I state that PCGS has a history of censorship? Yes. But that's different from invoking "freedom of speech". Two distinctly different issues. >>
Sorry if I made it sound like I was specifically claiming you did. I happened to be responding to your post, but I had been seeing that "freedom of speech" argument made elsewhere in the thread.
One thing that seems to slip by is coins are not always in the holder correctly. Some are just plain misaligned . Others are just a littlle off, these just annoying, like capped bust halfs....there should be one way the the date and obverse is lined up in the holder and the reverse sould end up how it was struck.
I was told I would be getting something to replace the magazine , but never saw anything.
But PCGS is the best there is. Sure it could get better, everything can be improved. My whole set is PCGS and will continue to be. If they could find a way to reduce shipping charges when the multiply coin submissions come back that would be great. Charge a $5-$10.00 consolidation fee, it would allow me to send more in more often.
But I have to let people know that overall PCGS has some pretty good customer service. They have worked with a me on occasion and I was very satisied with the outcome.
I will be renewing my Platinum membership this year as the now slab coins as genuine, no more BB's Thank You PCGS for that change.
And Don, Thanks for your post and phone # , some people do realize how lucky they are to have direct access to somone in charge.
"If I say something in the woods, and my wife isn't around to hear it. Am I still wrong?"
<< <i>I can understand being loyal to the brand and I am all for it, however I have an issue with people trying to censor those displeased with the service they have been receiving. >>
Huh?
As far as I can see the OP has not been "censored".
The name is LEE!
Does he mean PCGS or CLCT?
<< <i>..."PCGS is not perfect but somehow has been fairly successful for the past 20 years - never an unprofitable quarter - always cash flow positive..."
Does he mean PCGS or CLCT? >>
He means PCGS, in this case he chose his words carefully.
<< <i>As a CEO/President who deals with similar customer issues I do appreciate Don's reply in the thread. I certainly understand what he was trying to say, but unfortunately he chose his words poorly. CU really needs to get their executives some PR training. HRH was even worse at addressing these situations. Threads like this are softballs to trained executives when it comes to making lemonade out of lemons. >>
In my opinion, with a company of this size, the management and PR in far more important than their numismatic knowledge. We are not talking a company of 15 employees. They have experts on staff. What this company has lacked (and this is not to say Don doesn't have it. I don't know Don at all) is any face to it. The customer service has been poor for years and it has been discussed here at length from a variety of people and it has fallen on deaf ears at CU. From what I can see, nothing has changed. Maybe Don can get that done. I hope Don can get that done. Don's response came across very harsh to me.
<< <i>MY ONLY ISSUE IS THE.... MECHANICAL ERRORS.......I HAVE HAD TOO SEND BACK SEVERAL SUBMISSIONS.......REGISTERED MAIL ISN'T CHEAP >>
PCGS would cover the mailing costs (on approval before mailing from a customer service representative) on any mechanical error within 7 days of receipt of your submission. I've used this many times.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>As a CEO/President who deals with similar customer issues I do appreciate Don's reply in the thread. I certainly understand what he was trying to say, but unfortunately he chose his words poorly. CU really needs to get their executives some PR training. HRH was even worse at addressing these situations. Threads like this are softballs to trained executives when it comes to making lemonade out of lemons. >>
I agree completely. I think that Don meant to say the right thing, but it came out wrong.
Sometimes you first speak is from your rear end ,and the brain uses the mouth to correct the 1st words