I will agree that correspondence should be tactful and polite. (I always try to include clearly articulated, unassailable logic to "pre-empt" any goofy anti-gun sound bites they may try to pawn off on me.)
Ed has stated that he has ALREADY tried tactful letters without any response.
Therefore, while I never applaud smarmy, snide comments, the point we (supporters of pro-firearms policies) have been trying to make has been completely ignored. The businesses involved know our concerns. They know we've tried to receive an answer to our questions regarding their policies, and they know we've done so in a polite and tactful manner.
It is obviously not working because nobody (that I know of) has received a response. The typical rteply of these businesses is usually complete silence. Our concerns are not being addressed, or even responded to. This leads to the (correct) assumption that: We are being ignored.
In the rare occurrences that we
do receive a response, it is usually a "ruber-stamp" fluff peice that is completely transparent.
"Our company is concerned about your feelings. We have diligently examined your complaint and have devoted countless hours addressing your valid grievance. We here at (insert business) are proactive in our involvement with all your issues and are striving for an acceptable remedy to rectify your complaint. Please feel free to contact us again regarding your problems, and we will happily do all we can to mediate any concern you may have in the future. We appreciate your business and thank you for supporting (insert business)."
Thay have done absolutely nothing. Their outlook has changed absolutely zero. What they really mean to write is: "WE COULD CARE LESS".
That's in the rare occasion that they even take the time to condescend to us.
Wouldn't it be
absolutely refreshing to get a response that actually addressed our concern?!?
"After reading about your concerns, we have concluded that your point is valid and are taking steps to change our flawed policy."
WOW! When will any of us get one of those letters in the mail?
Therefore, while I always try to "keep to the high road" and keep my correspondence tactful and polite, I have no problem with resorting to snide comments and thinly veiled sarcasm. However, I only believe it is justified AFTER attempting politeness and respectful diologue first.
Ed has clearly stated that he has ALREADY attempted polite correspondence and received the typical non-response of being completely ignored. Therefore, I see no problem with correspondence asking such smarmy, ill timed, and trite questions such as:
"Hey! How's that sign workin' out for ya'?".
It will probably result in no better response than the politeness we've attempted before: complete disregard. But that disregard wasn't doing much for us in the first place. We might as well actively "get to the point" in a more direct, if not "polite" manner. We have received nothing to "salve our wounds" before now. We might as well get a balm to our egos of knowing we "got in a good jab". It's likely to be the only positive result that will come of the entire matter.
