We join Bobby as he drives to his third Best Buy of the day (the first one supposedly had 5 receivers in stock but the employees couldn't find any of them and told him to drive to the second one — where the same thing happened.)

Even though it's a pretty short drive in terms of miles, it took almost an hour due to highway traffic. Finally I got to the Bucktown store, made my purchase, and started to leave.

The security person at the door asked to see my receipt, and I told him no. (My son desperately needed a nap, and I know that while you have the right to ask for my receipt, I have the right to say no.) I kept walking, and the security person followed me out of the store. He kept asking, in more and more urgent tones, to see my receipt. I answered no a couple of times and he asked again, and then I said "you may not" and he called me an asshole. I don't begrudge you asking customers to see their receipts. As long as you recognize that I'm under no obligation to show it, and you take no for an answer when it's given.

I called the store a little later, and spoke to a manager who apologized, agreed that was unacceptable behavior, and said she'd have a conversation with the security guard.

But I don't think that was enough. Best Buy repeatedly failed to do the minimum you'd expect a professional corporation to do....

I unnecessarily wasted at least two hours of my time today, and was called profane names for my trouble.

Oh receipt checkers, when will you learn...?

We're curious, what do you think is fair compensation for being called an asshole? Or is having profanities hurled at you and your child just the price you pay for not following Best Buy's "rules." Tell us in the comments.

(Photo: Ian Muttoo )

What Gawker legal told Lycos legal, inside.

Mr Blais,

The extent of the adverse reaction engendered by this situation is admittedly surprisingly extreme, and unfortunate. However, the existence of this image is simply not the cause of any harrassment of Mr Jandreau. If anything, his name is the thing that enables people to research and find out more information about him (all of which is publicly available on his own sites) and thereby contact him. His name was made public on several other sites before we published it, so we disclosed no private fact.

As I have stated, all we are doing is reporting on a newsworthy story. Because we are online, it is admittedly true that we could choose to comply with your demands out of our own discretion, but I am curious as to what you would be doing now if this article had run in a print publication? Why would you consider this any differently? We are a publication, and we ran a story with fair use of an image. Why do you expect us to throw over the principles of journalism because a subject doesn't like our story? It is simply not the case that our story, or the existence of the image on the site, is any way is responsible for anything that happens to Mr Jandreau. This story has been reported very widely now across the web, so why is it our site that is to blame for people showing up at Lycos' door? Anyone can find out what Mike looks like by looking on his own site, his name is in the public domain.

You're basically saying the equivalent of that, if someone hurts another person because the New York Times runs an unfavourable story about that person and included an image with the story, then it is the fault of the New York Times. That is simply not a valid argument.

In the circumstances, I'm afraid we cannot comply with your demands.

Regards,

Gaby

Previously:
Lycos Steps Up Legal Threats To Get Meanypants CS Manager's Photo Down
Lycos Customer Service Manager's Picture Held Hostage Until He Restores Customer's Email And Apologizes
Lycos Deletes All Of Customer's Email, Tells 'Em To Suck It

Original blog entry down to CPU overload, here's a Google cache.

Look, if you want the photo removed, here's how it goes down.

1. Apologize to Whitney
2. Restore her deleted emails
3. Photo gets removed
4. Profit!!!

Actually, step 4 is going to be hard for Lycos, but, theoretically, the option is available.

Legal missives, inside.

from: [redacted]@lycos-inc.com Date: February 2, 2007 1:04:23 PM EST To: [redacted]@gawker.com Subject: Lycos Legal Complaint and Request for Removal

Dear Sir or Madame:

I am following up on an issue that I believe has already been brought to your attention, but has yet to receive a response from you. On your website, http://consumerist.com/, one of your users has posted personal information and a photo of a Lycos customer service employee, Michael Jandreau. Since that posting, Michael has received over 50 threatening emails, many of which have contained death threats. In addition, at least 6 individuals have come to our office looking for Michael. Although the text of the blog itself contains numerous false, defamatory, and libelous statements regarding both Lycos and Mr. Jandreau, Lycos is not concerned with censoring this individual's speech. However, it is very concerned with the posting of personal information and photo of our employee. This goes well beyond what is necessary to voice a complaint about actions of customer service, and unquestionably rises to the level of harassment in violation of your Terms of Use. As such, Lycos requests that Gawker immediately remove Mr. Jandreau's photo and any personal information concerning Mr. Jandreau from this website. Especially in light of the death threats received, and the potential liability of Gawker if it ignores this request despite knowledge of such threats, I would hope that Gawker would comply promptly with this request.

Thank you and regards,

Mark O. Blais
Deputy General Counsel
Lycos, Inc.

Hello,

My complaint with this has nothing to do with "her", it has to do with my personal photo being displaying on YOUR website, without any permission, written or implied.

This is against Privacy laws.

You're free to post whatever stories you'd like, and have your visitors comment all they want, that does not bother me in the slightest. I simply want my photo to be removed from your website, as it's unauthorized, and jeopardizing my personal safety.

Please comply with this simple request.

Mike Jandreau
Customer Service Manager
Lycos, Inc

Ms. Darbyshire:

I am responding on behalf of Mr. Jandreau and Lycos, and am attaching the text of an email I just sent to your legal email address that renews Mr. Jandreau's request. As the below text points out, Lycos is not asking that any of the content or substance posted on this website be removed, even though certain of the material on there is in fact erroneous. Lycos respects internet users', including its own users', right to voice their opinions, criticisms and concerns without censorship (except where they violate a third party's rights, of course). However, Lycos believes that the posting of Mr. Jandreau's photo is out of bounds, violates his privacy rights, and violates your own Terms of Use as rising to the level harassment. If the posting of someone's photo, which really has no relevance at all to the matter at hand, isn't harassment, then this term in your Terms of Use is essentially meaningless. Given the photo's complete lack of relevance or bearing on the applicable issue, there can be only one reason for its display — to harass. Moreover, that death threats are now being levied against Mr. Jandreau and individuals are now showing up at Lycos (thereby disrupting Lycos's business), the justification to take this photo down is beyond question. Your continued display of this photo, or any personal information for that matter, having no relevance other than for purposes of harassment potentially opens Gawker to liability, especially if something were to happen to Mr. Jandreau. Taking down the photo is a very limited and reasonable request, and does not in any way impede the free speech of your users. Please act responsibly and take this photo down asap. Thank you.

Mark O. Blais
Deputy General Counsel
Lycos, Inc

— BEN POPKEN

Note: Whitney's original blog entry down to CPU overload, here's a Google cache.

"From: Mike Jandreau <[redacted]@lycos-inc.com>
Date: February 2, 2007 11:04:24 AM
To: [redacted]@gawker.com
Subject: http://tinyurl.com/2ftcg6 violation of my privacy.

Hello,

As a retaliation for enforcing company policies, one of our users, has been slandering me across various message boards and blogs.

Now, I find that an unauthorized photograph of myself is posted on "consumerist.com", violating my personal privacy.

I have had 81 death threats since last night, and 6 individuals have shown up at our corporate offices, looking to speak with me. All 6 of those individuals were asked to leave the premsises. [sic]

My photograph is located on: http://tinyurl.com/2ftcg6

I immediately request that this website and photograph be removed, as it is a violation of my privacy.
Under Federal Law, you must comply with this request."

Dear Mike,

We're sorry, no one here has any intentions of helping you with anything.

We are the manager of all of Customer Service. There is no one higher than us that you will speak with.

You violated our policy, which is, despite what you say, to not be a jerk to your customers.

Your image will be held hostage. After you apologize to Whitney and restore her emails, your image will be deleted.

P.S. The picture was gleaned from your site, MovieSnobs. You may want to cc your letter to Google Images as well. — BEN POPKEN

Previously: Lycos Deletes All Of Customer's Email, Tells 'Em To Suck It
(Original blog entry down to CPU overload, here's a Google cache).

He's the guy who, after you complain, tells you to go suck an electrical socket.

Your job is to ask, "how hard?"

At least that's what happened to Whitney. When she bemoaned the evaporation of 104 weeks of her personal correspondence, Mr. Jandreau at Lycos responded,

"I'm sorry, no one here has any intentions of helping you with anything.

I am the manager of all of Customer Service. There is no one higher than me that you will speak with.

You violated our policy, which is, despite what you say, completely clear.

No one is holding anything hostage. Your e-mails have been completely deleted, and no amount of money can now restore them. "

Policy it may be, but this is no reason to treat a customer, even if most people aren't even sure that your company exists anymore. Lycos owes Whitney an apology and the restoration of all her deleted email.

For the future, why can't email services let us port our email archives just like address books? That way customers like Whitney could dump Lycos for something that doesn't suck, like Gmail. — BEN POPKEN

Lycos SUCKS: they held my emails for ransom for $19.95, then deleted them [idaho-hum]
UPDATE: Original blog entry down to CPU overload, here's a Google cache.