“How do you know who is innocent or guilty ? You have made alot of assumptions.”
It only takes a few sentences in the article to determine it.
1) The explicit company policy saying you may be required to provide a passport.
2) The husband saying he didn’t provide one initially (until later being denied rental for being rude) and the wife saying how unreasonable it is that they wouldn’t take the license alone.
“You are ignoring the fact that Dov had an AVIS loyalty card with years of no trouble and had in fact rented from the same location only two days prior.”
I directly addressed it several times, including I think in the post you are responding to.
If an agent doesn’t request the docs they are supposed to, it doesn’t change the fact that a different agent 2 days later needs to do their job correctly and request the docs they are supposed to.
I have a frequent car rental card, yet each time I have rented in a foreign country I have still had to present a passport.
I already have the passport details in my rental, my rental program profile, yet I still had to show my passport. Yet somehow I didn’t argue or throw a fit in the office and run to the press with wild accusations.
Look at the wife’s comment:
“Of course it was embarrassing. They wouldn’t even open our reservation and see that we have an Avis Wizard number or that we had rented a car from the same location two days before. There was no way they would rent a car with that license. There was no way to reason with them.”
What journalistic malpractice are you referring to ?
It in the article you are responding to, I think. Here’s what I wrote earlier:
“The author of the first article in observer could have done 20 seconds of research to discover the agent acted totally consistently with company policy in requesting a passport.
Instead the author left implications that the agent and office were refusing to accept the israeli drivers license alone out of pure bigotry and malice.
That’s breathtaking irresponsibility.
And what cost? An internet mob doing huge wreckage.”
“The man denied service alleged that the employees deviated from operational policy at that location when he presented his Israeli documents. Why are your instincts with the clerk ? “
Nothing to do with instincts, it’s simple logic.
The company policy on the company website proves his allegation was wrong.
“Are you denying antiIsrael discrimination exists ?”
Is that a dumb question? Yes, yes it is.
“Has something under the surface triggered a strong emotional response ? Is it because it concerns an Israeli ?”
I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that people happy to unfairly smear a company with wild accusations of bigotry do the same so quickly and easily to other freepers.
Perhaps it says more about the accuser than me.
I notice you did not answer the question, and your earlier answer about antiIsrael bias grammatically denied it exists. Was that a grammatical oversight on your part or do you actually deny there is serious and prevalent antiIsrael bias, especially among Moslems ?
Your responses have generally been over the top. It is quite reasonable to ask for a credible answer as to why, which so far, it seems to me, you have not provided.
You built a sand castle on the assumption that may meant shall, which is patently false. Avis has apologized to their loyal customer because his perception of events was rational and their policy was inconsistent. The initial handling of the event by Avis was flawed.