Listen. You need to calm down and stop inferring assumptions based on your fallacious and misguided interpretations of the above text.

I will address your "issues" as you call it in point form below:

- 1. Counter to your belief, the dialogue was not inappropriate. Two grown and mature adults should be capable of having a civil and rational discussion to dissipate the one-sided hostility.

- 2. Again, do not alter the meaning of my post with your erroneous interpretation. Get your facts straight. I did not "argue" as you incorrectly have surmised me to have done, but "pleaded." No where in my post did I write "argue" or claimed to have argued.

- 3. As clearly stated and "alluded" multiple times in my post, I was "polite" in the discourse. If you still do not comprehend, "Could have" means a desired action that one would like to take, BUT, ultimately, decides not to.

- 4. Now you're just getting on my nerves. I smell a troll. Are you blind? I clearly explained in the post that the hiring manager was mistaken. The name ascribed to my bank account is my complete legal name. In case you are misinformed, you cannot open an account under a name that does not belong to you. It is against the law.

- 5. My god. You should know that the intent of an electronic correspondence is not to garner "benefits." Virtual or otherwise. It is a matter of email etiquette and professionalism. Period.

- 6. I am not even going to waste my time and respond to this one. It quite frankly makes no sense.

Your last bit of advice in the final paragraph is fair. I will probably go and drop off the uniform tomorrow. You probably should have just stuck to that when responding to me.