If there is one thing that Christmas and New Year have in common, it's big lights, both of which I generally find really annoyingly expensive and a waste of money and energy. Yeah, I'm the New Year and Christmas Grinch, rolled into one.
I saw an article on the news recently about this Australian house thta has about a million household lights and decorations outside it. The darn thing looks garish and it makes me sick. What I find repulsive about this is a) the expense and b) the wasted energy.
I'm not a rampant greenie by any stretch of the imagination, but heck, why do you want to blow out your bill like that? What's even more stupid is the way I bet you that Today Tonight will run one of those feel good stories abotu how much Christmas Cheer this guy has - it would be un-PC to suggest anything else - and then pretty soon afterwards run a story abouthow we can all energy save around the house. Tip No. 1 - turn off all those bloody lights!
Then the guy admitted that he spent $100,000 on Christmas decorations. What? He could have bought another house for that much and instead he opted for some tacky light-me-up talking reindeer?
But $100,000 on decorations is a drop in the ocean compared to NYE fireworks. Fireworks have to be the biggest waste yet. I can't see the point of them, the best place to watch them is on your TV screen and that being the case they ought to hire some graphic designers to do a cool display using CGI or something and save a whole heap of money.
No, instead we have to spend millions each year stringing stuff up on the bridge that gets blown up in a few seconds and goes up in pretty colours and then disappears. Its only use is to attract people in droves outdoors so they can piss and get pissed and leave broken glass and urine all over the place. Not to mention that fireworks are rather dangerous too.
Later on someone will complain about how we don't have enough money for this or that and you can go back to those pics you have of fireworks on NYE and watch how those millions of dollars got blown up. Wouldn't it be nice if the govt could say instead they were going to do something actually useful with the money, like we decided to buy books for schools or donate it to research or looking after a museum or something instead of blowing it up over a bridge?
And if they did announce that, it's very likely people would whinge about the Mayor not having the right New Year spirit.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
The Karate Kid Remake
I'm really sorry I can't share the pics of this remake with you, you'll have to go to the website to see them, but I have just found out they are remaking the movie The Karate Kid.
The classic cheesy original featured Ralph Macchio as Daniel-san, who even though he was in his twenties, played a teenager (he's a bit like Michael J. Fox, he just never grows up), who moves into a new neighbourhood in America. He gets bullied by these local guys and is surprised one day when a local maintenance guy, Okinawan-born wise old Mr Miyagi (Pat Morita) jumps the bullies. Mr Miyagi becomes his karate mentor and teaches him techniques unconventionally, as well as about honour and self control etc. And so he ends up one-upping the bullies by the end of the movie.
Most of us watched the movie and remember classic lines like "Wax on, wax off" and Daniel trying to do the crane stance, or catch a fly with chopsticks, or Mr Miyagi being able to mend his leg by rubbing his hands together, or giving the silent smile through the crowd and the nod.
Anyhow, I read about this remake, and I naturally read plenty about people being angry as hell that their original was to be 'tarnished' with this idea of a remake.
Here's the set up. Will Smith has pitched the idea for a remake, to star his nine year old son, Jaden as The Karate Kid. There's been talk of calling it The Kung Fu Kid, possibly partly to update it and partly to not offend people who are extremely precious about The Karate Kid.
A mother, for work reasons, goes to live in China, her son Dre (Jaden) is attacked by bullies and needs to learn Kung Fu. A master of kung fu teaches him both kung fu and how to speak Chinese. The kung fu master is played by Jackie Chan.
A lot of blood is being spilled on the message boards. Some claim that people who are against the movie are only against it because they are racist, and don't want to see a black kid learning kung fu. Others say they aren't racist, others say yes, they just don't think a black kid is right for the role - it just does not fit well in the story. It doesn't portray the ethnic issues realistically and they can't relate to it, and anyway, everyone thinks of the Karate Kid as white nowadays.
Other objections brought up are that:
1. Jackie Chan is the wrong actor to step into Pat Morita's role. He's too young and too flippant and funny. In fact you didn't even need a really good martial arts actor to step into Morita's role - what was more important was that the person had the right warmth and chemistry, because Mr Miyagi teaches more lessons about self restraint and less kicking ass in the movies, that's what he's really about.
2. It doesn't matter that Jaden is black, but it does matter that he's nine years old. No one can relate to a nine year old getting beaten up; you don't believe he really needs martial arts lessons, not serious ones. You feel that more at his age he is just likely to get into a few scraps and be teased. The film is a coming of age story and Jaden is not the right age to give that any real meaning.
3. A lot of posters just hate the idea that Jaden got the movie through his Dad - the nepotism, stating that he's untalented and wouldn't have got it if it hadn't been for Will.
This objection ... well I can understand the resentment, but it's basically born out of jealousy, hell we'd all do it if we could, we just didn't get the chance. If we had a rich and famous father who could give us opportunities or 'legs up' we'd take them (not necessarily in showbiz but in some other way) and not think twice about it. Most of us have this already and don't think twice about ti, taking it for granted. Many of us live in houses, get pocket money, went to certain schools, got Christmas presents, had parents of certain intelligence who may have given us advice, some might have parents who helped us with a loan or said they'd babysit our kids for free ... WHATEVER.
All that is help, but if you mention it to many of these same people and say it's getting help from fortunate parents with resources, they cite it as "different" from getting your big rich Daddy helping you put you in a Hollywood film because all the help they receive is 'normal, regular help', but getting a film is "unusual".
Actually, it just means that you're used to it. There are some people who would look with envy at your level and say "I hate those rich lucky bastards who get pocket money and can go whingeing to their parents every time something goes wrong and can dump their kids/dogs/parcels at their parents when they need a break ... spoiled brats!"
It's just a matter of degree. And some people are sure they can pick what degree is "acceptable", trying to convince others it's generally acceptable, when what they really mean is "acceptable ... to me". And that level is usually "Up to as many opportunities as I get, is acceptable for others to have too! But don't go too much further than thaaaat!"
4. Another poster suggested that a better remake, if one had to be done at all, would have been to put an aging Ralph Macchio into the Pat Morita role and have him teach a small Japanese kid the way of Karate ... that is, if it's possible for Ralph Macchio to age.
I'm not particularly looking forward to this Karate Kid myself, but then I never saw the Next Karate Kid. I only saw the ones with Daniel-san. The original and the best!
The classic cheesy original featured Ralph Macchio as Daniel-san, who even though he was in his twenties, played a teenager (he's a bit like Michael J. Fox, he just never grows up), who moves into a new neighbourhood in America. He gets bullied by these local guys and is surprised one day when a local maintenance guy, Okinawan-born wise old Mr Miyagi (Pat Morita) jumps the bullies. Mr Miyagi becomes his karate mentor and teaches him techniques unconventionally, as well as about honour and self control etc. And so he ends up one-upping the bullies by the end of the movie.
Most of us watched the movie and remember classic lines like "Wax on, wax off" and Daniel trying to do the crane stance, or catch a fly with chopsticks, or Mr Miyagi being able to mend his leg by rubbing his hands together, or giving the silent smile through the crowd and the nod.
Anyhow, I read about this remake, and I naturally read plenty about people being angry as hell that their original was to be 'tarnished' with this idea of a remake.
Here's the set up. Will Smith has pitched the idea for a remake, to star his nine year old son, Jaden as The Karate Kid. There's been talk of calling it The Kung Fu Kid, possibly partly to update it and partly to not offend people who are extremely precious about The Karate Kid.
A mother, for work reasons, goes to live in China, her son Dre (Jaden) is attacked by bullies and needs to learn Kung Fu. A master of kung fu teaches him both kung fu and how to speak Chinese. The kung fu master is played by Jackie Chan.
A lot of blood is being spilled on the message boards. Some claim that people who are against the movie are only against it because they are racist, and don't want to see a black kid learning kung fu. Others say they aren't racist, others say yes, they just don't think a black kid is right for the role - it just does not fit well in the story. It doesn't portray the ethnic issues realistically and they can't relate to it, and anyway, everyone thinks of the Karate Kid as white nowadays.
Other objections brought up are that:
1. Jackie Chan is the wrong actor to step into Pat Morita's role. He's too young and too flippant and funny. In fact you didn't even need a really good martial arts actor to step into Morita's role - what was more important was that the person had the right warmth and chemistry, because Mr Miyagi teaches more lessons about self restraint and less kicking ass in the movies, that's what he's really about.
2. It doesn't matter that Jaden is black, but it does matter that he's nine years old. No one can relate to a nine year old getting beaten up; you don't believe he really needs martial arts lessons, not serious ones. You feel that more at his age he is just likely to get into a few scraps and be teased. The film is a coming of age story and Jaden is not the right age to give that any real meaning.
3. A lot of posters just hate the idea that Jaden got the movie through his Dad - the nepotism, stating that he's untalented and wouldn't have got it if it hadn't been for Will.
This objection ... well I can understand the resentment, but it's basically born out of jealousy, hell we'd all do it if we could, we just didn't get the chance. If we had a rich and famous father who could give us opportunities or 'legs up' we'd take them (not necessarily in showbiz but in some other way) and not think twice about it. Most of us have this already and don't think twice about ti, taking it for granted. Many of us live in houses, get pocket money, went to certain schools, got Christmas presents, had parents of certain intelligence who may have given us advice, some might have parents who helped us with a loan or said they'd babysit our kids for free ... WHATEVER.
All that is help, but if you mention it to many of these same people and say it's getting help from fortunate parents with resources, they cite it as "different" from getting your big rich Daddy helping you put you in a Hollywood film because all the help they receive is 'normal, regular help', but getting a film is "unusual".
Actually, it just means that you're used to it. There are some people who would look with envy at your level and say "I hate those rich lucky bastards who get pocket money and can go whingeing to their parents every time something goes wrong and can dump their kids/dogs/parcels at their parents when they need a break ... spoiled brats!"
It's just a matter of degree. And some people are sure they can pick what degree is "acceptable", trying to convince others it's generally acceptable, when what they really mean is "acceptable ... to me". And that level is usually "Up to as many opportunities as I get, is acceptable for others to have too! But don't go too much further than thaaaat!"
4. Another poster suggested that a better remake, if one had to be done at all, would have been to put an aging Ralph Macchio into the Pat Morita role and have him teach a small Japanese kid the way of Karate ... that is, if it's possible for Ralph Macchio to age.
I'm not particularly looking forward to this Karate Kid myself, but then I never saw the Next Karate Kid. I only saw the ones with Daniel-san. The original and the best!
Friday, 13 November 2009
You can rely on me
I may have mentioned before that I'm really utterly failing on this Get a Job thing. And in our society, success is so often tied up in being employed and having lots of money. If there was an award for the most Successful at Being a Failure, I would apply.
What has irked me so often is this thing about being overqualified to do work thing. Employers don't really try to find out anything about you, they make assumptions like if you are overqualified for a job you won't be very dedicated as you'll be very ambitious.
Well, let's just see. I have three tertiary qualifications and I haven't got much experience except in junior administration, do I look like the ambitious type? Please, these idiots really don't think very hard do they?
What I would like to say right now is that I would be a very reliable worker in almost any job, even low level, so long as people weren't totally beating me up every day, just because I HATE INTERVIEWS AND RECRUITERS. I can't stand them. I resent this whole process I am going through every damn day I do it.
I wouldn't try leaping to another job very fast because it would mean having to do ANOTHER STUPID INTERVIEW.
You'd have to be paying me a darn lot to make me take that jump quickly. A small pay rise or a new desk would not cut it. I would probably still sit there screwing tin lids on Cheesybite containers unless I got 300% payrise or something because I hate interviewing so much. It really is annoying the crap outta me!
There! You can rely on me, more than those not-so-bitter trainees who would jump for an extra $100 and a larger cookie jar in the shared kitchen.
What has irked me so often is this thing about being overqualified to do work thing. Employers don't really try to find out anything about you, they make assumptions like if you are overqualified for a job you won't be very dedicated as you'll be very ambitious.
Well, let's just see. I have three tertiary qualifications and I haven't got much experience except in junior administration, do I look like the ambitious type? Please, these idiots really don't think very hard do they?
What I would like to say right now is that I would be a very reliable worker in almost any job, even low level, so long as people weren't totally beating me up every day, just because I HATE INTERVIEWS AND RECRUITERS. I can't stand them. I resent this whole process I am going through every damn day I do it.
I wouldn't try leaping to another job very fast because it would mean having to do ANOTHER STUPID INTERVIEW.
You'd have to be paying me a darn lot to make me take that jump quickly. A small pay rise or a new desk would not cut it. I would probably still sit there screwing tin lids on Cheesybite containers unless I got 300% payrise or something because I hate interviewing so much. It really is annoying the crap outta me!
There! You can rely on me, more than those not-so-bitter trainees who would jump for an extra $100 and a larger cookie jar in the shared kitchen.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Reclaim the Roads!
I read this article by Miranda Devine just recently and was a bit sceptical that she could be serious as it was so outrageously weird, but then, this is Miranda Devine we're talking about.
The article is about cyclists don't belong on the road and the whole idea that "the road is there to share" is wrong - the roads are there for cars (and by extension of that, vehicles in general - buses, vans, trucks seem to come under that generous definition). But not for pedestrians and cyclists who are let on the roads by the "good graces" of cars and shouldn't feel entitled to touch a road.
According to Miranda, the "road is there to share" idea actually does non-car-types a disservice because it creates in them a false sense of entitlement that they can use a road, which is naturally in Miranda's world, wrong, and this causes their deaths. Whoops!
Now, I've no doubt that Miranda is correct in that some cyclists, and also pedestrians behave badly and this can cause accidents. There is also cyclist rage just as there is road rage and there are pedestrians who get mad as hell too. But picking a clip of a mad cyclist or a bad cyclist and using this as evidence to support that your whole argument is correct is just not really presenting a good argument. It's not bad "journalism", though :), as far as journalism has taken us through the ages.
It seems to me that the sense of entitlement that car-drivers may be endowed with by Miranda's and the like's huffing and puffing may equally be responsible for deaths on the roads. "Shove out of my way, I'm allowed here, you aren't!"
When it comes down to it, all sorts of people use the roads - that's a fact. Vehicle users of all kinds. Bicycle users. And pedestrians. We use them in all ways. Not only is it a fact, but it is something that in the community we should face up to and allow for, because we value it. I'm sorry Miranda, but much as certain people may love their little cars, it's also a fact that many valued people cannot drive cars - and some of these people are very valuable people - and that it is valuable to a community that at least sometimes even people who could possibly drive cars, walk or cycle to their destination.
Let me give some examples:
Certain politicians such as Premier Bob Carr can't drive.
A whole lot of people who hold voting power such as the elderly and disabled are not able to drive.
A whole lot of people who are considered valuable to the community can't drive - such as schoolchildren.
The lamentations about obesity make it popular that people are encouraged to actually walk to places, or cycle.
If you're only going for a short distance, it would be considered a good idea that you not drive there - after all, it would cut down on the traffic and the parking spaces that a community had to supply. Imagine if everyone who usually popped out to go 100m down the street for a cup of coffee or the newspaper DROVE THERE.
And yet often these people use the roads. They walk or cycle beside them. They cross the roads.
They need to be given some rights on the roads - to be encouraged to use them and for their own safety. To say "Shit, yes, you toddle off to get your newspaper each morning but you are allowed on the road with my good graces only!" is equivalent to saying "If I feel like it I can and will knock you over and I have no responsibility for that. None!" and therefore, what right minded person would walk across a street?
The key here is that everyone is given rules and everyone has responsibilities. The whole thing about entitlement, and believing that your entitlement is greater than another groups, whether you be a car driver or a bike rifer or a dog-walker, engenders the feeling that you don't have to obey the rules or be responsible. You are above the others. And that's where the real problems start.
All of us should feel that we are allowed on the roads AT THE GOOD GRACES of everyone else in the community, and only so long as we obey the rules. Those rules may be slightly different depending on whether we drive a bus or walk a dog, but that has to do with level of appropriateness, not with level of superiority (You worry about the number of maximum passengers on a bus and designated stops, but you don't need to scoop up its poop or keep it on a leash). Being a allowed to use the roads should be dependent on whether you respect other people's safety and the general rules regarding your own use of the road, not whether you drive a lorry or use a skateboard.
This whole "my group is so much better than yours thing" ... sheesh, it's so vehicle-ism. It really is.
The article is about cyclists don't belong on the road and the whole idea that "the road is there to share" is wrong - the roads are there for cars (and by extension of that, vehicles in general - buses, vans, trucks seem to come under that generous definition). But not for pedestrians and cyclists who are let on the roads by the "good graces" of cars and shouldn't feel entitled to touch a road.
According to Miranda, the "road is there to share" idea actually does non-car-types a disservice because it creates in them a false sense of entitlement that they can use a road, which is naturally in Miranda's world, wrong, and this causes their deaths. Whoops!
Now, I've no doubt that Miranda is correct in that some cyclists, and also pedestrians behave badly and this can cause accidents. There is also cyclist rage just as there is road rage and there are pedestrians who get mad as hell too. But picking a clip of a mad cyclist or a bad cyclist and using this as evidence to support that your whole argument is correct is just not really presenting a good argument. It's not bad "journalism", though :), as far as journalism has taken us through the ages.
It seems to me that the sense of entitlement that car-drivers may be endowed with by Miranda's and the like's huffing and puffing may equally be responsible for deaths on the roads. "Shove out of my way, I'm allowed here, you aren't!"
When it comes down to it, all sorts of people use the roads - that's a fact. Vehicle users of all kinds. Bicycle users. And pedestrians. We use them in all ways. Not only is it a fact, but it is something that in the community we should face up to and allow for, because we value it. I'm sorry Miranda, but much as certain people may love their little cars, it's also a fact that many valued people cannot drive cars - and some of these people are very valuable people - and that it is valuable to a community that at least sometimes even people who could possibly drive cars, walk or cycle to their destination.
Let me give some examples:
Certain politicians such as Premier Bob Carr can't drive.
A whole lot of people who hold voting power such as the elderly and disabled are not able to drive.
A whole lot of people who are considered valuable to the community can't drive - such as schoolchildren.
The lamentations about obesity make it popular that people are encouraged to actually walk to places, or cycle.
If you're only going for a short distance, it would be considered a good idea that you not drive there - after all, it would cut down on the traffic and the parking spaces that a community had to supply. Imagine if everyone who usually popped out to go 100m down the street for a cup of coffee or the newspaper DROVE THERE.
And yet often these people use the roads. They walk or cycle beside them. They cross the roads.
They need to be given some rights on the roads - to be encouraged to use them and for their own safety. To say "Shit, yes, you toddle off to get your newspaper each morning but you are allowed on the road with my good graces only!" is equivalent to saying "If I feel like it I can and will knock you over and I have no responsibility for that. None!" and therefore, what right minded person would walk across a street?
The key here is that everyone is given rules and everyone has responsibilities. The whole thing about entitlement, and believing that your entitlement is greater than another groups, whether you be a car driver or a bike rifer or a dog-walker, engenders the feeling that you don't have to obey the rules or be responsible. You are above the others. And that's where the real problems start.
All of us should feel that we are allowed on the roads AT THE GOOD GRACES of everyone else in the community, and only so long as we obey the rules. Those rules may be slightly different depending on whether we drive a bus or walk a dog, but that has to do with level of appropriateness, not with level of superiority (You worry about the number of maximum passengers on a bus and designated stops, but you don't need to scoop up its poop or keep it on a leash). Being a allowed to use the roads should be dependent on whether you respect other people's safety and the general rules regarding your own use of the road, not whether you drive a lorry or use a skateboard.
This whole "my group is so much better than yours thing" ... sheesh, it's so vehicle-ism. It really is.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Credit Card Whingers!
I saw this whinge about credit cards in the paper recently, and while I'm usually not a huge fan of credit card companies, frankly, why can't some people accept they are the idiots?
From the reporting, it seems that while the perfect day might have been ruined it might have been because certain people weren't that smart. Maybe it is a good reason to take a credit card away from them.
Jeremy Bath went off to buy an engagement ring for his girlfriend and wanted it to be a surprise. The article states that he bought half the ring on one card (CBA) and the other half with a Citibank card. The surprise was ruined because Citibank rang his girlfriend and asked if she had made any purchases at a jewellery store recently on her Citibank card, and she figured out what was going on. The credit card company maintains they do this for security reasons - check on unusual spending habits. And some other commenters say they've been caught out too.
The blog-writer says that this is surprise ruining, over the top and cites it as a reason not to go with Citibank - at least, if you're thinking of buying engagement jewellery - because the jewellery was bought near the place of residence, and had not reached their credit limit or anywhere near it.
Now, in my opinion it's just good practise. Hell, if someone had nicked off with Jeremy Bath's credit card, had only got as far as a nearby jewellery store and had purchased a piece of jewellery and Citibank hadn't said a peep I bet some people would say that they were slack, saying "Jeremy doesn't buy expensive jewellery as part of his weekly routine, how could they not notice that's a bit unusual?!"
As many people pointed out, if you want to make it a surprise ... why the heck would you use a credit card that the recipient of the surprise jointly owned ... d'oh! It seems from the article his girlfriend was a joint owner of the card. If, of course, that is not true, then it may well be an invasion of privacy to let a non-owner know about your expenditure.
There may be some whingers who say that they would have no choice - they don't have their own card, and can't afford one, they can't afford to pay in cash so can't make a secret cash withdrawal ... what does that add up to?
You can't afford a surprise expensive piece of jewellery, then, or you take your chances! Maybe someone will blow your surprise or not. I don't think there is a rule that says that a surprise expensive ring on a holiday, along with a proposal, is an entitlement. Some people make do.
I remember Mr Coffee telling me he bought a few items in succession that was a little unusual for him, and his credit card company calling him immediately saying they had noticed and just wanted to make sure he really made them. He assured them he did and he was impressed with such good service. I'd want my credit card company to be that diligent, should I get a card.
I wouldn't want them to wait until the card was chock-a-block full of expenditures in another city over my credit limit till they clued in it might have been stolen or misused.
When I lost my wallet my bank debit card apparently had been attempted use within minutes (unsuccessfully, it got chewed up by the machine according to the bank) within a hundred metres or so of where I'd been having lunch that day; if I'd had a credit card I'm pretty sure they would have tried the same trick on in the same vicinity within minutes, and it's very possible they would have brought random goods from the department stores nearby. It would be good to know that a credit card store would have seen that it was unusual before it hit anywhere near the credit limit and alerted me.
Just because things didn't work out for these people ... and believe me, I'm sorry they didn't ... they look for someone to call an idiot, but for one time I don't think it's the bank necessarily that's the bastard here. Just, like many of us, it seems it's just doing its job.
From the reporting, it seems that while the perfect day might have been ruined it might have been because certain people weren't that smart. Maybe it is a good reason to take a credit card away from them.
Jeremy Bath went off to buy an engagement ring for his girlfriend and wanted it to be a surprise. The article states that he bought half the ring on one card (CBA) and the other half with a Citibank card. The surprise was ruined because Citibank rang his girlfriend and asked if she had made any purchases at a jewellery store recently on her Citibank card, and she figured out what was going on. The credit card company maintains they do this for security reasons - check on unusual spending habits. And some other commenters say they've been caught out too.
The blog-writer says that this is surprise ruining, over the top and cites it as a reason not to go with Citibank - at least, if you're thinking of buying engagement jewellery - because the jewellery was bought near the place of residence, and had not reached their credit limit or anywhere near it.
Now, in my opinion it's just good practise. Hell, if someone had nicked off with Jeremy Bath's credit card, had only got as far as a nearby jewellery store and had purchased a piece of jewellery and Citibank hadn't said a peep I bet some people would say that they were slack, saying "Jeremy doesn't buy expensive jewellery as part of his weekly routine, how could they not notice that's a bit unusual?!"
As many people pointed out, if you want to make it a surprise ... why the heck would you use a credit card that the recipient of the surprise jointly owned ... d'oh! It seems from the article his girlfriend was a joint owner of the card. If, of course, that is not true, then it may well be an invasion of privacy to let a non-owner know about your expenditure.
There may be some whingers who say that they would have no choice - they don't have their own card, and can't afford one, they can't afford to pay in cash so can't make a secret cash withdrawal ... what does that add up to?
You can't afford a surprise expensive piece of jewellery, then, or you take your chances! Maybe someone will blow your surprise or not. I don't think there is a rule that says that a surprise expensive ring on a holiday, along with a proposal, is an entitlement. Some people make do.
I remember Mr Coffee telling me he bought a few items in succession that was a little unusual for him, and his credit card company calling him immediately saying they had noticed and just wanted to make sure he really made them. He assured them he did and he was impressed with such good service. I'd want my credit card company to be that diligent, should I get a card.
I wouldn't want them to wait until the card was chock-a-block full of expenditures in another city over my credit limit till they clued in it might have been stolen or misused.
When I lost my wallet my bank debit card apparently had been attempted use within minutes (unsuccessfully, it got chewed up by the machine according to the bank) within a hundred metres or so of where I'd been having lunch that day; if I'd had a credit card I'm pretty sure they would have tried the same trick on in the same vicinity within minutes, and it's very possible they would have brought random goods from the department stores nearby. It would be good to know that a credit card store would have seen that it was unusual before it hit anywhere near the credit limit and alerted me.
Just because things didn't work out for these people ... and believe me, I'm sorry they didn't ... they look for someone to call an idiot, but for one time I don't think it's the bank necessarily that's the bastard here. Just, like many of us, it seems it's just doing its job.
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Ageism Moans
Let's see, I've ranted about racism, I think I've tried sexism, now let's talk about ageism.
I have my head too stuffed with ageist remarks to rant about them all (I read the Daily Tele Letters page, you see).
However one bit that always irks me as that bit where "oldies" go on about how young people of today are so selfish and lazy, they can't stand on their own two feet, they can't do this, they can't do simple tasks to keep house or whatever it is. You will hear these people moan and chuckle simultaneously like how it's a disgrace you don't keep your room in order or only cook simple meals out of a packet or can.
Then you hang around the house a bit and the same oldies whine "Hey, can you fix my computer for me? Show me how to clear the messages on my phone! How do I change the picture-thing on my Foxtel? Why isn't the printer working? How do I book tickets online?"
And when you do these things for them patiently - and even go through the steps patiently with them, knowing full well that the next time they'll whine to you, please do it for me, they can't remember what they did last time ...
... they aren't that grateful and they still go in for the young 'un bashing later on. They don't really think of it as a skill they ought to learn just to get on in life, but if it isn't done they whine.
Oh yes ... I do know there are some very technologically capable older people out there. There are also some extremely capable younger people who clean their rooms, can look after their car, hem a skirt and cook meals. But it doesn't seem to stop the generation bashing!
I have my head too stuffed with ageist remarks to rant about them all (I read the Daily Tele Letters page, you see).
However one bit that always irks me as that bit where "oldies" go on about how young people of today are so selfish and lazy, they can't stand on their own two feet, they can't do this, they can't do simple tasks to keep house or whatever it is. You will hear these people moan and chuckle simultaneously like how it's a disgrace you don't keep your room in order or only cook simple meals out of a packet or can.
Then you hang around the house a bit and the same oldies whine "Hey, can you fix my computer for me? Show me how to clear the messages on my phone! How do I change the picture-thing on my Foxtel? Why isn't the printer working? How do I book tickets online?"
And when you do these things for them patiently - and even go through the steps patiently with them, knowing full well that the next time they'll whine to you, please do it for me, they can't remember what they did last time ...
... they aren't that grateful and they still go in for the young 'un bashing later on. They don't really think of it as a skill they ought to learn just to get on in life, but if it isn't done they whine.
Oh yes ... I do know there are some very technologically capable older people out there. There are also some extremely capable younger people who clean their rooms, can look after their car, hem a skirt and cook meals. But it doesn't seem to stop the generation bashing!
Lots of output and no input
And no, this has nothing to do with computer programs.
Recently I tried to make employment a priority. That is, specifically, me trying to become an employed persona, and recently meaning ever since I became an unemployed persona, that is, since mid-June of this year. I will admit that immediately after I lost my last job, I was a bit lax about finding employment, enjoying a week or so off, and a few weeks here and there have been a bit too crammed with other things to do concentrated job hunting. What's more, jobs have been terribly scarce so if you're like me and you try to get your jobs online, even if you try searching the web fairly often sometimes nothing turns up.
NOW maybe someone much smarter, someone more EXPERIENCED, someone more SUCCESSFUL, someone more EFFECTIVE, or someone just who's just got a NUTTIER or WACKIER idea that doesn't involve lifelong damage to the human body (mine or others) or great expense may give me some practical tips on what I could do to possibly land a job, because so far it hasn't been that good. In fact it has been disheartening that I put more time into writing an application than some companies do into reviewing it - the rejection comes back so fast it makes me really annoyed and I feel like sending it back along with their formulaic rejection notice about 'carefully considering' all applications with a sneer and saying 'REVIEW AGAIN YOU COWS!'. Others take so long and never get back to you that you feel like going after them with a cattle prod.
And I'm not sure why all the cow and cattle terminology is coming into play here.
1. Yes I have a resume
2. I have been going for a fair number of different types of jobs. Office jobs, which I am most used to doing, except for that time when I was in High School, where I have some experience in selling hot chips.
I tried calling a recruitment agency, but the lady on the other end of the phone told me politely that recruitment agencies only handled people with quite a deal of experience who also matched the job requirements and I wasn't suitable. I looked miserably at my scatty resume which is a patchwork of a couple of months or weeks or days here and there and it didn't look like any recruitment agent would be jumping for joy to see me. The agent said nicely it would be a very good idea to approach the employer directly.
It seems a lot of emphasis is point on experience in terms of time instead of quality. Really! I mean, I might have only had two days of work at this particular firm, but they were a VERY GOOD two days, I thought, as I tucked in my resume. How shallow can a person be? It's like buying a painting because of its dimensions instead of its artistry or a book because of its length!
Then I remembered how I thought I was getting ripped off in a store recently because a very interesting-looking but slim book was a buck more expensive than a book-I-knew-nothing-about, but the latter had 150 more pages, so maybe hold that thought.
Anyhow, I keep sending enthusiastic-sounding letters to people, telling them that I will type, juggle coffee for them, write reports, file, whatever.
I also assure them that I am excellent at communicating in writing and in speech, that I love working teams and I love working alone too, that I am a workaholic who also will fit into their culture of work-life balance, and I'm a person with great leadership qualities who can take orders and I follow strict processes with lots of flexibility and I have great attention to finer details while obviously focussing on the big picture. All the usual stuff you have to say.
What the heck else do they WANT?
Recently I tried to make employment a priority. That is, specifically, me trying to become an employed persona, and recently meaning ever since I became an unemployed persona, that is, since mid-June of this year. I will admit that immediately after I lost my last job, I was a bit lax about finding employment, enjoying a week or so off, and a few weeks here and there have been a bit too crammed with other things to do concentrated job hunting. What's more, jobs have been terribly scarce so if you're like me and you try to get your jobs online, even if you try searching the web fairly often sometimes nothing turns up.
NOW maybe someone much smarter, someone more EXPERIENCED, someone more SUCCESSFUL, someone more EFFECTIVE, or someone just who's just got a NUTTIER or WACKIER idea that doesn't involve lifelong damage to the human body (mine or others) or great expense may give me some practical tips on what I could do to possibly land a job, because so far it hasn't been that good. In fact it has been disheartening that I put more time into writing an application than some companies do into reviewing it - the rejection comes back so fast it makes me really annoyed and I feel like sending it back along with their formulaic rejection notice about 'carefully considering' all applications with a sneer and saying 'REVIEW AGAIN YOU COWS!'. Others take so long and never get back to you that you feel like going after them with a cattle prod.
And I'm not sure why all the cow and cattle terminology is coming into play here.
1. Yes I have a resume
2. I have been going for a fair number of different types of jobs. Office jobs, which I am most used to doing, except for that time when I was in High School, where I have some experience in selling hot chips.
I tried calling a recruitment agency, but the lady on the other end of the phone told me politely that recruitment agencies only handled people with quite a deal of experience who also matched the job requirements and I wasn't suitable. I looked miserably at my scatty resume which is a patchwork of a couple of months or weeks or days here and there and it didn't look like any recruitment agent would be jumping for joy to see me. The agent said nicely it would be a very good idea to approach the employer directly.
It seems a lot of emphasis is point on experience in terms of time instead of quality. Really! I mean, I might have only had two days of work at this particular firm, but they were a VERY GOOD two days, I thought, as I tucked in my resume. How shallow can a person be? It's like buying a painting because of its dimensions instead of its artistry or a book because of its length!
Then I remembered how I thought I was getting ripped off in a store recently because a very interesting-looking but slim book was a buck more expensive than a book-I-knew-nothing-about, but the latter had 150 more pages, so maybe hold that thought.
Anyhow, I keep sending enthusiastic-sounding letters to people, telling them that I will type, juggle coffee for them, write reports, file, whatever.
I also assure them that I am excellent at communicating in writing and in speech, that I love working teams and I love working alone too, that I am a workaholic who also will fit into their culture of work-life balance, and I'm a person with great leadership qualities who can take orders and I follow strict processes with lots of flexibility and I have great attention to finer details while obviously focussing on the big picture. All the usual stuff you have to say.
What the heck else do they WANT?
Monday, 17 August 2009
Kyle and Jackie O, the continuing story
Apparently Kyle and Jackie O have become embroiled in another scandal! Last time it was one where Kyle insensitively questioned a teen girl on air about her sexual experience when she was doing a lie detector and it was revealed she'd been raped.
Now here's the next scandal and in my opinion, it's pretty mild and seems to be an attempt to capitalise on people's fury at Kyle and Jackie O.
The story this time is that Kyle reneged on a personal pledge of $35 000 made to a family. And that's not all. A woman named Wendy Koman appeared on air and was encouraged to discuss the plight of her four year old boy Josh, who's paralysed. Kyle personally promised $35 000, and people called in to pledge money. She was encouraged to sound emotional to get more money.
But when the family came to collect the cash, instead of handing over the money, the station handed over the names of the people who pledged the money. Kyle also reneged on his personal pledge after several callers made pledges of of $20 000. Wendy Koman complained that she felt like a debt collector, having to go after the people and collect the money pledged.
Basically, I think this is a pretty pathetic whinge.
Except for the part about Sandilands going back on his word, which is probably something you can get him for, even if he did help you raise the rest of the dough, but gets lost in the rest of the whinge.
It seems rather silly to whinge that you were prepared to go on radio, tell your story, want to get a whole lot of people to donate money to you, but then didn't want to feel bad about taking that money from them. Sorry, I just wanted it handed to me, I didn't want to actually either do the hard work or feel that I was taking it off them. I am happy to take the money from them, I just don't want the psychological stain, which is what calling people up gives you.
For $150K, I think there are plenty of people who would be happy to call around and collect the money. I would.
It seems to me that no matter how upset Koman is, she hasn't come out so morally outraged at Sandilands and principled that she would not touch the disgusting money that the terrible antics of these people has brought her. When she hands the money back to all those people who donated, or gives it to the station or to a charity or something then perhaps she will be more convincing.
Yes, probably the station could have been very much nicer about it. They could have been greeted at the door with a red carpet and a cake and a little funny clown could have been sent over to Josh and someone could have sent flowers over every day and the money could have been done up in little bundles tied in pink ribbon and a photo could have been taken of them receiving it and it could have been framed and sent over to them and Kyle and Jackie O could have become their best buddies forever too and then personally added an extra several ten thousands on top of that as a "bonus just because you're so darn cool".
Everything could have been very much nicer. However, should you reasonably expect it? It seems some people think they are almost entitled to extreme niceness - and often because they feel sorry for themselves. Then when they get less they get outraged. This can be something like what Ms Koman received, or it can be something very simple like someone not publishing your outraged letter to the Editor in the newspaper or not commenting on your blog article. How could they possibly think my original heartfelt wonderful story about this topic and my opinion on it is not worth publishing/reading/comment!
Anyway, I would be happy to go on 2DAYFM and get $150K myself but I have learnt from this lesson.
Hi 2DAYFM.
I have a very sad story and I would like you to raise a whole lot of money for it, say over $100K would be nice. However I have some conditions on this, I will sound impassioned on radio however I don't want anyone to say I am milking it. I want a heap of money but I don't want anyone to say I am cheap or selling myself. I want other people's cash but I want to feel that they are giving it freely and I am entitled to it not that I have to take it from them. I want to be able to collect it easily, so please get some of your staff to collect it from those people should they prove difficult to collect from, or better still, please give me the money straight from your coffers, and then you can refill your coffers at some later time with any pledges that you will naturally do all the work to collect and if anyone doesn't pay up, not my problem."
Yours Sincerely,
Maria
P.S. By the way this blog article is so darn relevant and my opinion is so darn right I feel entitled to at least one comment and I will feel outraged if I don't get one. If someone else doesn't do it I'll do it myself!
Now here's the next scandal and in my opinion, it's pretty mild and seems to be an attempt to capitalise on people's fury at Kyle and Jackie O.
The story this time is that Kyle reneged on a personal pledge of $35 000 made to a family. And that's not all. A woman named Wendy Koman appeared on air and was encouraged to discuss the plight of her four year old boy Josh, who's paralysed. Kyle personally promised $35 000, and people called in to pledge money. She was encouraged to sound emotional to get more money.
But when the family came to collect the cash, instead of handing over the money, the station handed over the names of the people who pledged the money. Kyle also reneged on his personal pledge after several callers made pledges of of $20 000. Wendy Koman complained that she felt like a debt collector, having to go after the people and collect the money pledged.
Basically, I think this is a pretty pathetic whinge.
Except for the part about Sandilands going back on his word, which is probably something you can get him for, even if he did help you raise the rest of the dough, but gets lost in the rest of the whinge.
It seems rather silly to whinge that you were prepared to go on radio, tell your story, want to get a whole lot of people to donate money to you, but then didn't want to feel bad about taking that money from them. Sorry, I just wanted it handed to me, I didn't want to actually either do the hard work or feel that I was taking it off them. I am happy to take the money from them, I just don't want the psychological stain, which is what calling people up gives you.
For $150K, I think there are plenty of people who would be happy to call around and collect the money. I would.
It seems to me that no matter how upset Koman is, she hasn't come out so morally outraged at Sandilands and principled that she would not touch the disgusting money that the terrible antics of these people has brought her. When she hands the money back to all those people who donated, or gives it to the station or to a charity or something then perhaps she will be more convincing.
Yes, probably the station could have been very much nicer about it. They could have been greeted at the door with a red carpet and a cake and a little funny clown could have been sent over to Josh and someone could have sent flowers over every day and the money could have been done up in little bundles tied in pink ribbon and a photo could have been taken of them receiving it and it could have been framed and sent over to them and Kyle and Jackie O could have become their best buddies forever too and then personally added an extra several ten thousands on top of that as a "bonus just because you're so darn cool".
Everything could have been very much nicer. However, should you reasonably expect it? It seems some people think they are almost entitled to extreme niceness - and often because they feel sorry for themselves. Then when they get less they get outraged. This can be something like what Ms Koman received, or it can be something very simple like someone not publishing your outraged letter to the Editor in the newspaper or not commenting on your blog article. How could they possibly think my original heartfelt wonderful story about this topic and my opinion on it is not worth publishing/reading/comment!
Anyway, I would be happy to go on 2DAYFM and get $150K myself but I have learnt from this lesson.
Hi 2DAYFM.
I have a very sad story and I would like you to raise a whole lot of money for it, say over $100K would be nice. However I have some conditions on this, I will sound impassioned on radio however I don't want anyone to say I am milking it. I want a heap of money but I don't want anyone to say I am cheap or selling myself. I want other people's cash but I want to feel that they are giving it freely and I am entitled to it not that I have to take it from them. I want to be able to collect it easily, so please get some of your staff to collect it from those people should they prove difficult to collect from, or better still, please give me the money straight from your coffers, and then you can refill your coffers at some later time with any pledges that you will naturally do all the work to collect and if anyone doesn't pay up, not my problem."
Yours Sincerely,
Maria
P.S. By the way this blog article is so darn relevant and my opinion is so darn right I feel entitled to at least one comment and I will feel outraged if I don't get one. If someone else doesn't do it I'll do it myself!
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Who's to blame?
Every so often you hear the government telling people to get out there and get more enthusiastic about finding a job, and maybe don't be so picky, we all have to do our bit, we can't be so picky in these times blah blah. Of course they want us to do any old job, unemployment is bad for stats which reflect upon them.
And (certain) employed people often tell unemployed people to get off their butts and get cracking and find a job, any job, you can't wait around to find a dream job. (It's more rare for an unemployed person to go on like this to other unemployed people.)
But while the onus mainly falls on unemployed people to change the state of unemployment in Australia (that is, make unemployment lower, not greater), let's have a look at who else could be helping out here. I think we can point our finger at many who are just not helping and they aren't us unemployed people:
1. The employed, in fact the OVER-employed
Working hard? Earning good money? You disgust us. While you pontificate about how unemployed people should be getting jobs, every time you work overtime or multitask, think about how you are taking a job away from an innocent unemployed bum who could be earning a slice of your salary. Are you writing an email while talking on the phone and does it cut into your designated lunch break? Do you think about how to manage that project while you are pressing the buttons on the photocopier?
Shame on you.
2. Animals
There's always a whinge about how immigrants take the jobs of hardworking Australians, but what about animals who take the jobs of potentially hardworking humans?
Every time you train a horse, or get a guide dog, or run a rat through a maze, that's something a human could do. Probably pretty well, though maybe a little slower at first, and not look as cute. But we have to make allowances.
3. Employers and their silly, self-indulgent ads
Really, how about writing ads that actually sound attractive for once and say something about the job? So we can apply? I am very sick of reading an ad that's a page long and goes on about this globally recognised company and then when you get to the bottom of the ad you realise it said nothing about the job position. Damn, am I going for CEO or sandwich trolley lady? I wouldn't have a clue. Do I write about how darn cool I look in a suit and what fantastic leadership skills I have and how great I am at wooing Japanese businessmen, or how great I am with slapping turkey and lettuce between slices of rye?
It's a mystery.
Every time someone puts out one of these ads it's seriously a waste of time for the whole economy because unemployed people waste their time reading it and trying to figure it out, possibly waste their time writing a misguided application for it which gets nowhere, when they could have been applying for ones in line with their skills and getting a job.
4. Recruitment Agencies who put out Sham Ads
Frustrating and again a waste of people's time and money. You know who I'm talking about, Gemteq Executive.
5. Recruitment Websites/Agencies who File Ads Improperly (or their filters don't work)
It seems some people have worked the filters so their ad appears everywhere, and filters don't filter it out. So their luscious ad for being a Manager for Whoop Whoop company needing a degree in Engineering and five years experience, based in Perth appears even if you put on the filter NSW - Sydney - West and want only Media - Performance jobs or something.
Yeah, sure, you want your job out there, but the reason people put these filters on is because when they say Sydney, they are not interested in Perth. At ALL. So you're wasting your time, annoying people and making everyone's search slower and more difficult. Pains in the Asses.
6. People who don't yank the ad and the position has been filled 3 months ago.
I can forgive a delay of a couple of days, things are busy and your newbie has been occupying your time. But it is very annoying and another waste of time to have an ad sitting on a website (or anywhere) saying you want someone, and then you go to all the trouble of applying and find out that the position was filled - over a month ago. Thanks a lot.
And (certain) employed people often tell unemployed people to get off their butts and get cracking and find a job, any job, you can't wait around to find a dream job. (It's more rare for an unemployed person to go on like this to other unemployed people.)
But while the onus mainly falls on unemployed people to change the state of unemployment in Australia (that is, make unemployment lower, not greater), let's have a look at who else could be helping out here. I think we can point our finger at many who are just not helping and they aren't us unemployed people:
1. The employed, in fact the OVER-employed
Working hard? Earning good money? You disgust us. While you pontificate about how unemployed people should be getting jobs, every time you work overtime or multitask, think about how you are taking a job away from an innocent unemployed bum who could be earning a slice of your salary. Are you writing an email while talking on the phone and does it cut into your designated lunch break? Do you think about how to manage that project while you are pressing the buttons on the photocopier?
Shame on you.
2. Animals
There's always a whinge about how immigrants take the jobs of hardworking Australians, but what about animals who take the jobs of potentially hardworking humans?
Every time you train a horse, or get a guide dog, or run a rat through a maze, that's something a human could do. Probably pretty well, though maybe a little slower at first, and not look as cute. But we have to make allowances.
3. Employers and their silly, self-indulgent ads
Really, how about writing ads that actually sound attractive for once and say something about the job? So we can apply? I am very sick of reading an ad that's a page long and goes on about this globally recognised company and then when you get to the bottom of the ad you realise it said nothing about the job position. Damn, am I going for CEO or sandwich trolley lady? I wouldn't have a clue. Do I write about how darn cool I look in a suit and what fantastic leadership skills I have and how great I am at wooing Japanese businessmen, or how great I am with slapping turkey and lettuce between slices of rye?
It's a mystery.
Every time someone puts out one of these ads it's seriously a waste of time for the whole economy because unemployed people waste their time reading it and trying to figure it out, possibly waste their time writing a misguided application for it which gets nowhere, when they could have been applying for ones in line with their skills and getting a job.
4. Recruitment Agencies who put out Sham Ads
Frustrating and again a waste of people's time and money. You know who I'm talking about, Gemteq Executive.
5. Recruitment Websites/Agencies who File Ads Improperly (or their filters don't work)
It seems some people have worked the filters so their ad appears everywhere, and filters don't filter it out. So their luscious ad for being a Manager for Whoop Whoop company needing a degree in Engineering and five years experience, based in Perth appears even if you put on the filter NSW - Sydney - West and want only Media - Performance jobs or something.
Yeah, sure, you want your job out there, but the reason people put these filters on is because when they say Sydney, they are not interested in Perth. At ALL. So you're wasting your time, annoying people and making everyone's search slower and more difficult. Pains in the Asses.
6. People who don't yank the ad and the position has been filled 3 months ago.
I can forgive a delay of a couple of days, things are busy and your newbie has been occupying your time. But it is very annoying and another waste of time to have an ad sitting on a website (or anywhere) saying you want someone, and then you go to all the trouble of applying and find out that the position was filled - over a month ago. Thanks a lot.
Monday, 10 August 2009
These Ageist OLDIES are Really Getting Up My Nose!
Recently Kyle and Jackie O, 2Day FM Presenters, were hauled over the coals and then suspended from their show following a controversial incident involving questioning a 14-year-old girl on air about her sex life.
I'm not going to analyse that one. Plenty of others have already. It's enough to say that Kyle Sandilands especially has a pretty bad rep already so this incident didn't exactly do him any favours.
I read a whole lot of letters to the Editor in newspapers, mainly from people older than the teen and young twenties audience that 2Day FM targets, and the letters mainly condemned Kyle and Jackie O, calling them names like Vile and Tacky O (interestingly, the same handles that were used in the article several weeks ago by The Tele itself - who's impressionable?) and saying that they were disgusting, the world was better without them, but also saying things like Kyle got what he deserved and he only appealed to the "impressionable teen" audience, which really needed better guidance.
It's derogatory comments like this, written from the superior platform of older people to younger people, increasingly, that really annoy me. Sure, Kyle, appealed to younger people in general, but why because you don't like him suddenly lump all teens as "impressionable"?
There have been tacky, sensationalist and questionable presenters who have appealed to older markets. Mike Munro is well known for his style of trying to coerce tears from his interviewees (I met him and he thinks it's funny that some people think it's tacky, for him it's part of the job to get people going) to boost ratings. Alan Jones and John Laws were hauled over the coals for their dubious Cash for Comment involvement where the whole idea was to comment on products and impress their comments on their audience's mind (and the premise that this would work).
Yet no person from these generations, when these scandals came out and said, as I recall, "The presenters did it because they know as an age group that we are an impressionable lot" or something to that effect.
They are quite happy to tar teens with that brush, however.
Then I went to look up jobs and I found a job ad ... it said at the bottom:
No Agencies
No Gen Y Losers
Despite the fact that some might see this as a joke, and hopefully it comes out that way ... it again goes back to the age thing. Gen Y losers. What's the assumption here? That if you are from Gen Y you are a loser? That we would take an older person who is a loser, but if you are from Gen Y and a loser, sorry, goodbye?
Basically, there seems to be a perception that if you are of a certain age group you are more likely to generate certain loser-ish traits that you have to work harder to overcome, whereas the foibles of Gen X or Baby Boomers are acceptable. And let's face it, we've all got foibles.
And since Gen Y is directly linked to age, then this means that you could argue that if you are of a certain age and someone has these prejudices, you go into a job ion the back foot already. Someone is already thinking you are loser potential, and it colours what you say and do and how you learn and how you are treated, in a way they wouldn't think or treat you if you were 10 years older. Ba boom.
Anyhow, here's an article that I read today in Heckler. I don't quite get the author's argument. Firstly the author says we shouldn't give 16 year olds the vote. But then he goes on to say "Age isn't the best criterion by which to measure merit, maturity or voter eligibility."
OK, but certainly if you don't want to give 16 year olds the vote, you are endorsing age as some criterion, aren't you?
The author says that teenagers lack perspective, perspicacity and proficiency. That's an absolute statement he makes, rather than looking to the individual. Then he puts out a dubious test which filters who should vote (one which I assume would allow him to vote!) and also says that the state of his friend's 16 year old's bedroom leads him to believe that 16 year old's lack the organisational skills to choose a leader.
That's a great sample selection, by the way, mate.
The point here is not whether 16 year olds should vote or not or even whether voting rights should be conferred by something like age or a test like whether you know enough about the government.
The point here is the derogatory and stereotypical way in which teenagers are treated i the article. Assumptions are made - yes, the author does say he doesn't want to see idiots or non-knowledgeable vote, but then also jumps straight into saying that all teenagers as a necessity fall into that basket.
If one teenager's room is messy, then he casts all teenagers as being disorganised. I've seen junkyards of houses kept by thirty, forty, fifty year olds, and I'm sure many people in this age group would dislike the idea of saying "I've seen a my friend's forty-year-old daughter's place and it's a junkyard, I don't think forty year olds should get the vote." Not only would they think it's an insult but they'd say it didn't make any sense. People are different.
However when it comes to teenagers, many adults seem to have some idea that "you've seen one, you've seen them all".
It's like they don't have individuality or a soul.
But of course they do.
I'm not going to analyse that one. Plenty of others have already. It's enough to say that Kyle Sandilands especially has a pretty bad rep already so this incident didn't exactly do him any favours.
I read a whole lot of letters to the Editor in newspapers, mainly from people older than the teen and young twenties audience that 2Day FM targets, and the letters mainly condemned Kyle and Jackie O, calling them names like Vile and Tacky O (interestingly, the same handles that were used in the article several weeks ago by The Tele itself - who's impressionable?) and saying that they were disgusting, the world was better without them, but also saying things like Kyle got what he deserved and he only appealed to the "impressionable teen" audience, which really needed better guidance.
It's derogatory comments like this, written from the superior platform of older people to younger people, increasingly, that really annoy me. Sure, Kyle, appealed to younger people in general, but why because you don't like him suddenly lump all teens as "impressionable"?
There have been tacky, sensationalist and questionable presenters who have appealed to older markets. Mike Munro is well known for his style of trying to coerce tears from his interviewees (I met him and he thinks it's funny that some people think it's tacky, for him it's part of the job to get people going) to boost ratings. Alan Jones and John Laws were hauled over the coals for their dubious Cash for Comment involvement where the whole idea was to comment on products and impress their comments on their audience's mind (and the premise that this would work).
Yet no person from these generations, when these scandals came out and said, as I recall, "The presenters did it because they know as an age group that we are an impressionable lot" or something to that effect.
They are quite happy to tar teens with that brush, however.
Then I went to look up jobs and I found a job ad ... it said at the bottom:
No Agencies
No Gen Y Losers
Despite the fact that some might see this as a joke, and hopefully it comes out that way ... it again goes back to the age thing. Gen Y losers. What's the assumption here? That if you are from Gen Y you are a loser? That we would take an older person who is a loser, but if you are from Gen Y and a loser, sorry, goodbye?
Basically, there seems to be a perception that if you are of a certain age group you are more likely to generate certain loser-ish traits that you have to work harder to overcome, whereas the foibles of Gen X or Baby Boomers are acceptable. And let's face it, we've all got foibles.
And since Gen Y is directly linked to age, then this means that you could argue that if you are of a certain age and someone has these prejudices, you go into a job ion the back foot already. Someone is already thinking you are loser potential, and it colours what you say and do and how you learn and how you are treated, in a way they wouldn't think or treat you if you were 10 years older. Ba boom.
Anyhow, here's an article that I read today in Heckler. I don't quite get the author's argument. Firstly the author says we shouldn't give 16 year olds the vote. But then he goes on to say "Age isn't the best criterion by which to measure merit, maturity or voter eligibility."
OK, but certainly if you don't want to give 16 year olds the vote, you are endorsing age as some criterion, aren't you?
The author says that teenagers lack perspective, perspicacity and proficiency. That's an absolute statement he makes, rather than looking to the individual. Then he puts out a dubious test which filters who should vote (one which I assume would allow him to vote!) and also says that the state of his friend's 16 year old's bedroom leads him to believe that 16 year old's lack the organisational skills to choose a leader.
That's a great sample selection, by the way, mate.
The point here is not whether 16 year olds should vote or not or even whether voting rights should be conferred by something like age or a test like whether you know enough about the government.
The point here is the derogatory and stereotypical way in which teenagers are treated i the article. Assumptions are made - yes, the author does say he doesn't want to see idiots or non-knowledgeable vote, but then also jumps straight into saying that all teenagers as a necessity fall into that basket.
If one teenager's room is messy, then he casts all teenagers as being disorganised. I've seen junkyards of houses kept by thirty, forty, fifty year olds, and I'm sure many people in this age group would dislike the idea of saying "I've seen a my friend's forty-year-old daughter's place and it's a junkyard, I don't think forty year olds should get the vote." Not only would they think it's an insult but they'd say it didn't make any sense. People are different.
However when it comes to teenagers, many adults seem to have some idea that "you've seen one, you've seen them all".
It's like they don't have individuality or a soul.
But of course they do.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
False Advertising
What really annoys me is shortened versions tryign to pass themselves off as taller.
I'm not talking about high heels, although I'm not a high heel wearer and that's another thing I don't see a need to do. I mean, why try to convince anyone that little old me is actually 2 metres tall. I'm not fooling anyone, especially when I fall over.
And that's just it, you're not fooling anyone. The shortened versions get noticed!
My gripe is about books!
Recently I had a discussion about whether cut-down/shortened/abridged versions of classics should be "allowed". Some people are very precioius about them and don't think they should exist. I believe they should be allowed - I'm all in favour of options - so long as the original is still in print for those who want to access it.
However my belief is that any abridged version should be clearly marked as abridged. The consumer, I believe, should be able to assume that a verison is in its complete form unless it's marked abridged/cut down/shortened whatever. And the marking shoudl be fairly obvious. Say on the cover or spine or on a sticker on the front if applicable.
Unfortunately, it seems many versions like to tuck their notification away. In rather obscure places. Say it's written in the copyright page, or discussed in the foreword/intro.
I think this is more than a little annoying and the buyer shouldnt' be expected to rummage through these places before they discover it's not the full version. Frankly, I'd be pissed off. i've had that experience before, fortunately just with library books. And I've heard some people discuss it on the web.
Sometimes it's not even said straight out, for instance I read of some people complaining that they had read Murakami's Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. A comparison was made with other translations and it was found chapters were missing. A reviewer noted that the copyright page said it was 'adapted' not 'translated' from the Japanese, but this didn't explicitly say it was a shortened version.
That would be very annoying if you had wanted the full-length version!
I am all in favour of shortened versions being available for people; some people do not want to read the whole of a long book but would like to share in the experience of popular stories. However please mark them so, so that consumers know what they are getting! And so they can make an informed decision as to which version they would prefer.
Thank you.
I'm not talking about high heels, although I'm not a high heel wearer and that's another thing I don't see a need to do. I mean, why try to convince anyone that little old me is actually 2 metres tall. I'm not fooling anyone, especially when I fall over.
And that's just it, you're not fooling anyone. The shortened versions get noticed!
My gripe is about books!
Recently I had a discussion about whether cut-down/shortened/abridged versions of classics should be "allowed". Some people are very precioius about them and don't think they should exist. I believe they should be allowed - I'm all in favour of options - so long as the original is still in print for those who want to access it.
However my belief is that any abridged version should be clearly marked as abridged. The consumer, I believe, should be able to assume that a verison is in its complete form unless it's marked abridged/cut down/shortened whatever. And the marking shoudl be fairly obvious. Say on the cover or spine or on a sticker on the front if applicable.
Unfortunately, it seems many versions like to tuck their notification away. In rather obscure places. Say it's written in the copyright page, or discussed in the foreword/intro.
I think this is more than a little annoying and the buyer shouldnt' be expected to rummage through these places before they discover it's not the full version. Frankly, I'd be pissed off. i've had that experience before, fortunately just with library books. And I've heard some people discuss it on the web.
Sometimes it's not even said straight out, for instance I read of some people complaining that they had read Murakami's Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. A comparison was made with other translations and it was found chapters were missing. A reviewer noted that the copyright page said it was 'adapted' not 'translated' from the Japanese, but this didn't explicitly say it was a shortened version.
That would be very annoying if you had wanted the full-length version!
I am all in favour of shortened versions being available for people; some people do not want to read the whole of a long book but would like to share in the experience of popular stories. However please mark them so, so that consumers know what they are getting! And so they can make an informed decision as to which version they would prefer.
Thank you.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Bomb the Moon!
Yesterday I read this article about how NASA as found, in the so called global economic recession, half a billion dollars to bomb the moon.
I'm sure lots of Americans are really glad to know how their tax money is being spent. While they don't have welfare nearly so good as many other countries to prop them up should they lose their job, which is happening is droves at the moment, they can sleep well knowing that their is a nice dent in the moon's surface.
The reasons, according to this article, for bombing the moon, are a) to find water which may or may not be on the moon and b) if there is water, the water vapour which will be sent up in the air by the bomb will form a cloud which will allow us to draw a very detailed map of the moon. Of course this could disturb the water supply and the map of the moon will be different from the moon as we currently know it because it will have a huge dent in the side of it from a bomb, but to hell with that.
So basically, we are spending half a billion dollars to find water in outer space that mightn't even exist but if it does exist, it will be a long way from us so I'm thinking, what exactly will a water supply out there do for us, wouldn't it be smarter to build a really cool dam or water catchment on Earth? What's next, a big pipeline from Earth to the moon or little modules that go out to the moon every so often with astronauts whose sole job is to fill up little plastic bottles, load them on to the ship and then bring 'em back and sell them to restaurants at exorbitant prices?
What's more, if we interfere with the moon to much, by bombing the hell out of it with target practice or draining it of large amounts of water, who knows what it may do to affect our own environment, as the moon has a direct effect on Earth - including its own water movements (oh, and some say our mental health).
The next thing is, we're trying to get a map of the moon.
I'm not sure why, I don't know how many people holiday there, we are slack enough about getting maps on Earth. My bus route map is inaccurate. Start at home.
Wat are they hoping to do with a map of the moon, start a Google Moon project?
I can just see it, Google will announce a Google Moon service, and everyone will want to see their favourite part of the moon.
Whoopee!
Then you'll download the service and it will tell you "Please type in an EXACT STREET ADDRESS" or it won't show you the pic of the moon bit you want which will be absolutely fantastic. I want my Google Moon money back.
There is probably a reason why intelligent life from outer space doesn't contact us and that's possibly because we don't rate as intelligent to them. They're ringing all their more intelligent buddies and writing human beings off in the "dumbass" sector, not worth bothering with or contacting.
I'm sure lots of Americans are really glad to know how their tax money is being spent. While they don't have welfare nearly so good as many other countries to prop them up should they lose their job, which is happening is droves at the moment, they can sleep well knowing that their is a nice dent in the moon's surface.
The reasons, according to this article, for bombing the moon, are a) to find water which may or may not be on the moon and b) if there is water, the water vapour which will be sent up in the air by the bomb will form a cloud which will allow us to draw a very detailed map of the moon. Of course this could disturb the water supply and the map of the moon will be different from the moon as we currently know it because it will have a huge dent in the side of it from a bomb, but to hell with that.
So basically, we are spending half a billion dollars to find water in outer space that mightn't even exist but if it does exist, it will be a long way from us so I'm thinking, what exactly will a water supply out there do for us, wouldn't it be smarter to build a really cool dam or water catchment on Earth? What's next, a big pipeline from Earth to the moon or little modules that go out to the moon every so often with astronauts whose sole job is to fill up little plastic bottles, load them on to the ship and then bring 'em back and sell them to restaurants at exorbitant prices?
What's more, if we interfere with the moon to much, by bombing the hell out of it with target practice or draining it of large amounts of water, who knows what it may do to affect our own environment, as the moon has a direct effect on Earth - including its own water movements (oh, and some say our mental health).
The next thing is, we're trying to get a map of the moon.
I'm not sure why, I don't know how many people holiday there, we are slack enough about getting maps on Earth. My bus route map is inaccurate. Start at home.
Wat are they hoping to do with a map of the moon, start a Google Moon project?
I can just see it, Google will announce a Google Moon service, and everyone will want to see their favourite part of the moon.
Whoopee!
Then you'll download the service and it will tell you "Please type in an EXACT STREET ADDRESS" or it won't show you the pic of the moon bit you want which will be absolutely fantastic. I want my Google Moon money back.
There is probably a reason why intelligent life from outer space doesn't contact us and that's possibly because we don't rate as intelligent to them. They're ringing all their more intelligent buddies and writing human beings off in the "dumbass" sector, not worth bothering with or contacting.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
My Name isn't Lam or Ling or Tong, it's Lamb or Linde or Tony
Sorry to go back to racism again, but I just HAD to get this one out. Another article on the topic, this one about Anglicising names. Apparently an experiment was done using fake job applications, and it was found that if you had an Anglo name, you were most likely to get called back for a job interview.
People with Italian name didn't fare so badly, they were ahead of those with middle Eastern names. But the ones who did the worst was those with Chinese names.
A Professor Leigh said that certain minority groups would do better in getting job interviews if they Anglicised their names, and said this attitude was ''consistent with the notion ... that a sudden influx of migration increases prejudice''.
Sydney was the city in which minorities were most likely to be discriminated against, compared with Brisbane and Melbourne.
This is the clincher though:
"But Professor Leigh said discrimination against certain groups may be more subconscious than racist."
I don't quite get that - it seems to differentiate between subconscious and racist behaviour - does that mean if you racially discriminate against people but you do it subconsciously, not consciously, you aren't really racist? As Mr Coffee put it, you've got to officially, consciously sign up to the racist union, or you aren't a real racist?
If you were one of those whites in America who just grew up thinking there was something naturally inferior about black people, but didn't put a name to it, just didn't really think about it, just thought it was ok that they had fewer rights than you because that's "the way I was brought up, that's just the way I think the world is, it's normal? That's right, isn't it?" - did this mean your behaviour was not racist? It may not be malicious but it sounds pretty racist to me. Whether subconscious or conscious, the basis of the discrimination is still racially based.
A person who does look over a job application and chooses some over others because of the ethnic background of their name - that sounds pretty racist to me. It may not be malicious, but it is racist behaviour, and sometimes it can be all the more harmful when it's subconscious because it's so ingrained. The person just accepts it as normal, "I can't say why I prefer the Smiths and the Joneses, they just feel righter". This may be because they've read lots of articles about migration or they've been brought up to think certain things about a particular group or seen certain things on the TV or had a certain experience or whatever - but this attitude seems to say "It's a racially based attitude/prejudice. It manifests itself later in behaviour that is subconscious, but how does that make it not racist ..."
Basically, if there is a difference between subconscious and racist behaviour it would mean a) racist behaviour has to be conscious, intentional behaviour. b) Subconscious behaviour ... well it means it wasn't meant consciously, but what's the motivation for it? "Subconsciously I am more likely to pick Anglos over any other name" - still doesn't explain why. Because subconsciously ... what? Subconsciously I am making a racist decision.
(Or maybe I am making a decision to choose names I can pronounce most easily so I don't sound like a goof on the phone when I call these people back, is that it?)
People with Italian name didn't fare so badly, they were ahead of those with middle Eastern names. But the ones who did the worst was those with Chinese names.
A Professor Leigh said that certain minority groups would do better in getting job interviews if they Anglicised their names, and said this attitude was ''consistent with the notion ... that a sudden influx of migration increases prejudice''.
Sydney was the city in which minorities were most likely to be discriminated against, compared with Brisbane and Melbourne.
This is the clincher though:
"But Professor Leigh said discrimination against certain groups may be more subconscious than racist."
I don't quite get that - it seems to differentiate between subconscious and racist behaviour - does that mean if you racially discriminate against people but you do it subconsciously, not consciously, you aren't really racist? As Mr Coffee put it, you've got to officially, consciously sign up to the racist union, or you aren't a real racist?
If you were one of those whites in America who just grew up thinking there was something naturally inferior about black people, but didn't put a name to it, just didn't really think about it, just thought it was ok that they had fewer rights than you because that's "the way I was brought up, that's just the way I think the world is, it's normal? That's right, isn't it?" - did this mean your behaviour was not racist? It may not be malicious but it sounds pretty racist to me. Whether subconscious or conscious, the basis of the discrimination is still racially based.
A person who does look over a job application and chooses some over others because of the ethnic background of their name - that sounds pretty racist to me. It may not be malicious, but it is racist behaviour, and sometimes it can be all the more harmful when it's subconscious because it's so ingrained. The person just accepts it as normal, "I can't say why I prefer the Smiths and the Joneses, they just feel righter". This may be because they've read lots of articles about migration or they've been brought up to think certain things about a particular group or seen certain things on the TV or had a certain experience or whatever - but this attitude seems to say "It's a racially based attitude/prejudice. It manifests itself later in behaviour that is subconscious, but how does that make it not racist ..."
Basically, if there is a difference between subconscious and racist behaviour it would mean a) racist behaviour has to be conscious, intentional behaviour. b) Subconscious behaviour ... well it means it wasn't meant consciously, but what's the motivation for it? "Subconsciously I am more likely to pick Anglos over any other name" - still doesn't explain why. Because subconsciously ... what? Subconsciously I am making a racist decision.
(Or maybe I am making a decision to choose names I can pronounce most easily so I don't sound like a goof on the phone when I call these people back, is that it?)
Friday, 22 May 2009
Techno-nannying doesn't go far enough
According to this article there's a new device being tested to speed-limit cars.
This is a special device which would recognise what the speed limit was, and then sound a warning if you tried to abuse it, and also stop you from speeding. It'd stubbornly refuse to let you speed!
Now some people think this is a great idea. I for one have never really understood why cars can go up to 180km/hr anyhow, I have never seen a 180km/hr zone.
But of course there were people who complained about nannying and how what speed you were at should be your personal responsibility.
Of course this does assume that all car drivers know what 'responsibility' means which many don't seem to from the looks of the roads out there.
Then I read a whole bunch of letters groaning about how we are the most over-governed country in the world, which I think is just an excuse for people who don't want to be rioters.
I think there are plenty of places in which we are not governed enough and I would like to see certain sorts of idiots reined in immediately with new technologies. These people don't exhibit proper responsibility and therefore it's useless saying it's up to their personal responsibility. They NEED nannying!
1. People who pack bags in supermarkets. They who are about to put a heavy item on top of a soft item should have a device attached to them which immediately gives them an electric shock and jerks their arm away from the bag!
2. People who smoke and are tempted to throw their cigarette butt out without stubbing it. These people need to have a device attached which makes them stub out it out properly first. Oh, before they stub it, huge neon lights should go off over them saying JERK JERK JERK for a bit of public humiliation.
3. People who go into the 12 items or less lane with more than 12 items should have a little robot who comes out and screams "YOU CAN'T COUNT" and shoves them into the right lane.
In fact, "12 items or less" lanes should have little robots which flash "We know this should say '12 items or fewer' we're just made a mistake and we're too cheap to change all the signs!"
4. People who try to comment on a blog and use all CAPS or have lots and lots of common spelling errors, especially mixing up "your" and "you're", "they're", "there" and "their", etc, should have a "beep" that stops their comment from being posted and after three attempts, bans them from posting until they've done some basic literacy courses.
This is a special device which would recognise what the speed limit was, and then sound a warning if you tried to abuse it, and also stop you from speeding. It'd stubbornly refuse to let you speed!
Now some people think this is a great idea. I for one have never really understood why cars can go up to 180km/hr anyhow, I have never seen a 180km/hr zone.
But of course there were people who complained about nannying and how what speed you were at should be your personal responsibility.
Of course this does assume that all car drivers know what 'responsibility' means which many don't seem to from the looks of the roads out there.
Then I read a whole bunch of letters groaning about how we are the most over-governed country in the world, which I think is just an excuse for people who don't want to be rioters.
I think there are plenty of places in which we are not governed enough and I would like to see certain sorts of idiots reined in immediately with new technologies. These people don't exhibit proper responsibility and therefore it's useless saying it's up to their personal responsibility. They NEED nannying!
1. People who pack bags in supermarkets. They who are about to put a heavy item on top of a soft item should have a device attached to them which immediately gives them an electric shock and jerks their arm away from the bag!
2. People who smoke and are tempted to throw their cigarette butt out without stubbing it. These people need to have a device attached which makes them stub out it out properly first. Oh, before they stub it, huge neon lights should go off over them saying JERK JERK JERK for a bit of public humiliation.
3. People who go into the 12 items or less lane with more than 12 items should have a little robot who comes out and screams "YOU CAN'T COUNT" and shoves them into the right lane.
In fact, "12 items or less" lanes should have little robots which flash "We know this should say '12 items or fewer' we're just made a mistake and we're too cheap to change all the signs!"
4. People who try to comment on a blog and use all CAPS or have lots and lots of common spelling errors, especially mixing up "your" and "you're", "they're", "there" and "their", etc, should have a "beep" that stops their comment from being posted and after three attempts, bans them from posting until they've done some basic literacy courses.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Psycho cards
I usually hate psychological testing. I've hated it for job interviews. But just as I was reading this article about how our credit card debt has grown to over $45bn, I was thinking ...
Maybe we should have psychological testing for holding credit cards?
There are too many psychos out there with a walletful of cards mainly because they got duped by the pretty plastic.
(personally I am pissed off that Westpac's Ignite Card is not receiving applications at the moment because the bright red is so darn catchy!)
And then there are those great rewards schemes that you get suckered in to, where you have to save up about ten thousand points to get the tacky plastic cuckoo clock that they've got on their website.
I was standing inline to find out about a card recently and I heard a lady applying for her card. She wasn't earning a whole lot of money - OK, more than me but that is well below the average wage. (Darn I hate to admit that). She was also spending most of that on mortgage repayments each week.
Then she was also paying off a car.
She also had two other cards.
She was also paying off an appliance.
She admitted she didn't have much saved up.
She had middleish expenditures each week (I did some maths and figured that those expenditures would probably have to be on credit if she really did pay off the car and the house properly.)
How the heck does someone like this actually ever pay off a credit card?
What's more, there are certainly other people who are a lot worse - people who have lots more to pay off and then buy smokes and gamble on credit and then think it's kinda amusing that they go into the red. Hahaha.
Maybe that should be a psychological test - here's a mock bank account. It's yours. You have just gone below 0 balance. Are you laughing?
Anyhow, it all frustrates me how we've got so many whackos out there. Makes you ashamed to be a
person thinking about someday holding a credit card.
Maybe we should have psychological testing for holding credit cards?
There are too many psychos out there with a walletful of cards mainly because they got duped by the pretty plastic.
(personally I am pissed off that Westpac's Ignite Card is not receiving applications at the moment because the bright red is so darn catchy!)
And then there are those great rewards schemes that you get suckered in to, where you have to save up about ten thousand points to get the tacky plastic cuckoo clock that they've got on their website.
I was standing inline to find out about a card recently and I heard a lady applying for her card. She wasn't earning a whole lot of money - OK, more than me but that is well below the average wage. (Darn I hate to admit that). She was also spending most of that on mortgage repayments each week.
Then she was also paying off a car.
She also had two other cards.
She was also paying off an appliance.
She admitted she didn't have much saved up.
She had middleish expenditures each week (I did some maths and figured that those expenditures would probably have to be on credit if she really did pay off the car and the house properly.)
How the heck does someone like this actually ever pay off a credit card?
What's more, there are certainly other people who are a lot worse - people who have lots more to pay off and then buy smokes and gamble on credit and then think it's kinda amusing that they go into the red. Hahaha.
Maybe that should be a psychological test - here's a mock bank account. It's yours. You have just gone below 0 balance. Are you laughing?
Anyhow, it all frustrates me how we've got so many whackos out there. Makes you ashamed to be a
person thinking about someday holding a credit card.
Monday, 13 April 2009
How To Cure Your Xenophobia
I read this article on a blog on the Sydney Morning Herald recently called How To Cure Your Xenophobia.
Apparently the cure for xenophobia is to travel. It doesn't say how far or how wide but the blog implies a bit more than catching the bus to work.
It relieves me to know that the miracle cure for treating a racist is to pop them on an aeroplane or a boat and whiz them around a bit, and perhaps we could instead of sentencing racist rioters and name-callers to community service or gaol time, we could give them luxury cruises or Contiki tour tickets instead. I'm sure that'd be heavily endorsed by the public.
I cannot say statistically whether people who travel more are less racist than those who travel less, and if so whether there there is a causal link between the two. And if one does travel there is a chance to educate oneself through travelling, in a different way from educating oneself through not travelling, though of course one can travel and not be enlightened by travel experiences and one can stay at home and be enlightened by experiences at home that those who travelled didn't get to experience.
However I find it a little 'offensive' - or perhaps the more accurate word would be 'presumptuous' - that some travel-happy types regularly come up to me and seem to think that they are more open-minded, cultured, educated, nicer, compassionate, understanding, open-minded, less-racist people simply because they have travelled and then find out that I haven't travelled much so urge me to do so because then I'll be 'fixed'. Many try to pressure you to go on about taking trips in public, it'll be so good for you, you should go on this one, pressure pressure, pressure, if you haven't done it you aren't complete and embarrass you. Of course I've yet to find one of these people offering to cough up the cash for one. But of course they're getting you to do it so you're a better member of society.
Often without knowing anything much else about me.
To me this displays a great ignorance and arrogance on their own part - it does not even display that
a) they have shown a causal link between travelling and their sublime benefits and if so, whether or not such effects would flow onto myself should I take the same course of action
b) they have investigated whether I show lacking in a particular area
c) and whether I care about that lacking
d) they have investigated why I haven't travelled previously and shown any understanding for my preferences in that regard or my own personal values.
It's all about "I like travelling, it works for me, I think it makes me better - whatever the hell better is, I don't care whether you think it's better, it's better by MY TERMS - and I want you to be like me because I think I'm so bloody marvellous so do what I do - get going - not that I've figured out if this process actually works or not and by the way it's on your money!!!"
Does anyone else find this attitude just a bit obnoxious ... ?
Apparently the cure for xenophobia is to travel. It doesn't say how far or how wide but the blog implies a bit more than catching the bus to work.
It relieves me to know that the miracle cure for treating a racist is to pop them on an aeroplane or a boat and whiz them around a bit, and perhaps we could instead of sentencing racist rioters and name-callers to community service or gaol time, we could give them luxury cruises or Contiki tour tickets instead. I'm sure that'd be heavily endorsed by the public.
I cannot say statistically whether people who travel more are less racist than those who travel less, and if so whether there there is a causal link between the two. And if one does travel there is a chance to educate oneself through travelling, in a different way from educating oneself through not travelling, though of course one can travel and not be enlightened by travel experiences and one can stay at home and be enlightened by experiences at home that those who travelled didn't get to experience.
However I find it a little 'offensive' - or perhaps the more accurate word would be 'presumptuous' - that some travel-happy types regularly come up to me and seem to think that they are more open-minded, cultured, educated, nicer, compassionate, understanding, open-minded, less-racist people simply because they have travelled and then find out that I haven't travelled much so urge me to do so because then I'll be 'fixed'. Many try to pressure you to go on about taking trips in public, it'll be so good for you, you should go on this one, pressure pressure, pressure, if you haven't done it you aren't complete and embarrass you. Of course I've yet to find one of these people offering to cough up the cash for one. But of course they're getting you to do it so you're a better member of society.
Often without knowing anything much else about me.
To me this displays a great ignorance and arrogance on their own part - it does not even display that
a) they have shown a causal link between travelling and their sublime benefits and if so, whether or not such effects would flow onto myself should I take the same course of action
b) they have investigated whether I show lacking in a particular area
c) and whether I care about that lacking
d) they have investigated why I haven't travelled previously and shown any understanding for my preferences in that regard or my own personal values.
It's all about "I like travelling, it works for me, I think it makes me better - whatever the hell better is, I don't care whether you think it's better, it's better by MY TERMS - and I want you to be like me because I think I'm so bloody marvellous so do what I do - get going - not that I've figured out if this process actually works or not and by the way it's on your money!!!"
Does anyone else find this attitude just a bit obnoxious ... ?
Friday, 3 April 2009
ABC Driving School: They can jerk you around, but woe betide if you jerk them around!
I'm learning to drive so I've got lessons to do and I also have some driving lesson vouchers to use up. I had 3 vouchers from ABC driving school to use up before they expired so I booked a lesson for yesterday.
I was to meet the instructor outside Chatswood RTA, not outside my home, as clearly pointed out to the person whom I booked with this wasn't even my home area. So I travelled out there to have a lesson.
11am was lesson time. I waited out there from 10.50am to 11.15am - I was cutting this guy a LOT of slack considering the lesson timeslot was only an hour. Nobody showed or contacted me. Finally I decided to call the school and pointed out he hadn't turned up - my mobile phone call cost, I might add.
They contacted the instructor who called me and apologised - he made a mistake with his timetable and 'forgot me'.
Whoops, but that didn't really help me and wasn't my fault in the least. Furthermore he couldn't make it up that day so he had to make it up the next day.
So I travelled out to Chatswood today and got my lesson. And paid up with one of them vouchers.
I rang the school today to express my disapproval.
(The reason I didn't do so yesterday was because I figured it would cost me a very long mobile call and I didn't get home to a landline til late, and why should I be footing the bill for a mobile call because of their big mistake?)
Instead of totally apologising and admitting that it was plain unprofessional of them to a) get things so mixed up that they forget a customer and b) not to call that customer but instead leave it to that customer to have to call and say 'hello, noone's turned up' before they realise that their instructor is chilling out doing nothing - you'd think they'd do better checks than that
they just went and tried to explain how they crapped up again - as if that made it ok.
The real point, as I said, was this:
They have a late cancellation fee: If you cancel on them within 24 hours before your lesson, you incur a cancellation fee which is 50% of that lesson.
I would think that a company with such a policy should at least consider compensating me or giving me some assurance for what happened last time. I said I was considering booking another lesson (I have two more vouchers to use up). I said I wanted some assurance that this wouldn't happen again - for instance, would there be some sort of compensation should the same thing happen twice?
The woman got nasty on the phone and snapped, "What are you looking for, a free lesson?"
I said I wanted assurance that this would not happen twice.
After all, I was left stranded and no one contacted me. If this happens to customers at all, let's consider that customers could be left confused, they could have rearranged their day to have come to these lessons, could have paid travelling expenses to have got to them and could have given up activities which could have foreseeably have increased their wealth in order to take driving lessons. And what for - to wait for a driving instructor who doesn't show? And what's more - the customer has to take the initiative of calling the driving school to find that the instructor is not merely caught in traffic but is actually not going to turn up at all?
The woman went off to speak to the manager and came back saying I would get no compensation, and she didn't see why I was making a fuss over it because it was all fixed up so nicely for me and so quickly afterwards.
After I notified them and moved their butts on the matter, that is.
I wouldn't have been quite so upset had I got there and ten minutes to the lesson or even ten minutes after 11am the driving school had called me and said they were terribly sorry but some unforeseeable incident had occurred resulting in my not being able to have the lesson. Athough generally I would expect to get a bit more notice unless it were a really big disaster.
The woman said to me that she assured me that it would not happen again, but no compensation.
"So I have your word on it, right? Just your word?" I said. Note she didn't even reveal her name.
"But what if it happens again, any compensation?" I asked.
"No compensation," she replied.
Great, I have her word on it.
I'm not saying these people want to jerk you around, but when they are able to and they don't even put in something that says they assure you they won't (how hard are they really trying then to keep the appointment? How sure is their assurance if they won't bet the price of a lesson on it?) - well that puts a big RED LIGHT that it's a ONE WAY STREET and you should STOP and LOOK VERY HARD at this one.
I'll use up my vouchers with them but I may go driving school shopping later and see if any offer any better deals in this respect. Or maybe they all have this cover-my-butt but don't-care-about-yours attitude.
I was to meet the instructor outside Chatswood RTA, not outside my home, as clearly pointed out to the person whom I booked with this wasn't even my home area. So I travelled out there to have a lesson.
11am was lesson time. I waited out there from 10.50am to 11.15am - I was cutting this guy a LOT of slack considering the lesson timeslot was only an hour. Nobody showed or contacted me. Finally I decided to call the school and pointed out he hadn't turned up - my mobile phone call cost, I might add.
They contacted the instructor who called me and apologised - he made a mistake with his timetable and 'forgot me'.
Whoops, but that didn't really help me and wasn't my fault in the least. Furthermore he couldn't make it up that day so he had to make it up the next day.
So I travelled out to Chatswood today and got my lesson. And paid up with one of them vouchers.
I rang the school today to express my disapproval.
(The reason I didn't do so yesterday was because I figured it would cost me a very long mobile call and I didn't get home to a landline til late, and why should I be footing the bill for a mobile call because of their big mistake?)
Instead of totally apologising and admitting that it was plain unprofessional of them to a) get things so mixed up that they forget a customer and b) not to call that customer but instead leave it to that customer to have to call and say 'hello, noone's turned up' before they realise that their instructor is chilling out doing nothing - you'd think they'd do better checks than that
they just went and tried to explain how they crapped up again - as if that made it ok.
The real point, as I said, was this:
They have a late cancellation fee: If you cancel on them within 24 hours before your lesson, you incur a cancellation fee which is 50% of that lesson.
I would think that a company with such a policy should at least consider compensating me or giving me some assurance for what happened last time. I said I was considering booking another lesson (I have two more vouchers to use up). I said I wanted some assurance that this wouldn't happen again - for instance, would there be some sort of compensation should the same thing happen twice?
The woman got nasty on the phone and snapped, "What are you looking for, a free lesson?"
I said I wanted assurance that this would not happen twice.
After all, I was left stranded and no one contacted me. If this happens to customers at all, let's consider that customers could be left confused, they could have rearranged their day to have come to these lessons, could have paid travelling expenses to have got to them and could have given up activities which could have foreseeably have increased their wealth in order to take driving lessons. And what for - to wait for a driving instructor who doesn't show? And what's more - the customer has to take the initiative of calling the driving school to find that the instructor is not merely caught in traffic but is actually not going to turn up at all?
The woman went off to speak to the manager and came back saying I would get no compensation, and she didn't see why I was making a fuss over it because it was all fixed up so nicely for me and so quickly afterwards.
After I notified them and moved their butts on the matter, that is.
I wouldn't have been quite so upset had I got there and ten minutes to the lesson or even ten minutes after 11am the driving school had called me and said they were terribly sorry but some unforeseeable incident had occurred resulting in my not being able to have the lesson. Athough generally I would expect to get a bit more notice unless it were a really big disaster.
The woman said to me that she assured me that it would not happen again, but no compensation.
"So I have your word on it, right? Just your word?" I said. Note she didn't even reveal her name.
"But what if it happens again, any compensation?" I asked.
"No compensation," she replied.
Great, I have her word on it.
I'm not saying these people want to jerk you around, but when they are able to and they don't even put in something that says they assure you they won't (how hard are they really trying then to keep the appointment? How sure is their assurance if they won't bet the price of a lesson on it?) - well that puts a big RED LIGHT that it's a ONE WAY STREET and you should STOP and LOOK VERY HARD at this one.
I'll use up my vouchers with them but I may go driving school shopping later and see if any offer any better deals in this respect. Or maybe they all have this cover-my-butt but don't-care-about-yours attitude.
Friday, 9 January 2009
Eating Out - Happy Tale or Horror Story
I read recently this article by Jordan Baker in the SMH on the horrors of eating out and pointing out probably that many people would not dine out so much and would be less likely to put up with such things in the financial crunch.
Complaints were about in-built tipping, restaurants that didn't allow booking, booking deposits, service charges and charges for group bookings.
Today, I read an article in defence by chef Neil Perry. He doesn't defend all practices but certainly defends the practice of no bookings restaurants, saying that it's necessary to keep costs down and while you may have to wait longer, if you know the restaurant and are willing to wait, the experience is worth it.
(Of course there are crummy restaurants with no bookings policies, probably, but then if you know them well enough you probably wouldn't bother waiting around for them.)
Anyhow, it led me to think about what are some of my gripes about restaurant dining.
I'm by no means a "fashionable diner" but hey, I know what I like. So I can have my gripes too!
1. Mandatory tips (as mentioned by Jordan Baker) as well as other "surprise charges". This really craps me up. This isn't America which has a tipping culture. If some place really wants a tip they should work over and above the call of duty to make sure they get it. And even then, they should accept it if the person is a tightwad and doesn't pay up. Too bad. I think this is still no reason to give them dirty or retributory service - trying to serve up dog poo or needling the customer just because they haven't given you a tip even if your service was superlative is wrong. What you need to do is learn from your error in judgment and if that customer comes in again you will not waste your rime in being lavish. Basic ordinary service and that's it.
I dislike the idea of a "mandatory tip" or surprise charges like they didn't tell you before, but this costs you an extra ... and they have already supplied it or you have been charged it just for turning up or booking.
Call it a fee, be upfront, or build it into the food costs and then let's decide whether we will sit down at your restaurant.
By the way, I don't think that you have to pay double time and a half on public holidays etc to employees, so why do restaurants so often insist on charging ridiculous surcharges on their weekend and public holiday menus?
2. Still on the last topic, restaurants who sneak items on you and forget to tell you they're charging you or mislead you or even lie to you.
Some places tell you there is no cakeage fee, and when you turn up with a nice big cake, you find out there is a $4 per head cakeage fee. Oh great. I know some people say cakeage is a fair cost because they want to encourage you to eat THEIR desserts, but still they ought to tell you straight off.
Those restaurants that have a special boutique menu that has pretty much the same food but more expensive than the ordinary menu, that they try to give to groups and parties, and they don't ask if you'd like to see the ordinary menu.
I've been in Chinese restaurants where the waiter will, without asking, pour you tea and put rice out without you asking and then charge you for it.
That's just as bad as those restaurants where they try to charge you for TAP WATER. Oh gosh.
I feel like taking a water bottle and excusing myself to the ladies and filling my bottle up there. can they charge you for THAT tap water?
3. Waiters who try to argue with you. You order the salmon, they bring out the lamb. you say, "sorry, that's not my dish" and instead of taking it back they try to convince you that you actually ordered the lamb, or tell you that the lamb's just as good, have that instead. SOme of them get realy mad at you and start yelling at you!
I would be fine with it if they simply said "Sorry, our mistake, well look if you like the lamb you can have this lamb instead right now, but we can do the salmon for you, unfortunately that will mean waiting another 20 minutes, which would you prefer?"
I can't stand the way some of them have to convince you that they were right and you're wrong!
4. Dirty cutlery and crockery
Particulary symptomatic of high turnover Asian joints. Wipe well before eating, high chance there is someone else's food stuck to it.
5. Slow service
You can be waving your hand in the air for ages and nobody, but nobody, sees you. They look like waiters from a zombie move, weaving in and out looking like they are vaguely checking for knives and forks strewn on tables, but can't see you waving your hand saying "Excuse me! I'd like some more rice/water/drink/to order dessert/to order another side salad!"
6. When they never have what's on the bloomin' menu
Haven't you ever been into a restaurant and got mouth-watering after a few dishes and decided what you'd like to order? You call the waitress over and say, "I'd like the [whatever dish]" She says "I'm sorry, we're all out of that today". So you scanand you pick the next best looking dish, and she says perkily, "Sorry, al out of that one too!" After aboiut four attempts it seems the only things left on the menu are the two least tasty and most expensive items, plus the drinks that don't go with them. But you've wasted so much time with the waitress you eat there anyway. She tells you it's "just today".
The next time you go back, your favourite dish isn't there.
Nor the next time.
I've been to Chat Thai, a lovely little place in Sydney, plenty of times, but I've NEVER been able to get a coconut juice. NEVER. I ask every dinner time, and I've been there about 5 or 6 times for dinner. Each time they say "Just today!" And coconut juice goes so well with many Thai dishes. It's so yum!
7. When the specials are good, they get rid of them.
There are plenty of cheap places in Sydney to eat, or at least places which run cheap specials, especally for lunch. Why oh why is it when a special becomes popular they automatically get rid of it or hike up the price amazingly?
For instance, there was a $6 meal deal over at SuperBowl, a dollar or so extra for some of the other dishes but still cheap. You got to choose any one of their flavoured teas plus one of the meals on their board.
Then they found out their duck meal was popular, I think it was about $7 for the duck meal deal, so they scrapped it. You had to pay full price now if you wanted duck.
What, did they think people liked the duck so much that they would pay full price for it? People just started eating the lesser deals, and those who particularly liked the duck were less enthusiastic about the deal altogether!
Then they realised that people always ordered the pearl tea drinks, so they took them off the menu too. You could only get one of the other plainer flavoured teas.
And after a while they decided that was enough, and they decided that there would be no flavoured tea whatsoever. You had to drink what Mr Coffee calls "brown water" - the ordinary Chinese tea that usually comes free with any meal anyhow.
People LIKE the specials - they keep coming back if they are good and you get high turnover. You can put them up a dollar or so gradually to cover costs but if the moment someone likes them you make them pay full price for them - well, it's not attractive ay more, it's not special. And they LIKED it because it was special, usually. Not just because it "was".
Anyhow, those are my restaurant gripes. I don't mind so much no booking restaurants (One of my fave restaurants, Spice I am, is no booking) although I must say being able to get a booking is often convenient and it is a factor often in choosing a restaurant, depending on the occasion.
Complaints were about in-built tipping, restaurants that didn't allow booking, booking deposits, service charges and charges for group bookings.
Today, I read an article in defence by chef Neil Perry. He doesn't defend all practices but certainly defends the practice of no bookings restaurants, saying that it's necessary to keep costs down and while you may have to wait longer, if you know the restaurant and are willing to wait, the experience is worth it.
(Of course there are crummy restaurants with no bookings policies, probably, but then if you know them well enough you probably wouldn't bother waiting around for them.)
Anyhow, it led me to think about what are some of my gripes about restaurant dining.
I'm by no means a "fashionable diner" but hey, I know what I like. So I can have my gripes too!
1. Mandatory tips (as mentioned by Jordan Baker) as well as other "surprise charges". This really craps me up. This isn't America which has a tipping culture. If some place really wants a tip they should work over and above the call of duty to make sure they get it. And even then, they should accept it if the person is a tightwad and doesn't pay up. Too bad. I think this is still no reason to give them dirty or retributory service - trying to serve up dog poo or needling the customer just because they haven't given you a tip even if your service was superlative is wrong. What you need to do is learn from your error in judgment and if that customer comes in again you will not waste your rime in being lavish. Basic ordinary service and that's it.
I dislike the idea of a "mandatory tip" or surprise charges like they didn't tell you before, but this costs you an extra ... and they have already supplied it or you have been charged it just for turning up or booking.
Call it a fee, be upfront, or build it into the food costs and then let's decide whether we will sit down at your restaurant.
By the way, I don't think that you have to pay double time and a half on public holidays etc to employees, so why do restaurants so often insist on charging ridiculous surcharges on their weekend and public holiday menus?
2. Still on the last topic, restaurants who sneak items on you and forget to tell you they're charging you or mislead you or even lie to you.
Some places tell you there is no cakeage fee, and when you turn up with a nice big cake, you find out there is a $4 per head cakeage fee. Oh great. I know some people say cakeage is a fair cost because they want to encourage you to eat THEIR desserts, but still they ought to tell you straight off.
Those restaurants that have a special boutique menu that has pretty much the same food but more expensive than the ordinary menu, that they try to give to groups and parties, and they don't ask if you'd like to see the ordinary menu.
I've been in Chinese restaurants where the waiter will, without asking, pour you tea and put rice out without you asking and then charge you for it.
That's just as bad as those restaurants where they try to charge you for TAP WATER. Oh gosh.
I feel like taking a water bottle and excusing myself to the ladies and filling my bottle up there. can they charge you for THAT tap water?
3. Waiters who try to argue with you. You order the salmon, they bring out the lamb. you say, "sorry, that's not my dish" and instead of taking it back they try to convince you that you actually ordered the lamb, or tell you that the lamb's just as good, have that instead. SOme of them get realy mad at you and start yelling at you!
I would be fine with it if they simply said "Sorry, our mistake, well look if you like the lamb you can have this lamb instead right now, but we can do the salmon for you, unfortunately that will mean waiting another 20 minutes, which would you prefer?"
I can't stand the way some of them have to convince you that they were right and you're wrong!
4. Dirty cutlery and crockery
Particulary symptomatic of high turnover Asian joints. Wipe well before eating, high chance there is someone else's food stuck to it.
5. Slow service
You can be waving your hand in the air for ages and nobody, but nobody, sees you. They look like waiters from a zombie move, weaving in and out looking like they are vaguely checking for knives and forks strewn on tables, but can't see you waving your hand saying "Excuse me! I'd like some more rice/water/drink/to order dessert/to order another side salad!"
6. When they never have what's on the bloomin' menu
Haven't you ever been into a restaurant and got mouth-watering after a few dishes and decided what you'd like to order? You call the waitress over and say, "I'd like the [whatever dish]" She says "I'm sorry, we're all out of that today". So you scanand you pick the next best looking dish, and she says perkily, "Sorry, al out of that one too!" After aboiut four attempts it seems the only things left on the menu are the two least tasty and most expensive items, plus the drinks that don't go with them. But you've wasted so much time with the waitress you eat there anyway. She tells you it's "just today".
The next time you go back, your favourite dish isn't there.
Nor the next time.
I've been to Chat Thai, a lovely little place in Sydney, plenty of times, but I've NEVER been able to get a coconut juice. NEVER. I ask every dinner time, and I've been there about 5 or 6 times for dinner. Each time they say "Just today!" And coconut juice goes so well with many Thai dishes. It's so yum!
7. When the specials are good, they get rid of them.
There are plenty of cheap places in Sydney to eat, or at least places which run cheap specials, especally for lunch. Why oh why is it when a special becomes popular they automatically get rid of it or hike up the price amazingly?
For instance, there was a $6 meal deal over at SuperBowl, a dollar or so extra for some of the other dishes but still cheap. You got to choose any one of their flavoured teas plus one of the meals on their board.
Then they found out their duck meal was popular, I think it was about $7 for the duck meal deal, so they scrapped it. You had to pay full price now if you wanted duck.
What, did they think people liked the duck so much that they would pay full price for it? People just started eating the lesser deals, and those who particularly liked the duck were less enthusiastic about the deal altogether!
Then they realised that people always ordered the pearl tea drinks, so they took them off the menu too. You could only get one of the other plainer flavoured teas.
And after a while they decided that was enough, and they decided that there would be no flavoured tea whatsoever. You had to drink what Mr Coffee calls "brown water" - the ordinary Chinese tea that usually comes free with any meal anyhow.
People LIKE the specials - they keep coming back if they are good and you get high turnover. You can put them up a dollar or so gradually to cover costs but if the moment someone likes them you make them pay full price for them - well, it's not attractive ay more, it's not special. And they LIKED it because it was special, usually. Not just because it "was".
Anyhow, those are my restaurant gripes. I don't mind so much no booking restaurants (One of my fave restaurants, Spice I am, is no booking) although I must say being able to get a booking is often convenient and it is a factor often in choosing a restaurant, depending on the occasion.
Friday, 25 July 2008
Borders Books: Identity Theft and Indian Giving
Now, I enjoy a good bookstore - wide variety of products and discounts - and while Borders books has offered that to me, it's a pity that like many of those big corporations that gets popular for products, it falls down severely on the customer service side.
Like my experience with Panasonic and their idiocy about not advertising correctly what their stereo system will do, and then their lame compensation which actually puts me at a disadvantage. These big corporations can afford better than others to both be accurate and to do a little more to please the customer and keep them onside; it just seems that many have got so big for their boots they don't bother - and forget that pissing off one customer can cause a chain reaction that pisses off many. And it's a lot harder and more expensive to gain a customer - especially gaining back a lost customer - to maintain one.
My experience was with this year's Border's The Ultimate Kids' Collection Competition.
Now, I happen to like kids' stuff, so I thought, hey why not? Besides, the stuff I don't particularly "get" - the stuff that's a bit too twee and not nostalgic or in my category of fun - if I win it, I'd give it to my cousins' kids. Or the disabled children my sister babysits. Hey, I know lots of children who would get a kick out of a good story book, picture book, adventure book, whatever. I thought it would be fun. But if I won that gift edition of Pippi Longstocking - it was going straight to the poolroom!
The game is pretty easy in formula - there is a picture of a bookcase with 100 prizes lined up on it. You have to log in and say you'll accept marketing communications from Borders as part of the conditions. You get to click on a prize to see if you've won. You might win the prize you've clicked on. Alternatively you could win a coupon like "3 for two kids books" or you could possibly win the whole 100 books in one swoop. There's only 1 of the big swoop prizes to be given out, and 1 each of the individual prizes.
In order to play again and again, you have to each time enter a "friend's email address" - or what the conditions say has to be a "valid email address" (so they really don't care if that happens to be your worst enemy, not your friend).
Then you get another shot at guessing where a prize may be.
Sounds easy enough, and I played a lot.
One thing I did do though, which probably a lot of ordinarily email savvy people do nowadays, is one of the first emails I entered as a "valid email address" was one of my own alternate email addresses - hey, I am my own best friend!
I then logged in to that email address to see what happens.
Instead of sending an ordinary email from Borders saying "Your friend [my login name] has recommended that you play this game, here's the link" sort of message:
Borders sent a message that PRETENDED TO BE A FORWARDED MESSAGE FROM MY EMAIL, REVEALING MY EMAIL ADDRESS, BUT INCLUDED A FORM EMAIL FROM BORDERS.
Identity Theft.
Basically, what does this look like, especially if you play this game a lot - which, by the way, Borders explicitly encourages you to do on its website (with its "Play again - hurry up - prizes will go fast - etc exhortations)
It makes you look like a spammer. Without your permission, or even your notification, and unless you send this to yourself near the beginning - you mightn't find out. If you had instead sent them to all friend's emails, you might have annoyed friends complaining, possibly even blocking you, if they don't like that stuff and they see you've sent it to a couple of their emails.
Anyhow, undeterred, I played on. However, I decided that this was really unsavoury, and after all, it did say "valid" not "working" email address, so why should I enter working email addresses if a whole lot of people may receive them and Borders would make me look like a spammer?
I decided then to enter valid, but not working, emails. They had a correct form - in fact, if you don't enter an email address with the valid form, the competition prompts you that it's not valid, please enter a valid email, so it seems if they accept it, it fits in with their definition of "valid".
I played on and won a lot of prizes. I mean, a lot.
It wasn't difficult because Borders seemed to choke the game for a while then suddenly give them out in spurts and I got in when they were given out in spurts.
I even won Pippi Longstocking!
Later, I received a phone call from a Borders spokesperson on a Monday before the comp ended - whom I will call Melanie Paris here. Melanie called from Melbourne and asked me to call her back. It was about the competition.
I did. Twice. She didn't answer the phone, but I left messages.
On the Tuesday afternoon I looked at the prize tally - suddenly it had gone up by a lot - coincidentally by the exact number of prizes I had won! It looked suspiciously like they had decided to strip me of my prizes and place them back in the prize pool before talking to me. I checked my email, they hadn't notified me either. So I decided I'd send my time that afternoon winning many of them back. And I did - not all but most of them. And as I suspected, they were the prizes I'd won before - I was winning back many of the same prizes.
On the Wednesday, I received a call from Melanie Paris, who wanted to talk. She sad she was concerned over the NUMBER of times I had entered and WON and that she wanted to investigate because she thought that the emails weren't valid and were bouncing. I pointed out valid wasn't the same as working, and a bouncing email wasn't indicative of whether either an email was either not working or not valid.
She just went on about some "investigation" and later on - that afternoon - Melanie Paris called and told me that they'd decided to strip away all the prizes except one token prize (the first book I'd won, which wasn't Pippi Longstocking) because they'd decided that "valid" meant "working valid email address.
It's such a pity they'd decided this and don't put it in the rules.
My guess is, they saw I'd won a whole lot of prizes, freaked a bit, and tried to come up with an excuse to take them away because they realised they'd mucked up - instead of getting it right in the first place.
So I asked Melanie Paris, what would I need to do to win a prize? Enter a working valid email address.
Funnily enough, the prizes went back in the prize pool last night. I knew exactly where every single prize was, and which prizes were already taken - as I'd won them all previously - yet although I played continuously for quite a while, I didn't win anything while the prize tally went down ... until I changed IP address, logged in under a different email and cleared the cookies on my browser. Possibly a coincidence, but rather suspicious. Could it be that they blocked me - thus it was not playing against the rules they were against, but just me, personally?
A summary of offences:
1. Borders steals your identity, sending spam-like emails as Borders promotions under your name and email identity, without your express permission
2. Borders changed the meaning of "valid" email address to mean "working" email address - to suit their needs
3. Borders didn't return my calls - but returned prizes to the pool without letting me know (on Tuesday). This also meant that I had no chance to ask them what they objected to in my playing before they were returned and no real possibility of asking how I could win them back in a manner they would approve of on Tuesday.
4. I "suspect" Borders blocked me from playing last night, after my books were returned ... for the second time
5. If Borders was really concerned that I had won so many prizes, and needed some prizes for the continuation of the game for the week, but it was clear I had played by the rules, then the obvious way to deal with it would ave been to negotiate with me more fairly. Taking away all the prizes I had won and giving back 1 isn't negotiation. Asking to negotiate with giving back some prizes would have been.
6. If Borders' real beef was that I had entered in non-working email addresses:
a) There should have been terms that set this out clearly
b) They could have installed a system that checked for this
c) They certainly could have notified me about this when I first started winning prizes. So I had a chance to change my style. But considering the fact they waited til the end of the game ... it obviously shows complete incompetence ... or that they didn't so much care about non-working addresses as the fact that they couldn't stand that someone had let all their prizes fall off their competition before the official closing date. Dumbasses!!!!
Like my experience with Panasonic and their idiocy about not advertising correctly what their stereo system will do, and then their lame compensation which actually puts me at a disadvantage. These big corporations can afford better than others to both be accurate and to do a little more to please the customer and keep them onside; it just seems that many have got so big for their boots they don't bother - and forget that pissing off one customer can cause a chain reaction that pisses off many. And it's a lot harder and more expensive to gain a customer - especially gaining back a lost customer - to maintain one.
My experience was with this year's Border's The Ultimate Kids' Collection Competition.
Now, I happen to like kids' stuff, so I thought, hey why not? Besides, the stuff I don't particularly "get" - the stuff that's a bit too twee and not nostalgic or in my category of fun - if I win it, I'd give it to my cousins' kids. Or the disabled children my sister babysits. Hey, I know lots of children who would get a kick out of a good story book, picture book, adventure book, whatever. I thought it would be fun. But if I won that gift edition of Pippi Longstocking - it was going straight to the poolroom!
The game is pretty easy in formula - there is a picture of a bookcase with 100 prizes lined up on it. You have to log in and say you'll accept marketing communications from Borders as part of the conditions. You get to click on a prize to see if you've won. You might win the prize you've clicked on. Alternatively you could win a coupon like "3 for two kids books" or you could possibly win the whole 100 books in one swoop. There's only 1 of the big swoop prizes to be given out, and 1 each of the individual prizes.
In order to play again and again, you have to each time enter a "friend's email address" - or what the conditions say has to be a "valid email address" (so they really don't care if that happens to be your worst enemy, not your friend).
Then you get another shot at guessing where a prize may be.
Sounds easy enough, and I played a lot.
One thing I did do though, which probably a lot of ordinarily email savvy people do nowadays, is one of the first emails I entered as a "valid email address" was one of my own alternate email addresses - hey, I am my own best friend!
I then logged in to that email address to see what happens.
Instead of sending an ordinary email from Borders saying "Your friend [my login name] has recommended that you play this game, here's the link" sort of message:
Borders sent a message that PRETENDED TO BE A FORWARDED MESSAGE FROM MY EMAIL, REVEALING MY EMAIL ADDRESS, BUT INCLUDED A FORM EMAIL FROM BORDERS.
Identity Theft.
Basically, what does this look like, especially if you play this game a lot - which, by the way, Borders explicitly encourages you to do on its website (with its "Play again - hurry up - prizes will go fast - etc exhortations)
It makes you look like a spammer. Without your permission, or even your notification, and unless you send this to yourself near the beginning - you mightn't find out. If you had instead sent them to all friend's emails, you might have annoyed friends complaining, possibly even blocking you, if they don't like that stuff and they see you've sent it to a couple of their emails.
Anyhow, undeterred, I played on. However, I decided that this was really unsavoury, and after all, it did say "valid" not "working" email address, so why should I enter working email addresses if a whole lot of people may receive them and Borders would make me look like a spammer?
I decided then to enter valid, but not working, emails. They had a correct form - in fact, if you don't enter an email address with the valid form, the competition prompts you that it's not valid, please enter a valid email, so it seems if they accept it, it fits in with their definition of "valid".
I played on and won a lot of prizes. I mean, a lot.
It wasn't difficult because Borders seemed to choke the game for a while then suddenly give them out in spurts and I got in when they were given out in spurts.
I even won Pippi Longstocking!
Later, I received a phone call from a Borders spokesperson on a Monday before the comp ended - whom I will call Melanie Paris here. Melanie called from Melbourne and asked me to call her back. It was about the competition.
I did. Twice. She didn't answer the phone, but I left messages.
On the Tuesday afternoon I looked at the prize tally - suddenly it had gone up by a lot - coincidentally by the exact number of prizes I had won! It looked suspiciously like they had decided to strip me of my prizes and place them back in the prize pool before talking to me. I checked my email, they hadn't notified me either. So I decided I'd send my time that afternoon winning many of them back. And I did - not all but most of them. And as I suspected, they were the prizes I'd won before - I was winning back many of the same prizes.
On the Wednesday, I received a call from Melanie Paris, who wanted to talk. She sad she was concerned over the NUMBER of times I had entered and WON and that she wanted to investigate because she thought that the emails weren't valid and were bouncing. I pointed out valid wasn't the same as working, and a bouncing email wasn't indicative of whether either an email was either not working or not valid.
She just went on about some "investigation" and later on - that afternoon - Melanie Paris called and told me that they'd decided to strip away all the prizes except one token prize (the first book I'd won, which wasn't Pippi Longstocking) because they'd decided that "valid" meant "working valid email address.
It's such a pity they'd decided this and don't put it in the rules.
My guess is, they saw I'd won a whole lot of prizes, freaked a bit, and tried to come up with an excuse to take them away because they realised they'd mucked up - instead of getting it right in the first place.
So I asked Melanie Paris, what would I need to do to win a prize? Enter a working valid email address.
Funnily enough, the prizes went back in the prize pool last night. I knew exactly where every single prize was, and which prizes were already taken - as I'd won them all previously - yet although I played continuously for quite a while, I didn't win anything while the prize tally went down ... until I changed IP address, logged in under a different email and cleared the cookies on my browser. Possibly a coincidence, but rather suspicious. Could it be that they blocked me - thus it was not playing against the rules they were against, but just me, personally?
A summary of offences:
1. Borders steals your identity, sending spam-like emails as Borders promotions under your name and email identity, without your express permission
2. Borders changed the meaning of "valid" email address to mean "working" email address - to suit their needs
3. Borders didn't return my calls - but returned prizes to the pool without letting me know (on Tuesday). This also meant that I had no chance to ask them what they objected to in my playing before they were returned and no real possibility of asking how I could win them back in a manner they would approve of on Tuesday.
4. I "suspect" Borders blocked me from playing last night, after my books were returned ... for the second time
5. If Borders was really concerned that I had won so many prizes, and needed some prizes for the continuation of the game for the week, but it was clear I had played by the rules, then the obvious way to deal with it would ave been to negotiate with me more fairly. Taking away all the prizes I had won and giving back 1 isn't negotiation. Asking to negotiate with giving back some prizes would have been.
6. If Borders' real beef was that I had entered in non-working email addresses:
a) There should have been terms that set this out clearly
b) They could have installed a system that checked for this
c) They certainly could have notified me about this when I first started winning prizes. So I had a chance to change my style. But considering the fact they waited til the end of the game ... it obviously shows complete incompetence ... or that they didn't so much care about non-working addresses as the fact that they couldn't stand that someone had let all their prizes fall off their competition before the official closing date. Dumbasses!!!!
Sunday, 20 July 2008
No Bookings
Why is it once you've found someplace good to eat and it becomes popular, they try to suck the goodness out of it?
It's like celebrities, the popularity goes to their head, and they seem to think they are popular just because they exist, not popular because of particular things about them.
For instance, Mr Coffee and I have tried various places which may have not had the greatest ambience, but they did one dish fairly well and they had a good cheap lunchtime special. They let you choose from a number of their dishes, plus one of their sweet flavoured teas. So it got popular around lunchtime, and it's one high quality Chinese dish wasn't bad either!
Then they decided to cook worse and use lower quality food.
Then the more popular dishes on their lunchtime special menu started disappearing or you had to pay "extra" to get them - for instance, the duck.
Then you couldn't get some of the nicer teas.
The final straw was when they wouldn't serve any of the flavoured sweet teas at all - all you could get was the plain regular Chinese tea - or what Mr Coffee calls "brown dishwater"
We walked out without bothering to order.
At another restaurant, their very nice handmade noodles were really good value at $6 a bowl - and some of their other dishes weren't bad either. Despite the fact the place looked crummy and their service wasn't really good. Then it crept up to $7, then $8, then $9 ....
I have just recently enjoyed eating at a nice Thai restaurant. It's really popular - people queue in the street to get in. The food is pretty good and I have preferred it over another Thai restaurant mainly becuase it's a little cheaper and you can actually make bookings.
The other Thai restaurant, while the food is delicious, doesn't allow bookings and is a tad more expensive.
Then I rang the first Thai place just now and asked to book, a week in advance. "No weekend lunchtime bookings!" they cried. This was new to me, only a couple of months back I'd booked a weekend lunchtime.
I hope this one doesn't start changing all its ways just because it's popular. Please no.
It's like celebrities, the popularity goes to their head, and they seem to think they are popular just because they exist, not popular because of particular things about them.
For instance, Mr Coffee and I have tried various places which may have not had the greatest ambience, but they did one dish fairly well and they had a good cheap lunchtime special. They let you choose from a number of their dishes, plus one of their sweet flavoured teas. So it got popular around lunchtime, and it's one high quality Chinese dish wasn't bad either!
Then they decided to cook worse and use lower quality food.
Then the more popular dishes on their lunchtime special menu started disappearing or you had to pay "extra" to get them - for instance, the duck.
Then you couldn't get some of the nicer teas.
The final straw was when they wouldn't serve any of the flavoured sweet teas at all - all you could get was the plain regular Chinese tea - or what Mr Coffee calls "brown dishwater"
We walked out without bothering to order.
At another restaurant, their very nice handmade noodles were really good value at $6 a bowl - and some of their other dishes weren't bad either. Despite the fact the place looked crummy and their service wasn't really good. Then it crept up to $7, then $8, then $9 ....
I have just recently enjoyed eating at a nice Thai restaurant. It's really popular - people queue in the street to get in. The food is pretty good and I have preferred it over another Thai restaurant mainly becuase it's a little cheaper and you can actually make bookings.
The other Thai restaurant, while the food is delicious, doesn't allow bookings and is a tad more expensive.
Then I rang the first Thai place just now and asked to book, a week in advance. "No weekend lunchtime bookings!" they cried. This was new to me, only a couple of months back I'd booked a weekend lunchtime.
I hope this one doesn't start changing all its ways just because it's popular. Please no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
