My Bank of America Story

Read the The News Story: "Bank of America ends overdraft fees on debit cards (AP)"

I banked with Bank of America for several years and I remember the first time it my account was overdrawn - I was shocked to learn that they would even let me spend money I don't have - nobody had even mentioned it to me and I spend a good amount of time asking questions before opening an account.
When it first happened, I went into the branch and threw a fit and then they forced me to open a savings account with them so if my checking is overdrawn the money from the savings account will be automatically transferred to cover the negative balance.
Then one day my debit card suddenly stopped working - I was on my way to work trying to buy gas. I checked the balance on the ATM inside the gas station and it was overdrawn by more than $600 - an unauthorized transaction couple of days before had made my account overdrawn. I got charged $35 overdraft fee and $100 were transferred from the savings count to cover the negative. Not knowing about this situation (they don't let you know until several days later), the previous day (one day after the unauthorized transaction) I'd bought a power-tool for about a $100, which was more than what was left in the checking account. In my mind, I had about $300 left and was getting paid in a few days. I got slammed with another $35 overdraft fee.
Those $35 overdraft fees had triggered chain reactions each on it's own - because when the fee was charged the account was overdrawn, they charged me another $30 for making transactions from an overdrawn account. Those $30 also triggered a $35 overdraft fee, which in turn triggered $30 fee for using overdrawn account and so on.
By the time they finally locked up the account, there were about a dozen self-perpetuated $35 and $30 fees.
After spending 2+ hours going back and forth and fighting over each transaction with a CS rep, they gave me back the fees, originated by the unauthorized transaction. The ones, originated by my purchase I had to pay, even though had I known that the account was overdrawn I wouldn't have made it in first place.
They never told me how was it possible an unauthorized transaction to take place. I'm convinced it was a clerical or a computer error but they would not admit anything.
Now I bank with a small local bank - the difference is astonishing - and made me realize the Bank of America had never cared about my interests.
Stay away from BofA! They are the sneakiest, most dishonest business I've dealt with in my life. They set their little tricks and traps, let you walk into them and then when you call and complain talk down to you like you're an idiot, unfit to understand how banking works.
Last time I had the misery of dealing with BofA, I asked why in the world don't they alert people when there is a problem and wait until they are out several hundred dollars for fees, the CS rep snootily informed me that they can't personally email or text message every single client. Mind you - several DAYS after EACH overdraft fee they would send me a PRINTED notification in the mail. How is that easier or cheaper than having the computer system send an email? And yes, they did send me individual emails, but only to pitch me some new product.

Of Science And Fiction

Apparently, the school district of Sedalia, Missouri has taken the lead in the competition for most ignorant (or spineless) education officials. (there is a link to the original story at the end of this post)
Reportedly, after religious-based complaints, the district has confiscated $700 worth of t-shirts, with images making a parallel between the evolution of brass musical instruments and the evolution of Homo Sapience.
It is understandable that the school district wants to avoid confrontation with religious parents but their argument that "the district is required by law to remain neutral where religion is concerned" is false and frankly, idiotic. Even if it was not, they have not remained neutral. They have simply complied with the religious parent's request. To support its argument, the district have said that it would have done the same if the shirt had made a reference to religion. This is another stupid thing to say, since as PUBLIC school district they have no choice in that matter and are obligated uphold the US Constitution which clearly says that religion should be separate from state.
But the falseness and stupidity of the district's argument is beside the point, because The Theory of Evolution is not religious by nature. The only religious aspect of it is that a religious dogma is contradicted by it. Also, Sedalia's school district's claim for neutrality is a wash, even if unintended - not allowing references to human evolution is not the same as not allowing religious references. The difference is that religious references are unconstitutional if allowed in a PUBLIC school while scientific ones are not.
Lastly, why all offended by science don't send their children to private schools or home school them and stop trying to replace science with religion? Whoever doesn't like science, shouldn't be messing with it. I'm all for elective school district tax - whoever does not want their kids to go to PUBLIC school should have the option not to pay tax and send their kids to whatever school they want, home school them or keep them out of school. I'm tired of hearing how they pay taxes, which (they think) gives them the right to redefine science. If they want to do that, let them go do it on their own.

The Original Story (click here to show/hide)

Would you buy a Michael Vick jersey?

Vote Below

What Goes Around Comes Around

Just saw a report how President Obama's opponents are showing up in the crowds outside presidential events armed even with assault rifles - "exercising their constitutional rights". Since the President took office the GOP and NRA have been encouraging their supporters to be disruptive and make life difficult for the President and the democrats, and pretty much everyone who is not on their band wagon. Even though it's not illegal, it is dangerous and stupid to say the least.
GOP and NRA are setting up dangerous precedents that might turn against them. The day will come, when a republican will be in office and if the dems follow the current precedent, they will be the ones waving their assault riffles in the President's face, "exercising their rights".
Since this President has been in office, he's been constantly accused in jeopardizing the constitutional rights of the people on the right. Let's be honest here, what other President has tolerated his opponents the way Obama does? Remember just couple of years ago, when the Secret Service would only allow Bush supporters to attend his events? People got detained simply for wearing t-shirts with imprinted critics.
This President has been faulted for every single thing he does, even for things that are standard procedures, like flying on Air Force 1, and altering the traffic in cities during events. I've even heard reports describing him going on vacation as "wasting taxpayer money". His little children have been constantly attacked by the same people who tolerated the hard partying, binge drinking Bush twins.
Well done GOP! Just remember that people are seeing and understanding a lot more than you give them credit for. Having someone making people nervous by toting an assault riffle at a Presidential event does not persuade more votes your way. It only says "there is no line we won't cross to get our way". Disregard for common decency is exactly why GOP lost the last elections. Amazingly, instead of cleaning up their act they have stepped up the insults. Wake up GOP. "More cowbell" is NOT what your tune needs to appeal to moderates.

Now What?

Congratulations "angry citizens" of GOP! Looks like the President and the democrats have heard your "thoughtfull argument" and will give up the "public option" in the healthcare reform. So now that the threat of socialism has passed, we can mark this one for GOP and move on with our lives.
Now that GOP got their way they might realize that this has every chance to blow up in their face. In their desperate effort to opose this President in absolutely everything, they have put themselves on the spot and gone out of their way to lie and instigate violent behavior and it finaly worked. Now GOP will be one to blame for the problems and the high cost of health care - they have been howling and screeming that what we have is the best in the world and it should not be changed at all. Now they will have to face independent voters and explain away why the "best" health care has the worst accessibility and how this is a good thing. That's got to be a hard sell to say the least.

Do We Really Need The Humane Society?

In the light of the Humane Society's recent support of Michael Vick, one can't help but think: how exactly is the Humane Society being useful in the effort of humane treatment of animals?
They are actually a nationwide euthanizing operation. The shelter functions they provide are just PR to create positive image and recruit kind-hearted people to volunteer. Their goal is not caring for the animals, they just want them off the streets. If someone adopts them - fine, it'll save them the cost of getting rid of them, if not, well we know what happens. They use their PR image to recruit free labor and keep the euthanasia costs down. Helping Michael Vick is just another PR stunt for them. By doing that they are giving hope to all other despicable soulless murderous "businessmen", that they can keep on killing, and torturing animals - what's the worst that can happen - you go to jail for couple of years, and as long as you say "I'm sorry" the Humane Society makes you a hero and boom - you are back in business making money.
Vick is only sorry for what happened to his life and career, he is not sorry for the terror, pain and suffering he inflicted upon those poor dogs. Judging by what he says, it seems like he still does not comprehend "what the big deal is" about all this. He only knows that doing it sent him to jail and makes people upset - not him - other people.
Why don't the Humane Society recruit the thousands of devastated pet owners, who had their dogs stolen by dog bunchers (look it up) and sold as bait and training aide to the dog-fighting rings - the Michael Vicks of the world. They have the shocking stories and the pictures and the broken hearts that will never heal. Is that not hip and edgy enough for the Humane Society? Is that the reason why instead they are helping this murderer regain his celebrity and fat income again!
D I S G U S T I N G !!!
There are other organizations and pet rescue groups out there, who don't kill the pets and don't recruit despicable murderers for their PR campaigns. In this day and age, and all the options available, the Humane Society should only be considered "humane" in North Korea.

Go To Hell Michael Vick, Eagles, NFL, and The Humane Society for playing along!

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals”.
Mahatma Gandhi




Vick should never be allowed to benefit from his publicity ever again. What he did was not an accident or a crime of passion - he CONSPIRED to do it, he funded, and protected it. And most of all HE ENJOYED IT - not only profiting from it but actually being physically involved in the killing and torture of dogs. My stomach churns every time I think of that! There is no way you can change this mentality in a grown man. Shame on NFL for disgracing the sport by letting him play again; Shame on the Humane Society for helping him get away with this - he sure played them for succers! They won't be seeing any donations from me anytime soon, thats damn sure!


Michael Vick, proud owner of a mutilated fighting dog.

Shock Jocks:0 - Common Sence:1

Thank God, finally at least one of the Faux's programs is reaping the fruits ot its shock-jocks' insane attempts to sabotage THE AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS! I'm talking of course about the loss of advertisers to the show of the poster child of the "Fear & Smear" attack force, Glenn Beck. My guess is now they will start accusing The President in controlling the corporations by voodoo.

Best In The World? Says Who?

Yesterday, as I was driving home I caught a piece of a report on the radio from one of the town hall meetings on health care. One of the sound bites was an "angry citizen" lady, pointing out that we have "the best health care on the world" and also that "people all over the world come here to get treatment".
This is the same as claiming that we have the best diet in the world, based on the fact that some people in America have private chefs and nutritionists. There is no question that if you have money you can get the absolute best of everything. That is true in America, as well as everywhere else in the industrialized world. So the honest version of that "angry citizen" lady's statement would be that we have "the best in the world medical services for able to pay people" and "people all over the world, who can afford it, come here to get special treatment". The wealthy never go through the system, common to everyone else, so the fact that let's say a well-to-do Canadian comes to US to see a highly recommended specialist is not really a compliment for the US health care system. If everyone was rich or at least upper-middle class, we would not need any "system" - health care, retirement, social services, etc. The system (health care or other) is for the lower-middle class and the poor, who are the majority of the population. That's the way it is in every country in the industrialized world - there is a basic accessible service for everyone, and whoever does not care for it does not have to use it.
As far as the "best in the world health care system" claim, it's plain untrue, but that's not really why the "angry citizens'" are angry about, is it...

LMFAO

Funny Elections

The "Cash For Clunkers" Lemon

Let's just get down to business and pick apart this well-intentioned but ill-conceived attempt for stimulus:
One of the stipulations for eligibility is that you have to prove that the clunker you are trading in was CONTINUOUSLY insured going back a full year from the day of the trade.

What brain dead bureaucrat came up with that?!?!?!

This means that unless the clunker is your only car, which you've had for years, you don't qualify. Here is a short incomplete list of people who fit this profile:
pickup truck enthusiasts, roadsters' enthusiasts, boat owners, hobby mechanics, people on welfare, retired people, weekend drivers, people who oppose having a car payment, people with bad credit... All these either are not interested in trading their old car, or can not afford to buy a new car or both. A lot of poor people who would gladly trade their clunker, simply can't afford a new car payment, sales tax, new tags, and full coverage insurance, which is mandatory when financing is used to buy a new car.

People who don't qualify include:
1. Economically pressed people, who got the clunker 11 months ago from their aunt, who had it sitting in the garage uninsured for the past year.
2. Spouses, who had to go back to work because of the economic crash last fall, and had to start driving the clunker to work. Those clunkers were not on the road a year ago. Furthermore, remember how before the economic crash last Fall the clunkers values were driven down by the high gas prices? A lot of people simply sat on the clunkers, because they could not sell them for a fair price and could not afford to drive them, and now are driving them full time once again, since the gas prices are bearable.
3. Folks who got laid off and had to take their car off the road for a couple of months to save the expenses they could not afford. Now, if they have found another job and are driving the clunker once again, they are being punished for trying to make the ends meet.
4. People who missed insurance payment for couple of months, because they were in a hospital, work assignment, or whatever, and now have 30 or 60 day gap in their 15 year continuous insurance.
5. Deployed military personnel.

Way to go, ingenious bureaucrats!

Brits: And by "better food" you mean...?

Reuters: "Organic food not healthier, study finds."Click on the story to show/hide the source

I have to apologize up front, because I post this mostly to be sarcastic about how of all people Brits are the ones to say that difference between good and bad food is negligible. According to this Reuters' story found on Yahoo! News, British researchers have concluded that organically grown food have no significant health benefits over its conventionally grown analogs. What the story failed to mention is that the research only included Brits in Britain.
It's understandable how Brits don't see the difference. They can eat and digest deep fried tree bark and consider it good enough - not being particularly keen on flavor, texture and all that rubbish.
Lesser species, on the other hand, get all kinds of indigestion, cancer, kidney, liver, and immune system deficiencies from eating heavily treated and overly processed "traditional" food.
Hope that wasn't too mean.
Cheerio!
Pea Soup

The "Conservative" Label

This morning on one of the morning news shows I heard a report that, in response to one of Faux News' shock jock's statement that the President is a racist, the President's spokesman said that the cable channel is deliberately trying to create controversies to attract conservative viewers.
Although I understand and agree with the core of this statement, I disagree with the used terminology. In my book, a conservative is someone who has traditional values like solid moral core, close family ties, respect for elders, and good work ethic. The audience Faux's shock jocks appeal to are either far right radicals, antisocial loons, or less than bright individuals, incapable of forming their own opinion or distinguishing truth from fabrication and news reporting from agenda-driven spin. This audience has no values and ideas of their own and can hate or love anyone and anything, depending on what the current shock-jock agenda is. These are not conservatives, they just believe they are, because in their mind listening to Faux makes them that. They can worship someone today and call for his or hers death tomorrow if that's what Faux is telling them is right. Those are the same people that read newspapers like "Weekly World News" and believe the stories there are true. Much like Faux's "Fair and balanced", the Weekly World News' slogan "The world's only reliable newspaper" is the complete opposite of what it actually is...
You know what the shock jocks are going to say before you even tune in - republicans are good and decent, democrats are stupid and corrupted, liberals are evil crybabies and if you disagree with the shock jocks (it does not matter on what) you are a communist. It does not matter what the situation is or even what are the true affiliations of the people involved, the shock jocks slap whatever label they want to anyone and anything they want and always spin the facts to support their current agenda. They loudly support causes they don't really care for like abortion prohibition and exclusive heterosexual marriage only to persuade the true supporters of those causes to vote for who- and whatever Faux tells them when the time comes. That's why there are so many ridiculous contradictions in what the shock jocks say today and what they have said in the past. Sometimes they even do it in the same sentence. It's hard to be consistent when you bend the truth all the time. What Faux is doing is not journalism but propaganda. Which would have been alright if they were honest about it instead of calling it names like "news", "truth", "what's right", and "fair and balanced".

So please, everyone, stop insulting the the meaning of the term "conservative" by labeling antisocial self-righteous radicals with it. Call them what they are: loony ego-maniacs, bent on defying all laws and decency, if they are not getting their way 100% of the time.

Why the insurance-based health care system doesn't work

This is not the usual gripe about how difficult it is to get health coverage in this country. This is just analysis why health care is not a good business application for the insurance business model.



Since I've worked at my current job, many of my co-workers got in serious health trouble - one got stroke, another hearth attack, my boss' wife had to have serious hearth surgery, another co-worker ran for the bus and his body got in shock from the sudden vigorous oxygen demand after years of inactivity. Another co-worker - a sweet older lady got a chronic deteriorating condition which caused her to leave work and move in with her sister. Those are just a few examples I came up with without trying to remember everyone at work that needed medical care during my 1 year with this company. The complete list will be at least three times longer and that's a conservative estimate.

Let's look at this 1 year period from the business perspective of the health insurance company. Our employer health plan's premium costs $113 per month. That is the full cost. With about 90 insured (probably way less) this amounts to $122,040 per year. That's the insurance company's income from our company.

Now let's see how much money we needed to pay for health care: A stroke, couple of hearth surgeries, couple of hearth attacks, 2 or 3 ambulance calls and emergency room admittances, a motorcycle accident with surgeries, physical therapy... Let's stop here - I think I made my point - this alone is way over 200,000 conservatively and it does not include smaller things like me going to the doctor the other day with some abdominal pain, which turned out to be nothing, but the services I got have exceeded $400. Furthermore, being a business, the insurance company have to pay taxes, salaries, buy office supplies, etc. etc.

Annual 5 and 6-figure losses on regular basis is not the definition of profitable business, is it? In order to turn profit, the insurance company has to either sell more policies to healthy people, or increase the premium of the currently insured which would make it less competitive. Which means that the best way for a health insurance company to turn profit is to have as many healthy and as little sick people insured as possible. This way the premiums can stay lower, the insured have their health care needs covered, and the company still makes healthy profit. That is exactly what the companies are trying to do and should do, if the primary goal is to sell insurance. Unfortunately, the primary goal is financing health care which is the ultimate loss in the insurance business model.

Beyond my personal observations, if we think in categories, the need for health care is not like the need for property protection. With property, accidents are the only cause of the need for insurance while with humans - our natural construction and the way we function is the primary cause of us getting sick. That's how we are made, and unlike property, our sicknesses are almost never accidental, but either pre-programmed or bound to happen. If cars were insured like people, things like serpentine belts and battery replacement would have been covered by insurance. Instead, as we all know, car insurance only covers damages from accidents, i.e. things you could have not seen coming.

The insurance business model is based on avoiding the risk. With property is relatively easy - younger people and sport cars are a higher risk understandably - teens are inexperienced and impulsive, and nobody buys a roadster to cruise at 55MPH. With human health everyone is a risk and unlike with cars, once someone gets cancer or diabetes they can't just get rid of it to make themselves a better insurance customer.

Health care is just not a feasible venture for the insurance business model, because it is inevitable, not accidental. If we must apply a well-known business model to health care financing, let's use credit unions and mutual funds, although the real question is: Can't we come up with something better?

The Dumbest Conversation Heard On Radio - Kansas City 96.5 "The Buzz"

This morning I've heard what I think is the dumbest conversation on the Radio. I was changing stations, searching for some morning talk show and that's how I got to "The Buzz" on Kansas City 96.5 FM - I am not sure what the name of the station is.
I listened for only about 10 minutes - the last 8, purely out of astonishment how idiotic the conversation was and how ignorant the participants were acting.
Immediately, just from the jargon use, you can tell that the show is geared towards young audience, but I wonder why the producers automatically assume that young and cool equals dumb.
For some unknown reason, at some point one of the hosts (apparently the only one not on drugs at the moment) started a foreign news discussions about the presidential elections in Iran. After a brief debate whether Iran has "like a" king, a prime minister, or a woman [for a head of state] the one host who did not sound drugged or lobotomized announced that Ahmadinejad is a "very bad man", which was unanimously accepted by the rest and the hosts gladly moved on to less knowledge and attention intensive topics.
Once they got out of the deep foreign news waters the conversation was lively. The topic was some news about a major social networking website. The hosts competed to show off their savvy-ness with the "technology". Turns out, on "The Buzz", the ability to put together an intelligible sentence is less important than having online social networking "skills" to brag with. Another proof that online social networking is evil and an excellent tool for idiotizing young people.
The last thing I've heard was a discussion of a report about a local woman, who asked the city to limit the number of days for shooting fireworks. The apparently sober host led a contest for coming up with insults for that woman.
When I finally changed the channel, they were still competing to come up with ever more clever insults, which were dull at best - the toppers were "she has no friends" and "she probably lives with her 9 cats". Not surprising lack of originality, considering the hosts' heavy use of online social networking. It's like a f***ing kindergarten - once something is said it gets repeated by all the brainwashed zombies until the sun explodes. Makes you wanna scream.
So there you have it - dumb is cool on "The Buzz", 96.5FM, Kansas City, where being a moron is perfectly fine, as long as you say a lot of "uhm"-s, "like"-s, and "whatever"-s, have a social networking website account, and are willing to plug that into any conversation.
This is officially the dumbest conversation I've ever heard on radio.
Congratulations!

Enforcing the Law by Breaking the Law?!

The story is that this guy led the Birmingham, AL police (and few other depts.) on a chase, endangering the lives of many people in a wide area. No doubt the police did their job and chased the criminal until they caught him. So far so good - he is a dangerous criminal and must be stopped. That's why we have police force, gladly pay for it, and proudly support it.

The second part of this story, which can't seem to find common sense reception in people's minds is that when finally the police ran the criminal off the road and he was thrown out of his van and laying motionless and obviously unconscious on the ground, all present officers started beating the unconscious body for about 10 seconds.
Now, I'll admit that I felt some primal satisfaction that the criminal got to suffer a violent apprehension and if he died while being thrown out of the van or got shot by an officer trying to stop him, I'd probably say that he deserved it, but I also think that beating him while unconscious would have been more appropriate if not the police but a lawless street gang was chasing and caught him.

But what I think does not matter here. What matters is what the Law says. In different commentaries of this story a lot of people are angry with the Birmingham, AL police chief for firing the officers who took part in the beating. I understand the anger, after all those police officers risked their lives and one almost got killed during the chase. What no one of those folks is saying is how exactly the police chief should handle something like this - he is in charge of enforcing the Law and those officers broke the Law. At least for now righteous anger does not legally justify breaking the Law by anyone, let alone by a Law enforcement officer.

For those who are angry about the fired officers - they were not fired for being mean to the criminal, they were fired for breaking the Law. Why is this so difficult to understand for so many people?! The only conclusion I came to is this one:

the years of intentional politicising of the public opinion make a lot of people see the situation as cops being unjustly fired for beating a black criminal, who is being helped by slick lawyers and out of control human rights activists.

Some people say things like "in other countries" the cops would have shot him dead right away. I agree. Also, in other countries, where there is no Law and professional police training to get in the way of rightfull anger, the cops could have decapitate him on the spot, impale his body, rape his wife, kill the rest of his family and burn his house to the ground, if they felt like it...

Thank God The United States of America is NOT one of those countries.

The Importance Of Diversity

Story: Gallup Poll: Diversity not a priority for Supreme Court - Los Angeles Times

Perhaps is time to revisit the meaning of diversity in public life and in the society at large. It's unfeasible, and counter-productive to continue approaching this issue as goal to achieve mandatory quota or a balanced mix of race and ethnicity.
Let's stick with the original goal of giving everyone equal access to public office, regardless of sex, race, and origin. Regardless should mean making those classifications irrelevant, not mandating that all groups are represented. This not only does not help but it becomes a serious obstacle for building a truly inclusive and tolerant society.
If the goal is to eliminate gender and ethnicity as qualifiers for eligibility (it does not matter for what), we should focus on the qualifications, and fitness of the candidates for the position, not if they are the "right" gender or ethnicity. That's discriminatory by definition.

It's Only Common Sense

It's official - Dick Cheney has more respect and admiration for Rush Limbaugh than for Colin Powell. This weekend on CBS he stated that if he had to pick between Colin Powell and Limbaugh, he'd choose Rush.

Like an addict in denial, the Republican party has been struggling to identify the reasons why people are growing increasingly hesitant to side with them on elections. They have been tirelessly working on the "new face" and the "new message" of the party, and still can't quite understand how to make the conservative agenda more appealing to moderate voters.


Walt Handelsman, copyright 2009 Tribune Media Services



Here are a few hints, coming from a non-partisan perspective:

1. Don't publicly insult a decorated general of the United States Arm Forces, by putting him second to an out-of-control drug addicted shock-jock, who makes living by deliberately antagonizing the public.
2. If you are trying to reach moderate voters, tone down (best - get rid of) the radicalism.
3. Try being constructive and positive. Talk is cheap - any fool can sit on the sidelines and yell insults. People follow leaders who roll up sleeves to build something of value instead of endlessly complaining.

To paraphrase the former vice-president: If I'd have to choose a leader I'd have to go with Sanity and Moderation.

Tony Auth, copyright 2009 Universal Press Syndicate

Comercial-Free?!?

Using advertisement for advertisement-free online video to adverise.

Just like ... s**t-free poop of a crap. It's not waste - it's bi-product, and "bi" means we are getting double the value and that's good, right?

My $0.02: Please, just advertise. Stop trying to trick us - we live in the same world and we know what you are up to. If you are going to annoy us, please have the courtesy not to try to make it sound like it's for our benefit. Just show your banners and promos as usual. Don't try to sneak up on us, trying to catch us off-guard. That only works once. With TV there was not much choice - you see an annoying ad popping up in unusual spot - you flip around the channels and if there is nothing else better than what you were watching you eventually come back to it.

Internet offers a lot more choices. Like for example now - I see this clever turd (see the picture) pushed at me while watching something online, and I leave immediately to blog about what I think of it. While I do that, I carefully make sure to hide all the brands, I personally make point not to watch at the advertised time, and I also tell everyone I know not to do it. Unlike with TV - you can't count on me to come back for lack of better things to do online - there is always something else interesting on the Internet. Always! And with the short attention span, well cultivated by years of watching TV, cluttered with obtrysive adverisement, chances are I won't even think for going back at least for couple of days. Or ever.

Now, what was it you were selling?

Extra Delivery Charges

Last night, we ordered a pizza. When the pizza got delivered, the Domino's delivery guy unilaterally decided to increase the price because he "drove 10 miles to get here" and he will be "loosing money" if he does not charge extra for the delivery. This came totally unexpected. Usually we pay whatever the price is and give tip on top of that. Keep in mind that there is an explicit delivery charge over the price of the order, which is charged at the time of ordering and the delivery guy's "charge" came on top of that and before of course his tip...
The fact that it was Domino's is irrelevant in this situation, although they could benefit from not annoying their customers so soon after the bad publicity they got just few days ago.
I understand the delivery guy's desire to make more money but the way he chose to do that I find absolutely inappropriate not to mention that this guy had caused Domino's to loose us as customers. We wanted to give them a break, after the YouTube video with Domino's employees grossly mishandling food came out, but we draw the line above paying phony charges.
So, next time you order a pizza, make sure you ask about any additional charges that might be imposed by the delivery person. It will save you few dollars but most impotantly, the annoying feeling that you are being taken.