spiritchrysalis: (pebkac! (help desk / IT))
As of a couple hours ago, this post was going to be very different. Now, it's a summary of my Better Business Bureau complaint, and public.

Primary Nature of your Complaint: Failure to honor a repair estimate or agreement

Tell Us About Your Problem:
When All Seasons Home Remodeling came to repair our closet, I outlined the repairs I wished to have made in clear, simple detail. The repairs were as follows: 1) reflooring the closet floor with new, finished/varnished/smooth floorboards, 2) removing the broken wood closet pole supports, 3) adding a sturdy metal pole with supporting metal flanges, and 4) sealing and covering the hole in the ceiling with something waterproofed and professional looking as it looked up into the house insulation. I reviewed these repairs with Gary Mercer, their lead contractor, at the time and had them confirmed.

When one of his supporting contractors, Barry, came to perform the repair, his impression of the work required was quite different. It was confirmed that he received this list of repairs directly from Gary. He believed the repairs were as follows: 1) covering or "patching" the loose and broken floorboards with half inch unfinished plywood, 2) adding a wooden dowel as a closet pole, supported by metal flanges and brackets, and 3) covering the hole in the ceiling with more plywood without any waterproofing. The removal of the broken wood closet pole supports was not addressed.

Over the course of approximately an hour, as each of these discrepancies were made clear, phone calls were made by Barry (the on-site contractor) to Gary (the lead contractor), and by myself to Joannie (the receptionist/admin/dispatcher -- unsure of her formal title) and my landlord. Before I continue, I would like to make it clear that Barry and Joannie themselves acted with the utmost professionalism; Barry started showing me the provided materials and waited to perform work until he would hear from his boss, and Joannie stayed in contact with me throughout and assisted with much of the communication to Gary, offering her profuse apologies. As of the last set of phone calls, Gary was on his way back with a metal closet pole and finished floorboards, and wanted to talk to me briefly before commencing work to make sure we were all on the same page. Barry left to perform work at another site nearby, indicating that he would likely be back once Gary and I had spoken, indicating that the floorboard and closet pole work was "an easy job" and would only take a few hours.

After waiting an hour for Gary to arrive, I called Joannie to find out his estimated time of arrival. She called him to find out and called me back, stating that Gary had declined the job without informing her or me, effectively stating that it was too much hassle and that he didn't think I would be satisfied with the work "with all the changes I wanted," placing the blame for the difference in work expectations solidly on my shoulders. He also added that he had to pay Barry for an hour of work despite him not doing anything, necessitated by him having to wait to receive clear orders from Gary. Joannie was incredibly apologetic and said that she thought Gary -- who she now confided was her brother -- was not behaving appropriately, stating, "Oh, there are things I want to tell him too, believe me." She offered to make one more phone call to persuade him, which I accepted, but called me back to inform me that his decision was, sadly, final.
spiritchrysalis: (RigelThessaly)
As of a handful of days ago -- oddly enough, since about when my Google+ account was suspended, but I don't think the two events are related -- I've been experiencing an odd GChat bug.

No matter what I do, my GChat status lists me as Busy to other people, with absolutely no status message. I can try to change it to any number of statuses in the Available or Busy category, either custom or provided, and it doesn't change what other users see. The only time I'm now listed as available is when my iPhone app IM+ overrides my status and lists me as Available on my phone.

This happens regardless of what machine I'm on, what OS I'm using (as far as I can tell), or what browser I'm using.

The closest thing I've found to a comparable bug is this:


That has more to do with being stuck in Available mode, however. A few days ago I found a thread about being stuck in Busy mode which I can no longer find (and didn't save, sadly) which seemed to indicate that updating one's version of Java would help, leading a Mac user to say that they couldn't use that fix as Apple has its own version of Java. Even so, I've cleared the cache from my browsers and made sure I'm not logged in elsewhere, and it doesn't seem to help.

Anyone have any ideas?
spiritchrysalis: (RigelThessaly)
(Signal boosting.)

Seems one of the updates LiveJournal recently included is a list of your city and country in any post/comment/community that has IP logging turned on . . . including all retroactive submissions to LiveJournal.

http://lj-releases.livejournal.com/67287.html -- A mention of the original feature.
http://scrollgirl.dreamwidth.org/802150.html -- An explanation as to why this could be troublesome for some, including being able to narrow it down to a much smaller location.
http://helens78.dreamwidth.org/1077748.html -- A specific mention of the city/country listing as being retroactive.

I'm not saying that this information wasn't more or less available before. I'm saying that it's now effectively being handed to us, rather than giving us the tools to (relatively easily) find it ourselves.

spiritchrysalis: Image from Juri's story arc in Revolutionary Girl Utena, with the text, "Delusion and silence are the enemies of love." (EnemiesofLove)
Madmartigan: Did I really... Did I really say those things, last night, in your tent?
Sorsha: You said you loved me.
Madmartigan: I don't remember that.
Sorsha: You lied to me.
Madmartigan: No, I... I just wasn't myself last night.
Sorsha: I suppose my power enchanted you and you were helpless against it.
Madmartigan: Sort of.
Sorsha: Then what?
Madmartigan: It... went away.
Sorsha: Went away? 'I dwell in darkness without you' and it went away?
spiritchrysalis: A facial image of Anthy from Revolutionary Girl Utena: sad, pained, and resigned. (Torment)
All of the mail in my GMail work account is gone, save 10 messages in the Trash.

My chats are still around.

I followed the step-by-step help, with no luck. (I don't forward.)

I looked at account details, and didn't see any suspicious activity as far back as I could see, but it only showed the several times today I tried to access it.



Addendum: Similarly, a whole slew of e-mails in my personal account were in the Trash for no good reason . . . but only a random assortment???
spiritchrysalis: (RigelThessaly)
My phone seems more or less unable to find its wireless grid at the moment. (This seems to be a change from this evening, when I made multiple calls.) I've been trying to call the number necessary to update the tower listing on the phone but, well, no ability to find the wireless grid = no ability to update tower information.

So I'm not sure how long I'll be without a cellphone. It might resolve itself on the T; it does sometimes do that after losing a connection underground and regaining it. If so, I'll be uncontactable when I'm out of the house. Sorry about that.

I'll post again when I know more about the phone.
spiritchrysalis: (RigelFedora)
From [livejournal.com profile] akiko via [livejournal.com profile] leora's LiveJournal, an article from CNews, a Russian IT review magazine.

The last paragraph of the article includes this little nugget (apologies for the translation language, it's theirs, not mine):

"Furthermore, head of one of rival projects believes that in the near future the service might also abandon paid accounts. 'Owners of paid accounts are of certain interest to advertisers. However, under the existing scheme such subscribers see not advertising, which reduces revenue from advertising,' - thinks CNews' source. But SUP assures that it does not intend to undertake any steps in the given direction. ‘To take such steps, the average revenue per user should exceed $25 a year (the cost of one account), which is unlikely to happen soon,' - says Anton Nosik."

Sooooo . . . they won't move in that direction until it's financially useful for them to do so. Right?

Another quote from Nosik, regarding why LJ didn't need to let anyone know about the policy changes: "We do not consider it necessary to inform those, who have not opened a basic account during 9 years of LiveJournal’s existence, that there is no such an opportunity any longer."
spiritchrysalis: (RigelFedora)
Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] shadesong, I was made aware of an interview in AND Magazine with Anton Nosik, The Director of the Blog Division of SUP. The original interview is in Russian and printed as such; anyone capable of doing so is welcome to read it here. As I don't know Russian, I'm taking it on faith that the English version of the interview (translated by [livejournal.com profile] russianswinga) is more or less accurate in content and tone.

I've included the English translation of the interview behind a cut for those solely interested in the text itself. Regardless of your take on the situation, I think it's well worth reading. It lends some insight into the perspective that the director has on the users of this particular blog, mentions the boycott, and so on. (It's also fairly appalling, IMO.)

The interview. )

Here are some choice quotes from the article . . .

"I don't know any of LJ posters familiar to me, those I have friended and commented, that would want to join said boycott. I honestly don't know any people that would seriously take up that initiative."

(In response to the interviewer saying, "So, there'll be no boycott?") "No, I didn't say that. Because any person can create several hundred fake LJ accounts, comment in them that on the 21st of March, 'I will be silent in protest.' Then you journalists can quote those fake users and list the names of those that were silent that day. And add a cute catchprase like, 'that's just the top of the iceberg.'"

He then goes on to compare those who would boycott to those who would call the American advertisers and suggest they cancel their ads, and then comments that anyone who would do that are idiots.

Claims that base accounts should not be available to new users because, "To give such anachronistic features to new users should not be standard practice."

"There no longer exists an entity on the web, which, without specifically being a charity, would refuse to make money."

Highlighting the lack of need for base accounts, he notes that a "good portion" of base accounts are used ethically questionable activities such as, "spamming, increasing search engine ratings, leaving comments that would get their account banned."

Notes he's personally fine with offering an account downgrade to base after 3/12/08 but claims because the boycott has been initiated, "Our hands are tied."

". . . People are trying to scare and blackmail us, threatening to destroy our business, there are business reasons for not rewarding such behavior. . . There's never been a successful company whose success was based on bowing to collective resistant forces."

So . . . the boycott is being suggested by a few rabid idiots who will make the effort seem larger than it is by making hundreds of fake LJ accounts that list themselves as being part of the boycott and making sure the media knows about it. (This is, of course, similar to those who wanted base accounts in the first place, since most of them are spammers, TOS breakers and people looking to increase search engine hits.) This is not only idiotic, but blackmail, designed to destroy LiveJournal as a business. LJ and SUP are the victims here. And because of the blackmail, now LJ can't consider the possibility of reversing their decision because it would be bowing to collective resistant force. Besides which, journaling accounts with minimal features are a thing of the past and no new user should have them available to them (presumably because it would make the business that offers them look bad). Wrapping it up in a neat little package is this quote phrase: "There no longer exists an entity on the web, which, without specifically being a charity, would refuse to make money."



spiritchrysalis: (Default)

February 2014

16 171819202122


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 07:22 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios