Wednesday, January 18, 2012
My Letter to the School Board
My son attends the AcTal program at Greystone (grade 7), and they are
off on a curling field trip next week. We have been informed that the
kids are going to be required to wear helmets for this, and that this
requirement is a school board policy.
My wife and I are at a loss on this. Our son is going to be 13 in a month, and, while he has only curled once before, he has managed to play outside in the schoolyard all winter long without once falling and hitting his head (I note that this is not meant to be taken facetiously: walking on school fields before the recent snow has been monumentally treacherous this winter, due to all the ice). We also note that one of his classmates is an experienced curler and will also be required to wear a helmet.
We are raising a generation of (to use the phrase so recently picked up by a new TV program) Bubble Wrap Kids. I see nothing wrong with setting the rules and doing so firmly, letting the kids know that with the first sign of roughhousing, on the ice or even off, and they get to sit out the remainder of the field trip. But, unless there has been a rash of severe injuries involving this sport, a number that shows some sort of statistical significance, then we don't see how this makes any sense. And here let me add that a study by Monash University finds that most curling injuries involve shoulder, knee, and back pain, which comes as no surprise.
It is right and proper that we should teach our children to be safe, and I believe that the responsibility for this task falls on the shoulders of all caregivers: parents, teachers, other family members, and beyond. But we also need to teach our children that we trust them, especially when they are already under direct supervision. As they get older, children take bigger steps, remove themselves more from our obsessive need to control every little thing they do, and that's a good thing. By insisting they wear helmets for a slow-moving sport, we are showing these children that we do not trust them, nor do we trust the previous lessons involving their safety that were made by their caregivers.
If this sort of decision is made to ensure that the school board and all schools and teachers are not liable for any accident, then by all means send a release form, and we will gladly sign it. If not, then as parents we obviously will have to make our own decision about whether or not he takes part. And that strikes me as ironic, that parents might pull children out of events not because of safety concerns, but because so many of us are too afraid that some nebulous thing might happen.
Sincerely,
Derryl Murphy
My wife and I are at a loss on this. Our son is going to be 13 in a month, and, while he has only curled once before, he has managed to play outside in the schoolyard all winter long without once falling and hitting his head (I note that this is not meant to be taken facetiously: walking on school fields before the recent snow has been monumentally treacherous this winter, due to all the ice). We also note that one of his classmates is an experienced curler and will also be required to wear a helmet.
We are raising a generation of (to use the phrase so recently picked up by a new TV program) Bubble Wrap Kids. I see nothing wrong with setting the rules and doing so firmly, letting the kids know that with the first sign of roughhousing, on the ice or even off, and they get to sit out the remainder of the field trip. But, unless there has been a rash of severe injuries involving this sport, a number that shows some sort of statistical significance, then we don't see how this makes any sense. And here let me add that a study by Monash University finds that most curling injuries involve shoulder, knee, and back pain, which comes as no surprise.
It is right and proper that we should teach our children to be safe, and I believe that the responsibility for this task falls on the shoulders of all caregivers: parents, teachers, other family members, and beyond. But we also need to teach our children that we trust them, especially when they are already under direct supervision. As they get older, children take bigger steps, remove themselves more from our obsessive need to control every little thing they do, and that's a good thing. By insisting they wear helmets for a slow-moving sport, we are showing these children that we do not trust them, nor do we trust the previous lessons involving their safety that were made by their caregivers.
If this sort of decision is made to ensure that the school board and all schools and teachers are not liable for any accident, then by all means send a release form, and we will gladly sign it. If not, then as parents we obviously will have to make our own decision about whether or not he takes part. And that strikes me as ironic, that parents might pull children out of events not because of safety concerns, but because so many of us are too afraid that some nebulous thing might happen.
Sincerely,
Derryl Murphy
Labels: Brennan, idiots, school, sports
Monday, August 15, 2011
My Letter to Loblaws (Parent Company of Real Canadian Superstore)
This is a note to inform you that it is highly unlikely I will shop at Superstore again. On Thursday of last week my wife and I purchased groceries, including a package of pork chops that cost $18.61. We hung onto the receipt, but today was recycling day and it went with everything else. The chops, which were labeled as good until August 16 (today being the 15th), had gone bad. I drove to the store to return them, and while I was aware of the no receipt policy, informed the clerk that I was not interested in replacement meat, nor did I want to wade through the crowds (this was close to supper time) in order to buy the equivalent amount. She was inflexible, so I asked to speak to the manager. Sadly, all the store manager could be bothered to do was to phone down, hear her side of the story, and tell her there was nothing he could do.
Fine. I left the meat with her and told her to let her manager know that he had lost a customer.
Last Thursday we spent close to $350 on groceries, and only two of those items were meat. We have two teenage boys, which as you might imagine contributes to a healthy monthly food bill. Sadly, it seems to me that your managers are not really trained in the art of customer service. As the saying goes, it takes months to lure a customer into the store, and only seconds to lose one. Who knows? I might have changed my mind if he had bothered to come down and treat me like a human being, or perhaps he might have changed his mind on seeing the quality of the meat and the fact that I wasn't someone looking to perpetrate a scam.
My fairly regular $300+ grocery bill likely does not impact your bottom line, I know, but the inability of the store manager to even be bothered to come down to talk to me (plus the apparent disdain the girl at the desk exhibited) indicates that it would be much less grief for me to take my business elsewhere, which I am happy to do.
And while I know that my impact on the world at large is small in the bigger view of things, rest assured that I will blog, tweet, Facebook, and Google+ my view, to say nothing of making sure that I make as many personal comments to friends, acquaintances, and even random strangers as I can. Again, I know that many, perhaps even most, of those people will not change their buying habits. But some may, and certainly many, if not most, will always have a niggling doubt about your store whenever they set out to do their shopping.
(Update: this is the 8th Street store in Saskatoon. Dopey me.)
Fine. I left the meat with her and told her to let her manager know that he had lost a customer.
Last Thursday we spent close to $350 on groceries, and only two of those items were meat. We have two teenage boys, which as you might imagine contributes to a healthy monthly food bill. Sadly, it seems to me that your managers are not really trained in the art of customer service. As the saying goes, it takes months to lure a customer into the store, and only seconds to lose one. Who knows? I might have changed my mind if he had bothered to come down and treat me like a human being, or perhaps he might have changed his mind on seeing the quality of the meat and the fact that I wasn't someone looking to perpetrate a scam.
My fairly regular $300+ grocery bill likely does not impact your bottom line, I know, but the inability of the store manager to even be bothered to come down to talk to me (plus the apparent disdain the girl at the desk exhibited) indicates that it would be much less grief for me to take my business elsewhere, which I am happy to do.
And while I know that my impact on the world at large is small in the bigger view of things, rest assured that I will blog, tweet, Facebook, and Google+ my view, to say nothing of making sure that I make as many personal comments to friends, acquaintances, and even random strangers as I can. Again, I know that many, perhaps even most, of those people will not change their buying habits. But some may, and certainly many, if not most, will always have a niggling doubt about your store whenever they set out to do their shopping.
(Update: this is the 8th Street store in Saskatoon. Dopey me.)
Labels: customer service, idiots
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
In Today's Mail
This morning, just after 6am, the doorbell rang, waking me up and inducing a sudden cramp in my calf as I bounced around putting on a housecoat to rush downstairs. When I got there, though, nobody was at the door.
Cut to later this afternoon, when I came home and found mail and something else in the box: an envelope with no stamp on it, addressed to (and from here on any spelling errors you find are lifted directly from the envelope and letter therein):
"A concered neigbour"
The letter inside says:
"Dear Neigbour,
Would you mind triming the tree at the corner of the alley, we use the alley every day & it is hard to see coming out of the alley, if there is a car coming down the street, also it is scatching our cars as it is so far out.
A concered neigbour
Thank you."
Obviously, I have no proof that this envelope was a result of the ring-a-door ginger game this morning at 6. But I think it's a reasonable assumption.
Part of me wants to put a sign up in the alley excoriating this person for their gutless behaviour; we would have no problem accepting someone ringing the bell and asking to talk to us (although, to be honest, we would have some problems with a person doing this when we're asleep. That's pretty bloody rude). We do have a problem with anonymous, passive-aggressive notes.
We also agree that the tree is in an awkward place, and it grows like a weed, although unless you're driving a Hummer there is no reason you can't slide around it, and I question how fast they're coming out of the alley when the distance between the tree and the road is about 10 feet.
The tree, though, is an elm, and there is a city bylaw about cutting down or trimming elms after the end of April and before the beginning of September. This is to prevent the spread of Dutch elm disease, and we are trying to get clarification on the whole "cutting down" part, since we want to get rid of it.
So, we will take care of this, but at our own speed, and my wife will be my smarter half and make sure I don't do or say anything too stupid, although she's obviously not a miracle worker, as many of you can attest. But I may go out and tie some coloured safety ribbon around a branch or two in the meantime, just for fun.
Cut to later this afternoon, when I came home and found mail and something else in the box: an envelope with no stamp on it, addressed to (and from here on any spelling errors you find are lifted directly from the envelope and letter therein):
"A concered neigbour"
The letter inside says:
"Dear Neigbour,
Would you mind triming the tree at the corner of the alley, we use the alley every day & it is hard to see coming out of the alley, if there is a car coming down the street, also it is scatching our cars as it is so far out.
A concered neigbour
Thank you."
Obviously, I have no proof that this envelope was a result of the ring-a-door ginger game this morning at 6. But I think it's a reasonable assumption.
Part of me wants to put a sign up in the alley excoriating this person for their gutless behaviour; we would have no problem accepting someone ringing the bell and asking to talk to us (although, to be honest, we would have some problems with a person doing this when we're asleep. That's pretty bloody rude). We do have a problem with anonymous, passive-aggressive notes.
We also agree that the tree is in an awkward place, and it grows like a weed, although unless you're driving a Hummer there is no reason you can't slide around it, and I question how fast they're coming out of the alley when the distance between the tree and the road is about 10 feet.
The tree, though, is an elm, and there is a city bylaw about cutting down or trimming elms after the end of April and before the beginning of September. This is to prevent the spread of Dutch elm disease, and we are trying to get clarification on the whole "cutting down" part, since we want to get rid of it.
So, we will take care of this, but at our own speed, and my wife will be my smarter half and make sure I don't do or say anything too stupid, although she's obviously not a miracle worker, as many of you can attest. But I may go out and tie some coloured safety ribbon around a branch or two in the meantime, just for fun.
Labels: house, idiots, neighbours
Friday, February 11, 2011
People Are the Same the World Over
For those of you who have yet to read Napier's Bones, I won't give away too much but wanted to mention something related to a scene in the book. There is a point where our heroes go to a little place called Seil Island, and while there they have an encounter with a badger. Beyond that I'll say nothing.
I've been to Seil Island, specifically to visit a place called the Ballachuan Hazelwood, which was the absolute highlight of my trip, a forest that has probably existed since the island was first settled after the first ice age. And while I didn't see any badgers while there, I did know that they were living on the island.
So imagine my despair to discover that in 2007 it was announced that the species had been extirpated on the island, and that authorities believed that someone had been gassing the badgers to death over a number of years. There had been about forty of the animals living on the island, and some of their setts had been there for hundreds of years.
Think about that. A small mammal, whose home has been built and enlarged by successive generations for a longer period of time than the place where I live has been a city. And then some jackass comes along and wipes them all out.
I weep for the future of us all.
I've been to Seil Island, specifically to visit a place called the Ballachuan Hazelwood, which was the absolute highlight of my trip, a forest that has probably existed since the island was first settled after the first ice age. And while I didn't see any badgers while there, I did know that they were living on the island.
So imagine my despair to discover that in 2007 it was announced that the species had been extirpated on the island, and that authorities believed that someone had been gassing the badgers to death over a number of years. There had been about forty of the animals living on the island, and some of their setts had been there for hundreds of years.
Think about that. A small mammal, whose home has been built and enlarged by successive generations for a longer period of time than the place where I live has been a city. And then some jackass comes along and wipes them all out.
I weep for the future of us all.
Labels: idiots, Napier's Bones, Scotland, wildlife
Friday, September 10, 2010
Canada Post Sets a New Standard
I really do wish I was one of the lucky ones, able to write full time. Perhaps some day, more than likely after the boys are gone from the house and we don't have that extra financial load to carry (one that we do so happily, mind). In the meantime, seeing how I stupidly chose not to finish university, the work I can do inevitably is of the commercial or grunt variety. For the past 6 years I've been with Canada Post, and for over 2 years since we arrived in Saskatoon I've been a full time letter carrier.
There are good things about the job: in that time, I've lost 40 pounds; I get to spend several hours a day outside, walking and sometimes chatting with people or visiting with "my" dogs and cats on the route; and I know that I don't have to work evenings or weekends, which means I'm able to do a whole lot more with my boys than I would if I worked selling cameras (to name but one job I have had).
This isn't the place to get into everything that's gone wrong with Canada Post in my short career there, but suffice it to say that I once said it was the best wage-slave job I'd ever had, and I no longer believe that. Perhaps another day I can grouse about other things, but today I'd like to turn my attention to a letter that arrived in my mailbox the other day, a letter from Canada Post.
The front of the letter (it's really a card that opens up, with something on the back and on the inside) has my name and address and says "INSIDE: Important Information about Canada Post's Social Media Policy." On the back, accompanied by various logos we've all come to know, for Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and more, are the words "Do you use Social Media? Here's what you need to know."
This caught my attention, even though the card came as Addressed Admail, which is the junk mail Canadians get that still has their name and address on it. Usually I toss this sort of thing, but I was intrigued. Curious about what nonsense I would now be privy to.
On the inside of the card there is some info about logging into Canada Post's Intrapost, but that's not relevant. Instead, allow me to reproduce everything else here. On the first fold it reads:
Why do we need a Social Media Policy?
Canada Post wants employees to join in the conversations Canadians have about us online.
Before you engage in those conversations, there are some things you should know and that's why we have created a Social Media Policy with 10 helpful guidelines. The policy strikes a good balance: say what you think while respecting your colleagues, our customers and the company.
Online comments can protect our brand - but using social media improperly can undermine everyone's hard work. That's why serious violations of the policy could trigger sanctions, including dismissal. It's important for every employee to follow the guidelines.
If you post or comment online, please express your views responsibly.
[and then, inside the fold]
Our Social Media Policy
The guidelines contained within the Social Media Policy spell out employees' responsibilities when using social media for professional purposes (including participation in discussion groups such as Life@work) and when participating in social media for personal use. They are consistent with best practices used across the Internet and reflect Canada Post's values.
1. Be responsible. You are personally responsible for the content you publish online through social media, and can be held liable for any commentary deemed to be defamatory, obscene, proprietary, or libelous. Be aware that the content you publish is visible to the entire world and will remain public for a very long time. Protect your privacy.
2. Follow the rules. Be aware of, and respect, the rules of participation governing the discussion groups and social networks within which you choose to participate. Remember that laws and company policies that apply in the "real" world also apply online.
3. Be transparent. If you post material or discuss topics related to your work or to Canada Post, identify your relationship to Canada Post. Even if you take part in an anonymous discussion or use a nickname, disclose your connection to the topic at hand. Never pretend to be someone you are not.
4. Take ownership. Clearly state that you are not speaking on behalf of Canada Post, unless you are expressly authorized to do so. Consider using a disclaimer such as: "This is my personal opinion, and does not necessarily represent the views of Canada Post." (Although good practice, this does not exempt you from being held accountable for what you write.)
5. Respect your audience and colleagues. Don't engage in any conduct or use any language that would not be acceptable in the workplace. Protect the privacy of others and respect their opinions.
6. Add value. When you express yourself in social media on issues related to, or about Canada Post, you contribute to the public perception of the Canada Post brand. Write about what you know, from your own perspective. Include links to relevant canadapost.ca pages or, in the case of internal posts, Intrapost pages.
7. Protect the brand. If you identify yourself as a Canada Post employee in an online social network, ensure your profile and related content is consistent with how you wish to present yourself with colleagues and clients.
8. Be accurate. If you publish information about Canada Post, ensure the information is accurate and the source is clearly indicated. Be the first to correct your own mistakes, and do not alter previous posts without indicating that you have done so.
9. Do not reveal secrets. Do not disclose confidential or proprietary information about the company, its clients, stakeholders, or suppliers. Respect copyrights and ask permission before you cite a colleague, client, stakeholder or supplier. If you are not sure whether some information is OK to publish, ask your manager/team leader.
10. Do not forget your day job. You are encouraged to use social media during your leisure time. Make sure your online activities do not interfere with your job or commitments to customers. Check with your manager/team leader if you are not sure about the appropriateness of publishing during work hours.
Got all that? Good. Now, let me break some of it down.
1 through 5 are all, for the most part, eye-wateringly obvious. Those of us who have floated around online for many years already know a) how to behave and b) what happens to people who are caught out. Where CPC falls apart, though, is in combining the stern parental voice that uses words such as "never" and "liable" and the even more stern voice that admonishes you to always make sure people know where you work and to make sure your readers know you don't speak for them (upon which they are quick to tell you that you could get into trouble even though you've clearly stated you don't speak for them. IANAL doesn't cut it here).
To break it down even further, this desperate need to hold your hand betrays the elementary school mentality I've been noticing at work for some years now. We know better than you, you should listen to us, we can't trust you to make any sensible decisions on your own. Also, we've noticed that some of you have gone off the reservation and we need to get you back, quick, before anybody else notices.
The last sentence of 5 was of special meaning and humour to me. A couple of weeks ago I needed to get in touch with a term employee that I was hoping to coerce into house and dog sitting when my family and I are in the Maritimes. Because I didn't have her phone number, I approached my direct supervisor and asked if she could contact this girl and give her my number, so that she could decide whether or not she wanted to call me. I did this because I know if I were in her situation (young gal, single, quiet) I would want to be able to control the access certain people had to me. Especially people from work. It's a privacy issue. But my supervisor didn't understand this, and just gave me the girl's home and mobile numbers. What that tells me is that either CPC has no official privacy policy as it relates to employees, or else this supervisor did not know of it or did not care about it. Either way, it was an appalling lapse in privacy control, and even safety. What if I was some creepy stalker looking to get back at someone who had spurned my advances?
6 and 7 are quite problematic. It's not my job to add value or protect the brand. I know. I checked the contract. It turns out (and here's a surprise) I'm supposed to deliver the mail. The fact that I do so with a smile on my face, in spite of the BS in the depot, the arthritis in my knees, and the insane quantity of junkmail each day (sorry, unaddressed admail is the preferred parlance) is testament to how important it is to me to represent my job in a positive light when I'm working. But that stops the minute I get home. I don't actively walk around bad-mouthing the idiots who don't know how to run things, at least not every minute of the day. But if someone thinks that I should be all sweetness and light about a corporation whose response to me being physically bullied and intimidated by a supervisor who is larger than me was to transfer him to another depot - with word that he may be transferred back by the end of the month - then they have obviously picked the wrong universe in which to live. My private life is my own life, and strangely enough I'm guaranteed to right to speak my mind. If I choose to bicker about some aspect of work, so be it. If someone at head office has a problem with that, I recommend paying attention and looking for a way to fix things.
8? Of course I'll be accurate. Thanks, Mom.
9 begs the question, What sort of secrets are we talking about? Obviously not private phone numbers. Hell, maybe I could post contact info for all of our management team here online. A precedent has pretty much been set. Canada Post info? It's a crown corporation, which means that, even though it is run like a corporation, there is still a government minister responsible, and therefore there are limits on what it can keep private. Wikipedia, for instance, has a fairly good overview of numbers, none of which can be considered proprietary. As for clients, well, it's none of my business and shouldn't be yours either. I deliver what I'm paid to deliver, and I don't snoop, nor do I let others know what's going in their neighbour's box. But on the flip side, if I were asked to deliver something that was remarkably offensive, I'd likely bring it to management, and when that inevitably didn't work, I'd take it further.
As for 10, well, let me spell out my day for you. I arrive and start sorting at 8:15, and usually no later than 10am I'm out the door (later as Christmas approaches). And then I walk and deliver. I don't take breaks. When I'm done, I go back to the depot, clean up for the next day, then go home. But let me tell you, if life were easier, if they hadn't pushed my start time from 7:45 to 8:15 because they couldn't for the life of them figure out how to get the priority mail to us in time, well then, I'd be living the easy life and would have all the time in the world to post updates to Facebook or my blog.
The problem there, though, is every one of them would be bitching about work. So maybe there's a method to their madness after all. In the meantime, I intend to lead my private life in the fashion I see fit. I won't do anything stupid like discuss doing violence to a member of management (yes, someone I work with once did that. The idiot), but yes, I'll bitch and moan all I want. And if I happen to follow some of those rules, it won't be because Big Brother told me to do so, it'll be because I already know how best to behave online. I'm not the one who's just suddenly stumbled into this strange thing the kids are doing on that great series of tubes.
There are good things about the job: in that time, I've lost 40 pounds; I get to spend several hours a day outside, walking and sometimes chatting with people or visiting with "my" dogs and cats on the route; and I know that I don't have to work evenings or weekends, which means I'm able to do a whole lot more with my boys than I would if I worked selling cameras (to name but one job I have had).
This isn't the place to get into everything that's gone wrong with Canada Post in my short career there, but suffice it to say that I once said it was the best wage-slave job I'd ever had, and I no longer believe that. Perhaps another day I can grouse about other things, but today I'd like to turn my attention to a letter that arrived in my mailbox the other day, a letter from Canada Post.
The front of the letter (it's really a card that opens up, with something on the back and on the inside) has my name and address and says "INSIDE: Important Information about Canada Post's Social Media Policy." On the back, accompanied by various logos we've all come to know, for Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and more, are the words "Do you use Social Media? Here's what you need to know."
This caught my attention, even though the card came as Addressed Admail, which is the junk mail Canadians get that still has their name and address on it. Usually I toss this sort of thing, but I was intrigued. Curious about what nonsense I would now be privy to.
On the inside of the card there is some info about logging into Canada Post's Intrapost, but that's not relevant. Instead, allow me to reproduce everything else here. On the first fold it reads:
Why do we need a Social Media Policy?
Canada Post wants employees to join in the conversations Canadians have about us online.
Before you engage in those conversations, there are some things you should know and that's why we have created a Social Media Policy with 10 helpful guidelines. The policy strikes a good balance: say what you think while respecting your colleagues, our customers and the company.
Online comments can protect our brand - but using social media improperly can undermine everyone's hard work. That's why serious violations of the policy could trigger sanctions, including dismissal. It's important for every employee to follow the guidelines.
If you post or comment online, please express your views responsibly.
[and then, inside the fold]
Our Social Media Policy
The guidelines contained within the Social Media Policy spell out employees' responsibilities when using social media for professional purposes (including participation in discussion groups such as Life@work) and when participating in social media for personal use. They are consistent with best practices used across the Internet and reflect Canada Post's values.
1. Be responsible. You are personally responsible for the content you publish online through social media, and can be held liable for any commentary deemed to be defamatory, obscene, proprietary, or libelous. Be aware that the content you publish is visible to the entire world and will remain public for a very long time. Protect your privacy.
2. Follow the rules. Be aware of, and respect, the rules of participation governing the discussion groups and social networks within which you choose to participate. Remember that laws and company policies that apply in the "real" world also apply online.
3. Be transparent. If you post material or discuss topics related to your work or to Canada Post, identify your relationship to Canada Post. Even if you take part in an anonymous discussion or use a nickname, disclose your connection to the topic at hand. Never pretend to be someone you are not.
4. Take ownership. Clearly state that you are not speaking on behalf of Canada Post, unless you are expressly authorized to do so. Consider using a disclaimer such as: "This is my personal opinion, and does not necessarily represent the views of Canada Post." (Although good practice, this does not exempt you from being held accountable for what you write.)
5. Respect your audience and colleagues. Don't engage in any conduct or use any language that would not be acceptable in the workplace. Protect the privacy of others and respect their opinions.
6. Add value. When you express yourself in social media on issues related to, or about Canada Post, you contribute to the public perception of the Canada Post brand. Write about what you know, from your own perspective. Include links to relevant canadapost.ca pages or, in the case of internal posts, Intrapost pages.
7. Protect the brand. If you identify yourself as a Canada Post employee in an online social network, ensure your profile and related content is consistent with how you wish to present yourself with colleagues and clients.
8. Be accurate. If you publish information about Canada Post, ensure the information is accurate and the source is clearly indicated. Be the first to correct your own mistakes, and do not alter previous posts without indicating that you have done so.
9. Do not reveal secrets. Do not disclose confidential or proprietary information about the company, its clients, stakeholders, or suppliers. Respect copyrights and ask permission before you cite a colleague, client, stakeholder or supplier. If you are not sure whether some information is OK to publish, ask your manager/team leader.
10. Do not forget your day job. You are encouraged to use social media during your leisure time. Make sure your online activities do not interfere with your job or commitments to customers. Check with your manager/team leader if you are not sure about the appropriateness of publishing during work hours.
Got all that? Good. Now, let me break some of it down.
1 through 5 are all, for the most part, eye-wateringly obvious. Those of us who have floated around online for many years already know a) how to behave and b) what happens to people who are caught out. Where CPC falls apart, though, is in combining the stern parental voice that uses words such as "never" and "liable" and the even more stern voice that admonishes you to always make sure people know where you work and to make sure your readers know you don't speak for them (upon which they are quick to tell you that you could get into trouble even though you've clearly stated you don't speak for them. IANAL doesn't cut it here).
To break it down even further, this desperate need to hold your hand betrays the elementary school mentality I've been noticing at work for some years now. We know better than you, you should listen to us, we can't trust you to make any sensible decisions on your own. Also, we've noticed that some of you have gone off the reservation and we need to get you back, quick, before anybody else notices.
The last sentence of 5 was of special meaning and humour to me. A couple of weeks ago I needed to get in touch with a term employee that I was hoping to coerce into house and dog sitting when my family and I are in the Maritimes. Because I didn't have her phone number, I approached my direct supervisor and asked if she could contact this girl and give her my number, so that she could decide whether or not she wanted to call me. I did this because I know if I were in her situation (young gal, single, quiet) I would want to be able to control the access certain people had to me. Especially people from work. It's a privacy issue. But my supervisor didn't understand this, and just gave me the girl's home and mobile numbers. What that tells me is that either CPC has no official privacy policy as it relates to employees, or else this supervisor did not know of it or did not care about it. Either way, it was an appalling lapse in privacy control, and even safety. What if I was some creepy stalker looking to get back at someone who had spurned my advances?
6 and 7 are quite problematic. It's not my job to add value or protect the brand. I know. I checked the contract. It turns out (and here's a surprise) I'm supposed to deliver the mail. The fact that I do so with a smile on my face, in spite of the BS in the depot, the arthritis in my knees, and the insane quantity of junkmail each day (sorry, unaddressed admail is the preferred parlance) is testament to how important it is to me to represent my job in a positive light when I'm working. But that stops the minute I get home. I don't actively walk around bad-mouthing the idiots who don't know how to run things, at least not every minute of the day. But if someone thinks that I should be all sweetness and light about a corporation whose response to me being physically bullied and intimidated by a supervisor who is larger than me was to transfer him to another depot - with word that he may be transferred back by the end of the month - then they have obviously picked the wrong universe in which to live. My private life is my own life, and strangely enough I'm guaranteed to right to speak my mind. If I choose to bicker about some aspect of work, so be it. If someone at head office has a problem with that, I recommend paying attention and looking for a way to fix things.
8? Of course I'll be accurate. Thanks, Mom.
9 begs the question, What sort of secrets are we talking about? Obviously not private phone numbers. Hell, maybe I could post contact info for all of our management team here online. A precedent has pretty much been set. Canada Post info? It's a crown corporation, which means that, even though it is run like a corporation, there is still a government minister responsible, and therefore there are limits on what it can keep private. Wikipedia, for instance, has a fairly good overview of numbers, none of which can be considered proprietary. As for clients, well, it's none of my business and shouldn't be yours either. I deliver what I'm paid to deliver, and I don't snoop, nor do I let others know what's going in their neighbour's box. But on the flip side, if I were asked to deliver something that was remarkably offensive, I'd likely bring it to management, and when that inevitably didn't work, I'd take it further.
As for 10, well, let me spell out my day for you. I arrive and start sorting at 8:15, and usually no later than 10am I'm out the door (later as Christmas approaches). And then I walk and deliver. I don't take breaks. When I'm done, I go back to the depot, clean up for the next day, then go home. But let me tell you, if life were easier, if they hadn't pushed my start time from 7:45 to 8:15 because they couldn't for the life of them figure out how to get the priority mail to us in time, well then, I'd be living the easy life and would have all the time in the world to post updates to Facebook or my blog.
The problem there, though, is every one of them would be bitching about work. So maybe there's a method to their madness after all. In the meantime, I intend to lead my private life in the fashion I see fit. I won't do anything stupid like discuss doing violence to a member of management (yes, someone I work with once did that. The idiot), but yes, I'll bitch and moan all I want. And if I happen to follow some of those rules, it won't be because Big Brother told me to do so, it'll be because I already know how best to behave online. I'm not the one who's just suddenly stumbled into this strange thing the kids are doing on that great series of tubes.
Labels: Canada Post, idiots, internet, social media, work
Saturday, December 05, 2009
In Which I Take Stupidity to Task
A letter to the editor this past week extolled the virtues of young-Earth creationism and did its level best to convince us that evolution and "Darwinism" (a term I believe is mostly used to try to prove that it is nothing but a belief, even a religion) are wrong.
Not being granted a whole lot of space, I take what the letters column allows and give my answer. Yeah, it mostly amounts to sticking my tongue out, but there you go.
Not being granted a whole lot of space, I take what the letters column allows and give my answer. Yeah, it mostly amounts to sticking my tongue out, but there you go.
Labels: idiots, nonsense, science
Friday, July 10, 2009
Today's Insane But Obviously Necessary News Article
Apparently, it's that psychics and numerologists have important things to tell us about Michael Jackson's life. When I went to CNN, this was the 3rd story down from the top on the "Latest News" feed. Thank goodness I know now that Jackson led a "six life path." I probably couldn't have made it through the day otherwise.
Labels: idiots
Monday, April 28, 2008
An Arctic Fail
Barry Zellen has written an op-ed for the online edition of the Globe and Mail in which he decides that this whole global warming thing is a good idea. After all, if it opens up the Northwest Passage (and more), why, then, a few dead polar bears are just fine, to say nothing of entire regions of the Earth that would undergo greater desertification and enormous populations that would suffer and even die due to loss of arable land and extreme weather changes.
Probably his happiest moment is when he says this:
The argument here is mind-bogglingly insane. Instead of parroting all the latest nonsense about global warming being false, we're now seeing nut bars like Zellen stooping to telling us that we can offset the damage by first causing the damage so that we reduce our emissions. Splendid idea, that.
Here's an idea to go along with that one, and it fits well, since it keeps the Arctic theme rolling: I suggest that we kill almost all of the polar bears, even ahead of the melting ice helping that along. Then, with so few predators in the way, their prey will rebound to astounding numbers. And then the polar bears that are left alive will have so much to eat their numbers will bloat before you know it. Hell, maybe the new ones will somehow be able to figure out how to get by in this brave new world. Provided that when they're swimming for days on end they can avoid all the giant, greenhouse-friendly freighters plying these exciting new waters.
Probably his happiest moment is when he says this:
Did you catch that in the second paragraph? Good news indeed! Once all of the sea ice permanently melts, then we can transport goods between the continents and save on fuel and cut down carbon emissions.Climate-change pessimists worry about increased resource competition, coastal flooding, infrastructure damage from melting permafrost, changes in wildlife migration patterns, and stresses on some species –especially polar bears – as well as on the indigenous cultures of the region.
But climate-change optimists imagine a world where international shipping can take a direct northern route, linking Asian, North American and European markets, cutting the consumption of fuel and reducing carbon emissions by using substantially shorter shipping routes; they foresee tremendous potential for maritime commerce to stimulate the economic development of Arctic ports, from the Port of Churchill on Hudson Bay to the depressed coastal communities of the High Arctic.
The argument here is mind-bogglingly insane. Instead of parroting all the latest nonsense about global warming being false, we're now seeing nut bars like Zellen stooping to telling us that we can offset the damage by first causing the damage so that we reduce our emissions. Splendid idea, that.
Here's an idea to go along with that one, and it fits well, since it keeps the Arctic theme rolling: I suggest that we kill almost all of the polar bears, even ahead of the melting ice helping that along. Then, with so few predators in the way, their prey will rebound to astounding numbers. And then the polar bears that are left alive will have so much to eat their numbers will bloat before you know it. Hell, maybe the new ones will somehow be able to figure out how to get by in this brave new world. Provided that when they're swimming for days on end they can avoid all the giant, greenhouse-friendly freighters plying these exciting new waters.
Labels: global warming, idiots
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Copyright Idiocy
Aidan had his first performance at the local Speech Arts festival today, a group thing with the rest of his class. They did well, I think.
I had my camera there, hoping to take pictures for his grandparents. But lo, before things started, someone came out to announce that pictures and video are disallowed due to copyright considerations.
I almost jumped out of my chair. Of all the bloody ridiculous idiotic ways to shut parents and other family out of enjoying the process. Even worse, most performances I saw today were small portions of bigger works. This, it seems to me, falls under fair dealing, and I don't see how restricting the further enjoyment of this event by family and by the performers can do anything to aid copyright and make the creators somehow richer.
Interestingly, this diatribe may not apply to Aidan's group, since they possibly performed the whole thing, and I have no idea whether or not the author is alive or has been dead for decades. But I do know that the two groups who performed selections from Anne of Green Gables and the pair who performed a selection from Pride and Prejudice chose works that were well into the public domain.
Maybe, I wonder, the concern over copyright is over the presentations themselves. I don't know. But my question then is, Does someone somehow expect these performers to make money from these performances? Or is the judging what's copyrighted? Honestly, I can't think of any reasonable situation that would allow for such a ludicrous stance.
No luck visiting the web site for the festival, by the way. The best I can find in the FAQs is a list of copyright violations regarding photocopying. I'd be overshooting myself to say I have the expertise to handle these ones; perhaps I can persuade Cory to take a shot at them.
I had my camera there, hoping to take pictures for his grandparents. But lo, before things started, someone came out to announce that pictures and video are disallowed due to copyright considerations.
I almost jumped out of my chair. Of all the bloody ridiculous idiotic ways to shut parents and other family out of enjoying the process. Even worse, most performances I saw today were small portions of bigger works. This, it seems to me, falls under fair dealing, and I don't see how restricting the further enjoyment of this event by family and by the performers can do anything to aid copyright and make the creators somehow richer.
Interestingly, this diatribe may not apply to Aidan's group, since they possibly performed the whole thing, and I have no idea whether or not the author is alive or has been dead for decades. But I do know that the two groups who performed selections from Anne of Green Gables and the pair who performed a selection from Pride and Prejudice chose works that were well into the public domain.
Maybe, I wonder, the concern over copyright is over the presentations themselves. I don't know. But my question then is, Does someone somehow expect these performers to make money from these performances? Or is the judging what's copyrighted? Honestly, I can't think of any reasonable situation that would allow for such a ludicrous stance.
No luck visiting the web site for the festival, by the way. The best I can find in the FAQs is a list of copyright violations regarding photocopying. I'd be overshooting myself to say I have the expertise to handle these ones; perhaps I can persuade Cory to take a shot at them.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Don't Let the Door Hit Your Ass on the Way Out
Not to anybody here, of course.
When we moved into our house, there was much about it and the neighbourhood that we deemed perfect. It's a quiet little cul de sac, with the requisite dearth of traffic. There are bazillions of kids, most of them boys, which means Aidan and Brennan are outside and being active a whole lot. We like it.
A day or two after we moved in our neighbours to the right pulled up in their driveway and Smokey and I walked over to say hello. The man got out and did shake my hand (I can't remember his name right now), but his wife did not get out of the vehicle until I left. After brief introductions, the told me that he would appreciate it if I kept my dog on a leash.
All right. Duly noted. Although if I'm in my front yard, and I can keep my dog under control, I don't need to put her on a leash.
Anyhow. For months that was the only interaction I had with them. If we were out at the same time (rare), they wouldn't acknowledge me. But what they would acknowledge was the kids. If a ball landed on their lawn, the woman would come out and yell at them (any kids, not just ours) and sometimes would take the ball into her house, which required parental intervention. It got so bad that the boys were scared to play street hockey or basketball, even in their own driveway.
Things came to a head one day when a boy who was not from the street rode his bike up onto their driveway and back off immediately. When I cam outside moments later, ready to head out on an errand, she was out on her drive yelling at the kids, including my own.
I put down my bag and suggested that if there was a problem, perhaps she should consider dealing with an adult instead of threatening and harassing kids who, quite frankly, were only behaving like kids. Well, this resulted in a lengthy diatribe that touched on why couldn't the kids play in their own back yards, or perhaps at the area park, the extreme affront she took at them playing golf and baseball on the street (neither with a hard ball) and making so much noise, the sprinkler head they broke when retrieving a ball (thanks for the news - no one knew about hidden sprinklers until that very moment), and how the block was so much better when there had been no children. I have to say, I surprised myself with how patient I was with the woman, who by this time it was apparent was not a parent.
I pause now for a quick sketch of the block. At the far corner on our side lives a widow. Next house there's a young teenage girl and a boy about Aidan's age. Next is the scary couple, then us. Next is a couple, his daughter (also Aidan's age) living there part time. Then a house with two boys, one 13 and one 10. Then a retired couple, then another young teenage girl and a boy about Aidan's age. Then a boy a year older than Aidan, a girl a couple years younger than Brennan, and a pre-school boy. Then a pre-school boy, but also three other boys who live with their father there half time (but also they only live a couple of blocks away with their mom, so they're by all the time), then an older teenage boy, then two young girls (that house is for sale), then a boy Aidan's age, and he has two older siblings.
Plus all the kids who come from everywhere else, because it's such a cool block and so easy to play on the street and stay safe.
Well, it drove the neighbours nuts, enough so that they sold and are moving out today. But the funny thing about it is they didn't want us to know, or else (and this is Jo's suspicion, and probably a safe bet) the woman has some severe phobias. No sign went up, no ad was placed, but we did see a realtor's vehicle there and later a home inspection vehicle. But it was all hush-hush. They wanted no gawkers, did not want to give up an ounce of control by allowing strangers to come see their house all willy nilly.
And so, today the neighbourhood is celebrating. We hope it's a good and fun family moving in.
Surprising Update: Turns out they didn't sell the house. They have indeed moved, but there's a sign up on the lawn today. Which is interesting. I hope for their sakes they have no mortgage, since even these folks elicit my sympathy (combined with awe over such stupidity) if they have to cover two mortgages now.
When we moved into our house, there was much about it and the neighbourhood that we deemed perfect. It's a quiet little cul de sac, with the requisite dearth of traffic. There are bazillions of kids, most of them boys, which means Aidan and Brennan are outside and being active a whole lot. We like it.
A day or two after we moved in our neighbours to the right pulled up in their driveway and Smokey and I walked over to say hello. The man got out and did shake my hand (I can't remember his name right now), but his wife did not get out of the vehicle until I left. After brief introductions, the told me that he would appreciate it if I kept my dog on a leash.
All right. Duly noted. Although if I'm in my front yard, and I can keep my dog under control, I don't need to put her on a leash.
Anyhow. For months that was the only interaction I had with them. If we were out at the same time (rare), they wouldn't acknowledge me. But what they would acknowledge was the kids. If a ball landed on their lawn, the woman would come out and yell at them (any kids, not just ours) and sometimes would take the ball into her house, which required parental intervention. It got so bad that the boys were scared to play street hockey or basketball, even in their own driveway.
Things came to a head one day when a boy who was not from the street rode his bike up onto their driveway and back off immediately. When I cam outside moments later, ready to head out on an errand, she was out on her drive yelling at the kids, including my own.
I put down my bag and suggested that if there was a problem, perhaps she should consider dealing with an adult instead of threatening and harassing kids who, quite frankly, were only behaving like kids. Well, this resulted in a lengthy diatribe that touched on why couldn't the kids play in their own back yards, or perhaps at the area park, the extreme affront she took at them playing golf and baseball on the street (neither with a hard ball) and making so much noise, the sprinkler head they broke when retrieving a ball (thanks for the news - no one knew about hidden sprinklers until that very moment), and how the block was so much better when there had been no children. I have to say, I surprised myself with how patient I was with the woman, who by this time it was apparent was not a parent.
I pause now for a quick sketch of the block. At the far corner on our side lives a widow. Next house there's a young teenage girl and a boy about Aidan's age. Next is the scary couple, then us. Next is a couple, his daughter (also Aidan's age) living there part time. Then a house with two boys, one 13 and one 10. Then a retired couple, then another young teenage girl and a boy about Aidan's age. Then a boy a year older than Aidan, a girl a couple years younger than Brennan, and a pre-school boy. Then a pre-school boy, but also three other boys who live with their father there half time (but also they only live a couple of blocks away with their mom, so they're by all the time), then an older teenage boy, then two young girls (that house is for sale), then a boy Aidan's age, and he has two older siblings.
Plus all the kids who come from everywhere else, because it's such a cool block and so easy to play on the street and stay safe.
Well, it drove the neighbours nuts, enough so that they sold and are moving out today. But the funny thing about it is they didn't want us to know, or else (and this is Jo's suspicion, and probably a safe bet) the woman has some severe phobias. No sign went up, no ad was placed, but we did see a realtor's vehicle there and later a home inspection vehicle. But it was all hush-hush. They wanted no gawkers, did not want to give up an ounce of control by allowing strangers to come see their house all willy nilly.
And so, today the neighbourhood is celebrating. We hope it's a good and fun family moving in.
Surprising Update: Turns out they didn't sell the house. They have indeed moved, but there's a sign up on the lawn today. Which is interesting. I hope for their sakes they have no mortgage, since even these folks elicit my sympathy (combined with awe over such stupidity) if they have to cover two mortgages now.
Labels: freaks, idiots, real estate
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
But More Often, People Don't Surprise Me
And in this case, I mean in a rather disappointing way. In the off chance I go to Finland and meet this guy in a pub, I intend to kneecap him.
Labels: idiots, travel, vandalism
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Tremendously Self-Aware (Read: Stupid) Statement of the Day
"I'm not going to belong to a party that doesn't want me." Way to stand up for your idiotic principles, man.
"I'm not going to belong to a party that doesn't want me." Way to stand up for your idiotic principles, man.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Le Guin, Doctorow, SFWA, and Headaches
A slight recap for those of you not aware of the crap that's going on:
In a review in Slate back in May, Ruth Franklin made a comment about Michael Chabon and genre literature that got some hackles up. Ursula K. Le Guin took this and ran with it, as can be seen here. It was a marvelous piece, short and very much to the point.
Not long later, Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing reposted the entire piece.
UKL took exception to this, and apparently attempted to approach the SFWA e-piracy committee to ask for their help in this matter. Unfortunately, and unknown to her, that committee had been disbanded after the Scribd debacle (for opposite views, see here and here). And so she somehow ended up in touch with SFWA VP Andrew Burt, who attempted to get in touch with Cory to ask him to take it down. Due to the Scribd mess (I would imagine, although other things come to mind), Cory has Andrew killfiled, and so he says he knew nothing of this until it showed up elsewhere. See his apology for his own take on things, and then see UKL's acceptance of his apology.
I have issues with Cory's apology, which smacks of the sort of non-apology we're so prone to seeing these days ("I'm sorry your feelings were hurt," rather than "I'm sorry I screwed up"). However, it's not bad, once one gets past the blustering and excuse-making.
I also have issues with Andrew's involvement in this. In my eyes, he was largely responsible for the Scribd mess. As soon as UKL contacted him, it would have been wise to take it to the Board, or to SFWA president Michael Capobianco (who, true to nature, was able to calm much of this down with a phone call or two). UKL, who likely didn't know the history of the mess she was walking into, picked the least efficient way of getting this done, if efficiency is measured by the amount of noise generated, instead of actual accomplishments.
I wish I could share with you some of the crap that has been running on the private SFWA newsgroups, but that would be wrong, both morally and contractually. Suffice it to say, there are people I like and respect who are being vicious and ugly with this event, I suppose taking it as a form of retribution after having had to slink away after the Scribd screwup (how many descriptors can I come up with for that?). There are also, no surprise, people I neither like nor respect doing the same thing.
I can share the crap that's been running at Boing Boing, though. I don't know what the hell Cory was thinking, but as a purveyor of free speech, it came as a shock that comments were not allowed on his apology. And so people took to dropping comments into other threads. See here and here.
A couple of things about some of these comments sadden and dismay me. First, and the only obvious one to those of you coming late to the party, is the wretched idea that this is somehow to be blamed on UKL and perhaps her advanced age, and that people will no longer buy her books, or perhaps will take their UKL books and drop them in the trash. Second, and one I can't find any more (although perhaps it was tucked away elsewhere), an anonymous commenter reposted all of UKL's piece again, and it remained up long enough for me to read it some hours after it was posted.
This is where another player enters the game.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden is an editor at Tor, proprietor of Making Light, and as of not too long ago, comment moderator at Boing Boing. She doesn't have a lot of patience for boors and trolls, and developed a wonderful method of moderation called "disemvowelling," in which she leaves the comment up but removes all the vowels (reserved for the worst of the worst, I'll note). The visual effect is translates very much to my eyes as I assume someone gagged would to my ears.
Her control extends to what gets posted and when, at least when it comes to anonymous posters. Andrew Burt tried to post a question, and she didn't allow it. And yet she did allow the reposting of UKL's story, as well posting her own attack on Andrew, and publicly questioning whether perhaps UKL had fallen under Andrew's sway in this matter.
I don't like Andrew's actions with regard to SFWA. That's not been a secret. But, contrary to what Teresa had written (and I have a sneaking suspicion it's been disappeared, but I'll be happy to correct myself it someone else can find it), UKL is a grown woman and perfectly capable of making her own decisions. TNH's actions and inactions dismay me
As am I. I'll continue to read books by both UKL and Cory, although my continued existence as a member of SFWA is in jeopardy (I'll decide by the time I get to WFC), as is my respect for a whole swack of people. On the brighter side, there will be fewer sites to visit and waste my time each day.
ADDENDUM: It occurs to me that I danced around a couple of opinions of my own, which may be because Aidan took to puking last night. Cory may be right that republishing all of UKL's piece was fair use, but he may be wrong. I'm not a lawyer, and so the legalities are not mine to say. However, I don't see why it should have even been an issue. How hard is it to snip a 60 to 100 word portion and link to the original? Answer: not as hard as it is to back down and have people call you on it. No matter the old adage, roughly translated here as "copy first and apologize later."
On the flip side, UKL did publish her piece in the web. It's going to crop up (another author, unnamed here, emailed it to me in its entirety, and he's - I think - very conservative on the copyright front). In this case I would suggest that it would have been more sensible to not call this piracy and to contact Cory herself (either via Boing Boing or through his contact info supplied in the SFWA Directory).
Finally, I recall when Ian Frazier's Lamentations of the Father showed up on the web. (Google it and see: it's all over the place.) I did share it with some people, but when the book came out, I bought it. Certainly not everybody will, but it was worth it for me, something I wanted on my bookshelf rather than on the computer, and I wanted to put a little money on Frazier's pocket. Would I have bought it if I hadn't read it on the web? Maybe, since I knew of some of Frazier's work. But this was a spontaneous purchase, made easier because I already knew it, even though I hadn't been planning on making that purchase.
A slight recap for those of you not aware of the crap that's going on:
In a review in Slate back in May, Ruth Franklin made a comment about Michael Chabon and genre literature that got some hackles up. Ursula K. Le Guin took this and ran with it, as can be seen here. It was a marvelous piece, short and very much to the point.
Not long later, Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing reposted the entire piece.
UKL took exception to this, and apparently attempted to approach the SFWA e-piracy committee to ask for their help in this matter. Unfortunately, and unknown to her, that committee had been disbanded after the Scribd debacle (for opposite views, see here and here). And so she somehow ended up in touch with SFWA VP Andrew Burt, who attempted to get in touch with Cory to ask him to take it down. Due to the Scribd mess (I would imagine, although other things come to mind), Cory has Andrew killfiled, and so he says he knew nothing of this until it showed up elsewhere. See his apology for his own take on things, and then see UKL's acceptance of his apology.
I have issues with Cory's apology, which smacks of the sort of non-apology we're so prone to seeing these days ("I'm sorry your feelings were hurt," rather than "I'm sorry I screwed up"). However, it's not bad, once one gets past the blustering and excuse-making.
I also have issues with Andrew's involvement in this. In my eyes, he was largely responsible for the Scribd mess. As soon as UKL contacted him, it would have been wise to take it to the Board, or to SFWA president Michael Capobianco (who, true to nature, was able to calm much of this down with a phone call or two). UKL, who likely didn't know the history of the mess she was walking into, picked the least efficient way of getting this done, if efficiency is measured by the amount of noise generated, instead of actual accomplishments.
I wish I could share with you some of the crap that has been running on the private SFWA newsgroups, but that would be wrong, both morally and contractually. Suffice it to say, there are people I like and respect who are being vicious and ugly with this event, I suppose taking it as a form of retribution after having had to slink away after the Scribd screwup (how many descriptors can I come up with for that?). There are also, no surprise, people I neither like nor respect doing the same thing.
I can share the crap that's been running at Boing Boing, though. I don't know what the hell Cory was thinking, but as a purveyor of free speech, it came as a shock that comments were not allowed on his apology. And so people took to dropping comments into other threads. See here and here.
A couple of things about some of these comments sadden and dismay me. First, and the only obvious one to those of you coming late to the party, is the wretched idea that this is somehow to be blamed on UKL and perhaps her advanced age, and that people will no longer buy her books, or perhaps will take their UKL books and drop them in the trash. Second, and one I can't find any more (although perhaps it was tucked away elsewhere), an anonymous commenter reposted all of UKL's piece again, and it remained up long enough for me to read it some hours after it was posted.
This is where another player enters the game.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden is an editor at Tor, proprietor of Making Light, and as of not too long ago, comment moderator at Boing Boing. She doesn't have a lot of patience for boors and trolls, and developed a wonderful method of moderation called "disemvowelling," in which she leaves the comment up but removes all the vowels (reserved for the worst of the worst, I'll note). The visual effect is translates very much to my eyes as I assume someone gagged would to my ears.
Her control extends to what gets posted and when, at least when it comes to anonymous posters. Andrew Burt tried to post a question, and she didn't allow it. And yet she did allow the reposting of UKL's story, as well posting her own attack on Andrew, and publicly questioning whether perhaps UKL had fallen under Andrew's sway in this matter.
I don't like Andrew's actions with regard to SFWA. That's not been a secret. But, contrary to what Teresa had written (and I have a sneaking suspicion it's been disappeared, but I'll be happy to correct myself it someone else can find it), UKL is a grown woman and perfectly capable of making her own decisions. TNH's actions and inactions dismay me
As am I. I'll continue to read books by both UKL and Cory, although my continued existence as a member of SFWA is in jeopardy (I'll decide by the time I get to WFC), as is my respect for a whole swack of people. On the brighter side, there will be fewer sites to visit and waste my time each day.
ADDENDUM: It occurs to me that I danced around a couple of opinions of my own, which may be because Aidan took to puking last night. Cory may be right that republishing all of UKL's piece was fair use, but he may be wrong. I'm not a lawyer, and so the legalities are not mine to say. However, I don't see why it should have even been an issue. How hard is it to snip a 60 to 100 word portion and link to the original? Answer: not as hard as it is to back down and have people call you on it. No matter the old adage, roughly translated here as "copy first and apologize later."
On the flip side, UKL did publish her piece in the web. It's going to crop up (another author, unnamed here, emailed it to me in its entirety, and he's - I think - very conservative on the copyright front). In this case I would suggest that it would have been more sensible to not call this piracy and to contact Cory herself (either via Boing Boing or through his contact info supplied in the SFWA Directory).
Finally, I recall when Ian Frazier's Lamentations of the Father showed up on the web. (Google it and see: it's all over the place.) I did share it with some people, but when the book came out, I bought it. Certainly not everybody will, but it was worth it for me, something I wanted on my bookshelf rather than on the computer, and I wanted to put a little money on Frazier's pocket. Would I have bought it if I hadn't read it on the web? Maybe, since I knew of some of Frazier's work. But this was a spontaneous purchase, made easier because I already knew it, even though I hadn't been planning on making that purchase.
Labels: copyright, idiots, SFWA
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
A Note For Boneheads Doing Their Own Home Renovations
If you're putting a new floor in the bathroom, don't choose wood laminate glued to a floating plywood subfloor. Even if it sits over the old lino, it allows moisture to get through (especially when there are holes in the lino), and mildew will form. If you do this, then the people who purchase your house will hopefully get lucky and catch it both before it gets to the walls and before it turns to mold. But even lucky, those people will be thankful they have a third toilet, since the other two will be out of service for as much as 48 hours.
If you're putting a new floor in the bathroom, don't choose wood laminate glued to a floating plywood subfloor. Even if it sits over the old lino, it allows moisture to get through (especially when there are holes in the lino), and mildew will form. If you do this, then the people who purchase your house will hopefully get lucky and catch it both before it gets to the walls and before it turns to mold. But even lucky, those people will be thankful they have a third toilet, since the other two will be out of service for as much as 48 hours.
Labels: home repairs, idiots
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Why the People at Global BC Television are Buttheads Part Two
I never used to watch Survivor, but the boys got me hooked. So tonight we're watching the big finale, which is a CBS show but, according to the rules set by the CRTC, since Global also has the show, they're allowed to simulcast it. Which means that once again we're at the mercy of people who apparently don't know or don't care what they're doing.
You know where this is going. Just before the vote to establish the final three, and only a minute or so after the last commercial, they cut to commercial again. And then they stayed in commercial for several long minutes. When we came back, it was to see the last three walking back from tribal council and talking about the big surprise that had been pulled.
I know it's only a TV show, but this is nonsense. It drives me nuts already that we are prisoners of this CRTC rule, and worse, prisoners of a company that doesn't give a damn about their viewers. And since nobody returned my call of complaint over the Heroes debacle, I would guess that not giving a damn is standard.
Contact info for Global BC is here. CRTC is here. I'll contact both, but I anticipate nothing from either.
I never used to watch Survivor, but the boys got me hooked. So tonight we're watching the big finale, which is a CBS show but, according to the rules set by the CRTC, since Global also has the show, they're allowed to simulcast it. Which means that once again we're at the mercy of people who apparently don't know or don't care what they're doing.
You know where this is going. Just before the vote to establish the final three, and only a minute or so after the last commercial, they cut to commercial again. And then they stayed in commercial for several long minutes. When we came back, it was to see the last three walking back from tribal council and talking about the big surprise that had been pulled.
I know it's only a TV show, but this is nonsense. It drives me nuts already that we are prisoners of this CRTC rule, and worse, prisoners of a company that doesn't give a damn about their viewers. And since nobody returned my call of complaint over the Heroes debacle, I would guess that not giving a damn is standard.
Contact info for Global BC is here. CRTC is here. I'll contact both, but I anticipate nothing from either.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Why the People at Global BC Television Are Buttheads
I don't ask for a lot in my life, but one of my pleasures as of late has been the series Heroes. It has been a remarkable run this season, certainly with some bumps along the way, but the show has me hooked but good. The same goes for Jo. And last night, with about ten minutes left in the episode (and three eps left in the season after that), Jo turned to me and said, "I want this to end right now!" She said that because she's so worked up about things, and wants to know everything that's happening, and wants to know right away.
For those of you who watch the show, last night took place in the year 2012, where the heroes are either being hunted by Homeland Security or else working for them. As things worked to a head, with heroes fighting each other left and right, two of them killed right there (and others killed earlier in the show), and all of a sudden we were down to an awesome duel about to take place between Sylar and Peter. Sylar flicked his wrists and both arms turned a fiery orange, Peter did the same and his hands turned a screaming blue/white, and I put my hands on my head and shouted "This has so much coolness my head is going to explode!"
All of this was during the 9pm showing on NBC. At that very moment, the asshats at Global down in Vancouver decided this was a good time to switch over to their simulcast feed since they air The Real Wedding Crashers alongside NBC, and we peons up here have to of course watch the Canadian commercials. And so, instead of seeing the culmination of this amazing battle, and seeing what Hiro Nakamura manages to do in trying to get back to his own time, I'm seeing frickin' ads for some bogus Global programming. Hell, the next show didn't even come on for another couple of minutes.
At first I blamed this on Shaw, but after some talking with a gal there today I learned that Global gets to do that themselves. When I phoned them today, I got transferred to the complaints line, which (surprise, surprise) was a voice mail. I'll update if I ever hear back, but unless plenty of other people are equally pissed (and the smart ones probably watched the 8pm showing on CTV; me, I missed that because of the boys), I suspect they'll right me off as just another crank.
I don't ask for a lot in my life, but one of my pleasures as of late has been the series Heroes. It has been a remarkable run this season, certainly with some bumps along the way, but the show has me hooked but good. The same goes for Jo. And last night, with about ten minutes left in the episode (and three eps left in the season after that), Jo turned to me and said, "I want this to end right now!" She said that because she's so worked up about things, and wants to know everything that's happening, and wants to know right away.
For those of you who watch the show, last night took place in the year 2012, where the heroes are either being hunted by Homeland Security or else working for them. As things worked to a head, with heroes fighting each other left and right, two of them killed right there (and others killed earlier in the show), and all of a sudden we were down to an awesome duel about to take place between Sylar and Peter. Sylar flicked his wrists and both arms turned a fiery orange, Peter did the same and his hands turned a screaming blue/white, and I put my hands on my head and shouted "This has so much coolness my head is going to explode!"
All of this was during the 9pm showing on NBC. At that very moment, the asshats at Global down in Vancouver decided this was a good time to switch over to their simulcast feed since they air The Real Wedding Crashers alongside NBC, and we peons up here have to of course watch the Canadian commercials. And so, instead of seeing the culmination of this amazing battle, and seeing what Hiro Nakamura manages to do in trying to get back to his own time, I'm seeing frickin' ads for some bogus Global programming. Hell, the next show didn't even come on for another couple of minutes.
At first I blamed this on Shaw, but after some talking with a gal there today I learned that Global gets to do that themselves. When I phoned them today, I got transferred to the complaints line, which (surprise, surprise) was a voice mail. I'll update if I ever hear back, but unless plenty of other people are equally pissed (and the smart ones probably watched the 8pm showing on CTV; me, I missed that because of the boys), I suspect they'll right me off as just another crank.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]