Nov 28, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Wow! Lots of big long posts lately. Sorry - that's how it goes sometimes.

Let's try a nice simple one.

It smells lovely in my house right now. Like cedar and fir trees and clove. Some of you think of that smell as Christmas-y, but actually that's just the smell of winter in the woods. (Commercialism at work.)

I love the smell of winter.

Especially when my woodstove is going, I'm all done piling up wood, and the house is nice and warm.

It's beautiful outside. The branches on the trees are so saturated with water from recent rain that they glisten constantly. The sky is one big halo for the forest, and it's gleaming eerily in the pensive way that only pre-dusk can pull off.

I am so blessed to be living this lovely woods life. I live in a utopia of green.

As soon as my camera gets here (I left it in portland last time and it's getting shipped back) I'll take some new pictures for you guys. You won't believe it.

Shooting my mouth off

at 6:34 PM
I want to talk about the Supreme Court Case regarding the gun ban in Washington, D.C. - I have a remote personal connection to it, and it's been on the news, and on my mind, a bit.

I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court of our Nation is still unalloyed enough - and it would be the only government body that is currently still acting on it's initial mission if it was - to stick to the constitution and wipe away this unconstitutional gun ban. That's their job. I wonder whether they'll do it.

Regardless of what people prefer, the Supreme Court has one job - to make sure law sticks to the documents that our country is based on - to keep the rest of the government from coloring too far outside the lines drawn by the founders.

Considering how well they're doing keeping their part of the deal, is it any wonder that I'm watching this one closely rather than assuming it'll come out rationally?

Why anyone thinks -- in the first place -- that a gun ban is the solution to nasty runaway crime is beyond me - it always results in higher crime. All it does is make the scenario run like this:


Criminal doesn't follow the law -- by definition. Law abiding citizen Joe does - again, by definition.

Mr Criminal gets desperate and wants a way to make sure he wins no matter what, so he gets a gun illegally.

Criminal picks and chooses from numerous easy victims without defense equivalent to criminal's offense. He chooses Mr. Law-abiding Citizen Joe.

Criminal invades space belonging to Joe, and having prepared for the fight and with weapon ready he already has two up on luckless Joe.

Joe runs away and - if he's lucky - he has time to grab a makeshift weapon like a bat or frying pan.

Mr Law-abiding citizen Joe becomes Mr. Victim, not because he's weaker or more cowardly, but because of having mismatched defenses.

Mr. Victim is incapacitated.

Mr. Criminal gets away with it.


So the solution is to take away more guns from more law-abiding citizens? I don't personally see how that follows.

Now, it is obvious to anyone who knows how to read crime statistics that disarming the law-abiding does not work. If you would argue with me on this, first read the factual statistics for crime rates - not the media spin in either direction - about the gun bans anywhere they've had one active. Ohio, Australia, San Fran, D.C., London -- you'll find the same trends. Lots more premeditated violent crime.

Criminals are cowards by nature -- it requires cowardice to even consider taking by force that which you are too lazy or have too little self-esteem to go earn for yourself. Criminals are naturally not inclined to register their guns, get them through legal means and such.

So when you have everyone turn in the registered guns, all you're left with are the unregistered criminal's guns.

And violent crime skyrockets because the criminal knows ahead of time that he is not evenly matched and that he probably will get away with it.

So, it follows that if criminals knew that every house in America - or at least a fairly large percentage of them - were armed, there would be far less premeditated violent crime. Sure, the stats would still be what they are for psychotic breaks and for non-violent crime. But the violent crime rates would drop measurably after a burglar or two got knocked down in them in the process of trying to knock down someone else.

Government tries gun bans because they appease people while sneaking away liberties -- they adore solutions with the one-two punch of false-security & stolen-liberty.

But, wouldn't it be totally goofy to try the opposite extreme? I mean, government would N-E-V-E-R do this. I can't imagine anyone doing something so trusting, but imagine if they did...

What if they subsidized the gun ownership of the proven law-abiding citizen?

This idea is, of course, predicated on my basic trust in my fellow men. I really do trust other sane, well-meaning people. I trust them not to misuse power. I trust the average Joe with gun ownership.

Don't you?

Basically, under such a hypothetical subsidy, someone like me who has never committed a crime, lives well (and could get someone else with such a squeaky clean past to vouch for them) could get a tax break for owning a gun. Even better if he got another tax break for getting gun training so he knows how to use the thing.

It would result in a very high number of houses with guns owned by relatively sane, trustworthy people.

I think that'd solve most violent crime. I think it would instantly create too great a consequence for most criminals to be willing to face.

And I think the tax break should be significant enough to work to convince even the extreme liberal. Those who see "gun" and think "crime" (a totally stupid identification) would MAYBE try owning one to see whether or not they feel safer, if you gave them a profitable reason to try it out. Obviously calling on their sense of duty and honor isn't workable. Anyone who thinks in such hypocrisies as believing THEY personally are good but YOU are obviously bad, well, they probably will only answer to the call of money that is the basic methodology of why a subsidy works.

Of course, then most of the criminal element would probably wander over toward other areas of crime, probably the equally cowardly identity theft and internet scam areas.

But at least our lives and real property would be safe.

Wouldn't it be worth it to try at this point? Nothing to do with limiting guns has killed violent crime. Why not point the sights at the real source of the problem - the cowardice of the criminal?

At least there's what I think about this particular subject of gun bans.

What are your thoughts?

Oh Brother

Nov 27, 2007 at 9:44 PM
I hear more and more from some rather exciteable people that I know on the subject of a possible agency that listens to everything - a big brother.

"Don't give your credit card number over the phone - you never know who is listening!"

"I don't want to discuss politics over the phone, I hear they're listening."

"I no longer talk about anything important by email, you know they read it all."

"Watch what you say. It could be misunderstood by them."

Oy vey. They. Them.

None of the people talking about the elusive "they" are any danger and neither am I. The only thing I can personally see happening is the fear coming from those who warn.

Here's how I see this.

I believe strongly in the Code of Honor. It can be found on page 11 of The Creation of Human Ability, or through the link I just included. As a voluntary code relating to honor, it cannot be enforced. You choose to follow it or you don't.

I think that honor - specifically points 5, 6, 9, 13 ,14 and 15 - precludes me from worrying about what a higher power might think.

And by higher power, I mean ANY higher power. Because I am striving to create my own life, and my own future, I don't worry about whether God approves of me. Placing any of my life into God's hands is a shirking of my responsibility as given when I was Created. I believe in God, but I also believe that God gave us little direction other than making it clear that we should strive to do our most as ourselves, rather than shrug off even one tiny speck of the responsibility to create and flourish that has been part of existence since the beginning of things.

So, I do what I know is right by my own judgement. I strive not to care if anyone approves of my thoughts, or admires me. That point of honor alone is a powerful and difficult credo to live by. Very rewarding, though, thus far.

So, why would I give the power to shape and alter my thoughts and the speech that that generates, and the actions those thoughts dictate to anyone else? Why would I grant that power to an agency of the government?

So what if there is the possibility that there is someone listening. Someone with the power to punish me for communicating.

I don't think I want to grant to a (possibly mythical) government body a greater power to alter my actions and change the way I choose to act in life, even suppress my thoughts, than I choose to grant to God.

Whether there is a Big Brother listening or not, I will continue to speak what I hold true. The Code of Honor is how I live my life. Period. This means firstly that I am no danger to anyone decent and virtuous, and secondly that I say what I please.

I'm NOT NOT NOT saying that "as long as you're virtuous you have nothing to worry about" - I'm saying that regardless of the danger presented, the only way to really win is to act anyway.

People may try to tell you about some terrible something to watch out for -- all in order to gain something from you. About how terrible that someone over there is (but I'm your friend). The person to watch out for is the person selling you such dark stories. Talk about danger. All the talk of hidden terrible dark vast influence of the big government conspiracy (such as I've heard lately) is terribly damaging to free speech. The only influence that is ever THERE, really, is whatever influence it has when YOU let it influence you.

Any possible conspiracy is not actually the threat. It's allowing yourself to change your actions and close yourself off in order to protect yourself from the hidden influence if some unknown "maybe it's listening, maybe it's not?" organization.

So, how do you handle a supposedly all-capable government body with the foretold power to shut you up that may or may not be listening to everything you say? Should you do as you're being told you ought to and shut your pie hole? Should you change your actions? Close yourself off and cease to be in communication with the world? Should you diminish your own power in order to protect yourself from a possible harm?

Consider what would happen should everyone shut up completely. The agency would have served it's purpose, to act as a hidden influence and diminish our power as a free people.

If there is a big brother - and I personally think it is likely there is, at least the infancy stages of such an agency - the absolutely ONLY way to defeat it is to ignore it and speak freely. If everyone just continues to speak freely, it will be shut down. It loses its power to pervade and alter your actions, which is the only REAL purpose for such a thing.

If such an organization exists its primary mission is not finding radicals and smooshing them. It exists primarily to act as a cow prod to thought. ZAP! Get back into line, you! It is a crude sort of thought police and we've probably had worse in the past. Like all thought police, it only works because we all think it does.

I get conspiracy theories sent by email or myspace or whatever from a large number of the people I know. I want those people to consider this - what empowers you to freely act? You do. There is no influence capable - at least for now - of changing your mind unless you agree it can. There is no hidden influence - and if your integrity is intact there is no influence except YOU. There is no one but YOU who can affect YOU unless you agree to be affected.

Now, I am not delusional -- I know full well that my sphere of influence doesn't really extend much past family and a few friends. I'm a single momma, pushing pixels around and cleaning up all day. I'm no threat to anything. OK? I am not saying that my big grand ideals mean I am big and grand, or even ideal. Just that every single one of us, as Americans, has the basic right to free speech. Just because I'm a little voice doesn't mean I don't try to speak what is true to me.

So I speak freely. I'm not worried. If there is a big brother, yeah, that definitely sucks. I hope it's abolished as the constitutional violation that it really is.

But think about it. What is the worst they could do? Is it remotely possible that any punishment for free speech could be worse than the effects of alloying my affinities? Of not communicating what I feel it is my duty and honor to communicate?

No. I don't think so.

Now if I only had something more interesting to talk about than babies, the woods and how to run a search marketing campaign, I'd be all set.

But, fortunately for the (possibly mythical) agency in question, I'm about as boring as it gets.

Ron Paul Musings

Nov 24, 2007 at 12:39 PM
There is an unprecedented ground swell of interest in Ron Paul. Every single person I talk to is absolutely bonanza for Ron Paul. I personally can count on one hand everyone I know who DIDN'T tell me to vote for him, forward me some email about him, point out that they support him or otherwise endorse him. I can't believe the public outcry - and I'm not talking about just on the internet. While I was up in Portland a few weeks ago, there were Ron Paul supporters EVERYWHERE - every street corner, every block there was someone with a Ron Paul plackard or with "Ron Paul 2008" spray-painted on their car. A large group of young people (prob college students) walked up to me to talk to me about how important it was to vote for him.

I don't care whether the media chooses to ignore him or belittle him or not -- the ground swell is palpable. You'd have to be an idiot or closed off from society not to see it.

I don't have any particular feeling toward Paul, so I feel I am better qualified to consider the subject than some people whom I've talked to, who are so full of zeal that I'm not certain they are impartial enough to look at this truthfully.

Here are my thoughts about Ron Paul.

He threatens some very large vested interests by wanting to shut down the huge government cash cow. Name a segment of our society that ISN'T dependent upon government contracts and government funding in some way. You can't. Every one from the dairy farmer to the pharmacist, from the doctor to the teacher has been weened away from self-sufficiency into believing that big government is mandatory to existence. That the mediocre pittance government sends their way is better than the self-obtainable.

Because our big businesses and inflated government are also in this frame of mind, I'm not sure that Ron Paul will gain the support of the large corporations that are usually required in order to obtain a presidency.

As a result of this inequity with his fellow candidates as far as "big money backers" is concerned, the media is largely ignoring him. I see why. No candidate with a lack of "big money" supporters behind him ever won a higher office in this country -- that I know of. The media don't want to back up a candidate that past experience shows won't make it to the top of the heap. Not in recent history has a large ground-swell of support actually won a higher office. They like to choose the person that history shows us will likely win the candidacy and follow him.

This can lead to a "chicken before the egg" debate - does the media affect who is the leader or does the leader affect who the media favors? Who knows... Whether they admit it or not, the media itself certainly feels that they drastically affect the outcome of elections and that they drastically affect the mindset of the average person. They certainly believe themselves to be the chicken. (Or is it the egg?) You can tell by just looking at the smug superiority they exude. Take a look at any news outlet from the view of a person receiving a briefing from a peer and you'll notice yourself taking offense to being talked down to so much, as though you were innately inferior to Joe Announcer.

Yes, Ron Paul is being ignored in the media. No debate. It is terribly evident that the media is ignoring him. So go ahead and make a mental note of everyone who is avoiding talking about him, and in the future, know they're OWNED by someone. And in the future, take a grain of salt with anything that media outlet or personality says. Simple solution - at least personally.

Additionally, the media may be ignoring him because they are inequivocably accountable to the advertiser - which is largely the same group as the companies that Ron Paul is a serious threat to. We're talking about Big Pharma, Big Insurance, car companies, nearly every industry. Possible ALL of them. Just take a look at the advertising in any print media and you'll know exactly whose view you are being fed. That doesn't mean the industries behind that media are naturally evil. It merely means our system of media is flawed.

Ron Paul is a serious threat to the corporations who have lobbied hard for years to make the gains they have. Whether ill-gotten or not doesn't matter to them or to the government that feeds these overgrown companies. Ron Paul is a threat to anyone who's ever sent a lobbyist to DC -- and that is a LOT of money. There is a lot of money investable in killing this guy's campaign.

But, The ONLY way to get Ron Paul into office is going to be if every single person I've seen tell me they support him actually votes, and if all of you IGNORE the media completely, HOLD your ground, especially once the media begins the inevitable oozing of rhetoric designed to instill uncertainty - which they always do - as the pre-election whirlwind hits. I can't think of an election yet where I wasn't told I was an idiot and throwing away my vote by someone in the media. I still voted. Sometimes I did vote for the guy who didn't win, but that's not a loss - it's democracy.

Next year and in the primaries, do not get confused in the ballot box into voting a party line, and do not allow your personal integrity as a voter to be alloyed. There will be a calculated media storm of discussion, specifically aimed at changing your mind about who you want to have become president. Whether you support Ron Paul, Rudy Gulliani, Fred Thompson or WHOEVER, vote for the person you feel you would be most comfortable with running your own home.

You will be told next year that you have only two choices, and you will probably be told you can only choose between one EVIL and another EVIL. That's usually how it goes.

I don't vote based on media, I never have. I vote for the person I feel I would want in my immediate vicinity, and would trust with running my own household. I vote for who I think has the best emotional outlook on life, and whose structure of thinking appears least irrational. I still am not sure who I think that is. I need to do some more research before I walk into the voting booth.

It's so odd to me that we feel, in this country, that there are only two choices. It's totally not true. You can vote for anyone you want. We could have 8 parties. We could have no parties at all, and simply vote for a guy who we think would be a good president. If you want to, you can walk into that voting booth and vote for Brad Pitt and Angeline Jolie for higher office. Every election, a growing minority vote in protest for Mickey Mouse, I've heard.

So, technically, even if Ron Paul doesn't make it through the Republican primary, he could still become president, if everyone simply wrote him in who currently supports him.

But let's assume somehow he does make it through the Republican primary - entirely from word of mouth. If Ron Paul does become a presidential candidate for a major party in the elections next year, vote at least to a degree based on your opinion of his choice for vice-president. Because that VP will likely end up holding office as President. Ron Paul is the most unyealding in his viewpoint, and thus most vulnerable to assassination in office of any candidate I've seen in ages. If he does make it to being President, he's going to make our enemies within our own borders into very dangerous entities. Large top-heavy groups with no further funding will go to great extremes to maintain their status quo. Ethics out the window at that point, because maintaining survival as "blah blah big money corp" will matter more to them than the greater purpose of the President's aim in cutting off their funding.

Unless of course he's brilliant enough to come up with an alternate purpose for those bodies, an alternate game to play. I don't see it happening. How do you replace the game of "soaking the taxpayer" with something equally profitable to those major players that depend on it?

If he is assassinated, it will definitely be an inside job. And they'll probably blame it on terrorists and we'll end up back here before we know it, funding an endless war again, and enacting new taxes every which way but down.

Anyway, there's my bleak outlook. Either we all choose to vote for an "approved" candidate, or we will expose the huge ugly giant that is our current system and we rudely poke it with a stick and say "hey - it's time to do your worst".

I like the idea of poking the sleeping giant, myself, but this country probably isn't aware enough for that to occur without negative consequences.

It will be very interesting to see if the people who support Ron Paul right now stay this vigilant, stay this exuberant and determined long enough to see through the consequences of what they want to have happen.

Thanksgiving Story

Nov 22, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Original article

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax
by Richard J. Marbury

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths, which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard-working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful.

The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hard-working or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his History of Plymouth Plantation, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims; it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children."

Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work, and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first 12 months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from 500 to 60.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is:

Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

Pamphlet No. 1078, November, 2000

originally published in
The Free Market, November, 1985
by the Ludwig von Mises Institute

Search and Rescue Mamma

Nov 20, 2007 at 8:07 PM
This last weekend, I finished a four weekend long training thing with other Scientology Volunteer Ministers. We were trained by Firemen and various other professionals how to do triage, first aid, search and rescue, extractions and all that fun stuff. It was great.

Here's the graduation photo. I'm the exhausted one-legged girl in the purple jacket in the front row.

Basically, this means I will be able to assist people more thoroughly than before and can show up at a disaster and actually help with stage 1 as well as stage 2.

Lots of other VMs from around here have also done this. I hope all VMs will do it so that they can aso be of even more help to their communities. Contact me if you want to find out more about this kind of training. I'll get you in touch with the people you need.

New Pictures.

Nov 14, 2007 at 2:48 PM

I took some pictures of me. I uploaded one using this post so I could use one for my profile. I'm changing the photo from the great one of me at 4 years old.

Old Photo:

DirecTV customer experience - Verizon experience flashbacks

Nov 7, 2007 at 7:53 PM

1. Verizon accidentally bills be $900 dollars.

2. I work with them for weeks trying to fix it, repeatedly calling in, talking to supervisor's supervisors and getting the run-around for weeks.

3. I complain and bitch to anyone who will listen, including the Verizon Escalations Dept and the FCC.

4. Verizon suddenly corrects their error - applying a credit for that amount to my bill. Funny how all I had to do was complain to the FCC. Geez.

5. I cancel my second line to avoid any such future problem and simplify my phone bill because I want as little as possible to do with Verizon as possible.

6. As a consolation, last Friday, Verizon offers me a great deal - nothing up front, lots of channels, etc, including HBO, no down, no fees for months, on their distribution partner, DirecTV. I accept.

OK, So that's how come...

On Friday, DirecTV calls to confirm an appointment for today.

On Monday, DirecTV calls to confirm installation today.

Today their installation guy comes to set it up (including, oddly, an invitation to smoke herb with him), trains me up on how the box works, and then leaves.

I look at my channels. Looks good, except they forgot HBO. I called in, and they said, oops, our bad, we're adding it on now. No mention of any other problem.

I come out in the living room -- not three hours after installation was complete -- to find error message 726 displayed on the silent empty screen.

I called DirecTV customer service AGAIN (second call and I've had service for maybe 3 hours). They tell me my account went to collections.
Excuse me!? I've been a customer for three hours!
There's nothing they can do, blah blah blah.

Then they transfer me to the "other department" (collections) to resolve this.

I talked to a girl who said, OK, let me try to help you, please hold.

I'm on hold for 15 minutes then the system hangs up on me.

I call back. The system hangs up on me again. And I call back again - guess what? The system hangs up on me again.

I called the original customer service line. She says I can't be helped my them, I have to talk to the collections dept. I asked to be transferred there. She puts me on hold for 5 minutes, then transfers me to collections again.

Juanita in collections manages to cut every communication I have, as does her supervisor, Jonathan, while telling me that I am being held liable for the shut off service from a person who used to live at my address.

I was not the account holder then, I never got to use it. I was not the person who failed to pay that bill. It just happens that this person, when staying at this house, was using this phone line also. The phone line belongs to the landlord (my step-mom and dad), with me having permission to use the account. When I leave, the number will probably stay the same unless the landlord shuts it off.

I asked to talk to the supervisor's supervisor again, and they'll call me within 48 hours.

So, I had DirecTV for three hours before owing a two-year old debt of $409.73 that I never incurred.

I probably have to complain to the FTC and the Attorney General before anything happens on this one.

OK, WHY do companies put people on the phones to customers who have little ability to help them, NO authority to do anything about the problem, less than no interest in resolving the error and zero compassion?

I want Juanita and Jonathan fired so badly. I have never --  not even by Verizon, which is saying something  --  received such rude and unhelpful treatment. All they did was repeat the same statement, talking directly over me.

MA'AM, The house can't have service until the past due balance is paid. (but it's not my b...) MA'AM, We have the right to refuse service to any address, we're a private company, (but it's not right t...) MA'AM. You benefited from the previous installation (no I didn...), and you live there in that house, MA'AM, at that phone number, MA'AM

Have you ever noticed that customer service people say "Ma'am" a lot more once you're flustered or upset and if you try to negate them, they start saying it like they mean "Bitch"?

They don't care that I had nothing to do with that prior installation. They don't seem to get that this was a completely different person than me. Apparently, they're going to leave my service shut off and start billing me the $409.73 for that prior service.

Arhghyuh! I've had it. Tonight I will probably wake up in a cold sweat saying, "i want to talk to your supervisor"! This is really too much. Both companies have lost me as a customer...

Just as SOON as I have anybody else I can go to instead.

(In case you're wondering, I didn't take up the invite from the installation guy. Never have, never will.)