From fork-admin@xent.com Mon Oct 7 22:40:48 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E520916F17 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:40:46 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:40:46 +0100 (IST) Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g97LBtK17261 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:11:57 +0100 Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743AF2940DF; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: fork@example.com Received: from 192.168.1.2 (smtp.piercelaw.edu [216.204.12.219]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C3B2940A1 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 192.168.30.220 ([192.168.30.220]) by 192.168.1.2; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:10:17 -0400 From: bitbitch@magnesium.net X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.61) Educational Reply-To: bitbitch@magnesium.net X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: <157291235594.20021007171017@magnesium.net> To: John Hall Cc: fork@example.com Subject: Re[2]: The absurdities of life. In-Reply-To: <000001c26e44$d8780150$0200a8c0@JMHALL> References: <000001c26e44$d8780150$0200a8c0@JMHALL> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fork-admin@xent.com Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com X-Beenthere: fork@example.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:10:17 -0400 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,NO_REAL_NAME, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,T_NONSENSE_FROM_10_20 version=2.50-cvs X-Spam-Level: JH> They are legally required to do that. I got a similar check because an JH> insurance company didn't pay a claim quickly enough. It might have been JH> $.02. JH> Although they spent lots more than $.33 to mail you the check, the JH> alternative seems to be to keep the money. Do you really want companies JH> to have a financial incentive to over-bill you 'just a bit' so they JH> could keep it? For a company with millions of customers, $.33/customer JH> starts adding up. Christ, you sound worse than me. What I -said- in my post, John, was that instead of having to dole out stupid refunds, I'd rather they save the costs incurred, knock off one of those bullshit surcharges that they inevitably charge for promoting services like these, and move on. SOmething tells me, it'd balance out. Problem is, they're silly, they don't want to do this, and rather than the legislation coming up with an affective means of controlling the situation (overcharging) they impose silly requirements like this. >> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of >> bitbitch@magnesium.net >> So I get a check from Pac Bell today (SBC as they're called now). >> Turns out, they went to the trouble of printing out, signing, sealing >> and stamping a check just to refund me for a whole $0.33. >> >> They easily spent more than this just getting the materials together. >> Why the hell do companies bother to do this crap? I mean, isn't there >> a bottom line in terms of cost effectiveness? I don't think I missed >> the .33, but I sure as hell would have appreciated lower rates in lieu >> of being returned pennies. >> >> I'm truly stuck on this though. I don't know whether to frame the >> check, burn it, or cash it in. Maybe I should find a way to return to >> sender, so they have to spend -more- money on giving me my .33 dues. >> >> >> Does .33 even buy anything anymore? Funny bit of it, is I couldn't >> even make a phone call these days. >> >> *boggled* >> BB. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net -- Best regards, bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net