In an abrupt departure from topics normally covered here, I would like to post a short advisory about the company iMovies Ltd and their related company ShowSplash. Have nothing to do with them.
They are supposedly based in London. Based on my experience with iMovies and ShowSplash over the past year, they seem to be a fly-by-night operation, wholly without integrity and a comprehensive rip-off.
I've spent the past year trying to sort out how and why we were charged approximately $50 a month over a 10-month period for supposedly signing up with ShowSplash. No one in our family recognizes this site though our name certainly appears on the account. We must have connected through a site of another name and have failed to check or uncheck the appropriate hard-to-find box which offered us membership in this deplorable operation.
When I called ShowSplash to dispute the charges on our bill, I reached a call center in the Caribbean.
That seems to be all there is to this 'company'--a call center with young women who have a supervisor who is never available. More astounding yet was when I was told that their manager doesn't make or receive phone calls! Nor does he have a telephone number! Really!
After numerous phone conversations to the Caribbean I sent a letter to the London office. No reply. Then I sent several e-mails to contacts listed on both the ShowSplash and iMovies Ltd websites. I got a reply saying they would be happy to help and gave me a phone number. Guess where that number led--yes, the call center in the Caribbean.
I sent another e-mail and received a reply saying that I should feel free to contact them again. Yes!
By some miracle, if not the intervention of a higher power, I received a call today from the manager in Barbados. Yes, he finally returned my call of April 24, 2012, just a mere seven months late. Also today, I received a voice mail from ShowSplash which said that they wanted to resolve the problem, but they couldn't get in touch with me. The woman who called left no return phone number and the call came through as 'unknown number.' Yes, really.
Supposedly, the manager is sending the refund I requested next week.
Friday, November 16, 2012
iMovies Ltd.
In an abrupt departure from topics normally covered here, I would like to post a short advisory about the company iMovies Ltd and their related company ShowSplash. Have nothing to do with them.
They are supposedly based in London. Based on my experience with iMovies and ShowSplash over the past year, they seem to be a fly-by-night operation, wholly without integrity and a comprehensive rip-off.
I've spent the past year trying to sort out how and why we were charged approximately $50 a month over a 10-month period for supposedly signing up with ShowSplash. No one in our family recognizes this site though our name certainly appears on the account. We must have connected through a site of another name and have failed to check or uncheck the appropriate hard-to-find box which offered us membership in this deplorable operation.
When I called ShowSplash to dispute the charges on our bill, I reached a call center in the Caribbean.
That seems to be all there is to this 'company'--a call center with young women who have a supervisor who is never available. More astounding yet was when I was told that their manager doesn't make or receive phone calls! Nor does he have a telephone number! Really!
After numerous phone conversations to the Caribbean I sent a letter to the London office. No reply. Then I sent several e-mails to contacts listed on both the ShowSplash and iMovies Ltd websites. I got a reply saying they would be happy to help and gave me a phone number. Guess where that number led--yes, the call center in the Caribbean.
I sent another e-mail and received a reply saying that I should feel free to contact them again. Yes!
By some miracle, if not the intervention of a higher power, I received a call today from the manager in Barbados. Yes, he finally returned my call of April 24, 2012, just a mere seven months late. Also today, I received a voice mail from ShowSplash which said that they wanted to resolve the problem, but they couldn't get in touch with me. The woman who called left no return phone number and the call came through as 'unknown number.' Yes, really.
Supposedly, the manager is sending the refund I requested next week.
They are supposedly based in London. Based on my experience with iMovies and ShowSplash over the past year, they seem to be a fly-by-night operation, wholly without integrity and a comprehensive rip-off.
I've spent the past year trying to sort out how and why we were charged approximately $50 a month over a 10-month period for supposedly signing up with ShowSplash. No one in our family recognizes this site though our name certainly appears on the account. We must have connected through a site of another name and have failed to check or uncheck the appropriate hard-to-find box which offered us membership in this deplorable operation.
When I called ShowSplash to dispute the charges on our bill, I reached a call center in the Caribbean.
That seems to be all there is to this 'company'--a call center with young women who have a supervisor who is never available. More astounding yet was when I was told that their manager doesn't make or receive phone calls! Nor does he have a telephone number! Really!
After numerous phone conversations to the Caribbean I sent a letter to the London office. No reply. Then I sent several e-mails to contacts listed on both the ShowSplash and iMovies Ltd websites. I got a reply saying they would be happy to help and gave me a phone number. Guess where that number led--yes, the call center in the Caribbean.
I sent another e-mail and received a reply saying that I should feel free to contact them again. Yes!
By some miracle, if not the intervention of a higher power, I received a call today from the manager in Barbados. Yes, he finally returned my call of April 24, 2012, just a mere seven months late. Also today, I received a voice mail from ShowSplash which said that they wanted to resolve the problem, but they couldn't get in touch with me. The woman who called left no return phone number and the call came through as 'unknown number.' Yes, really.
Supposedly, the manager is sending the refund I requested next week.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Why Government Is Interested In Marriage
This is a good explanation of why government sanctions traditional marriage and why government would have little interest in sanctioning other kinds of unions, such as same sex marriage.
This article comes at the same sex marriage controversy from the same perspective as the video below. Rather than begin with why same-sex marriage is wrong or an impossibility, the argument more logically begins with why opposite sex unions and traditional marriage are necessary and beneficial to societies in ways that same-sex unions can't be either necessary or beneficial. A few quotes:
This article comes at the same sex marriage controversy from the same perspective as the video below. Rather than begin with why same-sex marriage is wrong or an impossibility, the argument more logically begins with why opposite sex unions and traditional marriage are necessary and beneficial to societies in ways that same-sex unions can't be either necessary or beneficial. A few quotes:
Governments assign legal responsibilities and benefits to marriage, rather than to other relationships, to help mitigate the potentially destructive and tragic consequences of irresponsible procreation.
Since civil marriage wouldn’t originally arise in response to desires or demands of individuals in diverse relationships, the first move must have been made by governments. Why, then, would governments want to create something like civil marriage?
While many relationships don’t cause any consequences that we might see as potentially problematic for society if left unregulated, one sort of relationship clearly does: sexually intimate opposite-sex relationships.
Left unregulated by the government, most consequences of relationships—such as warm, fuzzy feelings, mutual goodwill, and trust—will not become socially destructive; procreation, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Al Smith Dinner in New York City
So Barack Obama did attend the Al Smith dinner last night as did candidate Mitt Romney. While it's customary for both candidates to attend the dinner---Cardinal Dolan explains how the event works in this blog post--some of us were put off by Obama's attendance given that his position on most everything is diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching. Despite Michael Voris's last ditch effort to persuade Cardinal Dolan to make a statement by dis-inviting the president, the dinner proceeded apace. More liberal media outlets considered the evening a slam-dunk for the Catholic Church while this article lists some of the objections that many have had to Cardinal Dolan's position on having the president attend. And, here's another negative take on the guest list.Here is Cardinal Dolan in his own words at the dinner. The only "un" mentioned by Cardinal Dolan that could have even remotely ruffled Obama's feathers was the mention of the unborn. Otherwise, Obama must have sat there nodding to himself that he really is every Catholic's best friend because he too cares about the "uns". I thought Cardinal Dolan might have had something up his sleeve for last night's dinner, perhaps a public rosary like those being said around town, with the president leading one of the decades or at least some pithier remarks from the cardinal. But, it seems that this was a night just to have fun, to get along and all be friends. I understand about civility as the cardinal expresses it in his blog (above link), but these are fightin' times and it's disappointing to hear the call to arms from the bishops only to have our head bishop then fraternize merrily at a political event with our opposition.
Now, on a lighter note, it should be duly noted that Ann Romney's gown (with godets) was very pretty and she looked lovely, the picture of good taste. And it is curious that, as this blogger notes, "Mooch" wasn't at the dinner. Wonder why. Thursday, October 4, 2012
Stealth Population Control?
From this article, "the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated its guidelines for teenagers to say that IUDs and hormonal implants should be “first-line contraceptive options” that are discussed at each doctor’s visit." I'm reminded of what a doctor told me 20 years ago. He commented that 'government programs' and 'clinics' favor the IUD as a method of birth control because its success doesn't require much skill or vigilance on the part of the user. The user whom a government program is targeting is probably not the educated, white, middle or upper middle class female who will get whatever birth control she may or may not wish to have. The user is probably a less educated, younger female from a lower socio-economic class, possibly with a good chance of being black or hispanic.
Why does a government program want a quick and easy solution to pregnancy? To control the number of births resulting, perhaps? Population control. Throwing easy solutions at what are perceived to be problem pregnancies presumes that the population in question is both sexually active and too irresponsible--too, uh, dumb?-- to control its sexual activity. That in and of itself is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Secondly, there must be a presumption that the children resulting from these sexual unions are not wanted, either by their parents or by the society. More bigotry and not so soft. By advocating for 'easy' forms of contraception, society promotes a libertine attitude toward sex at the expense of the health and well-being of women in particular and our society in general. The article points out the health problems associated with IUDs and the increased availability they will have under Obama's health care. More wonderful things for liberated girls and women, brought to us by liberated women, with the support of liberated men.
Not to be outdone, New York City public schools are also into the population control business with the insidious CATCH program. Cardinal Dolan notes the tragic irony and comments here that parental consent is needed in New York state for piercings, tattos and tanning salons, but the CATCH program makes hormonal injections and contraceptive drugs available to teen-agers without parental consent.
Why does a government program want a quick and easy solution to pregnancy? To control the number of births resulting, perhaps? Population control. Throwing easy solutions at what are perceived to be problem pregnancies presumes that the population in question is both sexually active and too irresponsible--too, uh, dumb?-- to control its sexual activity. That in and of itself is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Secondly, there must be a presumption that the children resulting from these sexual unions are not wanted, either by their parents or by the society. More bigotry and not so soft. By advocating for 'easy' forms of contraception, society promotes a libertine attitude toward sex at the expense of the health and well-being of women in particular and our society in general. The article points out the health problems associated with IUDs and the increased availability they will have under Obama's health care. More wonderful things for liberated girls and women, brought to us by liberated women, with the support of liberated men.
Not to be outdone, New York City public schools are also into the population control business with the insidious CATCH program. Cardinal Dolan notes the tragic irony and comments here that parental consent is needed in New York state for piercings, tattos and tanning salons, but the CATCH program makes hormonal injections and contraceptive drugs available to teen-agers without parental consent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
