Saturday, September 24, 2011
They don't make 'em like they used to
The furnace was installed when the house was built in 1971/72, and she’s been running ever since. We didn’t replace her because she was broken; but after 39 years of faithful service, we figured she could go at any time.
Switching from oil to gas is a bureaucratic nightmare. There is a lot of coordination with the gas company, the furnace installer, the inspectors, and, in our case, the energy auditor. It took weeks to plan, then we had to wait for the gas line to be installed, and then have the furnace installed. So we had to decide in advance that our old girl’s time was up.
I took a few photos of our old Beach babe. For 39, she still looked pretty good. She was a tad rusty in places, and she started up with a bit of rumble, but she kept us toasty for the past 15 winters.
Apparently, we can expect to get 10, maybe 15, years out of our new furnace.
They sure don’t make ‘em like they used to.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Crossing the Chasm
I used to fantasize that perhaps Chester was a handsome prince who had been turned into a cat and was trying to say “get me out of this body!!” If only I knew the spell, I could transform both our lives and live happily ever after! (Although it also occurred to me that, if he were a prince, he’d be way too chatty for me - I prefer the strong, silent type.)
Over the years, I have been able to figure out a few of Chester’s meows and been able, at times, to respond to him in ways that obviously satisfy his needs or wants. But much of what he says remains a mystery. Plain and simple – I don’t speak Cat, and Chester doesn’t speak English. There is a chasm between us that even seventeen years of togetherness can never bridge – we are from two very different branches of the evolutionary tree. I simply don’t know what’s going on in his feline brain.
Many years ago, a friend of mine told me that she thought that human beings really had very little idea about non-human intelligence. She believed that we are only able to project our own view of intelligence onto other species, and thus we render them as less intelligent than we are because they do not measure up to human standards of intelligence. But what if, she asked, they were capable of different but equally highly evolved intelligence that made them successful species, albeit different from us? It was an intriguing thought, especially after two bottles of wine shared over dinner, and it is one that has remained with me ever since.
Michael Pollan’s book, The Botany of Desire, puts forth the thesis that four particular plant species – the apple, the tulip, cannibis, and the potato, have used human desire for their particular charms as a means to profilerate their species. In other words, human beings have been the unwitting foils to the proliferation of these species, and in some cases (such as the Irish potato famine of 1848) collateral damage along the road to the species’ success. While his thesis has the ring of anthropomorphism about it, it does suggest that not only humans and animals have the drive to survive and evolve. Is Pollan onto a form of botanical intelligence – using another species’ desire as a driver to success? We simply don’t know. But scientists are now studying plant “behaviour” and all the related implications that the term implies.
Placing anthropomorphic tendencies on non-human things is an example of how we overlay human, or systems thinking, on everything we observe. But is it possible that our very human thinking is actually limiting our understanding of the world around us? Have we, in fact, shut ourselves off from the rest of the world by operating within very specific and limited processes of thinking, by placing human expectations and standards on living things that we don’t really understand? If this is the case, we may need to change the way we look at things before we can truly understand them.
Will we ever have meaningful communication with another species? It’s difficult to say – it’s possible that the chasms are simply too wide, and that all species are stranded on their own communication islands, humans being no different than any other species. But there are flickers of hope. Anyone who has ever successfully trained a dog to sit or had a peaceful cuddle with their cat, knows that communication between species does happen. Is it possible that we have missed the communication signals that other species have been sending us all along? If you believe that only humans can make the first move in interspecies communication, read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12whales-t.html?ref=magazine.
It may change your way of thinking about other species. And that may be the first step …
Monday, May 18, 2009
Is Television Passé?
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Follow up: Planet of Sound and Internet Forums
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Consumer Rights - Exercise Your Power!
Women make many of the major decisions with respect to household purchases. In the world today, it is very difficult to wield much influence; however, as consumers, we actually have a fair amount of power and influence. Have you ever written a letter to a corporation, complaining about a defective product? Generally, the response is swift and positive - most companies understand that if one consumer writes a letter, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of other consumers out there who have the same complaint. And all those consumers have one thing in common - they talk to other consumers about their shopping habits. A small issue can quickly mushroom into a bad reputation for a company. Most companies want to nip these issues in the bud as quickly as possible, which is why they are happy to hear from consumers. Otherwise, word hits the street and their reputation can be damaged before they have the opportunity to make things right. Word of mouth is probably the most common form of advertising for most retailers.
I recently had a very unfortunate incident with a local retail store. I purchased a piece of audio equipment for my 80 year-old father, which did not work well. Upon returning it, I was treated like a pariah. My only recourse was to write the retailer after the fact and ask him to make things right. He did not. Below is the letter I sent him. This is an example of a small retailer who does not understand the power of the consumer. I have now posted my complaint on several audio web sites and linked them to this blog. I hope the owner will think twice the next time he receives a similar complaint.
As consumers, we do have some power. Speak up! Write a letter! Post a bad review on a Web site. Don't let the retailer get away with poor service! Exercise your considerable consumer rights!
March 31, 2009
Gunnar Van Vliet
Planet of Sound
1194 Bank Street
Ottawa, ON
Dear Mr. Van Vliet:
I am following up on a transaction that occurred at your store on March 28. As a consumer and customer of your store, I think it is important that you understand my concerns with that transaction.
On February 28, I purchased a Squeezebox Boom, with my father. I set it up for my father, who is 80 and has trouble with technical gadgets. I had no problems with the setup and it worked fine for a few days. However, my father relocated the unit to his bedroom, and from that moment forward, he had problems with it. Most of the stations buffered almost constantly.
I attempted to troubleshoot the problem, but I could find nothing wrong with the unit’s set-up. As a person familiar with technology, I put it down to a poor underlying technology: Internet radio (which, even at the best of times, is not entirely reliable) and the wireless modem’s signal. Since Saturday, I have done some investigation, and it appears that my assumption is probably correct. A number of reviews and sites on the Internet point to the problem. Here is one example: http://the-gadgeteer.com/2009/01/30/logitech-squeezebox-boom-review/.
My father, however, continued to try and get the unit to work properly. He read the entire technical manual, which he downloaded (and which was very poorly written), he called the Logitech help line, and he spoke to you once, at length, about the issues he was having. I think it is fair to say that my father tried everything he could to get the product to work. Notwithstanding his lack of technical prowess, the unit clearly was not functioning optimally and despite his best efforts (and yours, mine, and Logitech’s) to get to the bottom of the issue, he was unable to.
After weeks of frustration, my father asked me to return the unit for him (it was purchased on my credit card).
I returned the unit on my father’s behalf. Here’s a summary of what then occurred:
- I returned the product, in its original packaging, and was told that the product was fine, and therefore, it was the consumer who was the problem.
- You charged a 25% restocking fee, for a unit that had originally been a display unit (and no discount was ever provided for that), and that was returned in its original packaging, and in working condition.
- You would not provide a refund on the remaining 75%, but instead provided a store credit.
So, here’s the bottom line:
We purchased a product that, despite our best efforts, did not live up to our expectations.
- My father is very frustrated by the product he purchased, he is out $100, and we are forced to return to your store to spend $300.
- You have received the unit back with full packaging, and you can therefore sell the unit again for its full price. You have also secured the $400 of the original purchase, including a $100 “repackaging” charge.
From my perspective, you, the retailer, have come out of this transaction very nicely, and my father has come out of it frustrated and $100 poorer. However, it could have been different, under the following scenarios:
- We returned the product. You accepted that it did not live up to our expectations and did not imply that we were somehow at fault. (This would be in keeping with the claim on your Web site: “We want to sell products that will make you happy and perform for a lifetime.”)
- You explained the 25% repackaging fee, and then credited back the other 75% to my credit card, OR
- You explained the 25% repackaging fee, but indicated that if we were willing to take a store credit, you could credit us back 100%.
The outcome would have been a win-win: my father would have been mollified about an unsatisfactory product and I would have been reasonably refunded. You would still have the $400 product to resell, a $100 restock fee OR a completed $400 transaction.
You, however, chose to make this a win for you and a loss for me and my father.
My mother owned a small bookshop for many years, and I am a big supporter of the independent retailer. I admire those who find a small niche and go up against “the big boys” in the retail industry. You are competing for that most fickle of all souls – the retail consumer. What better way to secure their future custom than to treat them well and make their retail experience the best it can be? You cannot compete with the big stores on price, but you can compete with them on service, and that is the secret to most small retailers’ success. Were I to have returned the Squeezebox to Future Shop or Best Buy, they would have taken it back, no questions asked, with a full refund. Your return policy, however, puts you in a competitive deficit with respect to this aspect of customer service.
Word of mouth is probably your biggest advertising medium. I would therefore like to give you the opportunity to change my mind about your store. If you are willing to either (a) give us the full ~$400 credit at your store, or (b) refund the ~$300 to my credit card, then I think you will win back our business and a positive view of your store. I hope you will consider this option in the name of good customer service and public relations.
Sincerely,
Catherine
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Phenomenon of Facebook - A True Story
I sent this tale to the New York Times Magazine's Lives Lived column, but they rejected me. The beauty of a blog is that you can post all your rejected submissions on your own!
In 1969, when I was seven years old, my family moved from Canada to England for a year. My father, a college professor, had a year’s sabbatical, and enrolled in a Master’s of Linguistics program at the University of Essex. We took a ship across the ocean (because my mother doesn’t fly), and settled down in southeast England, on a small and somewhat obscure island near the town of Colchester, called Mersea.
Mersea Island was a child’s paradise. Miles of beaches, lined with small huts, were deserted in the off-season. The house we rented was huge, and came with a dog and a cat, left behind by the owner, who had business in Libya that year. The house was located on a street with only a few other homes, and the roadway was unpaved. Our backyard was filled with flower beds and apple trees. All around our property were grassy fields, quiet lanes, small woods, and riding paths – a pastoral wonderland for a child accustomed to the decidedly urban landscape we inhabited in Canada.
My mother, British by birth, plunged her only daughter into the full English experience. School uniform, sweets at the sweet shop, Enid Blyton and C.S. Lewis, piano lessons (given by the local corsetiere, who clearly needed to supplement a lagging career), and, best of all, weekly riding lessons at Miss Catchpole’s Riding Academy. Miss Catchpole’s was a mish-mash of tin-roofed stables that housed ponies and horses of all sizes and temperaments, including “Charlie,” a pony with long curly reddish hair. Charlie delighted in rolling on the Mersea sands, and consequently had to be kept on a lead. As the most inexperienced of all Miss Catchpole’s students, I usually ended up on Charlie.
At the stables, my mother chatted with another parent, and I was soon introduced to a young girl my own age – Louise – who lived not far from us. As it is with young children, we became friends very quickly, our mutual love of all things horsey bonding us. We drew horses together, we rode imaginary horses through the lanes and woods of Mersea, we entered national newspaper contests to win ponies, and generally lived, breathed, and ate horses and ponies, in the fashion of all horse-mad young girls and women.
The year sped by. As I rode Charlie or galloped my bicycle to Louise’s house for tea once a week, my father completed his master’s degree. In 1970, we returned to Canada. Louise and I exchanged a few letters, and she sent me pictures of her new pony, Silver Sixpence, but we eventually lost touch with each other. My father took me out riding a few times back in Canada, but Western-style riding did not appeal to me, and I lost interest after a few months.
Years later, I returned to Mersea Island for a brief drive through with my husband, to show him this idyllic spot. Mersea had changed, but not as much as I thought, and I easily found our old house and some of my old haunts. Miss Catchpole’s Riding Academy, alas, was gone, as was the sweet shop. I did not try and look up my friend Louise. At the time, I wanted to preserve my memory of two horse-mad little girls.
But as I reached my mid-forties, connecting with old friends became more important. The Internet has opened up a relatively easy tunnel for mining the past. I recently rediscovered several friends through Facebook. But I searched in vain for any signs of my old friend Louise, until one day, I found a Facebook Group for people who had lived on Mersea Island. I joined the group and posted a brief note about my year there, mentioning Louise, Miss Catchpole, and even Charlie, the horse, wondering if anyone out there would respond.
Within two weeks, I had an email from a woman who had seen my post and who had known all three of my long-ago acquaintances. We exchanged a few tentative emails, confirming facts and comparing notes. Convinced of her legitimacy, I asked her to remember me to my old friend, Louise. But her reply was not what I expected. She explained that, not only were Miss Catchpole and Charlie long gone, but my friend Louise had also died.
After several further exchanges, she provided me with details about Louise’s life, and the fact that Louise had succumbed to a brain tumour in her early thirties. The little girl of my memories had grown up and blossomed into a nurse, a wife, and a popular riding companion. She had lived in London and St-Tropez, and owned several horses. Louise had returned to Mersea, where she spent the rest of her short life. Her family and friends had been devastated by her death, the woman explained.
My cherished Mersea memories are now altered forever by the intrusion of facts and reality. I no longer think of that wonderful year without a tinge of sadness, knowing that my old friend is gone. Yet, at the same time, my memories of Louise have become more real to me because I now know what became of her. She is no longer just a dim childhood memory and a few old photos in an album, but a real person who lived her life. That somehow makes my magical year in Mersea even more important to me, although I’m not entirely sure why.