Introduction ^-^

So I figured that if I wanted to get a leg up into writing, I should start writing reviews and stuff of that nature. Just a caution, I'm pretty opinionated about everything, so don't be surprised if my opinions are not the same as yours. If you don't like, don't read. =3 Thanks!

Kami - aka Anne

11.07.2010

The Decline of Properly Written English

While browsing a forum today, I decided to read a thread asking what everyone's relationship status was. One person replied, "Single....still young.... to young..."

My knee-jerk reaction was: "'To young'? Who or what is 'young'?

I almost quoted the post to say just that, but then stopped -- not only would the person posting use that infernal "roll eyes" smiley, but I would get jumped on by multiple members of the forum with various reprimands:

"Whatever. [insert roll-eyes smiley here]"
"Leave him alone, stop being such a grammar Nazi!"
"If you can understand him, who cares if he uses proper grammar?"
"It's just the internet, relax."

This got me thinking about grammar and spelling in this day and age. It goes beyond using chat speak in place of proper words (which, admittedly, is a pet peeve of mine as well, though understandable in some cases). Time and time again, I'll come across a post with non-chat speak spelling and grammar that are so atrocious I have difficulty deciphering the intended content. Much to my chagrin, it occurs so often that I have started seeing such instances on so-called "reputable" websites, such as CNN.com.

I can understand when the person writing does not speak English as a first language. It's usually pretty obvious when that is the reason behind poor spelling and grammar; English is a rather difficult language to grasp.

My gripe is with the people who are taught to read, write, and speak English as a first language. Technically, English is not my native tongue. When I moved to the States and started attending school, many of my classmates teased me over my accent, misuse of words, and lapses back into Tagalog. I made it a point, even at that young age, to make certain my grasp of English was on par with native speakers. I believe I've accomplished this task, as many people stare at me in wonder and disbelief upon discovering this. "I'd never be able to tell!" is the exclamation I hear most often.

Granted, I've been in the US for a majority of my life, so I am generally not surprised to hear that. What does floor me, however, is when that comment is followed by some variation of: "I'm a native speaker, and you speak, read, and write better than I can!"

My question for the masses: why?

I don't buy the "Oh, it's because of the poor public school education system" excuse. With the exception of two and a half years in private school (half of sixth grade, and all of seventh and eighth), I attended public school. I read the same English books, received the same lessons, and did the same homework.

Neither do I accept the argument of today's youth being inundated with chat speak. Last I heard, chat speak was still unacceptable in school- and homework.

Nor do I accept that it is only the youth of today that has difficulty grasping proper English skills; many times over, I have seen adults my age or older suffer from the same lack of mastery of the language, despite being born, raised, and schooled in this country.

Many also blame "the internet."

The internet? Really? Is the internet responsible for the education of today's kids? Was the internet responsible for the education of people my parents' age and older? I fail to see how the big, bad "internet" is responsible for the lack of care regarding proper spelling and grammar.
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this decline is the complete apathy that many have toward the issue. I will constantly hear, "It's no big deal," or "It's the internet, relax," or even "Who cares?" from teens and adults alike.

With mentalities like that, why is there so much hand-wringing over how terribly uneducated people are today? Granted, in the greater scheme of things forum/blog posts, social networking statuses, and instant messenger conversations are inconsequential. The problem is that this issue is spreading over into things that will matter - résumés, formal complaints, personal portfolios, and even into publishing.

The differences between to, two, and too are not rocket science. Knowing when to use they're as opposed to their or there is not brain surgery. Why is it such a difficult concept to grasp that tacking on an apostrophe and "s" to the end of a word generally denotes ownership? Is it really that difficult to avoid ending sentences with a preposition? Do people even know what I mean when I say "prepositional phrase"?

Another irritant: inserting the word "like" into a written sentence. There are some cases, such as when comparisons are being made, where using the word "like" is perfectly acceptable. However, I'm seeing a disturbing amount of people start using "like" in the once-mocked manner: "So, like, I was going into the woods, and like, there was like, this bear..." It's bad enough that this habit runs rampant in day-to-day speech; the fact that it is crossing over into the written word is alarming. There's no excuse for it, really -- you have the time to sit down and write your thoughts. There is no need to use "like" whilst searching for the proper phrase.

Yet another common thing I see when browsing the internet is the lack of proper punctuation. There are two extremes that seem to be most common: a disturbing lack of punctuation (usually resulting in a wall of text), or an equally disturbing excess of punctuation (usually in the 'roleplay forum' circuit, where punctuation is used as a stylisation method). I'm not entirely sure which bothers me more: seeing "So I went into the bar and there was this guy and we started talking and apparently we have a lot in common so we went back to his place and we talked some more and had a few more beers and then..." or seeing "&& . my { n a m e } // is // B A R B A R A ? !"

I can't be the only one that "hears" what I read. For the first example, I hear the speaker running out of breath. In the second example, I end up reading it literally: ampersand, ampersand, full stop, my, bracket n-a-a-a-a-a-m-e bracket, slash, slash, is, slash, slash, B-A-A-A-R-B-A-A-A-R-A-A-A ?! (upward inflection and tone of disbelief included).

People seem to get so angry when their improper grammar and/or spelling is pointed out to them! When I check profiles for roleplaying characters and ask the writer to fix their spelling and grammar, I'm always met with hostility. "Roleplaying games are supposed to be fun, not school work!"

I am baffled as to how properly written English is supposed to remain solely in school... and why, when I was TA for my AP English teacher's "regular" English class, it was still so absent.

How has this become acceptable? Why has properly written English become such an unimportant aspect in peoples' lives? Do native English speakers not feel even a remote twinge of embarrassment when someone who speaks, reads, and writes in English as a secondary (or more) language has a better grasp of it than they?

Stop blaming the internet; stop blaming the poor educational system. If more people cared whether or not their written thoughts came across as gibberish, perhaps the general population would stop seeming so stupid to the rest of the world.

Just a thought.

7.14.2010

The ModHelmet

What is the modhelmet? Oh, the modhelmet is a wonderful, wonderful thing that no forum administrator can be without. It's a nifty, USB-powered tool that frees your moderators from independent thought and action, and subjects them to a hivemind. Have a problem with moderators being too free-thinking? Maybe your moderators are using their personal judgments to moderate your forum. Whatever it is, the modhelmet will eliminate these problems once and for all!

No longer will you have moderator discussion. No longer will there be a need for staff boards. No longer will you have to take each case on an individual basis! Just purchase the modhelmet for all your staff, and presto! Instant uniformity. You'll never have moderators disagreeing and compromising to come up with something that will keep the forums' best interests in mind. Everything shall be set in stone, executed without the slightest flaw, or human error.

If you order now, not only will you receive your modhelmet, but for a limited time you will also receive the StopSnooz upgrade -- FREE! The StopSnooz upgrade is a small chip you can insert into your modhelmets to enable your moderators to be able to stay awake twenty four hours a day, seven days a week! No longer will your moderators go to bed -- there'll be no need! They'll just be online, banning independent thinkers and playing favourites with abandon.

If you call in the next thirty seconds, you will receive free shipping & handling on all purchases of five modhelmets or more!

The modhelmet is not sold in stores! This is a limited time offer. We accept all major credit cards. Pay separate shipping & handling and sales tax. Sorry, no cash on delivery. CALL NOW!


1-800-TYRANTS.

7.02.2010

23 Legitimate Reasons Harry Potter is Better than Twilight (with a handful of superficial reasons to boot).

Whilst I am definitely not a fan of Twilight, for a plethora reasons, I have generally held my tongue in regards to completely ripping the books / movies to shreds. It's rude, and everyone likes what they like - who am I to tell them that their opinion is wrong? I've always been an advocate of that line of thinking.

Then I came across this Facebook fan page, entitled 100 Reasons Twilight is Better than Harry Potter, courtesy of my friend Colin (by the by, Colin, I blame 50% of this article on you). Intrigued from the snippets that were being posted on Colin's status, I took a gander at the page myself and was appalled. Not only were the "reasons" some of the most ludicrous and poorly written things I've ever read,but there aren't even a hundred reasons total. There are three blank reasons, about half a dozen reasons that are reiterated (some not even bothering to change the wording from a prior instance), and reasons included that have nothing to do with the books or movies of either title. Don't believe me? See for yourself.

I -with my friend Daniel's help- am determined to set the record straight, with no "Oh-ehm-gee, Twilight fans are soooo stupid lolololol," comments as in the aforementioned page. Unlike the page, which claims maturity and reason but has none, this list will actually have those things. And so, without further ado, I give you:

23 Legitimate Reasons Harry Potter is Better than Twilight
a collaboration between Anne Teensma and Daniel Koeker


  1. Plotline: A big argument amongst Twilight fans is that Harry Potter has a "boring" plotline. I agree - if boring consists of many near-death experiences for multiple characters, a wide array of villains (both main and secondary), easily relatable characters, in-depth character development (including relationships), and a dangerous and mostly well-explained magical world hidden in plain sight within our own "normal" one.


  2. The Harry Potter series reads more like an actual book series, as opposed to numerous segments of copy-pasted fanfiction. Harry Potter's goal is clear, but there is an actual plot and numerous subplots to guide the reader along the way. Twilight, on the other hand, has very little depth and requires very little thought or imagination. While both book series are created for the enjoyment of the reader, Twilight's books are designed more for the readers who already know what they want, and just want to see it spelled out for them.


  3. The imagery in the Harry Potter series is beautiful and imaginative, without being overly "fluffy" - ie: filled with useless detail that does not further the plot or scene in any way, or usage of words without grasping their full meaning. For example, a quote from Twilight: Breaking Dawn - "His eyes tightened." Excuse me, what?


  4. The difference in creativity between both series is easily distinguishable. Harry Potter's world is incredibly unique and vast, but yet written in such a way that it seems almost realistic. Countless readers can relate to longingly awaiting their acceptance letter to Hogwarts in the mail. In contrast, Twilight's level of creativity consists of 'unique' vampires that glitter like a Crest commercial in the sunlight instead of blowing up, and in an almost Harry Potter-esque magical way, somehow gets a live girl pregnant with a dead man as its (the baby's) father.


  5. Both series have a very stereotypical protagonist; Harry Potter, born into unfortunate circumstance destined to save both our normal world and his magical one, and Bella Swan, a perfectly imperfect and 'normal' teenager thrust into a confusing world of sparkling vampires and shapeshifters. The difference is consistency and growth. While Harry Potter learns from his mistakes, goes through typical teenage drama, all whilst shouldering the burden of 'Chosen One' on his young shoulders, Bella is off having underage sex (considering Edward is thousands of years old, I'm sure this counts as statutory rape) with a dead man. Not only that, she begins the series as someone who belittles other women for being petty and shallow, yet when she herself transforms into a vampire she states: "So my brain will never work right, at least I'm pretty." (Breaking Dawn; Chapter 20, Page 406)


  6. While opinions are always open for debate, and cannot be incorrect, Harry Potter appeals to a typically more advanced reader base. The series is very creatively written and has innumerable story arcs that fit together seamlessly. There is also a connection between the reader and the characters that grow as the stories progress for reasons other than 'well, I just read 30 straight pages describing how hot he is, it must be true.' Harry Potter is a mastery of fiction, whereas Twilight is simply numerous segments of redundant writing pasted to appeal directly to the readers' tastes, rather than exploring creative options.


  7. Many Twilight fans proudly proclaim that the series is "more mature" because the it is often listed in the Young Adult/Teen section of bookstores, where as Harry Potter is often categorised in the Children's section. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think that a book series that glorifies bestiality, necrophelia, and pedophelia makes for a "mature" series - just a rather disgusting one. Harry Potter, on the other hand, appeals to all audiences without being a horror show of "taboo" relationships.


  8. Twilight's plots don't seem to have a particular direction for more than a few minutes at a time. From the first book it seemed to jump from day to day simply listing events as they happened. There was a hint of mystery as the story progressed, but it soon died out. There is no foreshadowing, mystery or depth to the stories, whereas Harry Potter's books create a fantastic web of different story segments, but they all come together to form one basic plot line that eventually reveals itself as the mysteries unravel.


  9. Harry Potter book releases and movie debuts have a wider array of costume / cosplay options: a student from any of the four houses, a creature, or one of dozens of canon characters. Twilight offers the opportunity to dress like a typical teenager, or to don white face paint and wear a cloak. Well, at least Twilight outfiteers save money on materials.


  10. In both books and movie adaptations, Harry Potter characters express one key element to successful story progression that Twilight characters lack - emotion. Standing around mumbling lines is not a great way to convey the story, but I suppose when there isn't much of a story to begin with, simply remaining in one location looking sexy will have to do. It seems to have worked for the fans.


  11. Cedric Diggory is a more believable, well-rounded character than Edward Cullen, despite only appearing fleshed out in one of seven novels. Plus, we had Pattinson first.


  12. Incorrect Latin aside, the Harry Potter series tries to stay as true as possible to the lore its based on while still making it fit into the universe that Rowling has created. Twilight has taken the lore of vampires and werewolves and turned it upside-down, inside-out, and run through the ringer before completely chucking it into the bin.


  13. Harry Potter seems to inspire a more mature fan-base than the Twilight saga. When was the last time you heard that a Harry Potter cast member stated in an interview that they were afraid of getting AIDS from a fan?


  14. Character relationships are actually fleshed out over years in the Harry Potter series. The characters go from children in the "eww, cooties!" mentality, to teens in the "I like her, what if she doesn't like me, should I ask her out, what if she says no" phase, and on to adulthood, where even past rivalries (whilst still underlying) are finally put aside for the sake of maturity. Twilight exhibits a flurry of bipolar relationships, where the main character waffles between one 'dark, brooding type' to another, both equally possessive and superficial. A common argument is "Well, Edward loves Bella so much, he would've let her go to Jacob!" A fallacy; Edward would've given her to Jacob, as if she were a possession, so that his wife could bear another man's (his rival's) children. Show of hands how many real men would remotely consider whoring their wives out to other men for breeding purposes! ... Yeah, I didn't think so.


  15. While every book is bound to have an occasional error, considering editors are human, Twilight is written as if it had no editor to speak of. Grammatical errors abound - whether it's the gross overuse of the passive voice (nearly the entirety of the saga is written as such), the incomplete sentences, left-out / made-up words, or the missing punctuation, Twilight is an OCD editor's red-marker playground. Harry Potter, on the other hand, is written with very few grammatical errors. At least, not any blatant errors that I (as a OCD pseudo-editor) have noticed.


  16. Continuity: Harry Potter has decent, if not great, continuity, even from book to book (which, timeline-wise, span whole years). On a smaller scale, descriptions do not vary from one sentence to the next. For example, if Harry grabs a treacle tart from the food cart on Hogwarts Express, Harry is eating a treacle tart when he returns to his compartment. Twilight seem to not pay attention to this, having a character eat pancakes in one sentence, then switch to cereal in another (or vice versa), despite it still being the same scene.


  17. Factual Errors: Since most of Harry Potter is set in an alternate reality to "our world", there are very few factual errors since most 'facts' about the Wizarding World are fabricated by Rowling. Unfortunately, since Twilight is set in "our world", factual errors are more easily spotted. Perhaps Meyer could've done a tad more research before writing, so as to avoid errors such as Edward telling Bella that Carlisle found a coven of true vampires in the sewers in the 1600's, and the sewage system was built in the 1800's.


  18. One of the many complaints of Twilight fans is that the Harry Potter series focuses on Harry Potter and Voldemort's stories, where as Twilight has "more drama and therefore is more real." Last I checked, having a book with a defined protagonist and antagonist was perfectly normal and acceptable in the literary world, and most people (barring fans of the Twilight sagas, apparently) enjoy it. Harry Potter clearly comes out on top in this instance, considering that you know who the story is about, who the focus ought to be on, rather than "real High School drama."


  19. Harry Potter also has 'vegetarian' vampires, but they don't sparkle in the sun. They burn. Turn to ash. *Poof!* (see passage in HBP about Slughorn's Christmas Party). 'Vegetarian' vampires aren't unique to Twilight; I hate to break it to the fans, but they aren't. It's the sparkles that make them "unique". I have to ask, why hadn't anyone ... you know ... noticed before Bella came along, considering the Cullens go to school in the daytime?


  20. Another complaint is that Harry Potter's cast has no film experience outside of the HP series, or that they have "never even heard of most of the cast". If it's the latter, I'm not entirely sure if these people have experienced film outside of the teen angst genre. If it's the former, then it's a fallacy; Harry Potter has some very notable actors (not just a bunch of post-teeny-bopper barely adults) in film history:

    • Alan Rickman :: Dogma, Sweeney Todd, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Galaxy Quest, Love Actually, Alice in Wonderland.

    • Maggie Smith :: Sister Act, Sister Act 2, Hook, The First Wives Club, Gosford Park, The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood

    • Helena Bonham Carter :: Alice in Wonderland, Sweeney Todd, Corpse Bride, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Big Fish, Twelfth Night, Frankenstein

    • Gary Oldman :: Batman Begins, The Dark Night, The Fifth Element, Air Force One, Lost in Space, The Scarlet Letter

    • Jason Isaacs :: Avatar: The Last Airbender (Voice of Admiral Zhao. Okay, I put this one in because it's awesome), Peter Pan, Resident Evil, Armageddon, Black Hawk Down, The Patriot, DragonHeart

    • Jamie Campbell Bower :: Sweeney Todd, Twilight <- No way you can tell me that he's not in any "American" movies.

    • David Thewlis :: Kingdom of Heaven, DragonHeart, The Big Lewbowski

    • Timothy Spall :: Sweeney Todd, The Last Samurai, Hamlet, Vanilla Sky, Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events, Alice in Wonderland.

    Not the entire cast or a comprehensive list of their movies/shows, by any means, but I think you get the picture. I see only a handful of names I recongise in the Twilight cast list, the most notable being Jamie Campbell Bower & Dakota Fanning. I don't think you can even begin to compare the career of those two + Bella / Edward / Jacob to that of the resume of the Harry Potter cast, even going off the truncated list (the one I just posted) alone.


  21. Yes, characters in the Harry Potter series need to "use pixie twigs" to deliver their "spells". I find that more refined and less brutal than tearing a person apart with your teeth / claws.


  22. Creativity all but explodes off the pages of the Harry Potter septology. Rowling created for us, tucked away in our own normal world, a fantastic setting, filled with amazing foods, stores, locations, sports, and traditions. For example, Rowling developed Quidditch, riding broomsticks, a system of government, new politics, Honeydukes, Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes, A History of Magic, Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, Durmstrang.... Twilight has "bomb proof" Volvos.


  23. The Harry Potter septology (books) has received at least thirty distinguished literary awards. Twilight has received eight total; seven for the original book, and one for Breaking Dawn. Whilst the movie series may not have been the recipient of Oscar awards, that has no bearing on the merits of the series itself. All it means is that the movies did not deliver the expectations needed for an Oscar - which says nothing about the series themselves, and everything about how they were translated into film, signifying a dissatisfaction amongst viewers regarding the book to movie transition. To say that Twilight is a better series than Harry Potter on Oscars alone would be to acknowledge that Twilight is a lesser book series, which is really what's important here.


A Handful of Superficial Reasons to Boot


  1. Alan Rickman. Need I really say more?

  2. The Weasley Twins.


  3. Daniel Radcliffe had the balls (literally, and figuratively) to involve himself in a play that left him nude for one scene. Many actors go from the stage to the silver screen, but very few do the reverse. It says a lot about Radcliffe as an actor to be able to do that, and to be confident enough to be nude for a portion.


  4. Emma Watson. Much better looking, and a better female role model (assertive, confidant, attending Brown University - that's an Ivy League school, kiddies), along with the role she plays (a smart, friendly, sensitive, kind girl). If anyone brings up Emma's drinking, I'd like to remind them that the legal age to consume alcohol is eighteen in the UK, and she was perfectly within legal rights to do so. Besides, she's of legal age in the US now, so stop fussing.


  5. J.K. Rowling. A single mother, inspired by a random thought she jotted down on a coffee house napkin, battling depression - who went forward with her idea and became a celebrated author world wide. Another fantastic role model for people (not just women) everywhere.


  6. No tooth-incised cesarean sections.

  7. People don't marry the children of other people their age.

11.08.2009

Internet & Religion


"Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words."
- St. Francis of Assisi [credited as]

America is a wonderful place, isn't it? Freedom of speech, freedom of religion; some of the cores of our society, two of the fundamental ideas on which our nation was founded. The first settlers made their way from England to be able to express their religious beliefs away from the rule of the King and the Church of England [admittedly, Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death?" bit comes to mind]. When they arrived, free to peruse the worship of their choice, they meet the Native Americans. What do they do? Do they welcome them with open arms, a bit of, "Hello, hello, nice to meet you, fancy a bit of lunch?" Do they accept the Natives' assistance, offerings of teachings and food?

No. Instead it's a laugh and a, "Hey, lookit this bloke, 's not got anything on!" Which turns into, "What's this? Pagan worship? HEATHENS! SAVAGES!" And the missionarying is on.

What is with humans and their fascination with trying to get everyone to believe in the same thing? Missionary work is a practice that extends as far back in history as ... really really old stuff. The point is, people --regardless of religious or political belief-- love nothing more than to share their views with the WORLD[!] regardless of whether or not the people they're preaching to are being open and receptive to the message they seek to spread.

"You there! Are you aware that Jesus loves you?"
"That's nice, thank you. Krishna loves you!"
"Who the hell is Krishna? HEATHENS! LOVE GOD OR ELSE!"

Not to pick on Christianity, but they have been, historically, the most vocal about spreading their message. Not only do they attempt to spread their faith to those of opposing ones, they attempt to spread their faith to each other!

"Hello there. Are you a part of X brand Christianity?"
"Why, no, I happen to be a part of Y brand Christianity."
"WHAT? HEATHENS! LOVE MY VERSION OF GOD OR ELSE!"

Christians -as well as those of other faiths... but mainly Christians- have traversed the world in order to spread the teachings of Christ to those who do not believe, and/or are unaware. Even now, members of certain communities [such as Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS members, etc], travel door to door, on foot, to spread the word of God as they have been taught.

Which brings us to technology. With TV, we had televangelists like Billy Graham, pah-reechin the WordofGod-ah, praise Jesus, hallelujah, amen. Then, Christian services became televised, Christian-based shows, such as the 700 Club, came about. Then whole stations, such as EWTN [a Roman Catholic station] started cropping up. And then came the internet; a series of tubes, connecting the world together. It seems that missionaries have seized this opportunity to complete their goals of missionary work without leaving the comfort of their homes. The internet is a land of heathens, pagans, and blasphemers, so it would seem. Ripe for the missionaries' picking.

ProTip: Missionary work via internet = recipe for failure.

Why? Because they're just words on a screen. You can preach to the high heavens -pardon the pun- about the love of this deity, the promises of that deity, and the joys of a life spent in devotion to them. But without your voice - those words are hollow, empty. Not to mention that unless you start preaching to the choir, your words will be met with doubt. Irritation. Sarcasm, even.

Case in point: there have been, recently, a few missionaries on a popular message board system's home forum. Members of this forum are, overall, pleasant people, open to discussions of all sorts, even if they don't all see eye to eye. There are people of varying Christian belief, different faiths in general, or lack of faith at all. As a general rule, controversial threads are handled with maturity, members with different points of view offering well thought out opinions on the subject matter. Recently, a few members have taken it upon themselves to spread the word of God to this forum. The first thread or two was met with pleasantries, and offerings of alternate points of view. Granted, there was a joker or two making light of the situation, but for the most part the members behaved, offering their reasons for supporting Christianity, faith, or not believing at all.

Then came more threads; threads that offered little discussion and was merely a front for a person --or perhaps multiple people-- to stand on a soap box and say they'd pray for them, for their souls were damned and needed saving.

And then the internetz laughed.

To all the gung-ho missionaries out there, regardless of religion: the internet is not your personal "pick your own heathen" field. They may be faceless anonymous, but they have opinions, and the right to express those opinions as well. Telling them you'll pray for their souls - one, is annoying. Two, is assuming that they actually give a damn.

St. Francis of Assisi is credited with saying, "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words." Regardless of your faith, or lack of, these are words to be heeded. Whether you preach the word of God, a different god, multiple gods, or even the lack of god all together: your point will be more well and widely received if you lead by your deeds, rather than empty words.

Speaking once again to Christian missionaries, the following parable comes to mind:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Luke 18:9-14

You preach and preach to people, calling forth the love of God, setting yourselves up as better than the rest of the populace because of your devotion to him. But are you not like the Pharisee, who boasts about how good, and kind, and faithful he is?

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:1-5
Stop judging the rest of the world. As you are allowed freedom of religion, so are the people you encounter on the internet. Attempting to convert the internets, one post at a time, is idiocy. You will meet people who are more eloquent, and more educated about various matters than you. Some may even know your religion better than you know it yourself. Your circular logic angers both ceiling and basement cat, and all the bible verses in the world will not convince an atheist who views the Bible as a work of fiction at best in the existence of a God.

A post is a post of course, unless of course, that post is filled with hardheadedness, circular logic, and the inability to recognize that people have a right to choose what they believe, or don't believe in. You're doing your God or gods no favours by forcing your religion on people who aren't so readily inclined to believe.






9.16.2009

Customer Service and You

More and more, it appears as if the old adage of "the customer is always right" is being taken in the most literal sense possible. It seems as if there is no longer any limitations to this phrase, and the customer is in the right, even when they are very clearly incorrect. Where is the line drawn between proper customer relations, and becoming a door mat in an attempt to keep the customer happy? Where is the line drawn between being respectful to the customer's needs, and being spineless to appease the customer?

Here's a news flash for customers - you are not always in the right.

Take fast food for instance; there probably isn't a person in the world who frequents fast food restaurants and has not received a substandard meal, whether it be an incorrect item, an incorrectly prepared item, or the wrong item altogether. Naturally, a complaint would be in order. After all, you paid for the meal, and it was delivered incorrectly.

There are two kinds of complaints in the fast food business; the polite complaint ("excuse me, my order is messed up"), and the world-owes-me complaint ("hey, dumbass, you got my order wrong!"). Both complaints will be addressed and the situation remedied, but which customer will receive the better, more polite service?

Retail in general is a great example of this issue. Mistakes happen, people purchase the wrong item, or purchase too many, or the item is defective in someway -- there are an abundance of issues that could occur. Many stores have policies concerning returns and customer service, posted visibly near or at the customer service desk. Many even outline their policies on the receipt, especially during the holiday season.

Countless times, however, will you see a particular person complaining to the high heavens about the terrible quality of service, demanding to know why their complaint cannot be handled in the manner they specify. This just in - the store sets the policy. Not the customer. Why does this not seem to sink in? Asking for the manager does not change the store policy, either.

Even in an online business, the phrase "the customer is always right" seems to echo as literal as ever - perhaps even more so because the customer can hide behind a certain level of anonymity. The internet seems to bring out the worst in customers, whether it be service through vocal, or electronic means. Many readers may laugh this off and generalize, "Well, that's kids for you," so here's an observation that may shock you: many of these rude customers are older than thirty.

That's not exactly fair, actually. That observation doesn't just apply to online businesses, but retail stores and restaurants as well.

Here it is again: the customer is not always right.

Regardless of the poor service you claim to have received, regardless of the substandard meal, regardless of the return policy you neglected to notice - a customer should still be polite. You can get your point across without calling the kid behind the counter a dumbass. You can still attempt to make a questionable return without telling the poor lady behind the counter that she must be more stupid than a bag of bricks. You can even attempt to sort out an error in online merchandise without accusing the company owners of being emo teenagers in their mothers' basements.

As a customer, rudeness gets you better service like dropping out of high school gets you a scholarship into Harvard. No matter how rude you are, no matter how loudly you yell, you will not receive your desired result. Respect is a two-way street, ladies and gentlemen, even when dealing with the poor souls whose job it is to attempt to cater to your needs and wants.