Skip to main content

Some people, it seems, actively avoid genuine help

A few of the people I know are wary of being helped by me, personally, because they’re aware that they don’t know the full story, so they’re overly cautious. This trips processes over, causes minor losses & damage, & is generally annoying but their point of view is rational & reasonable: they know that they don’t know, which in turn means that it’s sensible to remain at least a little unsure of how I’ll react, even if it occasionally gets socially-expensive.

Now, that doesn’t mean that I have to like the procedure, but it does leave room for me to understand, to sympathise, & to some degree to work around these difficulties.

For the next part of the tale, we’ll be dealing with The Recipient. It would be normal to abbreviate that as “Rec.” In this case, however, “Wreck’ seems to be a better fit.

Wreck receives money from me occasionally through a bank account. They routinely drain the account completely dry, even though they know that they’re going to want to use it (e.g. for EFTPOS), & that every month the bank zaps the account for $5 in account-keeping fees.

So... a few days ago, I noticed that the account had been run down to $0.00, & generously (Wreck is not specifically entitled to any extras here) deposited an extra $5 plus a handful of cents to cover the account fee.

The next day, Wreck pushed exactly $5 to another account, which renders the gift $ entirely ineffective.

That night, the bank took their $5, which sent the account negative, which raised another $35 honouring fee.

I’m guessing Wreck will ring the bank & plead with them to waive the fee, which they may (or may not) do.

Why “Wreck”?

Because something like that happens just about every month.

Wreck is actively avoiding prevention of the damage Wreck raises, & will no doubt go on to plead poor.

Hello? $35 a month is over $400 a year. That’s a complete set of tyres for a car, or a good budget meal for 3 people every day for 4½ months, or a flight across the Nullarbor each way (& then some). It‘s even sillier than a smoker pleading poor.

Comments

Leon RJ Brooks said…
I gather that this ’blog post got read. I’ve just been cut off from that account completely.

Very constructive, very imaginative — not — & about on par with the ongoing slide into Nicolaitanism The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades.
Leon RJ Brooks said…
It seems that Wreck has closed the account.

I suspect that if you knew the story behind that, you’d agree that this was a serious Darwin Award competitor.

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...