4 More Reasons Why ATT Sucks
. . . More on how AT&T slammed my DSL and made my email cease to function.
My DSL (high-speed internet connection) was slammed by AT&T (taken over without my permission) on or about November 23, 2009. The minute it was slammed I had no internet connection. Two days later ATT's robot said my "new service" was "up" and it wasn't. That day I spent two hours on the phone with ATT pinheads getting my connection back up, but my email still did not work.
(See my post on November 28, 2009 for more on this 2-hour phone call.)
Well, time passed, the holidays came and went, and I tackled the problem again on January 7, 2010.
This time I was on the phone with them for over four hours (well, in a chat room for half an hour, then on the phone for three and a half hours).
And guess what? It still does not work. Not only that, but the workaround that the Level 3 tech set up for me does not work, either.
Date: January 7, 2010
Start Time: 6:54 pm
I went to the online tech support chatroom that was emailed to me by AT&T to talk to an AT&T tech person to try to solve my email problem again.
Talked to Ryan. I said: "Hello, Ryan. I am a DSL customer and I was told I would be able to use the email address I have had for seven years, but can't get it to send."
He said, "Ms. Foss, I am sorry you are experiencing this issue and will be happy to assist you. Do not worry, I will provide you all the information. Do you have AT&T provided e-mail address?"
I said, "yes, I do, and I have already tried to set it up, but missing something in the settings."
He said, "Ms. Foss, what is your e-mail address?" I gave him the ATT email address I had just set up, that I never had any intention of using, which I shall refer to as "P~".
He said, "I will provide you all the information" and asked me for the answer to my security questions. I answered.
He sent me to a website and told me to log in. I said, "Okay, but it wants my yahoo ID. Am I giving it my yahoo name or my ATT name?"
He said, "No, please use your AT&T provided e-mail address." I did so.
"Are you able to login there?" Yes.
"Now try to send a test e-mail to your own e-mail address and let me know the result."
I said, "okay, where is the email feature on this page?"
He said "click on the mail tab."
I said, "sorry, i don't see a mail tab. which corner is it in?"
He said, "What options do you see there?" I listed a bunch of them.
He told me to sign out, then sent me to a new website
I asked, "Do i log in as P~ again?" Yes.
I got an "Invalid password" message.
He said, "Please use P~ there and password of this account."
This time I got "Invalid email" message. Tried again and it worked, must have typed it wrong.
He said, "check your email folders."
I said, "it says i have no emails in my inbox" and added: "well this is a new email address i have not ever used. it was kind of forced upon me. what i want to use is the email i have had for the past 7 years, which is gwenfoss@netrek.net. currently it will receive but can't send. this need to be configured to send."
He said, what email client am I using? (Boy, if I were a computer newbie that would be too much freakin' jargon.)
I said Eudora. (Part of me knew that at this point I knew he would say that he can't help me with Eudora).
He said, "I need to inform you that we do not have any tools to configure your e-mail client in Eudora, However I will provide you all the settings to configure the e-mail account."
He then said, "You need to use the SMTP server of AT&T and POP server of your "gwenfoss@netrek.net""
I said, "not good enough. i was promised that my old email would still work after you took over my DSL account. I did not sign up for ATT. this has to be fixed."
He came back with, "Please note down the SMTP server address: smtp.att.yahoo.com"
I said, "yes, that is the setting i have."
He said, "And for further information we have a dedicated department for this Support+. Please call us at: 877-831-2880. They will provide you all the information and help you out."
I said, "no, i was already on the phone for 2 hours with them." (After this conversation I realized this is the heavenly "fee-based" Level 3 support that I had not yet tried.)
He said, "I apologize for the inconvenience caused to you. I am sorry, we do not have any tools to provide you all the information on this. Please contact them, they will help you out."
I said, "okay, i guess i'll try them again. Expletive deleted. bye for now."
Talked to this guy over half an hour. No effin' help.
7:30pm
ATT's customer service survey popped up on my screen, which I filled out. It was only two questions and a comment. I gave both questions a NO, then put in comments: "Ongoing problem. Changing settings in email software so it can send and receive. I did not sign up for DSL from ATT. You took over my DSL without my consent. Now email will receive but not send."
I tried to type more into the comments field but it would only erase my text after that, so I assume the box had a character limit in force.
7:35 pm
I called the tech support number that Ryan had given me, 877-831-2880, got the same stinking a phone maze, and it said, for DSL support, hang up and dial 1-800-288-2020, but I just ignored that and pressed 1 for "advanced technical support." Got put on hold.
7:45 pm
I heard sound of a phone ringing and got a live human after about 10 rings. I could not understand her name, India accent. I gave her my name, phone, zip code, and so forth, and we discussed the problem, and she said it would be a $99 fee. (I'll admit, I was expecting $30 or $40, not $100!) but get this: she promised their techs could fix it. She actually used the word "promise."
I argued about the fee and lost. She took my cc info. Back on hold.
7:53 pm
She said we had to wait for a ticket number. While waiting for a ticket number, she read me the list of rules that she said she was required to read to me. I did not jot them all down, but these two stood out:
1) I am liable for any lost data, etc, if I proceed to this service.
2) Even if they can't fix it they will still bill me $99 for this service.
(First she promised they could fix it, then said it would be $99, then said if they can't fix it, it's still $99?? If this is not illegal it should be.)
Well, this is when I hit the roof and started yelling. Problem ongoing for weeks, I did not sign up for this, I was promised my email would work, ATT slammed my DSL, been on the phone already for hours trying to get it fixed, and so on. I also said that I know it's not her fault, she's not a supervisor, and so on. She said she is required to say all the rules. I pointed out again that she just promised me they could fix it, then said, maybe we can't, but it's $99 either way (!).
Well, since I can't fix this mess myself, I said let's go ahead, and she gave me a ticket number and said to give that to the technician when they come on the line. She added that if I need to call her back, the number is 888-930-3330. She then said, please stay on the line and put me on hold.
7:58 pm
On hold. Wow, but they have some really crappy primitive on-hold music!
8:42 pm
After being on hold for 44 minutes (!) I finally got to the $99-tech, whom I shall call A~. She asked for my ticket number, asked me the problem, and by now I had it down to three words: "Eudora won't send."
Tech A~ had me launch Internet Explorer, go to a specific website, put in a code number, and download a utility called "Premium Support" that allowed her to see my desktop on her desktop and take control of my mouse, etc.
I watched as she looked at Eudora, tried to send email, no go, looked at the browser, checked some settings under Windows Device Manager and Intel Network Connector, which were all normal, I assume, since she changed nothing.
8:48 pm
Tech A~ again looked at Eudora, spent a few minutes looking at all the settings, said she was not familiar with Eudora but would try to figure the problem out, put me on hold, said she was going to find a tech who understands Eudora, came back and said she thinks it's a port problem, and I watched as she checked the port settings in Eudora, making all the changes I had already tried, then trying new settings.
9:02 pm
Tech still "looking around" my computer, made changes to the SSL settings (Secure Socket Layer, a security wall), still no go, changed it back, still no go. She then said she has just learned that a lot of other people have had the same problem.
9:06pm
A~ said another customer who also uses Eudora tried all sorts of instructions but never found a solution, said Eudora "does not like" the SSL that ATT uses. She continued to try possible solutions, kept trying to send an email with Eudora but just got error messages. She then said she was going to write down and investigate the error message more closely. She checked the SSL Certificate Information Manager, clicked on a certificate, tried several times to solve the problem that the certificate was not being authenticated, and so on.
9:16 pm
Tech A~ imported a certificate, tried many other settings, tried changes to certificates and SSL and a slew of other settings. Still no go.
9:23 pm
More attempts to fix, then she tried logging in to yahoo mail using my Netrek name and password, no go, she changed the port settings again, no go.
9:32 pm
Tech A~ started explaining to me why the incoming mail still worked but the outgoing mail did not work, but stopped herself in the middle as if she had a new idea, and made more changes to the settings. Next she theorized that the problem was with the web-based part (Yahoo), in that she did not know how to "connect" Yahoo to 2020comm (my old internet service provider) or Netrek (my old email domain name). I said I also have an ATT email handle and why don't we try that. She entered that into the Eudora settings, and also the password for that, then put me back on hold.
9:40 pm
I saw my mouse moving around by itself again, and watched as she checked all the settings, tried to send an email, no go, she pinged the ATT server, looks like that worked, continued to try different settings.
9:46 pm
As I watched her move my mouse around I asked about the old router / new router, and she said the router is not the issue; the problem she's currently trying to solve is getting the SSL settings in Eudora to update or recognize or something like that. Eudora doesn't seem to have standard SSL but something called TSL, perhaps it's an old version of SSL that is too old to function, or something like that.
9:52 pm
I watched as tech A~ followed links from Eudora to OpenSSL online, I assume in an attempt to find upgrade info or a fix, no go, she then said that I have a 10 year old version of Eudora and she could set up Outlook for me. (Oh, yes, I knew she was going to tell me to use Outlook!!) I explained that I have used Outlook in the past and really hated it, it was very hard to use, but told her to go ahead and set it up for me, let's see if it works.
9:58 pm
I watched as she set up my ATT email with my "real name" and it worked fine, then she set up the Netrek email to see if it would work, put in my old ISP server name, no go, I looked through my old notes from when I set up Eudora, found a different email server, she put that in and by golly it worked! She then set up Outlook to handle my ATT email and my Netrek email and put them all into the same inbox, or at least that's what I expected would happen.
10:16 pm
I told tech A~ that I had been promised a solution, not only prior to today, but earlier today, by ATT personnel, and that after I was told of the $99 fee, I was then told, by the same ATT person, that even if they can't fix it, it's still $99. A~ said she would be happy to transfer me to sales so I could let them know that their own personnel are making impossible promises because Eudora is simply incompatible with ATT email, and they can't support Eudora or fix the problem, the problem (apparently) lies with the SSL in Eudora.
10:36 pm
Tech A~ said, "Sorry it took so long, nothing else I can do for you." I thanked her for trying her best. She transferred me to sales. I went on hold at 10:37 pm.
10:44 pm
I got to a live human (India accent) who asked for my ticket number, which I gave, he said he was a sales rep for "Connect-Tech," then I explained the problem, in that ATT continued to promise me they would fix my email and they simply are unable to, and that they should not be making this promise, especially to Eudora users.
He said he can't give me a refund of my $99 but he would ask the supervisor for permission to give me a refund. I also asked what to do with the duplicate modem, he said he can't help me with that, put me on hold, 10:51 pm.
10:53 pm
When he came back to the phone I told him that, legally speaking, if a company is liable, the fact that they say they're not liable doesn't make them not liable, they're still liable. He said the best he can do is give me full credit for the $99 fee, then charge me a $29 fee instead, thus giving me a $70 reduction on the fee, which he termed a "partial refund." That still stinks, but I agreed to take the partial refund.
He then gave me a transaction number (order reference number) for the current charge, and also gave me the transaction number (order reference number) for the original $99 charge.
10:59 pm
Call ended. Counting from my first contact today with ATT via the chat line, that makes four hours and five minutes total time spent on this today.
---0---
Date: January 8, 2010
The next morning, after the day I spent four hours on the phone with ATT, during which they supposedly set up Outlook for me, guess what? Outlook is not sending or receiving my Netrek mail.
Expletives!
---0---
Date: January 9, 2010
A moment of silence for my dead email, thank you.
It is no wonder that consumers like myself who are treated like dirt by these giant, faceless, multi-national, evil corporations (with the exception of Tech A~ who was super) are taking their business elsewhere.
---0---
Please help a starving bookdealer.
Sincerely yours,
Gwen Foss
---0---
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
09 January 2010
02 January 2010
17 Examples of Erasing Universalist History, Ignoring Universalist History, or Burying it under the Label of Unitarian History
. . . A collection of examples of Universalism or Universalist history being left out of the picture, destroyed, ignored, misrepresented, treated with substantially less space than Unitarian history, called Unitarian history, or buried under Unitarian history.
I have seen so many examples of this casual disregard for Universalist history that I just had to start collecting them. Please note: These are not all the examples I have ever found, just examples from people who should know better.
How would it be if, every time someone mentions Channing, Emerson and Parker and implies that they are the whole foundation of UU history, someone snuck in and added Murray, Winchester, Balfour and Ballou? Hmmmm. (Listed in chronological order, more or less.)
---0---
Exhibit #1
1922
The City of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922, Volume 5
by Clarence Monroe Burton
Page 188, in the biography of Rollin Howard Stevens, states:
"Dr. Stevens served on the board of trustees of the Church of Our Father and has long been identified with the Unitarian faith."
Comment: Church of Our Father was a Universalist church. After this book was published, their name changed (1934) to First Unitarian-Universalist Church when Detroit's Unitarian congregation consolidated with the Universalists. It is incorrect to refer to members of this Universalist church as Unitarians, particularly prior to the 1934 event in which the Unitarians "moved in" with the Universalists.
---0---
Exhibit #2
1933
Of the 34 people who signed Humanist Manifesto I, it is often stated that "about half (15) were Unitarians."
Comment: This fact is mentioned in the Preface of the Manifesto. In fact, the signers included only 12 Unitarians, 1 Universalist, and 2 individuals who were dually fellowshipped.
The sole Universalist is called a Unitarian and the two in dual fellowship are stripped of their Universalism and called solely Unitarian.
(Email me if you would like a list of the Universalists and Unitarians who signed the Manifesto.)
---0---
Exhibit #3
1956
The famous group of murals, 24 Saints of Liberalism, painted at 3rd Unitarian Chicago 1956–69 by church member Andrene Kauffman, includes 9 Unitarians, 15 non-U/Us, and no Universalists.
The Unitarian subjects are: Susan B. Anthony, Edwin T. Buehrer, William Ellery Channing, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Jefferson, James Martineau, Thomas Paine, Theodore Parker, Joseph Priestley.
The Non-U/U subjects are: Jane Addams, John Peter Altgeld (progressive governor of IL), Albert Camus, Confucius, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Suddhartha Gautama, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Jesus of Nazareth, Socrates, Harriet Tubman, Walt Whitman, Woodrow Wilson, Roger Williams.
Info from UU World, Summer 2009, pages 36-39
---0---
Exhibit #4
1991
Book title: Thomas Starr King: Eminent Californian, Civil War Statesman, Unitarian Minister, by Robert A. Monzingo. NY: Boxwood Press, 1991
Comment: Thomas Starr King was ordained both Universalist and Unitarian but here he is described only as a Unitarian.
---0---
Exhibit #5
1991
The UU Alphabet
Song lyric by yours truly, listing one famous U/U for each letter of the alphabet.
The song lists 14 Unitarians (61%), 3 Universalists (13%), 2 UUs (9%), 3 borderline or wrong names (13%), and three letters (U, X, Z) that I had to fudge entirely, not included in percentages.
In my own defense, I wrote the lyric before I knew much Universalist history. I collected the names from list of "famous UUs" that I got from various sources. Since most lists of "famous UUs" at the time were — and still are — approximtely 80% Unitarian, 10% Universalist and 10% wrong, my song lyric ended up being about the same.
(Email me if you would like to see the song.)
---0---
Exhibit #6
1996
"[The Rev. James] Stoll was a minister of the Unitarian Universalist Association--known as the Unitarians--and his act [coming out] was the first of many that came to mark the Unitarians as the country's most accepting, welcoming denomination for homosexuals."
-- Mark Oppenheimer, History Department, Yale University
This is the third sentence in his article, "The Inherent Worth and Dignity": Gay Unitarians and the Birth of Sexual Tolerance in Liberal Religion, published in Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 7, 1996
Article excerpt found online at Questia at
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=L1rMSv1h95SD1n1t0HKQJZp0wqkLYw1TYQ2k7WV0npv33fjFDP1C!-997264469!1888687908?docId=96428120 (viewed online Jan 2, 2010)
Should I be shocked that a professor of history at Yale doesn't know or doesn't care about the difference between a Unitarian and a Unitarian Universalist?
---0---
Exhibit #7
1999
"UUs seem to have two conflicting "myth of origin" stories that influence our sense of roots. One is that we began with Akhenaten, Moses and Jesus, and we're the REAL monotheists. (Though that theory is somewhat out of fashion with the change from "one God at most" to "one God more or less.") Then there's the "creation ex nihilo" out of the heads of Servetus and Channing -- this myth is operationally what many members in UU churches believe. It's interesting what you learn by listening at coffee hours and online UU chats, just to understand what the average congregational member really thinks is the history of our idea and association!"
-- Jone Johnson Lewis, on the UU Historical Society listserv
Comment: She says "UUs" have two origin myths but describes origin myths of Unitarians alone.
---0---
Exhibit #8
date unknown (circa 2000)
I once sat through an entire sermon in a UU church in which the speaker -- a guest and layman -- referred to Walt Whitman three or four times as "a gay Unitarian minister." I don't know who the speaker was thinking of but Walt Whitman was not a minister and was not a Unitarian (he was borderline Universalist at best).
---0---
Exhibit #9
16 Jun 2000
David M. Robinson, Distinguished Professor of American Literature, Department of English, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, posted the following to the UU Historical Society listserv:
BEGIN QUOTE
Dear Fellow UU History Buffs,
I'll be giving a talk at GA on UU History in a session sponsored by the Fulfilling the Promise Task Force (session 446). The official title is "What Our History Might Teach Us," but it has evolved over the spring into a paper with the working title "The Five Phases of Unitarian Universalist History." I thought I would put my basic thesis out on this list in advance for possible reaction, and will perhaps be able to speak with some of you at GA. The "Five Phases" will probably not surprise you, but they gave me the best broad overview of the denomination's development that I could work out. What I was interested in developing was a broadly comprehensive, and thus necessarily very general, "big picture" encapsulation of our history. The five phases are:
(1) the Unitarian Controversy (Great Awakening to the 1830s)
(2) Transcendentalism (1830s to 1860s)
(3) Free Religion (1860s to 1890s)
(4) Humanism (1920s to 1940s)
(5) Social Justice Movements (1960s [or late 1950s?] to the present). . . .
END QUOTE
Comment: This is not an outline of UU history, it is an outline of Unitarian history. It ignores Universalist history and has almost no direct relevance to Universalism. There's nothing wrong with that except that Professor Robinson refers to it as "UU History" and as a "broad overview of the denomination's development."
To Robinson's credit, when it was gently pointed out to him by several others on the list that his outline did not apply to Universalist history, he responded, saying:
"I also agree with you that it falsifies Universalist history to try to read it through categories derived from Unitarian history, such as Transcendentalism and Free Religion. This need to keep things separate historically of course presents some problems. In one sense, all UUs after the merger must own the histories of each denomination. And the history of the denomination after the merger is of course "Unitarian Universalist." But to own those histories does not mean to merge them or erase their uniqueness."
---0---
Exhibit #10
27 Dec 2003
"Still we, in our dictionary of Unitarian and Universalist biography and elsewhere state that Ralph Waldo Emerson, Clara Barton, Horace Mann, John Adams and John Quincy Adams, and others, were 19th century Unitarians. How many Unitarians were there in the 19th century?" [emphasis added]
John Keohane, UUHS listserv
Comment: Clara Barton was a Universalist but here she is lumped in with Unitarians and called a Unitarian.
---0---
Exhibit #11
2004
This Day in Unitarian Universalist History: A Treasury of Anniversaries and Milestones from 600 Years of Religious Tradition, by Frank Schulman, published by Skinner House Books, an imprint of the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Comment: This is, overall, a well written book, with clear, concise entries. It is well laid out and easy to read. It lists, for each day of the calendar year, around two to four milestones in UU history.
The problem is that it is almost all Unitarian history and only a little bit Universalist history. And I hazard to say that the Universalist history seems to be based on Unitarian sources.
I made a count of how many entries are Unitarian, how many Universalist, and how many are Borderline (regarding someone who was a small-u unitarian, for example) or Both.
I was going to count the whole book but stopped after three months (January 1 to March 31) since the trend was obvious.
Out of a total of 293 entries for the first three months, I found:
85% (248) Unitarian entries
10% (28) Universalist entries
3% (9) Borderline
3% (8) Both (Unitarian Universalist combined) (total is 101% due to rounding)
I also checked the bibliography and found a preponderance of Unitarian sources. There were 26 Unitarian, 11 Universalist, and 5 UU history books listed, as well as one general biographical dictionary and one history of the Humanist Manifesto (see Exhibit #2).
---0---
Exhibit #12
2008 (approx)
On the poster entitled 100 Unitarians and Universalists there are 79 Unitarians, 9 Universalists, 5 UUs, 1 labeled "you" (with a little mirror instead of a portrait), and 6 who don't even belong on the poster.
The nine Univeralists are: Hosea Ballou, P.T. Barnum, Clara Barton, Olympia Brown, Augusta Jane Chapin, Mary Livermore, John Murray, Benjamin Rush, Clarence Skinner.
The five UUs are: Tim Berners-Lee, Laurel Salton Clark, Robert Fulghum, Thomas Starr King, Christopher Reeve.
The six who shouldn't be on the poster are: Isaac Asimov, Thomas Carlyle, Theodore Giesel, Thomas Huxley, Robert LaFollette, Daniel Webster.
I do not know who published this poster. There is a framed copy of it hanging in the First UU Church of Detroit, but no publication data visible.
---0---
Exhibit #13
7 Apr 2008
Clint Richmond, on the UU Historical Society listserv, said:
BEGIN QUOTE
The historic First Church in Boston has invited me to speak as part of their adult RE Learning Community. The illustrated presentation is based on my guidebook 'Political Places of Boston' . . .
I will be surveying neighborhood landmarks/events and their UU connections (Boston Pride parade, Boston Common and Faneuil Hall) as well as UU sites (such as UUA headquarters, Beacon Press, Arlington Street Church, and Community Church).
UU people to be mentioned will include Emily Greene Balch, Elliot Richardson, Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Theodore Parker.
The UUA bookstore has kindly carried the book since it was released in 2004. Their copies also have a special insert that makes some of these same connections, which allow you to take a similar such "UU Freedom Trail" if you visit Boston.
END QUOTE
Comment: He calls his book and his talk and his freedom trail all "UU" but with the exception of the UUA headquarters, everything mentioned is 100% Unitarian; there seems to be nothing Universalist included.
---0---
Exhibit #14
Apr 2009
Dictionary of UU Biography
Comment: I counted the Unitarians and the Universalists in the Dictionary of UU Biography because it seemed as if most of the entries were on Unitarians. I made the count in Apr 2009.
Of the 932 Individuals listed:
68% (633) are Unitarian
18% (172) are Universalist
3% (32) are Both
11% (98) are Unknown (to me at this time)
Comment: The editor in chief of this project specializes in Universalist history, so I am hopeful that as the project goes forward, the difference between the number of Unitarian and Universalist articles will be lessened.
(Email me if you would like to see a list the actual names and how I counted them.)
---0---
Exhibit #15
May 2009
This website gives a brief history of "UUism" based solely on Ralph Waldo Emerson who was a Unitarian minister for about 4 years (1829-1833) then withdrew from the denomination.
---0---
Exhibit #16
Jun 2009
Philosopedia
Warren Allen Smith's website has a summary page listing the names of 325 notable Unitarians who are profiled on his site (there are a few doubles and other anomalies so the correct number is about 323), and another summary page listing all the Universalists, of which there are 45.
But wait, four of the individuals listed as Universalists were actually Unitarians, so the actual number of Universalists listed is only 41. (The four are Dan McKanan, Winifred Latimer Norman, Arpad Szabo; plus Hosea Ballou I is listed twice, the second time as Josea Ballou.)
I also checked the Unitarian list to see if any names belong on the Universalist list and found four (Johannes Auer, Adin Ballou, Angus MacLean, Clinton Lee Scott).
Comment: The site is about 85% Unitarian and 15% Universalist.
---0---
Exhibit #17
4 Nov 2009
UU historian John Keohane's proposed four-session "Course in Adult Religious Education on UU History," as posted on the UU Historical Society listserv.
BEGIN QUOTE
1) Ballou and Channing Both were 19th century Protestant Christian ministers in Boston. Each read the Bible more seriously than their "orthodox" brethren. They were from different strata of society, and they didn't like each other. Hosea Ballou (1771-1852) was a Universalist. He found in the Bible evidence for Universal Salvation. William Ellery Channing (1780-1842) was a Unitarian. He found lack of Biblical evidence lacking for the Trinity. He thought the Bible must be read with the use of reason.
2) The Humanists of the mid-20th century Evidence that Unitarians had gone clearly beyond our Christian roots. We'll discuss the Humanist Manifesto (1933), and some of those who signed it, including ministers John Dietrich and Edwin H. Wilson. We'll then go to another Humanist, the distinguished scientist and physiologist Maurice Visscher, learning of some of the early medical missionary work of the Unitarian (now UU) Service Committee. We'll also learn of Visscher's social action, of the science, and his actions to end atmospheric nuclear tests.
3) Unitarians and Universalists for Civil Rights We'll discuss UU martyrs at Selma, James Reeb, a minister from Boston, and Viola Liuzzo, a housewife and mother from Michigan, whose Oldsmobile with the Michigan plates stood out in the red clay of Alabama. We'll then move our discussion to a giant of the United States Senate, the Quaker-Unitarian Paul H. Douglas, of Illinois, who led the way for civil rights in his 18 years in the US Senate (1949-67), and each year reported his net worth and income to the penny, while rejecting any gift over $5, and refusing his disability pension from the United States Marines.
4) Unitarians and Universalists in the last 50 years Pre-merger cooperation on Religious Education, a hymnal, etc. leading to merger in 1961, to become the Unitarian Universalist Association.
END QUOTE
Comment: His course includes about 85% Unitarian and 15% Universalist material. The number of Universalist people mentioned here is exactly one: Hosea Ballou, although one could also count Viola Liuzzo who belonged to a joint Unitarian Universalist congregation.
---0---
Visit my online used bookstore and check out my little booklet, A Who's Who of UUs
Thanks and Happy New Year y'all.
---0---
. . . A collection of examples of Universalism or Universalist history being left out of the picture, destroyed, ignored, misrepresented, treated with substantially less space than Unitarian history, called Unitarian history, or buried under Unitarian history.
I have seen so many examples of this casual disregard for Universalist history that I just had to start collecting them. Please note: These are not all the examples I have ever found, just examples from people who should know better.
How would it be if, every time someone mentions Channing, Emerson and Parker and implies that they are the whole foundation of UU history, someone snuck in and added Murray, Winchester, Balfour and Ballou? Hmmmm. (Listed in chronological order, more or less.)
---0---
Exhibit #1
1922
The City of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922, Volume 5
by Clarence Monroe Burton
Page 188, in the biography of Rollin Howard Stevens, states:
"Dr. Stevens served on the board of trustees of the Church of Our Father and has long been identified with the Unitarian faith."
Comment: Church of Our Father was a Universalist church. After this book was published, their name changed (1934) to First Unitarian-Universalist Church when Detroit's Unitarian congregation consolidated with the Universalists. It is incorrect to refer to members of this Universalist church as Unitarians, particularly prior to the 1934 event in which the Unitarians "moved in" with the Universalists.
---0---
Exhibit #2
1933
Of the 34 people who signed Humanist Manifesto I, it is often stated that "about half (15) were Unitarians."
Comment: This fact is mentioned in the Preface of the Manifesto. In fact, the signers included only 12 Unitarians, 1 Universalist, and 2 individuals who were dually fellowshipped.
The sole Universalist is called a Unitarian and the two in dual fellowship are stripped of their Universalism and called solely Unitarian.
(Email me if you would like a list of the Universalists and Unitarians who signed the Manifesto.)
---0---
Exhibit #3
1956
The famous group of murals, 24 Saints of Liberalism, painted at 3rd Unitarian Chicago 1956–69 by church member Andrene Kauffman, includes 9 Unitarians, 15 non-U/Us, and no Universalists.
The Unitarian subjects are: Susan B. Anthony, Edwin T. Buehrer, William Ellery Channing, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Jefferson, James Martineau, Thomas Paine, Theodore Parker, Joseph Priestley.
The Non-U/U subjects are: Jane Addams, John Peter Altgeld (progressive governor of IL), Albert Camus, Confucius, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Suddhartha Gautama, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Jesus of Nazareth, Socrates, Harriet Tubman, Walt Whitman, Woodrow Wilson, Roger Williams.
Info from UU World, Summer 2009, pages 36-39
---0---
Exhibit #4
1991
Book title: Thomas Starr King: Eminent Californian, Civil War Statesman, Unitarian Minister, by Robert A. Monzingo. NY: Boxwood Press, 1991
Comment: Thomas Starr King was ordained both Universalist and Unitarian but here he is described only as a Unitarian.
---0---
Exhibit #5
1991
The UU Alphabet
Song lyric by yours truly, listing one famous U/U for each letter of the alphabet.
The song lists 14 Unitarians (61%), 3 Universalists (13%), 2 UUs (9%), 3 borderline or wrong names (13%), and three letters (U, X, Z) that I had to fudge entirely, not included in percentages.
In my own defense, I wrote the lyric before I knew much Universalist history. I collected the names from list of "famous UUs" that I got from various sources. Since most lists of "famous UUs" at the time were — and still are — approximtely 80% Unitarian, 10% Universalist and 10% wrong, my song lyric ended up being about the same.
(Email me if you would like to see the song.)
---0---
Exhibit #6
1996
"[The Rev. James] Stoll was a minister of the Unitarian Universalist Association--known as the Unitarians--and his act [coming out] was the first of many that came to mark the Unitarians as the country's most accepting, welcoming denomination for homosexuals."
-- Mark Oppenheimer, History Department, Yale University
This is the third sentence in his article, "The Inherent Worth and Dignity": Gay Unitarians and the Birth of Sexual Tolerance in Liberal Religion, published in Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 7, 1996
Article excerpt found online at Questia at
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=L1rMSv1h95SD1n1t0HKQJZp0wqkLYw1TYQ2k7WV0npv33fjFDP1C!-997264469!1888687908?docId=96428120 (viewed online Jan 2, 2010)
Should I be shocked that a professor of history at Yale doesn't know or doesn't care about the difference between a Unitarian and a Unitarian Universalist?
---0---
Exhibit #7
1999
"UUs seem to have two conflicting "myth of origin" stories that influence our sense of roots. One is that we began with Akhenaten, Moses and Jesus, and we're the REAL monotheists. (Though that theory is somewhat out of fashion with the change from "one God at most" to "one God more or less.") Then there's the "creation ex nihilo" out of the heads of Servetus and Channing -- this myth is operationally what many members in UU churches believe. It's interesting what you learn by listening at coffee hours and online UU chats, just to understand what the average congregational member really thinks is the history of our idea and association!"
-- Jone Johnson Lewis, on the UU Historical Society listserv
Comment: She says "UUs" have two origin myths but describes origin myths of Unitarians alone.
---0---
Exhibit #8
date unknown (circa 2000)
I once sat through an entire sermon in a UU church in which the speaker -- a guest and layman -- referred to Walt Whitman three or four times as "a gay Unitarian minister." I don't know who the speaker was thinking of but Walt Whitman was not a minister and was not a Unitarian (he was borderline Universalist at best).
---0---
Exhibit #9
16 Jun 2000
David M. Robinson, Distinguished Professor of American Literature, Department of English, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, posted the following to the UU Historical Society listserv:
BEGIN QUOTE
Dear Fellow UU History Buffs,
I'll be giving a talk at GA on UU History in a session sponsored by the Fulfilling the Promise Task Force (session 446). The official title is "What Our History Might Teach Us," but it has evolved over the spring into a paper with the working title "The Five Phases of Unitarian Universalist History." I thought I would put my basic thesis out on this list in advance for possible reaction, and will perhaps be able to speak with some of you at GA. The "Five Phases" will probably not surprise you, but they gave me the best broad overview of the denomination's development that I could work out. What I was interested in developing was a broadly comprehensive, and thus necessarily very general, "big picture" encapsulation of our history. The five phases are:
(1) the Unitarian Controversy (Great Awakening to the 1830s)
(2) Transcendentalism (1830s to 1860s)
(3) Free Religion (1860s to 1890s)
(4) Humanism (1920s to 1940s)
(5) Social Justice Movements (1960s [or late 1950s?] to the present). . . .
END QUOTE
Comment: This is not an outline of UU history, it is an outline of Unitarian history. It ignores Universalist history and has almost no direct relevance to Universalism. There's nothing wrong with that except that Professor Robinson refers to it as "UU History" and as a "broad overview of the denomination's development."
To Robinson's credit, when it was gently pointed out to him by several others on the list that his outline did not apply to Universalist history, he responded, saying:
"I also agree with you that it falsifies Universalist history to try to read it through categories derived from Unitarian history, such as Transcendentalism and Free Religion. This need to keep things separate historically of course presents some problems. In one sense, all UUs after the merger must own the histories of each denomination. And the history of the denomination after the merger is of course "Unitarian Universalist." But to own those histories does not mean to merge them or erase their uniqueness."
---0---
Exhibit #10
27 Dec 2003
"Still we, in our dictionary of Unitarian and Universalist biography and elsewhere state that Ralph Waldo Emerson, Clara Barton, Horace Mann, John Adams and John Quincy Adams, and others, were 19th century Unitarians. How many Unitarians were there in the 19th century?" [emphasis added]
John Keohane, UUHS listserv
Comment: Clara Barton was a Universalist but here she is lumped in with Unitarians and called a Unitarian.
---0---
Exhibit #11
2004
This Day in Unitarian Universalist History: A Treasury of Anniversaries and Milestones from 600 Years of Religious Tradition, by Frank Schulman, published by Skinner House Books, an imprint of the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Comment: This is, overall, a well written book, with clear, concise entries. It is well laid out and easy to read. It lists, for each day of the calendar year, around two to four milestones in UU history.
The problem is that it is almost all Unitarian history and only a little bit Universalist history. And I hazard to say that the Universalist history seems to be based on Unitarian sources.
I made a count of how many entries are Unitarian, how many Universalist, and how many are Borderline (regarding someone who was a small-u unitarian, for example) or Both.
I was going to count the whole book but stopped after three months (January 1 to March 31) since the trend was obvious.
Out of a total of 293 entries for the first three months, I found:
85% (248) Unitarian entries
10% (28) Universalist entries
3% (9) Borderline
3% (8) Both (Unitarian Universalist combined) (total is 101% due to rounding)
I also checked the bibliography and found a preponderance of Unitarian sources. There were 26 Unitarian, 11 Universalist, and 5 UU history books listed, as well as one general biographical dictionary and one history of the Humanist Manifesto (see Exhibit #2).
---0---
Exhibit #12
2008 (approx)
On the poster entitled 100 Unitarians and Universalists there are 79 Unitarians, 9 Universalists, 5 UUs, 1 labeled "you" (with a little mirror instead of a portrait), and 6 who don't even belong on the poster.
The nine Univeralists are: Hosea Ballou, P.T. Barnum, Clara Barton, Olympia Brown, Augusta Jane Chapin, Mary Livermore, John Murray, Benjamin Rush, Clarence Skinner.
The five UUs are: Tim Berners-Lee, Laurel Salton Clark, Robert Fulghum, Thomas Starr King, Christopher Reeve.
The six who shouldn't be on the poster are: Isaac Asimov, Thomas Carlyle, Theodore Giesel, Thomas Huxley, Robert LaFollette, Daniel Webster.
I do not know who published this poster. There is a framed copy of it hanging in the First UU Church of Detroit, but no publication data visible.
---0---
Exhibit #13
7 Apr 2008
Clint Richmond, on the UU Historical Society listserv, said:
BEGIN QUOTE
The historic First Church in Boston has invited me to speak as part of their adult RE Learning Community. The illustrated presentation is based on my guidebook 'Political Places of Boston' . . .
I will be surveying neighborhood landmarks/events and their UU connections (Boston Pride parade, Boston Common and Faneuil Hall) as well as UU sites (such as UUA headquarters, Beacon Press, Arlington Street Church, and Community Church).
UU people to be mentioned will include Emily Greene Balch, Elliot Richardson, Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Theodore Parker.
The UUA bookstore has kindly carried the book since it was released in 2004. Their copies also have a special insert that makes some of these same connections, which allow you to take a similar such "UU Freedom Trail" if you visit Boston.
END QUOTE
Comment: He calls his book and his talk and his freedom trail all "UU" but with the exception of the UUA headquarters, everything mentioned is 100% Unitarian; there seems to be nothing Universalist included.
---0---
Exhibit #14
Apr 2009
Dictionary of UU Biography
Comment: I counted the Unitarians and the Universalists in the Dictionary of UU Biography because it seemed as if most of the entries were on Unitarians. I made the count in Apr 2009.
Of the 932 Individuals listed:
68% (633) are Unitarian
18% (172) are Universalist
3% (32) are Both
11% (98) are Unknown (to me at this time)
Comment: The editor in chief of this project specializes in Universalist history, so I am hopeful that as the project goes forward, the difference between the number of Unitarian and Universalist articles will be lessened.
(Email me if you would like to see a list the actual names and how I counted them.)
---0---
Exhibit #15
May 2009
This website gives a brief history of "UUism" based solely on Ralph Waldo Emerson who was a Unitarian minister for about 4 years (1829-1833) then withdrew from the denomination.
---0---
Exhibit #16
Jun 2009
Philosopedia
Warren Allen Smith's website has a summary page listing the names of 325 notable Unitarians who are profiled on his site (there are a few doubles and other anomalies so the correct number is about 323), and another summary page listing all the Universalists, of which there are 45.
But wait, four of the individuals listed as Universalists were actually Unitarians, so the actual number of Universalists listed is only 41. (The four are Dan McKanan, Winifred Latimer Norman, Arpad Szabo; plus Hosea Ballou I is listed twice, the second time as Josea Ballou.)
I also checked the Unitarian list to see if any names belong on the Universalist list and found four (Johannes Auer, Adin Ballou, Angus MacLean, Clinton Lee Scott).
Comment: The site is about 85% Unitarian and 15% Universalist.
---0---
Exhibit #17
4 Nov 2009
UU historian John Keohane's proposed four-session "Course in Adult Religious Education on UU History," as posted on the UU Historical Society listserv.
BEGIN QUOTE
1) Ballou and Channing Both were 19th century Protestant Christian ministers in Boston. Each read the Bible more seriously than their "orthodox" brethren. They were from different strata of society, and they didn't like each other. Hosea Ballou (1771-1852) was a Universalist. He found in the Bible evidence for Universal Salvation. William Ellery Channing (1780-1842) was a Unitarian. He found lack of Biblical evidence lacking for the Trinity. He thought the Bible must be read with the use of reason.
2) The Humanists of the mid-20th century Evidence that Unitarians had gone clearly beyond our Christian roots. We'll discuss the Humanist Manifesto (1933), and some of those who signed it, including ministers John Dietrich and Edwin H. Wilson. We'll then go to another Humanist, the distinguished scientist and physiologist Maurice Visscher, learning of some of the early medical missionary work of the Unitarian (now UU) Service Committee. We'll also learn of Visscher's social action, of the science, and his actions to end atmospheric nuclear tests.
3) Unitarians and Universalists for Civil Rights We'll discuss UU martyrs at Selma, James Reeb, a minister from Boston, and Viola Liuzzo, a housewife and mother from Michigan, whose Oldsmobile with the Michigan plates stood out in the red clay of Alabama. We'll then move our discussion to a giant of the United States Senate, the Quaker-Unitarian Paul H. Douglas, of Illinois, who led the way for civil rights in his 18 years in the US Senate (1949-67), and each year reported his net worth and income to the penny, while rejecting any gift over $5, and refusing his disability pension from the United States Marines.
4) Unitarians and Universalists in the last 50 years Pre-merger cooperation on Religious Education, a hymnal, etc. leading to merger in 1961, to become the Unitarian Universalist Association.
END QUOTE
Comment: His course includes about 85% Unitarian and 15% Universalist material. The number of Universalist people mentioned here is exactly one: Hosea Ballou, although one could also count Viola Liuzzo who belonged to a joint Unitarian Universalist congregation.
---0---
Visit my online used bookstore and check out my little booklet, A Who's Who of UUs
Thanks and Happy New Year y'all.
---0---
28 November 2009
10 Reasons Why AT&T Sucks
. . . I am posting a slimmed-down version of my notes from my runaround with the evil corporation known as AT&T. I have numbered the AT&T reps I have spoken with since this fiasco started and there are 10.
Earlier this week, AT&T slammed my internet connection. That's right, they slammed it. They took it over by force and without permission. If this is not illegal it should be.
(Background: AT&T bought out Ameritech same years ago. Actually they bought out SCB which bought out Ameritech. Ameritech and SBC were both Baby Bells: companies created by the gubmint-mandated breakup of the Bell Telephone monopoly. Ameritech supplied my phone service, then SCB, then AT&T.)
(Further: The minute AT&T got hold of my phone line, my phone bill nearly doubled. Also, calls to AT&T for any purpose: service, billing, adding features, etc, no matter what number or department you call, all go to the same phone maze. There is no chance of getting help on anything without being at least 20 minutes on the phone and going through multiple departments. But this is probably true for most giant corporations.)
The Saga Begins
November 23, 2009
10:50am, I called my internet service provider to find out why my connection was down. The tech support guy explained that a lot of their DSL (high-speed internet) customers lost their connection. What happened was that ATT simply took over all the DSL connections without warning. He also mentioned that ATT had recently tripled the price they were charging to companies who used ATT hardware to supply customers with DSL connections to the internet. He was certain that I would no longer be able to get DSL from their company in the near future.
11:03am, I called ATT's standard customer service number 800-244-4444 to ask what kind of DSL they offer -- I was not planning on using them but just interested to know what kind of pricing they offered -- got to a live person at 11:06am, Becky (#1), who asked what my "business" phone number was, said she's in the business office, tried to sell me a business DSL line. I asked whether residential or business was cheaper, had to ask twice, she was not able to answer, finally she said I currently pay $46/mo for residential phone, business would be $35/mo.
Becky then quoted DSL at $30/mo with a guaranteed speed of 3meg and said it's a "forever" rate, and that I would also get a free business listing in their phone book and other free services.
She further explained that ATT will charge me $62 for a new modem (router), but then fully rebate the cost by sending me a check, and charge me $12 for shipping, said there's no rebate on that, and that it will take 2 business days to set everything up. I promised to make sure Becky got the commission if I decided to take their DSL. Call ended 11:17am.
November 25, 2009
1:19pm, I received a robot call from ATT announcing that my new DSL is now in place, it is up and running, and I should call 877-722-3755 if I need tech support.
1:20pm, I still have no internet connection. I waited to see if it would come up but it did not.
1:32pm, I phoned the number the robot gave me, 877-722-3755, and ended up in the same phone maze as always. My requests for "internet tech support" were ignored and the maze dumped me into the billing dept.
1:34pm, phone maze put me on hold.
1:39pm, Valerie (#2) from customer accounts looked me up, said my number was residential, I told her I had a DSL problem, she transferred me.
1:43pm, Jessica (#3) answered, India accent, she kept saying "sorry for the inconvenience," asked for my name, phone, billing address, told me that her records show that an order for my phone number for DSL was placed for me on November 18, with an activation date of November 23, and that for future reference I should call the orders dept 877-722-3755 extension 288. She then transferred me to the orders dept to find out who placed the order.
1:48pm, got to Dana (#4) in the orders dept, she confirmed my name and said that one P****** is the name on the order. She also was able to find that K**** was the name of the ATT agent that P****** spoke to. I have never heard of either of these people.
I said that I had promised the commission to Becky. She said there is no way Becky could get this commission since K****'s name was already on the order. Not only is ATT screwing their customers, they're screwing their own employees.
Dana could not find a November 18 date on my order but said that her info shows that my connection should be up and running. It is not.
Looking further, Dana found a note on my order sating that "the DS3" went down. She admitted she did not know what that was but kept insisting ATT does not hijack people.
Dana then said she had to have a service leader (floor manager) look over my order because she doesn't understand the note. She said it could even be a typo. My DSL got hijacked due to a typo? That's a good one.
1:57pm, Dana came back, said floor support doesn't know what's going on, she is going to ask the provisioning dept. Says it could be an order that got attached to my account incorrectly.
2:00pm, Dana says she can't undo it, all she can do is to disconnect my DSL. I asked if she could determine where this order came from. She said she had to ask her supervisor for help, back on hold.
2:04pm, Dana said they have no way of knowing if the order came from my current ISP or not, but insisted it would be illegal for ATT to just switch me over without my knowledge. Back on hold.
2:07pm, Dana says two companies in Michigan are going out of business, and maybe my current ISP is one of them? She wouldn't give me their names, of course, so how would I be expected to know? She then decided to send me over to tech support anyway since ATT is now my carrier. For future reference she gave me the number for tech support 800-650-2865. She was quite pleasant and apologized many times.
2:16pm, Dana transferred me to tech support.
2:18pm, Peter (#5) came to phone, asked what kind of modem and operating system I have, asked me how many lights on my modem were lit, then he told me to load a webpage. I explained to him that my connection was down and I can't load any webpages. He asked me to load it anyway. Nothing happened of course. He asked about modem lights again, asked about the DSL light, I told him my modem has no such light. He asked if my modem has 4 or 5 lights. It has 6 lights. I told him the WAN light was not lit, back on hold.
2:24pm, Peter said I have a modem-router, not a modem. He has to send me to "Support Plus" to assist me with my "registration." He still doesn't grasp that my connection is down.
2:27, Brian (#6) answered the phone. He asked me if a line test has been done. For future reference he gave me 800-288-2020 for DSL tech support. Said he would transfer me to someone who can do a line test.
2:29pm, I got dumped into the middle of a phone maze in which the voice read back a phone number to me which was not my number and then asked if it were my number. I said "No." Then I said "DSL tech support" into the phone but that did not work. The voice said, "We're sorry, your call was unable to be completed, please hang up and dial the toll free number again" and hung up on me.
2:32pm, I called back, using the new number I had just been given, 800-288-2020, but got the same phone maze as before. Again the maze refused to send me to tech support and dumped me into the billing dept. Brandy (#7), answered. I told her I had been cut off from tech support, she transferred me to 877-722-3755.
2:35pm, Nick (#8), India accent, came to the phone, he "apologized for the inconvenience," confirmed my modem model number, asked where I got the modem, I told him got it from Ameritech as a matter of fact, and that Ameritech was bought out by ATT. He said the model number is no longer supported. I explained the entire mess and asked if we could attack the problem of my DSL connection being down, then asked for a line test, he said he can't do it, not trained on it, has to transfer me to "Support Plus."
2:42pm, back on hold, same phone maze again. Phone maze tells me the dept I'm going to is a fee-based service, then gave me only two options: use the fee-based phone support or have a tech come to my house.
2:44pm, Prince (#9, not sure that is the right name) answered, asked for my modem model number, which I gave her. She then said she is the 3rd level of support, separate from ATT, and fee based. I tell her the whole story and ask for a line test. She would not run a line test unless I paid a fee. I explained that it's not funny they hijack my line then try to get a fee out of me to fix it, and asked her to transfer me back. Back on hold.
2:50pm, Michelle (#10) answered, I did not tell her the whole story, just asked for a line test. This is now the 10th person I have talked to and the 4th person I've talked to since I was told I needed a line test. She said she could to a line test, asked my phone, name, router model number, how many lights are lit, etc. She explained that some older models don't have a component that allows ATT to reprogram them remotely. She did a line test, no problem found, then ran a sync test, nothing wrong. She then had me access my modem and change the registration info using a temporary name.
3:07pm, by golly, the connection is up and running again.
3:19pm, Michelle had me download and install some new software, set me up with a new email address, call ended 3:26pm. On the phone over two hours.
4:00pm, my email doesn't work.
At this point I was too angry and disgusted to make any fresh attempt to get it fixed.
I will post more on this BS as it happens.
---0---
Help a starving bookdealer
Visit my online used bookstore
---0---
. . . I am posting a slimmed-down version of my notes from my runaround with the evil corporation known as AT&T. I have numbered the AT&T reps I have spoken with since this fiasco started and there are 10.
Earlier this week, AT&T slammed my internet connection. That's right, they slammed it. They took it over by force and without permission. If this is not illegal it should be.
(Background: AT&T bought out Ameritech same years ago. Actually they bought out SCB which bought out Ameritech. Ameritech and SBC were both Baby Bells: companies created by the gubmint-mandated breakup of the Bell Telephone monopoly. Ameritech supplied my phone service, then SCB, then AT&T.)
(Further: The minute AT&T got hold of my phone line, my phone bill nearly doubled. Also, calls to AT&T for any purpose: service, billing, adding features, etc, no matter what number or department you call, all go to the same phone maze. There is no chance of getting help on anything without being at least 20 minutes on the phone and going through multiple departments. But this is probably true for most giant corporations.)
The Saga Begins
November 23, 2009
10:50am, I called my internet service provider to find out why my connection was down. The tech support guy explained that a lot of their DSL (high-speed internet) customers lost their connection. What happened was that ATT simply took over all the DSL connections without warning. He also mentioned that ATT had recently tripled the price they were charging to companies who used ATT hardware to supply customers with DSL connections to the internet. He was certain that I would no longer be able to get DSL from their company in the near future.
11:03am, I called ATT's standard customer service number 800-244-4444 to ask what kind of DSL they offer -- I was not planning on using them but just interested to know what kind of pricing they offered -- got to a live person at 11:06am, Becky (#1), who asked what my "business" phone number was, said she's in the business office, tried to sell me a business DSL line. I asked whether residential or business was cheaper, had to ask twice, she was not able to answer, finally she said I currently pay $46/mo for residential phone, business would be $35/mo.
Becky then quoted DSL at $30/mo with a guaranteed speed of 3meg and said it's a "forever" rate, and that I would also get a free business listing in their phone book and other free services.
She further explained that ATT will charge me $62 for a new modem (router), but then fully rebate the cost by sending me a check, and charge me $12 for shipping, said there's no rebate on that, and that it will take 2 business days to set everything up. I promised to make sure Becky got the commission if I decided to take their DSL. Call ended 11:17am.
November 25, 2009
1:19pm, I received a robot call from ATT announcing that my new DSL is now in place, it is up and running, and I should call 877-722-3755 if I need tech support.
1:20pm, I still have no internet connection. I waited to see if it would come up but it did not.
1:32pm, I phoned the number the robot gave me, 877-722-3755, and ended up in the same phone maze as always. My requests for "internet tech support" were ignored and the maze dumped me into the billing dept.
1:34pm, phone maze put me on hold.
1:39pm, Valerie (#2) from customer accounts looked me up, said my number was residential, I told her I had a DSL problem, she transferred me.
1:43pm, Jessica (#3) answered, India accent, she kept saying "sorry for the inconvenience," asked for my name, phone, billing address, told me that her records show that an order for my phone number for DSL was placed for me on November 18, with an activation date of November 23, and that for future reference I should call the orders dept 877-722-3755 extension 288. She then transferred me to the orders dept to find out who placed the order.
1:48pm, got to Dana (#4) in the orders dept, she confirmed my name and said that one P****** is the name on the order. She also was able to find that K**** was the name of the ATT agent that P****** spoke to. I have never heard of either of these people.
I said that I had promised the commission to Becky. She said there is no way Becky could get this commission since K****'s name was already on the order. Not only is ATT screwing their customers, they're screwing their own employees.
Dana could not find a November 18 date on my order but said that her info shows that my connection should be up and running. It is not.
Looking further, Dana found a note on my order sating that "the DS3" went down. She admitted she did not know what that was but kept insisting ATT does not hijack people.
Dana then said she had to have a service leader (floor manager) look over my order because she doesn't understand the note. She said it could even be a typo. My DSL got hijacked due to a typo? That's a good one.
1:57pm, Dana came back, said floor support doesn't know what's going on, she is going to ask the provisioning dept. Says it could be an order that got attached to my account incorrectly.
2:00pm, Dana says she can't undo it, all she can do is to disconnect my DSL. I asked if she could determine where this order came from. She said she had to ask her supervisor for help, back on hold.
2:04pm, Dana said they have no way of knowing if the order came from my current ISP or not, but insisted it would be illegal for ATT to just switch me over without my knowledge. Back on hold.
2:07pm, Dana says two companies in Michigan are going out of business, and maybe my current ISP is one of them? She wouldn't give me their names, of course, so how would I be expected to know? She then decided to send me over to tech support anyway since ATT is now my carrier. For future reference she gave me the number for tech support 800-650-2865. She was quite pleasant and apologized many times.
2:16pm, Dana transferred me to tech support.
2:18pm, Peter (#5) came to phone, asked what kind of modem and operating system I have, asked me how many lights on my modem were lit, then he told me to load a webpage. I explained to him that my connection was down and I can't load any webpages. He asked me to load it anyway. Nothing happened of course. He asked about modem lights again, asked about the DSL light, I told him my modem has no such light. He asked if my modem has 4 or 5 lights. It has 6 lights. I told him the WAN light was not lit, back on hold.
2:24pm, Peter said I have a modem-router, not a modem. He has to send me to "Support Plus" to assist me with my "registration." He still doesn't grasp that my connection is down.
2:27, Brian (#6) answered the phone. He asked me if a line test has been done. For future reference he gave me 800-288-2020 for DSL tech support. Said he would transfer me to someone who can do a line test.
2:29pm, I got dumped into the middle of a phone maze in which the voice read back a phone number to me which was not my number and then asked if it were my number. I said "No." Then I said "DSL tech support" into the phone but that did not work. The voice said, "We're sorry, your call was unable to be completed, please hang up and dial the toll free number again" and hung up on me.
2:32pm, I called back, using the new number I had just been given, 800-288-2020, but got the same phone maze as before. Again the maze refused to send me to tech support and dumped me into the billing dept. Brandy (#7), answered. I told her I had been cut off from tech support, she transferred me to 877-722-3755.
2:35pm, Nick (#8), India accent, came to the phone, he "apologized for the inconvenience," confirmed my modem model number, asked where I got the modem, I told him got it from Ameritech as a matter of fact, and that Ameritech was bought out by ATT. He said the model number is no longer supported. I explained the entire mess and asked if we could attack the problem of my DSL connection being down, then asked for a line test, he said he can't do it, not trained on it, has to transfer me to "Support Plus."
2:42pm, back on hold, same phone maze again. Phone maze tells me the dept I'm going to is a fee-based service, then gave me only two options: use the fee-based phone support or have a tech come to my house.
2:44pm, Prince (#9, not sure that is the right name) answered, asked for my modem model number, which I gave her. She then said she is the 3rd level of support, separate from ATT, and fee based. I tell her the whole story and ask for a line test. She would not run a line test unless I paid a fee. I explained that it's not funny they hijack my line then try to get a fee out of me to fix it, and asked her to transfer me back. Back on hold.
2:50pm, Michelle (#10) answered, I did not tell her the whole story, just asked for a line test. This is now the 10th person I have talked to and the 4th person I've talked to since I was told I needed a line test. She said she could to a line test, asked my phone, name, router model number, how many lights are lit, etc. She explained that some older models don't have a component that allows ATT to reprogram them remotely. She did a line test, no problem found, then ran a sync test, nothing wrong. She then had me access my modem and change the registration info using a temporary name.
3:07pm, by golly, the connection is up and running again.
3:19pm, Michelle had me download and install some new software, set me up with a new email address, call ended 3:26pm. On the phone over two hours.
4:00pm, my email doesn't work.
At this point I was too angry and disgusted to make any fresh attempt to get it fixed.
I will post more on this BS as it happens.
---0---
Help a starving bookdealer
Visit my online used bookstore
---0---
31 October 2009
12 Problems with Public Education
. . . What's wrong with public education? Nothing, except the schools!
First thing, I do fully support the notion of public schools for all, but I do not necessarily support the way public schools operate. The following issues and opinions are based solely on my experience as a student in the public schools of Livonia, Michigan, from 1970 to 1982. I have no knowledge as to how things are being done today, but I expect that a lot of these issues are ongoing, and that a lot of other school systems have these issues as well.
(Aside: I've often thought about collecting a book full of "teacher screws" -- that's what I call any true event in which a school official screws an innocent student in some way or other. Every person I have ever mentioned this idea to has had at least one "teacher screw" story to tell. I have dozens of 'em. This list includes three as representative samples.)
1. Exams.
Exams prove only what you can memorize and have nothing to do with learning. Yet everyone worries themselves to death over them. What a big waste of time and effort.
2. Honors.
Back when I was in school this was always a big deal but I did not understand what it meant and no one ever explained it satisfactorily. (Wikipedia has finally solved this problem.) But seriously, education should not be confused with competition.
3. Grade levels based on age.
Completely stupid.
4. Bullying.
Twelve years of being merciless bullied in public school and never once did I see a grown-up interfere with a bastard who was bullying me. Sometimes a teacher or administrator was right there and saw it all but seemed to pretend it wasn't happening. Several times I got in trouble for defending myself (not with violence). On only one occasion a creep who had been bullying me actually got in trouble, but this was 1) only after I had absolutely refused to go to school, and 2) only after my mom complained to the school. I could write reams on this topic.
5. Arbitrary rules.
Found out about a lot of their stupid rules only after I had broken them. Ask yourself if that's fair.
6. Bells.
Can't think of a worse thing to do to innocent school children then to make them jump when you ring a bell. All day. Like living in a prison.
7. Time increments.
Each class is 54 minutes long. Then you have six minutes to get to the next class. Six minutes of extra hell, five times a day. And the bells.
8. Regimentation.
Same stupid routine, every day. Who thinks this is good for learning?
9. The food.
I was lucky and did not have to rely on the school food, because given my difficulties with most food, I would have starved.
10. Freedom of speech, not.
One story of many on this topic: Wore a t-shirt to school once that said "They must think I'm a mushroom cause they keep me in the dark and feed me on bull crap." I was called to the office and told to put on a shirt from my gym locker, or, if I didn't have a shirt in my gym locker, to turn the shirt inside out. I was not allowed to wear the shirt in a way that people could actually read it.
11. Enforced nudity.
Yup. Eighth grade gym class. Teacher required you to shower at the end of class, and to be seen showering, and to be completely naked, and for you to present yourself to the student aide who would make sure you were completely naked before you started your shower. Needless to say I never once took a shower in that class. This was to avoid public humiliation from the nudity. At the end of the semester I was publicly humiliated anyway by the same accursed teacher who announced I was "most likely to never take a shower."
12. Pay phone.
There was a pay phone in my high school. It was in the hallway where anyone could use it. On a few occasions I escaped from the bullies and bastards for a few minutes by pretending to be on the phone during lunch hour or in between classes. I promptly got in trouble for "using the phone too much." Hunh?? What is the phone doing there in the first place? What is "too much?" And who the hell was watching me use the phone?
---0---
Thanks for reading with a sympathetic heart.
Please visit my bookstore and check out my fellow used-book colleagues at TomFolio.com
Click here to browse the education category at TomFolio.com
---0---
. . . What's wrong with public education? Nothing, except the schools!
First thing, I do fully support the notion of public schools for all, but I do not necessarily support the way public schools operate. The following issues and opinions are based solely on my experience as a student in the public schools of Livonia, Michigan, from 1970 to 1982. I have no knowledge as to how things are being done today, but I expect that a lot of these issues are ongoing, and that a lot of other school systems have these issues as well.
(Aside: I've often thought about collecting a book full of "teacher screws" -- that's what I call any true event in which a school official screws an innocent student in some way or other. Every person I have ever mentioned this idea to has had at least one "teacher screw" story to tell. I have dozens of 'em. This list includes three as representative samples.)
1. Exams.
Exams prove only what you can memorize and have nothing to do with learning. Yet everyone worries themselves to death over them. What a big waste of time and effort.
2. Honors.
Back when I was in school this was always a big deal but I did not understand what it meant and no one ever explained it satisfactorily. (Wikipedia has finally solved this problem.) But seriously, education should not be confused with competition.
3. Grade levels based on age.
Completely stupid.
4. Bullying.
Twelve years of being merciless bullied in public school and never once did I see a grown-up interfere with a bastard who was bullying me. Sometimes a teacher or administrator was right there and saw it all but seemed to pretend it wasn't happening. Several times I got in trouble for defending myself (not with violence). On only one occasion a creep who had been bullying me actually got in trouble, but this was 1) only after I had absolutely refused to go to school, and 2) only after my mom complained to the school. I could write reams on this topic.
5. Arbitrary rules.
Found out about a lot of their stupid rules only after I had broken them. Ask yourself if that's fair.
6. Bells.
Can't think of a worse thing to do to innocent school children then to make them jump when you ring a bell. All day. Like living in a prison.
7. Time increments.
Each class is 54 minutes long. Then you have six minutes to get to the next class. Six minutes of extra hell, five times a day. And the bells.
8. Regimentation.
Same stupid routine, every day. Who thinks this is good for learning?
9. The food.
I was lucky and did not have to rely on the school food, because given my difficulties with most food, I would have starved.
10. Freedom of speech, not.
One story of many on this topic: Wore a t-shirt to school once that said "They must think I'm a mushroom cause they keep me in the dark and feed me on bull crap." I was called to the office and told to put on a shirt from my gym locker, or, if I didn't have a shirt in my gym locker, to turn the shirt inside out. I was not allowed to wear the shirt in a way that people could actually read it.
11. Enforced nudity.
Yup. Eighth grade gym class. Teacher required you to shower at the end of class, and to be seen showering, and to be completely naked, and for you to present yourself to the student aide who would make sure you were completely naked before you started your shower. Needless to say I never once took a shower in that class. This was to avoid public humiliation from the nudity. At the end of the semester I was publicly humiliated anyway by the same accursed teacher who announced I was "most likely to never take a shower."
12. Pay phone.
There was a pay phone in my high school. It was in the hallway where anyone could use it. On a few occasions I escaped from the bullies and bastards for a few minutes by pretending to be on the phone during lunch hour or in between classes. I promptly got in trouble for "using the phone too much." Hunh?? What is the phone doing there in the first place? What is "too much?" And who the hell was watching me use the phone?
---0---
Thanks for reading with a sympathetic heart.
Please visit my bookstore and check out my fellow used-book colleagues at TomFolio.com
Click here to browse the education category at TomFolio.com
---0---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
