J. Richard Singleton's Blog, page 5
March 10, 2016
The Garfield Spider-Man looked cooler. Only time that will be said.
They needed to make his eyes emote. I get it. But it's especially goofy right now.
March 5, 2016
Jennifer Lawrence doing something disgusting...
Wearing a bikini? Ew. No, her body is definitely not a problem. Credit TMZ
February 13, 2016
#OscarsSoWhite...and pretty gay.
In the 1960s, the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences was rightly criticized for giving awards to bland movies like Around the World in 80 Days, in repudiation of what was actually going on in the streets of America. These were the movies that the founders of the industry wanted to see and harkened back to the Golden Era of Hollywood extravaganzas. We are now witnessing history repeating itself and a backlash to the backlash. Back then the Academy was made up of old white guys who didn't think much of what was happening on the streets. Now we have old rebels still rebelling except there is no longer anything to rebel against--and they are the old white guys who fancy themselves as the gatekeepers to art in film. They just thinkthey're "stickin' it to the Man" or "sockin'" it to various folks. But you can trust people over 30; that's not really that old and they might have good ideas.
The Oscars are becoming something closer to the AARP's "movies for adults" awards than the Teen Choice Awards. Yes, adults have a better understanding of the world; however kids' ideas are so often more fun. That is the great contradiction of the world that we live in and the nature of art itself. Art is subjective; however, the Academy has supported and we all surrendered to the idea that they know what the best art is in the world of film. (There are plenty of rival awards shows--especially the Golden Globes and SAG awards--that also offer a perspective into which movies are the best, and these other awards shows act as feeders into the Oscar race.) They are tainted by their own biases, and their own socio-political agendas, which are tied to being white, over-educated liberals living in Los Angeles or New York. You will never see the Ronald Reagan biopic be nominated for anything. You will never see a movie about a heroic Catholic priest, or a courageous logging company standing up to environmentalists. In 2004, The Passion of the Christ received zero nominations on the acting/directing/writing/picture side, and there were no black people involved. Whereas Christians were in awe of the Lord and Savior's final days, who died for our sins, Jews saw it as torture porn. Far from being anti-Christian, the Academy voters didn't see why Passion was an important movie.
When you look at all the Oscar best picture nominees in our lifetimes, the same patterns emerge as to who and what gets nominated. These movies are "Oscar-bait," as are many of the performers. There's a courageous white liberal fighting the system. They're often pro-gay rights, pro-reproductive rights. Many of the heroes are atheists or Jewish. These movies are not so much bad or wrong as unoriginal--you can be right and still annoying. Then the Academy hires a hip host (Letterman, Stewart, Rock, the Franco-Hathaway abortion) to try to sell these gold-plated turds to the kids. Chris Rock is hosting again, and this will be the most awkward Oscars' ceremony ever.
The last time Rock hosted, in 2005, he ran videoclips asking black people on the streets what they thought of the nominees, and recorded their confusion as to what these movies even were. He also did a bit where he pointed out that most people didn't know who Jude Law was. The joke was that Law came out of nowhere and became the IT Boy of Hollywood--and most of the attendees got his point: The film industry took an attractive, talented white man and decided he was the most important actor alive. This was followed by presenter Sean Penn giving a graven defense of Law. An important lesson was learned by Hollywood that night: Sean Penn doesn't get humor.
We should always remember that the Academy has it's favorites, like doting older relatives or school teachers. You know some people get nominated because they remind voters of their grandkids--looking at you, Brie Larson. Some actresses are a throwback to the beauties of days back and they get nominated because they are likable. Jennifer Lawrence is a tomato! She's a sparkplug with gams that go all the way up there!... Nice tits! Meanwhile people who alienate the members will never recover. Mel Gibson created one of the most successful movies of 2004; his career nonetheless took a dive because he's batshit crazy and it stopped being amusing.
Sylvester Stallone was nominated because he's been doing this for forty years. He has friends in the Academy. Michael T. Jordan and Ryan Coogler are still untested properties. (Oh, and the Fantastic Four reboot sucked--I know it's not your fault, Jordan. But it sucked.) Meanwhile a "Alone Yet Not Alone" got nominated last year. What's "Alone Yet Not Alone"? It's a song written by Bruce Broughton. Who's Bruce Broughton? He was the President of the Academy. He literally called up nominating members and told them to nominate his song. Which they did. (The nomination would ultimately be rescinded for being too damn obvious!)
Let me clarify that there is nothing wrong with having homosexual thoughts, and there's certainly nothing illegal about two adults having sexual contact in a private setting. These are movies that black people and Americans in general do not want to see. (A lot of men don't want to watch Nicholas Sparks movies, and it's not because watching heterosexual white people kiss disgusts us.) Hollywood has failed America. Not by allowing gays to marry or serve in the armed force but in making movies about cowboys who sodomize each other. The battle for gay rights has led to a surplus of terrible Oscar-bait movies. This year the most obvious Oscar-bait movie is probably Freeheld, featuring two attractive lesbians who want to get married so the younger one can receive the other's pension...before she dies of cancer. As a cherry on the top is Steve Carrell as the flamboyant gay attorney fighting the system. Freehelddid not get any nominations, not because it was bad, but because so many other white liberal movies got nominated. It was truly a space issue.
The problem with conservatism is that they will always lose. The problem with progressivism/liberalism, is that the day that the battle is over will be the day in which they become obsolete. The fight is over; you turn your swords into ploughs. But some soldiers don't want to become farmers. Watching Sidney Poitier movies doesn't work anymore. You can't make an advocacy film after the issue has been settled--that just doesn't make sense.
Michael Bay understands this quit well, and he abandons ideology. He fills his movies with shots of teen girls' asses (we will have to address that in another blog post) and the American flag. Bay knows what Americans want to see: Giant CGI robots talking about honor, integrity and sacrifice. These are values that America and Hollywood should be about. Americans generally don't want to see these weird indie movies full of foreigners where you have to see a dingdong. We don't want to see a movie where men are wearing dresses unless it's a comedy.
When George Clooney extolled Hollywood for giving Hattie McDaniel an Oscar, he neglected to mention that she was given the award for playing a happy slave. She was given an award by white liberals for playing a slave--a literal slave. Morgan Freeman (chauffer), Jaime Foxx (R&B musician), Lupita Nyong'o (slave), Denzel Washington (slave, dirty cop), Halle Berry (wife of a convict), Mo'Nique ("Welfare queen"), Cuba Gooding Jr. (athlete), Forrest Whittaker (African dictator), Terrence Howard (pimp who aspires to be a rapper). What's the solution to this? I have none--I know it sounds like I'm about to offer a solution to this, but I'm not. I'm literally just pointing this out. I'll let you figure out what this means.
It would be easy to call this racism. But it's actually stranger than racism. It's the mutant love child of racism and anti-racism. All the black winners were surely thankful for the pay bump that the award provided them, but something so liberating can come at the expense of honor. It's enjoying colored music but not letting black patrons in the club. McDaniel was invited at the table but had to sit at a segregated table. She was not invited to the after parties. White liberals, like white conservatives, like blacks in the abstract. They like that black people exist, but they don't really want them around too much. If they speak to enough black people, they will grow uncomfortable with their views on gay rights and transgenderism, and illegal immigration...and corporeal punishment...maybe Jews/Muslims. Clooney--for all his Hollywood coolness--gets so much of his own industry's history completely wrong. Real life is messy, and sometimes there are no bad guys, just people with wildly different opinions.
When talking about who got stiffed this year, the same few names keep coming up: Will Smith, Spike Lee, Michael T. Jordan, cool British black guy whose name that I can never remember. Dozens of white women were shut out of the Oscars, especially older white women. That there is some agreement as to who got stiffed adds value to the argument that the system was rigged, but it also detracts from the idea that there was any coordination to shut out black actors. As so many activists are pointing out, there is a dearth of good roles for black actors.
Far more insidious than shutting out black actors was the decision that of the four(!) slots for best songs. The song choice includes a classical orchestral piece and a Lady Gaga song. The Academy only needed to nominate one piece to retain credibility: "See You Again" by Wiz Kalifha. This is also a non-controversial choice since literally everyone (white/black, men/women) under the age of 40 likes it. (To be fair, both Eminem and 360 Mafia received Oscars for best song, so it's not entirely a matter of racism or anti-populism.)
In the future, to be fairer, the Academy should expel more gay guys. It is the only way to insure fairness. (Note: As I was writing this, the Academy did alter its rules to prevent older but inactive Academy members from voting.)
February 6, 2016
December 16, 2015
November 25, 2015
Read the first chapter of my scifi novel, Glyphics for free here.
Free read.
If you like it, you can buy the entire novel at all ebook stores. (Glyphics , Amazon , iPad, Mr. Moneybags). Only $2.99, and all proceeds goes to a worthy cause: Paying down my porn bills. If you don't, you can just go to Hell.
Happy Thanksgiving,
J. Richard Singleton
If you like it, you can buy the entire novel at all ebook stores. (Glyphics , Amazon , iPad, Mr. Moneybags). Only $2.99, and all proceeds goes to a worthy cause: Paying down my porn bills. If you don't, you can just go to Hell.
Happy Thanksgiving,
J. Richard Singleton
November 14, 2015
Jennifer Lawrence is now a 12 on the Pretentious Scale (She's like the female Lena Dunham.)
Recently Jennifer Lawrence has been taking the ole of fem-warrior, criticizing the patriarchy for the wage gap between the genders, relating how she ended up getting paid less than her three male costars for the 2013 film American Hustle. Like the previous hack of personal photos from her cloud account, Lawrence first blamed herself, then she blamed society for her decisions. This is what she does. She is careful not to accuse anyone or the studio itself. She squarely blames men. Unlike accusing the lonely men of the internet of being sex criminals, she makes a perfectly reasonable point: The "bitch" conceit. So many of us were raised to believe that women should apply a soft power throughout their lives. Of course, sometimes a bitch is just a bitch. Women want to be both assertive and liked. That's not doable. Men better understand that than women.
In last year's hack of Sony, it was revealed that Lawrence was paid less than any of her male costars. Understandably, at first, she things it's because she's a woman. (It's a bit strange that Lawrence never broached the subject of pay with her good friend Bradley Cooper, but whatever. Let's assume that she's being totally honest.)
When you work on a movie set, you learn your place quickly. The crew get to eat before the background actors. There might even be separate dining areas for crew and background. There's almost always special perks in being crew--like shaved ice, or a catering truck specifically marked "crew only." Just as movie stars don't have to deal with crew, the crew can alienate these temp workers. (Oh, and you movie stars have no idea who these background actors are. What's my name? Can Jennifer Lawrence name anyone who has ever worked on her movies who doesn't have an end credit?) Like plants, background actors have died because they weren't given enough water and shade. They're told to "stay here," and a lot do. It's just a matter of professionalism.
Background actors are paid nine dollars an hour to be in a movie briefly. They have no lines to memorize, and they're performing the most rudimentary of actions. Making Adam Smith proud, Hollywood liberals pay people as little as these folks will accept to do the job. Not really society's fault that you're being paid to stand there. You made your own choices.
Katherine Heigl was supposed to be a movie star--remember that? She came off Knocked Up and an Emmy for Gray's Anatomy and she pulled a Caruso. Eventually she was publically outed as "overpaid." I'm not accusing Lawrence of being another Heigl; Lawrence's movies clearly make money, and her work is clearly more diverse than bland romantic comedies where she plays the exact same character. My point is that no one can see the future, and when you have a slim track record, there's no crystal ball to predict one's career trajectory. Also there's no real logic behind how actors are paid, and it can take a column in a national magazine for the suits to realize that an actor is actually terrible, and has been terrible for a very long time.
Jeremy Renner, of the main cast, had the most in common with Lawrence: Relatively new to the world of blockbusters, with just a handful of cameos under his belt--but with critical acclaim for one or two roles. Failed series--just like Lawrence. He was famous for The Hurt Locker, and that's just about it. Meanwhile, Renner had the best response to the controversy: Not my problem. It is not Renner's problem that Lawrence did not get the best possible deal that she theoretically could've. Renner doesn't hate women. It's just that if a woman can't stand on her feet, does she deserve to stand? Plus being a movie star is fuckin' cool. Renner knows how perilous stardom can be, having been such a late-comer to the fame game, and he doesn't want to rock the boat. (In the 1950s, he might've named names--we don't know.)
Christian Bale had been acting since before Lawrence was born; he was in Newsies, when it was a terrible kids' movie and not a terrible Broadway production. Bale has the most awards for his acting. Cooper has a masters' degree in theater. Lawrence never went to college, and a few years prior to Hustle, she played "Mascot" on an episode of Monk. (Remember Monk? It was on USA... It ran for like eight seasons!) If you count minute by minute, Lawrence was probably in the movie the least, so she was paid the least--she was a supporting character, not the main character. Bale is objectively better. Her complaints about gender discrimination highlight another harsh reality: In showbusiness, experience is more often secondary to youth and beauty. Bale and Copper were peaking--nowhere for them to go but the Brando route: get fat and refuse to remember your lines. Lawrence is upset that as the next big thing, she wasn't compensated accordingly; and if she hadn't grown in prominence, she probably wouldn't be complaining at all, and we certainly wouldn't care.
My problem with feminism is when the feminists lie, including using misleading statistics. This can also be seen in the pronouncement that women make 80 cents on the dollar that men makes--or that for every dollar that a woman makes, a man gets a blowjob. (Speaking as a man, where the fuck is my "male privilege"? Jennifer Lawrence is a fuckin' millionaire!) Women have children. In having children, they must take time for from work, which interrupts their career paths. To find fairness, you would have to compare the career paths of a childless woman with that of a childless man. Then--and only then--would we know if the woman was underpaid.
Despite being "underpaid" in the last movie that she did with David O. Russell, she will be appearing in his next film, Joy. She will also be paid 50% more than Chris Pratt (who's now a hot young thing) to star in Passengers.
So even if Lawrence were a man, he would be acting like a bitch.
In last year's hack of Sony, it was revealed that Lawrence was paid less than any of her male costars. Understandably, at first, she things it's because she's a woman. (It's a bit strange that Lawrence never broached the subject of pay with her good friend Bradley Cooper, but whatever. Let's assume that she's being totally honest.)
When you work on a movie set, you learn your place quickly. The crew get to eat before the background actors. There might even be separate dining areas for crew and background. There's almost always special perks in being crew--like shaved ice, or a catering truck specifically marked "crew only." Just as movie stars don't have to deal with crew, the crew can alienate these temp workers. (Oh, and you movie stars have no idea who these background actors are. What's my name? Can Jennifer Lawrence name anyone who has ever worked on her movies who doesn't have an end credit?) Like plants, background actors have died because they weren't given enough water and shade. They're told to "stay here," and a lot do. It's just a matter of professionalism.
Background actors are paid nine dollars an hour to be in a movie briefly. They have no lines to memorize, and they're performing the most rudimentary of actions. Making Adam Smith proud, Hollywood liberals pay people as little as these folks will accept to do the job. Not really society's fault that you're being paid to stand there. You made your own choices.
Katherine Heigl was supposed to be a movie star--remember that? She came off Knocked Up and an Emmy for Gray's Anatomy and she pulled a Caruso. Eventually she was publically outed as "overpaid." I'm not accusing Lawrence of being another Heigl; Lawrence's movies clearly make money, and her work is clearly more diverse than bland romantic comedies where she plays the exact same character. My point is that no one can see the future, and when you have a slim track record, there's no crystal ball to predict one's career trajectory. Also there's no real logic behind how actors are paid, and it can take a column in a national magazine for the suits to realize that an actor is actually terrible, and has been terrible for a very long time.
Jeremy Renner, of the main cast, had the most in common with Lawrence: Relatively new to the world of blockbusters, with just a handful of cameos under his belt--but with critical acclaim for one or two roles. Failed series--just like Lawrence. He was famous for The Hurt Locker, and that's just about it. Meanwhile, Renner had the best response to the controversy: Not my problem. It is not Renner's problem that Lawrence did not get the best possible deal that she theoretically could've. Renner doesn't hate women. It's just that if a woman can't stand on her feet, does she deserve to stand? Plus being a movie star is fuckin' cool. Renner knows how perilous stardom can be, having been such a late-comer to the fame game, and he doesn't want to rock the boat. (In the 1950s, he might've named names--we don't know.)
Christian Bale had been acting since before Lawrence was born; he was in Newsies, when it was a terrible kids' movie and not a terrible Broadway production. Bale has the most awards for his acting. Cooper has a masters' degree in theater. Lawrence never went to college, and a few years prior to Hustle, she played "Mascot" on an episode of Monk. (Remember Monk? It was on USA... It ran for like eight seasons!) If you count minute by minute, Lawrence was probably in the movie the least, so she was paid the least--she was a supporting character, not the main character. Bale is objectively better. Her complaints about gender discrimination highlight another harsh reality: In showbusiness, experience is more often secondary to youth and beauty. Bale and Copper were peaking--nowhere for them to go but the Brando route: get fat and refuse to remember your lines. Lawrence is upset that as the next big thing, she wasn't compensated accordingly; and if she hadn't grown in prominence, she probably wouldn't be complaining at all, and we certainly wouldn't care.
My problem with feminism is when the feminists lie, including using misleading statistics. This can also be seen in the pronouncement that women make 80 cents on the dollar that men makes--or that for every dollar that a woman makes, a man gets a blowjob. (Speaking as a man, where the fuck is my "male privilege"? Jennifer Lawrence is a fuckin' millionaire!) Women have children. In having children, they must take time for from work, which interrupts their career paths. To find fairness, you would have to compare the career paths of a childless woman with that of a childless man. Then--and only then--would we know if the woman was underpaid.
Despite being "underpaid" in the last movie that she did with David O. Russell, she will be appearing in his next film, Joy. She will also be paid 50% more than Chris Pratt (who's now a hot young thing) to star in Passengers.
So even if Lawrence were a man, he would be acting like a bitch.
October 21, 2015
Sage advice on Back to the Future Day.
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Jennifer Parker: Dr. Brown, I brought this note back from the future and - now it's erased.
Doc: Of course it's erased!
Jennifer Parker: But what does that mean?
Doc: It means your future hasn't been written yet. No one's has. Your future is whatever you make it. So make it a good one, both of you.
Jennifer Parker: Dr. Brown, I brought this note back from the future and - now it's erased.
Doc: Of course it's erased!
Jennifer Parker: But what does that mean?
Doc: It means your future hasn't been written yet. No one's has. Your future is whatever you make it. So make it a good one, both of you.
September 19, 2015
I will stand with Ahmed Mohamed...as long as it's not really a bomb, I mean.
I am reminded of one of the earliest episodes of the American-version of The Office, where Michael Scott see a Sikh IT guy in the parking lot of Dunder Mifflin, heading for the building, and immediately freaks out because...terrorists!
It was in a pencil case, wasn't it? If it were attached to a propane tank or a pressure cooker, this would make a lot more sense to confuse it with a bomb. (Propane tanks routinely explode. I saw that in movies.) Expel the kid. If it were an airport, detain that whole family. In an airport, it is not the appropriate place to bring your mystery electronics.
This Ahmed fellow isn't even a particularly intimidating kid, so you can't Michael Brown him. The boy is about 90 pounds soaking wet. He has no history of anti-Americanism or any apparent disciplinary problems. Respectfully, the bespeckled guy is clearly a nerd of some kind. He did not ask for trouble; trouble came to him. Because he was an Arab, so many Texans thought "bomb," not "science project."
Plus since it was Texas, any idiot could buy or steal a firearm, and kill considerably more people than a bomb. Texas has more guns and more murder than just about any other state in the union. There is no connection. It's a total mystery why Texas has so many murders and so many legal gunowners. Have we checked the water?
Those who are attempting to ignore the racism and deprive Muslims of appearing discriminated against, point out the numerous cases where kids have gotten in trouble for pointing objects at people as if they were guns and gotten suspended/expelled. However, pointing a chicken finger at someone and saying "bang," does constitute a death threat. However, nearly all the other cases involved students with a history of disciplinary problems. However, very few were cuffed--these cases were handled administratively. Ahmed literally did not encourage people to believe this was a bomb. This was not a bomb-effigy. People saw an Arab kid with a clock and assumed he was up to no good. This is Trayvon Martin standing on a street, not threatening anyone. Rather than blaming a hoodie, they're blaming the clock.
Some of you are trying to blame CAIR for this. Americans can't possibly be this stupid, so many conservatives feel. Rightwing Americans are really geniuses, and this was a scheme of the Muslims to make Americans look foolish. Well, if this were a CAIR test, Americans failed. Americans now look exactly as racist as Muslim extremists say we are. CAIR, for all its faults, is not responsible for your stupidity, no.
When shit like this happens, the terrorists have won. They did not turn anyone into a Muslim, but they showed the world how ass-backwards non-Muslims can be. Like the Iraq war, civilized Christian men are just not too smart. We start with a biased view, then we work backwards to prove our bias. This is the ultimate stupidity because it does not aspire for betterment.
Now conservatives are enraged that Obama is inviting the boy to the White House--never mind that Obama is now trying to smooth things over, which would benefit all of us. Americans are not racist, and we don't hate Muslims. (Yeah, we kinda are--and we kinda do--but that's not good politics.) So, shut up, conservatives. We can't ignore racism and hope it goes away. Racism would still there; we would just be ignoring it.
Bristol Palin tweeted a snarky joke regarding this incident and Obama's attempt to cover-up the damage done by the state of Texas. Bristol Palin. As if a poorly designed science project were the worst mistake a teen could make. (To clarify, Bristol Palin has two illegitimate children with two different men and she's under 25--talkin' about that.) If anything Ahmed was trying to do the right thing, and Bristol has probably done a lot of wrong things. Plus Bristol is too damn old to be fighting with high schoolers. Her time has come and gone.
It was in a pencil case, wasn't it? If it were attached to a propane tank or a pressure cooker, this would make a lot more sense to confuse it with a bomb. (Propane tanks routinely explode. I saw that in movies.) Expel the kid. If it were an airport, detain that whole family. In an airport, it is not the appropriate place to bring your mystery electronics.
This Ahmed fellow isn't even a particularly intimidating kid, so you can't Michael Brown him. The boy is about 90 pounds soaking wet. He has no history of anti-Americanism or any apparent disciplinary problems. Respectfully, the bespeckled guy is clearly a nerd of some kind. He did not ask for trouble; trouble came to him. Because he was an Arab, so many Texans thought "bomb," not "science project."
Plus since it was Texas, any idiot could buy or steal a firearm, and kill considerably more people than a bomb. Texas has more guns and more murder than just about any other state in the union. There is no connection. It's a total mystery why Texas has so many murders and so many legal gunowners. Have we checked the water?
Those who are attempting to ignore the racism and deprive Muslims of appearing discriminated against, point out the numerous cases where kids have gotten in trouble for pointing objects at people as if they were guns and gotten suspended/expelled. However, pointing a chicken finger at someone and saying "bang," does constitute a death threat. However, nearly all the other cases involved students with a history of disciplinary problems. However, very few were cuffed--these cases were handled administratively. Ahmed literally did not encourage people to believe this was a bomb. This was not a bomb-effigy. People saw an Arab kid with a clock and assumed he was up to no good. This is Trayvon Martin standing on a street, not threatening anyone. Rather than blaming a hoodie, they're blaming the clock.
Some of you are trying to blame CAIR for this. Americans can't possibly be this stupid, so many conservatives feel. Rightwing Americans are really geniuses, and this was a scheme of the Muslims to make Americans look foolish. Well, if this were a CAIR test, Americans failed. Americans now look exactly as racist as Muslim extremists say we are. CAIR, for all its faults, is not responsible for your stupidity, no.
When shit like this happens, the terrorists have won. They did not turn anyone into a Muslim, but they showed the world how ass-backwards non-Muslims can be. Like the Iraq war, civilized Christian men are just not too smart. We start with a biased view, then we work backwards to prove our bias. This is the ultimate stupidity because it does not aspire for betterment.
Now conservatives are enraged that Obama is inviting the boy to the White House--never mind that Obama is now trying to smooth things over, which would benefit all of us. Americans are not racist, and we don't hate Muslims. (Yeah, we kinda are--and we kinda do--but that's not good politics.) So, shut up, conservatives. We can't ignore racism and hope it goes away. Racism would still there; we would just be ignoring it.
Bristol Palin tweeted a snarky joke regarding this incident and Obama's attempt to cover-up the damage done by the state of Texas. Bristol Palin. As if a poorly designed science project were the worst mistake a teen could make. (To clarify, Bristol Palin has two illegitimate children with two different men and she's under 25--talkin' about that.) If anything Ahmed was trying to do the right thing, and Bristol has probably done a lot of wrong things. Plus Bristol is too damn old to be fighting with high schoolers. Her time has come and gone.
August 18, 2015
An Open Letter to Amazon...
Dear Amazon,
I began selling my surplus equipment through your company in 2011. Originally it was smooth sailing. However the first hiccup occurred in spring of 2011, when someone claimed that they never received a DVD boxset in the mail that I clearly remembered sending him. This guy claimed that he never received his boxset, and so he filed an A-Z Guarantee with your company. I naively assumed you would support your ally, since at this point I had given you hundreds in inflated seller fees. No, you honored his request for a refund. I chalked this up to a lesson learned. I had done something wrong, by not adding optional tracking, and I should be more careful in the future.
In early December, another claim was filed against my company--this time for a fairly expensive video game, which I obtained tracking confirmation to prevent any fraud from you or your customers. This was a $60 game. I provided your company and the customer with tracking information. The customer announced that since I couldn't prove that he actually received the item--since I wasn't physically in his house, across the country, and document that he received the video game--he was entitled to a refund. At this point, I felt that it was a slamdunk on my behalf; no one could possibly be so stupid as to support this guy. You provided him with a refund, and I was out $60.
After my father died on Christmas 2011, you froze my company's assets, so I couldn't get the money that I needed to pay my creditors. I couldn't access my funds for three months. By which time, zero funds were removed because I didn't--nor have I ever--commit any fraud. YOU committed fraud. You can pay off the Better Business Bureau, and you can pay off whomever you damn well please. But I will never stop reporting what a truly terrible company you are.
Your company's current troubles has nothing to do with my dealings with you, I know. Still, this is an example of how your company has now exceeded even Wal-Mart in sheer evilness.
Suck a bag of dicks, Amazon. Suck an entire bag of dicks.
I began selling my surplus equipment through your company in 2011. Originally it was smooth sailing. However the first hiccup occurred in spring of 2011, when someone claimed that they never received a DVD boxset in the mail that I clearly remembered sending him. This guy claimed that he never received his boxset, and so he filed an A-Z Guarantee with your company. I naively assumed you would support your ally, since at this point I had given you hundreds in inflated seller fees. No, you honored his request for a refund. I chalked this up to a lesson learned. I had done something wrong, by not adding optional tracking, and I should be more careful in the future.
In early December, another claim was filed against my company--this time for a fairly expensive video game, which I obtained tracking confirmation to prevent any fraud from you or your customers. This was a $60 game. I provided your company and the customer with tracking information. The customer announced that since I couldn't prove that he actually received the item--since I wasn't physically in his house, across the country, and document that he received the video game--he was entitled to a refund. At this point, I felt that it was a slamdunk on my behalf; no one could possibly be so stupid as to support this guy. You provided him with a refund, and I was out $60.
After my father died on Christmas 2011, you froze my company's assets, so I couldn't get the money that I needed to pay my creditors. I couldn't access my funds for three months. By which time, zero funds were removed because I didn't--nor have I ever--commit any fraud. YOU committed fraud. You can pay off the Better Business Bureau, and you can pay off whomever you damn well please. But I will never stop reporting what a truly terrible company you are.
Your company's current troubles has nothing to do with my dealings with you, I know. Still, this is an example of how your company has now exceeded even Wal-Mart in sheer evilness.
Suck a bag of dicks, Amazon. Suck an entire bag of dicks.
