I am completely unsurprised that when Peter Maas first meets Pax, Salam is sitting in a hotel lobby reading Dick's _The Man in the High Castle_. That just fits, somehow.
-David
You need to find out exactly what Speakeasy is claiming. Their TOS says that they will charge you the $199 fees for repairs to "user modified" or non-Speakeasy provided equipment.
There is also a catch-all bit in the TOS along the lines of "Other charges may apply at vendor discretion". But if they are claiming this is vendor discretion, they would almost certainly needed to have mentioned these charges in advance. Otherwise what is to stop them from (for example) coming out to make minor repairs and then billing you for $2,000? Hey, it's "vendor discretion", right?
So find out if they're claiming you modified their equipment or that the router isn't "Speakeasy provided". If they charged you $199 for it, did you get to keep it? If not, what was the $199 for?
In the alternative case, I can't imagine they can tack on charges at "vendor discretion" without getting your approval before-hand!
Once you know what provision of the TOS they are charging you under, threaten to contact the BBB. Do so. Threaten to sue if that doesn't accomplish anything. If you aren't willing to sue, you may have to pay up to avoid having your credit bashed.
Would contacting Covad rather than Speakeasy be useful?
-David
Oh, it's quite simple. It's "#CCFF99".
Problem solved.
(Why, yes, I do spend too much time on computers)
I'm fairly sure you are missing the point, yehudit.
The word "Israel" seems to be even more of a conversation killer than "Hitler" these days. Perhaps Godwin needs to update his law.
Hah! Yeah, that's definitely not an M-16. When the caption said she was from "Plymouth", I automatically pegged her as being from Massachusetts. Oooops.
I never thought I'd see the day when my first impression of a picture depicting an American soldier on patrol in full combat gear, with weapon, is: "Wow, she's cute".
Cognitive dissonance.
But seriously, I thought women were still barred from ground combat duties? How is being "on patrol" in Baghdad not front-line combat duty? If women are walking patrols in combat zones, what exactly are they *not* allowed to do?
Yes!!! Good catch, Jon! That's *exactly* what he said!
Just like Al Gore inventing the internet!
Do you even read the comments before you post, Plig? The statement that US forces have killed more Brits than Iraqi forces is a lie. L-i-e. Gaiman may simply be mistaken, but repeating it after I've alreadly pointed out the error is "lying".
The only way you can get there is by including the 8 Brits who died in a helicopter crash where the pilot happened to be an American. And anyone including that in "friendly fire" deaths is blatantly twisting the facts to fit an agenda.
I failed to include a rather important point in my first post. Which is to say that, so far as I can tell, the claim that the US has killed more British soldiers than the Iraqis have is (not to put too fine a point on it) bullshit.
As in... it is a false statement. It is made up. It is not true. And so on.
3 British soldiers have been killed by American "friendly" fire. At least 4 have been killed in combat by Iraq. I stopped counting at 4 because it was depressing, but even 4 makes the statement an untruth.
That's true. It's also true that the British have killed more British troops than the Iraqis have. Neither is OK, of course, but why single out the US?
Once again, we have proof that people on all sides of an issue can be jackasses.
Suffering isn't something you put on a scale to see who "wins".
Well, yeah. It wasn't Henry V at Agincourt. Or even Bill Pullman in Independence Day. But neither did Bush completely embarrass himself and drool on camera or anything.
Nobody's mind will have been changed one way or the other.
Lucky for us that the war will be run by General Wesley Clark and none of the people listed, then, isn't it?
Now, losing the peace afterwards I could buy...
Perhaps you missed that it was, in fact, the Pakistanis who first released the information that Mohammed had been captured? US authorities were by all accounts very upset that the information was released so quickly. They wanted some time to roll up al Qaeda operations.
Possible reasons why some members of Pakistani intelligence may have released the information so early are left as an exercise for the reader.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2003 | 15 |
Total: 15 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by David Bilek:
Show all comments by David Bilek.