When cell phones started to encroach on the mainstream--that is *after* they became less of a brick size/weight object--I was working for a company that 'gave' me one.

So the company paid for it and took care of all the bills incurred by me. However, the phone was still 'company property'.

At one point, I had talked to my then boss and had the cell phone transferred to me. The way I figured, at that time I was using the cell more than a regular phone for calling friends and family, so I was just going to cancel my home phone and just use the cell full time. Financially it was slightly more expensive, but the convenience far outweighed that bit.

So during my daily travels I had my cell phone. Any work related calling charges were submitted to my company for reimbursement, and everyone was happy.

Due to previous incidents in my life, I've learned to keep all records, bills, receipts and correspondence filed away for whatever may arise.

Well, arisen happened.

It went as thus--

The cellphone was officially mine. No worries about that.

I had the cell for a few years and paid all bills promptly and without delay.

I kept all records for those years in a nicely organized folder (well, not really--just a box full of receipts) and stored 'em for record keeping purposes (whatever they may be).

When I started at my current company, my new boss gave me a company cell phone.

Unfortunately, due to company policy, I was unable to use my personal one for work related purposes.

Whatever--a phone is a phone.

So I cancelled my personal cell phone--wasn't going to walk around the world with two phones on my hip.

When I cancelled my phone service, I got a nice refund cheque (for I was in the habit of paying ahead sometimes). I also received a nice letter stating that the company enjoyed my business and that I should keep 'em in mind for any future needs.

Perfect. All wrapped up with a tiny financial bonus.

Leap ahead 3-5 years.

I received a letter in a mail from a 'barrister and solicitor' that went--

"Dear Mr. Koudys, you owe (insert phone company here) a bunch of money for unpaid bills..."

Excuse me?

K, since this happened to me (and I have documented proof thereof), I'll start using real company names--

My cell phone was billed thru ClearNet at the time.

The letter from Mr. Lawyer/Barrister/Solicitor/Waste-my-time Guy stated that I owed Telus money.

Telus?

I've never had any service from Telus--phone or otherwise.

So I called Mr. Lawyer guy. After trying to get him on the phone for about a week and leaving messages, he got back to me.

He promptly admonished me for not paying my bills, and that I should 'fess up and just pay the triple digits owed.

I told him that in no uncertain terms was I ever going to pay a thing for I never had any dealings with Telus.

He was adamant and stated that he'd see me in court, at which point I'd incur all court fees as well.

I hung up the phone and called Telus directly.

Again, after a week of phone calls and leaving messages and trying to track down the right person who could actually help me, I found out this tidbit of information--Telus had purchased the ClearNet company and was 'cleaning up' their records. During that process, as I was informed, Telus noted that I still owed money.

I informed the lady on the phone that I did not owe ClearNet anything when I was done with them.

She searched the computer records and stated that my last payment was on such-n-such a date and that I still had used the phone after that time--that's the monies I owed.

I asked the lady to send me the final bill she had on record and that I'd compare it to my files. She was shocked that I'd ask for such a thing--I mean, didn't I believe Telus??

So she faxed me the copy of the bill, and I went digging thru my files.

Turns out that the last bill in her computer was 3 months before I cancelled my phone, and I had 3 more bills after that--as well as the final statement plus refunded money note.

So I called her up after organizing all the paperwork.

She started with "When are you sending the money you owe?"

Well, I laid out the 3 months of bills after the one she sent me which all showed payments made. I further informed her as to the refunded money to me from ClearNet.

She was a little shocked that I had kept the paperwork that long.

"We don't have those bills on our record," she informed me, "But I noticed just now that we do have a note here that you received money from ClearNet 3 months after our last recorded bill.

So I asked her a quite obvious question--"Do you think that ClearNet would have sent me a cheque if I still owed them money?"

"I'm just going by what the computer says!" she was a little offended (again--sometimes I have that affect on people)

So I thought we could wrap this up--"Please inform your barrister to take me off of any court dates."

"Oh, there wasn't any court date scheduled yet--that's just to persuade people to pay up before it gets to that point."

She also wanted me to fax over my records. What--didn't she believe me??

Whatever. Sent her the docs just to get this thing off my plate.

I also found out thru my various conversations with people at Telus that the records from ClearNet weren't complete and that when Telus 'took over', there were lots of discrepancies. But blame the customer first! Don't think that missing or incomplete records may be the reason why the 'puter says there was money owing. Brilliant on the part of Telus--Not.

I did call the lawyer after a few days to make sure that Telus forwarded him the information that I really didn't owe any money. I didn't get an apology for his rude behaviour, but I wasn't expecting one, either. I also had Telus draft a letter stating that all bills were paid up and that I owed nothing to their company. This was purely a CYA move that I hated doing but if these companies are going to play the game like this, then I'll just play along.

So after that was done, it was all done.

The thing of it is, had I not kept those records, I'd be sending a cheque to Telus for money I had already paid.

I was wondering how many other people were in the same boat? How many others received letters from lawyers and such to pay bills that they already paid? Since it wasn't alotta money, most of them probably just paid it. If they didn't keep their records, they'd be cutting cheques just to avoid the court challenges.

Eh, it's just another example of lessons learned.

Last Sunday Sandy and I were out to dinner with very good friends of ours.

During the course of dinner conversation, I was trying to make a point--extremely poorly, I might add--to my good friend Craig that, after 20is years of adulthood, I didn't expect to find a 'new' friend as wonderful and fantastic as the one I found in him.

See, if you keep it simple and straight forward, the point you're trying to make gets out there.

Done.

I'll be the first to state publicly and without equivocation that I've personally been the direct cause--thru my actions or my inactions--of many of the 'misfortunes' in my life--more than all other factors combined.

And sometimes I embellish these misfortunes--these unfortunate incidents--such that the resulting 'story' takes the focus away from my actions and puts causation elsewhere.

These stories often make great camping tales for my friends to listen to, and they love correcting me by reminding of my actions that directly lead to the unsurprising and totally predictable--but extremely entertaining--result.

I shan't be edifying you, the reading populace, with one such story.

I will, however, put out here one of the 'Dave's Happenings' that--thru hindsight--could have been handled better all around.

To start, I once was looking for a place to stay. Friends of mine happened to be the superintendents of an apartment building and kinda bumped me to the top of their list so when an apartment came available, I moved in.

It was a nice apartment--2 bedroom and such (and plenty of room for my quite large (so I thought at the time) LEGO collection).

600 bones a month.

Not unreasonable for over a decade ago.

And I lived there for quite some time.

The situation unfolded as thus--

My friends retired from being the supers.

A new Super was hired.

Months later I had a line on another dwelling that was better suited for my needs. Since this new place was available immediately, I decided to move immediately.

Now legally I need to give 2 months notice. I fully understand that.

But (and there's always a 'but) this is what happened--

On the first of whatever month, I 'gave notice' the Super. Since I paid 'first and last' when I moved in, legally I would still owe for one month of rent--to make up for 'this' month--my 'first and last' paid the second month.

That clear? 'Cause it's kind of important--I gave notice--therefore I'm obligated to cover exactly 2 months of rent after that point. Since I already paid for my 'last' month when I moved in, I only owed for one of those months.

The Super didn't take a cheque yet because he was going to see if he could rent it. See, if there's a new tenant in the apartment *before* that second month, then I'm free and clear--I won't owe a month of rent 'cause there's someone else in the apartment paying for that month.

Perfect! I would save 600 bones!

Now this is where it becomes a 'he said/he said' thing.

When I called the Super a while later, he told me that 'new' people were taking over the apartment and I didn't have to cover the rent for the month.

Done deal.

Until, that is, I got a phone call from the Property Management for the apartment building weeks later.

"You still owe us a month of rent."

"Um, no. Worked it out with the Super."

"Well, the super says you gave notice yet didn't pay up for the last month."

"That's 'cause the Super told me he rented it out--why would I have to pay if you already have a tenant in there for that month?"

"Our records show... blah blah blah..."

When I called the Super, he didn't recall our earlier conversation. Further, he told me that no one lived in the apartment for 2 months after I left and that I owed for that.

Huh?

So threats of legal action ensued from the property management company, and to get this off my plate I ended up cutting a cheque for that missing month and everyone lived happily ever after.

Well, not me 'cause even after all these years I still think about it and it still makes me a little mad. First I hate when someone lays out the 'I'll send lawyers after you/see you in court' card. I mean seriously--what in Gods green earth is that going to accomplish besides making lawyers richer?

Secondly, someone lied here. I'm out 600 bones because someone screwed the system and me along with it.

So after ruminating over it for these many years (k, not all the time, but it has frequented my mind every so often), this is what I should have done.

First--yes I was legally responsible for the two months and should have just paid up front the last month owing. Of course, this doesn’t take into account the fact that someone who wasn't me was living in an apartment that I paid for.

Secondly, taking this Super at his word was a huge mistake--get it in writing (as Mike Holmes always says).

thirdly, what I really should have done--and this is my biggest regret--was set up some sort of 'sting' operation. I mean, I don't know who, but someone got an extra 600 dollars in all this 'cause the apartment was paid for twice for a month.

So I'd get me and a buddy, see...

We'd set up some sort of hidden camera apparatii thingy...

We'd go up to my old apartment after the 'new guys' were in it but before my two months were up, and knock on the door.

"Excuse me--this may seem like a weird question but I'm setting up my watch here and I don't have a clue what day it is--can you tell me the date today?"

After I got the new tenants stating the date, I'd turn the camera on me and say, "Hey Property Management! Look! New tenants. New tenants during the month that I supposedly owed for!! Look to the Super to explain that one 'cause as I've stated, I moved out and the Super stated to me that he rented it again and that I didn't owe for the last month! Put a sock in all your legal proceedings!!"

And then mail a copy of that tape to the Super and a copy to the Property Management company.

That's what I would have liked to have done.

But I didn't 'cause I took someone at his word and I trusted someone who was obviously not very trustworthy.

Well, at least that particular lesson only put me out 600 dollars—other lessons set me back much more.

There are a few of these incidents that I'd like a 'do-over'. Unfortunately, life, unlike a video game, doesn't have a reset button.

The lesson to remember in all this is to do your best the first time around 'cause you won't get another chance at it.

We were all having a hoot-'n-anny at our friends place--y'know, ripping out walls, reinsulating and rewiring and stuff and the conversation--as it most often does--turns to our favourite pasttimes...

Which is to say, the Telly, the Video, and the 'Puter Games...

So we started with the new Bionic Woman.

"Yeah, Starbuck's in it--whazzername? Katie something..."

"Didya see that scene in the house where the television was showing the best part of season 3 when the Pegasus takes out 2 base stars??? I love it when television does things like that..."

We also talked about how we can't believe that Lindsay Wagner hasn't made any sort of cameo appearance yet! Grr!!!

And the conversation went on to how dumb Fox was to cancel Firefly (when in a conversation lull around us, just bring up Firefly and you'll be set) and that there's hardly anything else worth watching these days on the idiot box.

We then talked about the possibilities of season 4 of BSG and do they find earth.

After that, the conversations veered to video games and our love for al things Blizzard and how StarCraft II'll be fantastic.

Of course, when we speak of video games, we have to talk about the wonder that is the internet and how you can get whatever you want on it. Like how I've been watching television shows streaming across my 'puter screen ('cause the internet is the best invention for time wastage in the history of humanity--but I do love it so). I mean, it's more than just downloading your favourite songs--now you can watch whateve you want! Without waiting!

So between talking about our favourite DVD's, video games, the internets and television shows, our conversations kept us going whilst redoing a living room from the studs out for a few hours.

Then the question--

"What did we ever do before cable, before computers, before the internet?"

"Oh, probably sat in our living room watching Bionic Woman..."

Sandy and I rented 'Rocky Balboa' the other day. When we were in line, the guy behind the counter stated that the movie was 'surprisingly good!'.

I'm not going to slag Stallone for perceived missteps in his acting career. I've liked (most of) the Rocky films thus far so why not this one?

Well, both Sandy and I agreed after watching the flick that the movie was, indeed, surprisingly good.

Written, directed and starring Sly, though, it shouldn't have been surprising. 'Cause if you think about it, the original Rocky movie from 1976 (that won 3 Oscars, btw) was also written and directed by Sly.

My dad's always on a rant about how movies 'these days' need swearing and gratuitous sex. Well, Rocky Balboa had none of that at all. K, that bit was a little surprising--not one vulgar word in the whole movie.

Violence? Hey--it's a boxing movie.

Beyond those points to make Papa happy, however, was the 'Life Lessons' from Rocky.

Here's one--

That one quotation states nothing new that we haven't heard before. Yet it states what we already know in very plain terms--you have to get back up after life knocks you down--that's the living bit. Don't go blaming others because you're down. Someone else may have knocked you down, but if you don't get up--that's entirely your fault.

Combining this with the exchange bwtween the coach and the current champ--

Don't go looking for your sense of worth from others--it's only self-respect that truly matters.

Rocky reinforced that idea when he was denied the right to fight by the league--

Why would you let anyone else define what you're worth? Who has the right to tell you who you are? No one else but you.

All in all, a wonderful movie that was fun to watch.

And hey--if you're not careful--you just might learn a thing or two.

I read many, many bloggers.

One that helped me understand MMP better is Andrew Coyne. I read this entry of his today--Electoral reform will rise again--after I wrote my little discertation on MMP and the percentage factor.

Unfortunately, Andrew's idea here--

is exactly why I wrote my last blog.

One cannot directly compare the 42 percent that the Liberals got and the 37 percent that MMP received and say that "boy, it certainly does suck that one's a decisive victory and the other is 'a pasting' yet there's only a few percentage points between the two!"

It's still apples and oranges.

But here's where the 'framing of the problem' comes in--

Andrew reduces the provincial election to "In the race between Dalton and Not Dalton, the Dalton party suffered a decisive defeat".

The reason Andrew does this is to keep his 'talking point' of the MMP vote vs the Liberal vote going. If you negate the idea that 42% (liberal vote) and 37% (MMP vote) are similar, then his whole arguement is thrown out.

Andrew, that arguement has to be thrown out--the 42 percent the Liberals got is a victory because 'the next guy' got 32% and the guy after that got 17%. That's a win in anyones books. It's absurd to state that he 'suffered a decisive defeat' because 68 percent of the voters voted against him. If that were the case, almost every municipal, provincial and federal election in the history of Canada would have been a 'decisive defeat' for the party that won.

Those people in the 32% and the 17% didn't vote the way they did to make the point of 'Not Dalton', they voted for the guy they wanted.

Is akin to looking at a table with apples, oranges, bananas and grapes. I go for the apples 'cause I like apples--not 'cause I hate the others.

And if 42 percent of the people grab a banana, and I'm in the 32 percent group that grabbed an apple, it doesn't mean we took the apple because we hate banannas, it's, again, 'cause we like apples.

Multi-party elections are never just about those who like the guy (or party) in charge vs those that don't like the guy (or party) in charge. To maintain this charade is beneath you.

I'll give you some numbers that you can actually make points about--42% equals 66%. If there's an inherent injustice in the system, there it is. That should be your arguement for MMP--not that 37% and 42% are very close (because, as stated, those numbers aren't comparable the way Andrew wants), but that 42% and 66% are so far disjoined from what the voters voted for.

And then there's the 8% equals 0%--Greens got the votes but not 1 seat. How's that representing anything close to what the voters wanted.

Andrew, stop obfuscating and gerrymandering the numbers to make you point--there are enough real comparisons out there to do the same job.

I stated in a previous blog that this was a brilliant summation--

After mulling it over for the weekend, not so much with the brilliant summation.

'Cause here's the problem--

It's apples and oranges.

'Cause think about it--in the quotation above they infer that 42 is basically not that much bigger than 37, yet one is a 'massive victory' and one is a 'crushing defeat' but boy! Those numbers are almost the same!! The irony is thick as thieves!!!

Yet here's how those numbers came to be.

42 percent of voters voted for the Liberal party in Ontario a few days back.

You could then infer that 58 percent of the people *didn't* vote for the Liberal Party.

37 percent of the voters voted 'Yes' for MMP. Therefore 63 percent of the voters voted 'No'.

Similar numbers.

Maybe I got nothing and there really is irony in 42% being victorious and 37% being defeat.

Oh wait--the 42 was a win amongst 4 options--Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Green (and others but I like to keep the math simple--shouldn't change the point that much)

So--mathematically--if there are 4 political parties that you can vote for, a party can win if they get 25% + 1 vote if all the other parties got 25% - 1 vote.

I know it's kinda sad that a politcal party can be 'in charge' if they only get 25 percent + 1 of the vote. However, this really is how democracy works in a multi-party political system.

However, the MMP vote--2 options--'Yes' or 'No'. Not 4 (or more) options--just a straight 'up or down' vote.

In school, most test scores require at least a 60% to receive a passing grade. We get that 'cause most of us have been through it. MMP required a 60% yes vote to win (as well as 60% of the ridings voting yes, but again, let's keep it simple--adding complexity won't change the point).

Final 'test' Score for MMP? 37%. In any school system that's a failing grade (and a pretty big one at that).

For the Liberals to win, they needed 1 more vote than any other party. The second-place party (the Conservatives) got 32 percent of the votes--all the Liberals had to do was to get one more vote than the Conservatives 32 percent and they'd win. Which they did. In fact, they got 42 percent of the votes.

That's pretty much an unquestionable 'win'.

What would be a brilliant, yet blatantly obvious observation, is that the Liberals had 42 percent of the voters vote for them yet in our provincial legislature the Liberals have 66 percent of the seats.

As I, and many others, have been stating for a while now--that's not representative. Those numbers--42% equals 66%--is why our province needed MMP.

And that leads to the bigger picture--why only 37% of the people voted 'yes' for MMP.

Most people didn't know there was a referendum during this vote until a few weeks before the election and then when people did hear about MMP, what they heard was biased against it--"More politicians getting your tax dollars!", "Unrepresented MPP's in power!!!". Looking back on it now, it could have been scripted.

'Cause again let's think about it--in my lifetime, the parties in power in Ontario (besides a brief flirtation with Bob Rae and the NDP--a 'protest vote' against the 2 big parties... in my humble opinion) have been either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

Karnak the Magnificent--Name Two Political Parties that Do Not Want MMP!

Why?

Did you not see the '42% of the votes equals 66% of the seats'? That's the way it works in Ontario--a minority vote usually equates to a majority government. And since it's usually the Liberals and the Conservatives that get the minority win yet the majority government, why would they want MMP?

So as a matter of Party Principle, of course they're going to 'talk bad' about MMP. And since they're the ones that have the power--in legislature and, as some say, in the media--they'll do what they can to convince the Ontario voters that MMP is "The boogeyman!! Coming for your tax dollars without representin' you!!!" (soon to be released nationwide on 'Tel-O-Vision'!)

And that's exactly what happened. The political 'talking heads' on the telly and on the radio, though not outright stating that MMP was 'the devil!', were pointing out all the badness of MMP. Yet I didn't hear too much from 'the Mainstream' about the good bits of MMP *or* (and especially an important bit) the inherent wrongness of the First Past the Post system that we currently use for voting.

Where did I get a 'less biased' opinion on MMP vs FPTP? On blogs.

Blogs??? Less biased??? Well, in this instance, and on some blogs, yes.

And then I had to apply something that many people have apparently given up on--Discernment.

Yep--after getting all these various opinions and options and 'facts' from the various political pundits and bloggers, I had to discern what was right.

Not right for *a* political party, but what was right for the future of Ontario. Not just what was right for me, but what was right for my fellow citizens in this province.

And, given the two options of "First Past The Post" and "Mixed Member Proportional" voting systems, MMP wins (for me). 37 percent of my fellow voters agreed. 63 percent didn't.

MMP lost, but I'm okay with that.

As long as I don't start distorting the truth just to make me feel better about it. That's what the 'brilliant summation' did--42 percent in that particular instance was a massive victory and 37 percent really was a crushing defeat. The blogger, either knowingly or not, distorted that to make his point.

At least, that's the way I saw it.

From No Right Turn --

That about sums up my take for the last election.

For various reasons, our thoughts and hopes are with family and friends.

We're here if you need us.

So here's a breakdown—

From CBC.ca, I found this handy-dandy summary:

Nothing too surprising--keeping it status quo for Ontarians

But then we look a little more at that little chart on that page. Check out the 'Vote Share'--

Other numbers of interest--From the CBC.ca website again--Ontario voter turnout a record low--

4.4 million people voted last night out of a possible 8.4 million Ontario eligible voters. A turnout of 52.6 percent--the lowest in our provincial election history (which I won't go into at this time).

Something's not quite sitting right in a 'representative democracy' kinda way with those numbers.

42.19 percent of the voters that turned out voted for a Liberal candidate, yet now the Liberals have 66 percent of the seats in our Ontario legislature. Technically, that means that compared to people who voted for other parties, the people who voted liberal had their votes count 1.6 times more than the others. If our legislature is a 'representation' of what the voters wanted, then 2.9 million people must've voted for the Liberal party (66 percent of 4.4 million). But in fact, only 1.9 million people did (42.19 percent of 4.4 million).

And then we have the 'other end'--the Green Party. 352 thousand people voted Green (8.01 percent of 4.4 million) and yet didn't receive *any* representation in our legislature. These 352 thousand votes counted for *nothing*--not one seat--in our legislative make-up.

How is this representative?

When 1.9 million 'true' voters look like 2.9 million people in our legislature, and 352 thousand voters look like nothing, then democracy in Ontario isn't representing anything close to reality.

Trees

Not going to post much (again) but if you wanna see otters and fishies and scenic vistas, go here--Day 3 at Lake Placid

Now off to bed 'cause it's been a busy day.

Cute Couple

If you like that kinda scenic fall colour thing...

Quick blog but lotsa pics.

High Falls Gorge.

Water and rock always makes for a nice picture.

Good views.

Then a drive up White Face mountain.

Our destination at the top of the pretty big hill

Sandy with the world behind her.

The last 500 feet had to be climed.

It's a healthy walk.

We're on top of the world.

4800+ feet--nice walk

Nice view

There are plenty of pics here--Lake Placid Day 2

Sandy and I each had a camera so you get twice the amount of pics!

We'll see you tomorrow.