Captcha This, Bubba!

Too bad I can't make an obscene gesture here, but you get the idea.

I understand the purpose of the Captcha stuff. I just think it's a huge pain in the ass.

The other day I was posting a comment on one of my friends' MySpace. Now, I'm used to Captcha strings that are maybe five letters/digits long. This one pops up, and it's eight or nine letters/digits, AND they're so distorted that I couldn't make out all of them. I'm serious -- huge swoops and squiggles, letters overlapping, odd swipes and swirls added. I honestly couldn't make them out, but I tried my best.

Nope, got it wrong. Another Captcha string pops up, even worse than the first. Failed it, too.

The third one was a little better. There were only a two I couldn't figure out.

The fourth one I only missed one.

Come on! It's not like I'm passing on state secrets or banking codes or anything like that. It's a simple comment to my friend. It would have been, like, ten times easier to just send her an email.

Finally, after all these long, complicated, modern-art type strings, I've lost patience, and apparently, Captcha has decided that I'm too dumb to be up to anything nefarious. The next string I get is: wpdz. No swoops. No swirls. No overlapping. Just four, simple, straightforward letters. A blind person could've read them.

Jeez, save me from technology.

Particularly technology that clearly thinks it's smarter than me.

Especially when it is. Rachel10:59 AM

United Parcel Sucks

I used to have an overnight/second-day air account with UPS. I was always running right up to the due date on manuscripts and stuff and constantly having to overnight it to get it to New York on time, so an account made it a bit easier.

Anyway, last year we got into a bit of a disagreement over their billing practices: they don't give you a due date. The statement says payment is due seven days after receipt of the bill, but since they don't have a freakin' clue on what date you receive the bill, what they really mean is "you have a due date and we're not telling you what it is, but we're slapping you with late charges if your payment's not here by then."

So last fall I get a bill; I pay it. Then I get a statement charging me a late fee on that bill because I missed the mysterious due date. I pay it. Then I get another statement charging me a late fee on the late fee because -- you got it -- I missed the mysterious due date again.

Robert says uh-uh, we ain't paying it.

UPS says pay it or we'll close your account.

Robert says close the account; we're done with you.

Yeah, we're talking, like, forty cents. But there were other issues, too, like those fuel surcharges that came when gas prices went up and stayed when prices went back down.

And there was the time I sent a next-day package to my agent on Thursday and they delivered it on Saturday and hit me with a $12 or $14 "Saturday delivery" fee.

But it was supposed to be delivered on Friday, Robert pointed out to them.

Yes, but we delivered it on Saturday so you owe us our money, UPS said.

But we PAID you to deliver it on Friday, he pointed out again.

But we didn't. We delivered it on Saturday, so you owe the Saturday delivery fee.

When he then pointed out that under the terms of their own agreement, if a next-day package isn't delivered (in that case, anyway) by 10:30 a.m. THE NEXT DAY, we get our money back, the UPS rep backed off real quick.

But it WAS delivered, the rep said, and out of the kindness of our hearts, we'll waive the Saturday delivery fee.

But it wasn't delivered the next day; we want our $50 back.

We did get a $50 credit -- and a waiver of the Saturday delivery fee.

Anyway, we refused to pay the late fee, and by mutual agreement, our account was closed.

Until the other day, when I got a statement from them in the mail. A bill. For $11.50. The sender, according to the statement, was me. The sender's address consisted of three numbers for the street address, my hometown, my state, and a zip code for Clovis, New Mexico. The phone number was blank.

The recipient, according to the statement, was "Garcia." No first name. The address was in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The phone number was blank.

The account number, however, was mine. The one that had been closed out last year.

And it was sent UPS Ground.

Now, UPS is picky about the delivery form. You get an address wrong, leave a box empty, transpose digits in the phone number -- just about any little mistake is cause to absolve them of any responsibility to deliver the package in a timely fashion.

I counted five mistakes in the information, to say nothing of the fact that it was sent Ground. My account was never set up to allow Ground delivery. I know, because I tried to send a package that way one time, and the clerk said no way, no how; I was good for next-day and second-day air only.

So Robert calls them, and the customer service rep is not in a mood to listen. He acknowledges that the account is closed, but since I used it anyway, I owe $11.50. Period.

She didn't send the package and we're not paying a penny, Robert says.

It's her account, the rep replies.

But it's closed, and she didn't send the package.

But it's her account. And the package has her name on it as sender.

But it doesn't have her address. Do you think she doesn't know her own address and zip code?

We-elll . . .

{Grrrrr.}

Zero out the account, Robert says.

But your wife owes $11.50.

By then, steam was starting to come from his ears. He has no patience for incompetence or stupidity. He did eventually get the balance removed from my closed-for-six-or-eight-months account, though I'm not sure if that happened before he talked to their legal office or after.

It was MY freakin' account, and I had to cross all my t's and dot all my i's and recite the Pledge of Allegiance backwards while standing on my head before they would take a package from me. (Okay, yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit. I can't stand on my head.) And this goober in Clovis, New Mexico, just tosses a half-assed form at them and they TAKE it? And bill ME??

Sheesh.

On a lighter note, I got an email from fedex.com last week, telling me that they had a package to deliver to me. "Security scans" had shown that it contained a check for some outrageous amount, and that AIG (isn't that an insurance company?) had given them the go-ahead to deliver it to me once I'd provided them with my pertinent information -- full name, Social Security number, birthdate and phone number. The information has to go to someone in London. (Uh, isn't FedEx still an American company???)

Oh, yeah, and they need a check for $300.

And to top it all off, it was written in really bad English.

Do I have "stupid" tattooed on my forehead??? Rachel10:17 AM

Reviews, Good, Bad and Friendly

There've been several to-do's going on in the romance/blog/Amazon world lately, which has occupied waaay too freakin' much of my time in reading all about it. I've come to a couple of conclusions a few thousand posts/comments later:

1 -- there is a distinct mob mentality on some blogs

2 -- said mob mentality really does not take kindly when someone dares to hold another opinion

3 -- or dares to poke a little fun at them for their passion! their pronouncements from on high! their hostility!

4 -- there appears to be a tremendous -- huge -- incredible -- number of authors out there that I've never heard of who are so morally/emotionally superior to the rest of us

I ain't getting into what started the whole thing in the first place -- Google "Deborah MacGillivray" and you'll find a whole smorgasbord of choices to read up on it if you're interested.

What I am getting into is a topic that came up as sort of a sideline: reviews and authors. Reviews are a part of this business. Good ones are a nice ego stroke that lasts about five minutes. Bad ones can shake your faith in yourself and stick with you like a bad case of poison ivy.

At least, for virtually every author I've ever known in my twenty-plus years in the business. Except for the group mentioned in #4 above.

Reviews are about the books, they say. Reviews aren't personal. Bad reviews don't bother me. I learn from them. No REAL author would get upset over a bad review.

I had to Google a bunch of these names to find out who the heck they are and found that, on average, they didn't have a whole lot of books between them, so in the overall scheme of things, they can't be talking about a whole lot of reviews here, good, bad, or otherwise. And yet they are so far above those multi-published, best-selling, award-winning authors who admit to being senstive to negative reviews. THEY are, in their oh-so-worthy opinions, REAL authors, while we sensitive folks are pissy little whiny-babies.

I hate to quote Shakespeare -- never like the old bard, and will probably get it wrong -- but I think there's a large element of "methinks they doth protest too much" going on here. I don't know how it works for mystery writers, or science fiction or fantasy or literary authors, but in romance, if you're not putting a big chunk of yourself into your story, you're not doing it justice. Romance novels are all about the emotion, and emotion can only come from deep inside you. Misquoting someone else here, "Writing is easy. Just open a vein."

If you dig down inside yourself for your book, if you've invested yourself in it, then it gets a bad review, it's gonna hurt. People can insist otherwise until they're blue in the face, but I don't believe it for a second. The only way, IMO, that it could NOT hurt is if you didn't invest yourself emotionally in the story. And God knows, I've read plenty enough books where that seems to be the case, where the characters, while often well-written, are so surface and flat that the only honest emotion I felt was dissatisfaction at the lack of emotion.

Note: twice above I used "IMO." IN MY OPINION. This is my blog; it's my opinion. You can disagree with me, but you can't prove my opinion wrong because it's an OPINION.

One other thing that's come up in this mess: the soliciting of reader reviews on Amazon. Oh, I would never do that, the authors who've spoken up have said. Shameful. Unprofessional. Cheating. Unfair. Dishonest.

Bullshit. IMO.

I've been asked by a lot of people if I would post reviews on Amazon for their books. And let me be totally honest: I've also asked people at times if they would post for mine, and sometimes they've done it.

I've never suggested what they should say or how many stars they should give, and no one's ever asked that of me, either. But there have been occasions, especially if someone's already told me that they liked the book, when I've asked if they'd take time to do a reader review. I admit it freely. I don't see anything shameful, unprofessional, or dishonest about it.

There's long been a saying in business along the lines of, "If you like our service, tell your friends." Word of mouth is generally agreed to be the most effective advertising around. The Internet just takes that to a different level. Today's "word of mouth" takes place online more often than off -- emails, forums, IMs, Amazon, B&N.com, review sites, etc.

Are there glowing reviews online for books done by the author's friends, family, and fans for the sole purpose of promoting the book? Of course. I've posted Amazon reviews for authors I know and for authors I've never met. I post reviews because I like the books and because I believe others will like them, too. It's what I do instead of writing fan mail. I've never met the author who didn't appreciate fan mail, but only the author (and, occasionally, the publisher) sees it. When I'm in reader mode and I've finished a book I really liked, recommending it to others is my little bit of push for it so the author can make money and continue to write more books for me to enjoy.

And so what if there are glowing reviews written by the author's friends, family, and fans? Aren't most readers savvy enough to use reviews as a guideline, not a bible? Just like the hype the publisher gives a book, just like the endorsements other authors give: it's another bit of info about the title that may or may not help sell the book, that may or may not resonate with the reader.

Another quote (wow, this is the post for them!): buyer beware. Books, like every other aspect of life where there's a choice, are a crapshoot. Yeah, it's annoying to spend $6 or $12 on a book that I wind up not liking, but at least I can return it and get my money back or trade it in at a used bookstore for something else. There are plenty of times I've spent $10-20 on a dinner out that sucked pond water, too, but there's no way to recoup my losses on that. It's already gone to my hips.

Read the back cover blurb. Read the endorsements and the excerpt and the reviews. If the story sounds interesting, or if the author's always been a good one for you, or if the excerpt grabs your attention, buy the book.

My point is, if readers buy a book simply because there are twenty-five glowing reviews of it on Amazon, they KNOW there's a chance they might not like it. They KNOW those reviews could be written by the author's mother, husband, sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, best friends, and puppy. They KNOW they're taking a chance. They have that right. Just as I have the right to continue posting positive reviews of books I've liked, even if they are written by people I also like. Rachel1:23 PM

The High Holy Day of Creative Writing

I have a real hate/hate relationship with the IRS. I don't mind giving them their fair share of my income, but we passed that waaaay back. Every time I turn around, it seems they have their hand out, no matter how much I give them, they always want more, and they have the power to make me very sorry if I don't give it to them.

This year I cut my taxes closest. Didn't buy Turbo Tax until the 13th. Didn't put it on the computer and download the upgrades until the evening of the 14th, and didn't actually get around to doing the taxes until the 15th.

Robert and I made our usual late-evening sojourn to the post office in downtown Tulsa to drop off the returns. I don't know if that's the only post office in the area that guarantees a 15th postmark if you get it there by midnight, but judging from the lines that are always going round the blocks, I think so. We always go to the south side -- can't imagine why, but year after year, the lines on the north side are way longer than the south side.

To celebrate, we swung by Jason's Deli on 15th for a late-night supper. While the food there is great, it was really a vanilla soft-serve ice cream cone that I was looking forward to. That would be a true reward for doing the damn taxes.

Imagine my glee (she says very drily) when I found out the vanilla soft-serve machine wasn't working. Sorry, chocolate just doesn't cut it.

However, the smoky turkey panini was wonderful, and I had half of it left over for breakfast this morning. I still want that ice cream cone, though.

Oh, hey, happy birthday to LB, my favorite niece over the age of 25. (Differentiating from KH, my favorite niece under the age of 25). (Yes, I have only two nieces, plus one niece-by-marriage.) I'm cooking dinner for LB on Saturday -- pasta fagiole, jambalaya and lemon cream cake. Italian, Cajun and sweet -- what could be better? Rachel9:32 PM

Guesting on my alter ego's blog today: RITA-winning author Kathleen Creighton, talking about her latest romantic suspense novel, DANGER SIGNALS.

Check it out at: http://www.marilyn-pappano.com/news/index.php. Rachel12:02 PM

Free Money!

Have you read any of the stories lately about the outright thievery carried out regularly by federal employees? The first one I read was about just the VA -- $26,000 on hotels on the Las Vegas Strip, $23,000 of movie tickets, high-dollar items at Sharper Image, fancy-schmancy organizers.

The next one covered multiple agencies. Some of the stuff WE'RE buying for these folks just blew my mind: millions of dollars in a mere 15-month period.

The General Accounting Office says more than 40% of the $14 BILLION spent didn't follow procedure. For bigger-ticket purchases, exceeding $2500, almost half were unauthorized or handled improperly.

"Breakdowns in internal controls over the use of purchase cards leave the government highly vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse," GAO investigators said.

Uh, let's call it what it is: we've got a bunch of freakin' thieves working for us, and we've given them carte blanche with our credit cards.

Some of the highlights:

$1.8 MILLION worth of laptops, iPods and digital cameras are unaccounted for. ("Merry Christmas, son! Happy birthday, daughter!") That's two-thirds of the total money spent on those items, so two out of every three have gone missing. (And why the hell is any branch of the government buying iPods with MY money??? What official, legitimate need could they possibly have for them???)

The U.S. Army misplaced 16 server things that cost a cool $100,000 EACH.

A USDA employee paid out $642,000 of our money over six years to her live-in boyfriend for gambling, cars, house payments, dinners and shopping. Surprise: she was actually charged with embezzlement and tax fraud, pled guilty and was sentenced to 21 months in prison. (She's the only one mentioned in any of the articles who actually received punishment for her actions.)

She stole a freakin' average of $107,000 a year and it took six years for anyone to notice??? (Actually, no one did notice until a tattletale tattled. Good for him/her!)

Post office employees charged $14,000-plus for Internet dating services and ONE dinner that averaged $160 per person (had to have $3,000 worth of booze to wash down all that steak and crab). I hope they choked on it.

BTW, the guy who paid for the Internet dating service was told to repay the money. That's all. No slap on the hand. No charges of embezzlement or fraud. No harm to his career future. Just give back the money you stole and we'll forget it happened.

Pentagon employees stole $77,000 for tailor-made suits and other clothes. Sheesh. I can't afford tailor-made clothes. Why the hell am I paying for them for someone else???

A State Department employee bought $360 worth of lingerie at a fancy-pants boutique "for use during jungle training" in a drug-enforcement program in Ecuador.

I don't even know what to say to that. What the hell kind of lingerie do you need for the jungle? What the hell kind of training requires expensive lingerie?? Seducing and assassinating terrorists in Paris, maybe. Drug-enforcement training in the jungle? No fucking way.

Last, but not least, Justice and the FBI spent $15,000 of our money at the Ritz Carlton for a four-day conference. Only one-third of the money was actually for the conference; the rest paid for drinks and "light refreshments."

There's a line in an old Miami Vice episode where the bad guy says, "What is this world coming to when you can't even trust the cops to be honest?" Apparently, too true!

"Too many government employees have viewed purchase cards as their personal line of credit," says Senator Norm Coleman. Damn straight.

But you know what? If they started throwing these dishonest, defrauding, untrustworthy, thieving sons of bitches in jail, I bet we'd see a change.

Better that these folks work for the government and not me, because I guarantee you, you steal even one of MY laptops, iPods or digital cameras, I'm gonna kick your ass. You spend MY money on a custom-tailored suit, you'll be eating that suit, fiber by fiber. You treat a bunch of people to a $160-per-person dinner on MY dime, it'll be a long time before you're able to even think about taking another bite, and when you can, steak will be out of the question because it's too hard to gum.

But, oh, wait, none of that would ever happen because I'M NOT STUPID ENOUGH TO GIVE CROOKS AND THIEVES MY CREDIT CARDS!!!

Too bad we can't say the same for our government. Rachel8:53 AM

Stings

Okay, so you know I'm a regular viewer of "Cops" -- though generally not when Robert's around. It's hard to hear the show when he's beside me, saying "Shoot 'im. Shoot the bastard!"

So today I'm watching the show, and on the episode, the cops are doing a sting. They have a bicycle worth a couple hundred bucks; they go out, leave it somewhere, then sit down and wait for someone to come along and take it.

Sounds amazingly stupid, doesn't it? But I've seen variations of this on at least four different episodes filmed in four different cities (one that particularly stands out was in New Orleans).

Give me a freakin' break. Is there not enough REAL crime going on out there? Do police departments have so little to do that they have to waste their manpower and budget on enticing people to commit petty crimes? New Orleans has such an outrageous crime problem; how could anyone in their right mind actually think a sting involving a bicycle is worthwhile?

I'm not fond of prositution stings, either. Granted, a good cop who has reason to bust a hooker will persuade her to become an informant. But busting hookers for nothing more than being hookers? Using manpower to arrest johns for being johns? They've got murders, rapes, assaults, muggings, burglaries, hit-and-runs, drug crimes, alcohol-related offenses, domestic violence . . . so much that's SOOO much more important than what two consenting adults do in cheap motel rooms or back seats.

Now, when the prostitute is underage, that's a whole 'nother story. I heard on television the other day that the average age when teenage girls get into the sex trade in this country is BEFORE they're teenagers: twelve years old. OMG! I didn't know nothin' 'bout sex when I was twelve years old. These are babies! They come from bad homes, of course; they're neglected, abused, molested, abandoned. Living on the streets having sex with total strangers is more appealing to them than living at home getting mistreated and having sex with relatives.

Almost as unbelievable is the fact that when foreign girls are found in the sex trade in the U.S., they're offered counseling, medical care, homes, job training because they're victims. When American girls are found in the sex trade in the U.S., they're arrested, because they're criminals, not victims. Huh??? Show me a twelve-year-old prostitute who CHOOSES to work the streets, who's not SOMEBODY'S victim.

And show me the sicko who pays to have sex with a twelve-year-old girl. He needs his ass kicked and his thang cut off.

Little girls out there walking the streets and being molested every day, and police departments are spending time and money setting up bike thefts. Holy shit. Rachel2:29 PM

Nina Bruhns and THE REBEL PRINCE

Guesting over on my alter-ego's site: best-selling, award-winning and RITA-finaling author Nina Bruhns and her newest adventure, THE REBEL PRINCE.

Check it out at: http://www.marilyn-pappano.com/news/index.php. Rachel9:57 AM

Your Kid, But Not Your Responsibility?

I read a story a day or two ago about these parents who are trying to sue MySpace for 30 million freakin' bucks. The first judge -- apparently a more logical and rational adult -- threw out the case, but Mom and Dad are now trying to get a federal appeals court to reinstate it.

The story as reported: a thirteen-year-old girl sets up a MySpace account. Remember, you have to be at least fourteen to have such an account, but the girl lies and says she's eighteen.

A year or so later: girl meets guy on MySpace. They chat, then agree to meet in person. Girl alleges guy sexually assaulted her. Parents sue MySpace for $30 million.

Gregory Coleman, Mom and Dad's lawyer, is quoted as saying, "It [MySpace] has a responsibility to (protect) children."

Is this guy for real??? Are these parents for real???

WHOSE child set up a MySpace account? WHOSE child lied about her age? WHOSE child was reckless enough to meet with a total stranger? WHOSE responsibility was it to protect her?

Okay, so she was fourteen when she allegedly got assaulted. Fourteen-year-olds don't make the smartest decisions. But you'd just about have to be brain-dead to not realize that meeting a total stranger (who thinks you're the same age as he is) is SOOO not a good idea. For the better part of this girl's life, people have been hammering home: never give out personal information on the Internet, never meet in person with anyone you've met on the Internet, bad people are out there on the Internet. Did she never hear it? Did she not understand it, or did she just think it could never happen to her?

But, setting her actions aside . . . where were Mom and Dad when she was lying about her age on the computer? Where were they when she was spending her time chatting with the guy who allegedly assaulted her? Where were they when she took off to meet with this guy?

We know where they are now: holding out their hands, demanding that MySpace pay $30million for failing in its responsibility to THEIR child.

What about THEIR failure in THEIR responsibility to THEIR child? Who's paying for that?

Besides the child? Rachel10:24 AM