I don’t usually get riled up enough to actually bad mouth a business – but will gladly do so on this occasion.

The whole saga began when I rang Vanderwee Chocolates to order some chocolates for a friend. The amount which I wanted to spend was not available on the website, so I thought I would order over the phone. The owner advised me to select a box and place that order through their website but specify the amount I wanted to spend and they could do so for me.

So I followed his advice. Then I received an invoice – not for the amount I specified but for the amount of the box which I selected. Concerned, I rang Vanderwee and asked about the discrepancy between the invoice and what I specified. I was told that the owner had made up the box and everything was fine.

Imagine my surprise when I noticed that they have charged the box amount and not the specified amount on my credit card.

Now this amount is very trivia – only $4. So I rang the shop to tell them it is bad business practice to advise your customer one thing and to do another.

This is where the whole incident becomes farcical. The first thing the owner said to me was well they were very busy that week and if they had taken the time out to do what everyone wants them to do, they wouldn’t have been able to get out the number of orders they did. Mind you, this was not said in the apologetic tone of voice either.

When I suggested that that it may be bad business practice to advise one thing and then do another, the owner asked what did I ordered? I said I ordered the $24 box but specified that I wanted a $20 box and if it was not possible, then to call me and confirm. This was when he suggested that it was bad business practice on MY part to do so. He said that I should have read the website more closely and I would see that it was not possible to do a $20 box (remember why I rang Vanderwee in the first place). He then went into a rant about how they didn’t charge me a delivery fee. When I mentioned that the box was being picked up, he said yes but they had to deliver the order from one store to another. Now I could be wrong when I thought that internal delivery is the issue of the business and not the customer??? …. (Check out the delivery policy on their website www.vanderwee.com).

Then the owner raved on about how if I read the website properly, I would have seen that the minimum fee charged was $25 (in which case, why do they have presents for $10?).

Finally, he said that what I am after is the $4 refund. He was not too impressed when I said no I did not want the $4 refund - what I wanted was an apology or an acknowledgement that they did not do the right thing this time. Instead he told me that I have the dubious distinction of being the first customer to complain about their services in the 12 years they have been opened. Personally I doubt that – if he treated everyone the way he treated me, there must be more complaints.

I guess my point is what sort of society have we become when we pay money for bad customer service? Now Vanderwee may have many customers of whom I am only one. But that does not invalidate my status as a customer (ex-customer now). For them to be so secure in telling me that I should be sure to get their correct details so that I can tell friends and family not to buy their stuff reeks of arrogance.

Equally dismissive was the owner’s statement that if I can’t afford the chocolates, I shouldn’t be buying it. The irony of the whole saga is that I have bought their chocolates in the past and would have continued doing so regardless of the cost. However bad customer attitude is not one of the costs I am prepared to pay. So if anyone out there agrees, do not buy chocolates from Vanderwee. After all there are plenty of good chocolate shops out there with better customer service.

Now excuse me while I brush up on my Fair Trading Act…..

A friend recently loaned me several dvds. One of them disgusted me so much that I thought I would share with you reasons why you should consider not renting or buying this movie. If you happen to like the Family Stone, perhaps you should stop reading this article now.

Psychologists talk about “projection” where one projects one’s own personality onto another person. In the Family Stone, I have to admit I identify quite strongly with Sarah Jessica Parker’s character Meredith. Being an introverted, awkward type of person in social settings, I can imagine how nerve racking it would be to be introduced for the first to your boyfriend’s family.

This movie is about how the series of events that occurs when Meredith is introduced to her boyfriend’s family during Christmas. While there are several things that annoyed me in this movie, not the least of which is the predicability of the plot and the shameless manipulation of the audience sympathy, the two main things are the stereotyping and the hypocrisy of the characters.

Firstly in terms of stereotyping, when we first are introduced to Meredith, she is on the phone being mean to one of her staff (presumably). From this, we are meant to deduce that she is a mean b**** (excuse the use of asterisks. I have a problem saying words stronger than damn expect when talking to the computer) – that and the fact that her hair is in a bun. Now the other female characters all have their hair down, even Meredith’s sister Julie (played by Claire Danes). And as we are being told, they are they nice people – warm and friendly people. Never mind that these supposedly “nicer” people already have preconceived ideas about Meredith and set out to reject her. An example would be when the whole family, Meredith and her sister are at dinner. When told that the gay brother was going to adopt a child with his partner, Julie asked whether they have a preferred race. Meredith also commented that no parents would wish their child to be homosexual is offensive.

Now I am not sure about the average person, but I would have thought what Meredith and her sister said were both equally socially tactless. However because Meredith is the stiff b**** (so obvious with the bun), her comments produced anger and horrid while Julie’s question was ok. To cut this article shorter, when Meredith was finally accepted by the family, guess what happened to her hair.

In regards to the hypocrisy of the characters, let me concentrate on the actions of Meredith’s “faithful” boyfriend Everett (played by Dermot Mulroney). The reason this guy brought his girlfriend of 10 years home to meet his family was so that he could proposed to her. But when he saw her sister, he “felt in love in her instead”. Now there is a moment in the clip where time slowed down for Everett and Julie was sort of enclosed in sunshine so that the audience would know that this is love. Now I can accept that the heart is a falling leaf and where it lands, no-one knows. But the hypocrisy I cannot stand is that while it is ok for Everett to be in lust (sorry in love) with Meredith’s sister, as long as he does not kiss her or sleep with her, it is ok – never mind that the fact that he wanted to kiss her but she said no. But it was wrong for Meredith to sleep with his brother (never it didn’t happen) – because she is HIS girlfriend. Now the last time I check, we are in the year 2007. So this primitive attitude about a woman being a man’s property could be a little outdated.

While I could ramble on about the failings of this movie, a one page essay is probably not what you want to read. So the moral of the story is always let your hair down, so people would think you are a good and kind person.

Being a grumpy old witch, I would like to have another rant and rave over one of my pet topics – traffic etiquettes. Three things all drivers should be taught before they are turned loose to menace other drivers:

1. the speed limit is called a limit and not speed guidance;
2. tailgating should only happen if you know the driver of the car in front of you and are merely following directions (or if the car is a suspect in a criminal matter);
3. there is a reason why cars have indicators lights install and it is not to make the car flashier.

I have noticed that on my several occasions to Sydney now that Sydney-siders tend to drive over the speed limit. Now I expect this sort of behaviour from Canberra drivers (in fact, I am surprise when Canberra drivers obey speed limits). But have not really experienced this in Sydney until recently. So the next time you fine yourself driving behind a lady who is following the speed limit and shaking her head at every driver that overtakes her, that would probably be yours truly.

The other thing that annoys me about tailgaters is the blatant disregard for their own and others’ safety. Tailgating is fine if your car is going at the snail pace of 40 km/h in a traffic jam. But when cars are travelling at 70 or more km/h, it means that the impact of a crash would be more severe. If tailgating is your strategy of trying to get the car in front of you to go faster, I guess you overtake that car (so that I can then shake my head at you, lamenting the decline in respect for the speed limit).

Lastly, indicating your desire to change lanes is not merely a matter of manners. This is also a safety issue. Now there have been several times when a car in front of me decides to change lane into my lane without indicating. Now if I have not been noticing how that car seems to keep weaving in and out of traffic, chances are there would be an accident. Then there are also those who blithely changes lane without indicating or noticing that there is a car right next to them (which have also happened to me before). In that situation, I was very lucky because the next lane was free so I was able to quickly indicate and switch lane before the miscreant driving the car moved into my lane.

Now that I have said my piece, drive safely and have a great day.

One of the more interesting aspects of the show Ugly Betty is the fact that television is willing to showcase protagonist that are not beautiful. A tenet of television for the past few years is that the protagonist may be a variety of things – poor, clueless or even a woman. The main thing about these protagonists is that they are all beautiful and young. It appears that through youth and beauty, you can achieve love, wealth and fame. Ugliness of appearance – it appears is only reserve for the secondary characters. Ugly Betty is a refreshing show in that the main character is not beautiful. After watching one episode of this sitcom, the only concern is that Ugly Betty could end up with her boss in a reversal of the Beauty and the Beast scenario. For the sake of more innovative television, I hope that is not the case.

Having had plenty of free time on my hands – due to the completion of a degree, I spend a bit of it contemplating deep philosophical questions such as whether there is any food that cannot be improved with the addition of chocolate. Chocolate is used in meat (there is a Portuguese dish mix chocolate with chicken), with fruits (especially with strawberries), and of course, by itself. Having written this, I will now return to my contemplation of the subject. After all, it is only through study of the subject that leads to better understanding.