Okay, lets cut through all the bullshit .... it just seems to confuse people like Jeff Carpenter and Gene (at aol.com Forum leader of the Macintosh Forum on America On-Line... like any rational person would apply THAT credential to ANY post on the WORLD WIDE INTERNET).
AOL (aka America On-Line) does business the way it was done in the 1950s (by typical American Firms). That is equating quality with financial success or size of the customer base, Geez the Big Three Auto Makers got their collective asses kicked by little "rinky dink" Japanese companies for the same EXACT reasons that AOL will:
1.) An arrogant disregard for their customers
2.) A defintion of "Quality" that relates more to Htilers Germany in the
1930's and 40's than it does to the global economy in the 1990's
3.) A total disregard for the 40+ Million internet subscribers (as
opposed to the "3 Million AOLsubscribers" (which is shrinking
everyday.....you figure out why ).
4.) AOL totally personifies what's worst in Networking on demand
such as :
a.) totally clueless "technical support" people that don't know shit
about computers providing "advice" to people that don't know
shit about computers
b.) pedophiles, stalkers, child pornographers, assholes in general
running rampant on AOL .. and Now (Oh boy) let's let 'em all
loose on the internet.
c.) A "front -end" Software application that is so poorly designed
that it does everything but refuses to run on any real OS (i.e .
AOL V2.5 causes a GPF in the Windows NT Win16
SubSystem EVERY time it closes, WAOL V2.5 takes
Herculean efforts to work with a well designed OS like Linux
or UnixWare) this is because AOL developers (like AOL
Tech support staff) have absolutely no clue as to the proper
process in order to accomplish a given objective in a quality
fashion (this falls squarely in the lap of the AOL piss poor
management "team").
I could go on and on ...... but I really don't have to... read the thousands of posts in this newsgroup that have been written by sincere, everyday folks that demonstrate that AOL really does have a total disregard for their own customers........
One last thing, gene@aol.com you ARE a total idiot, you have said nothing in the sum total of all your posts that prove ANY point whatsoever. Basically you're a NONTECHNICAL frigggin idiot (Geez .. I guess you ARE uniquely qualified to run the MAC forum on AOL), that doesn't have a clue as to whose private parts you're lips are resting on.... and basically I feel sorry for you....
Have an NT Day !!!!
Jeff Fox
From: madamx@ix.netcom.com (X Madam X )
Newsgroups: alt.america.online,alt.online-service,alt.online-service.america-online, alt.online-service.compuserve,alt.online-service.delphi,alt.online-service.genie, alt.online-service.prodigy,alt.online-service.well,alt.aol-sucks,alt.aol.rejects,alt.
internet.services,alt.internet.access.wanted,,alt.netcom.sucks,alt.2600
Subject: Re: BEWARE: AOL deceptive phone practices
Date: 5 Jul 1995 05:08:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom
>I don't wish to tell one and all that AOL is absolutely, utterly perfect
>in all respects. Clearly no large, rapidly growing company can avoid
>making misakes from time to time, or having its share of growth pains. One
>just has to take it with a logical perspective.
>
>Peace,
>Gene Steinberg
>America Online Forum Leader, Macintosh Multimedia Forum
>Author, "Using America Online" & "Using The Macintosh/Special Edition"
Ah... another AOL overhead account primadonna speaks! Always so delightful to hear from someone who doesn't pay a dime for AOL. These Defenders of the Faith are sooo loyal! Well, you can tell Steve "I-Blow-Goats! :D" Case to please keep those free trial disks coming, and soon I'll have free hours to my credit that *I* can join their ranks!
X Hobag X
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.online-service.america-online,alt.online-service
From: mycroft@news.dorsai.org (Keith Kushner)
Subject: Re: BEWARE: AOL deceptive phone practices
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy - New York
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 08:46:42 GMT
Gene (gene@aol.com) wrote:
: I hate to be the one to state facts, since most of the messages in this
: newgroup consist of flames and erroneous, unsubstantiated charges against
: AOL.
: But here's the story:
: You agreed to accept AOL's 10 free hour offer, which means, in effect,
: that you actually resubscribed to America Online--the same holds true for
: anyone who accepts this offer; and if you ran over your 10 hour limit, you
: are obligated to pay the monthly fee (since you have, in effect activated
: the paying portion of your membership). How could you conclude otherwise?
And of course the fact that your telephone solicitor said it would be free has no bearing on the case....
Gene, here's a question for you. It's been posted - twice - and emailed to your postmaster and Steve Case. (The latter, of course, had a full mailbox.) I've yet to receive an answer to it that makes sense. Why not give it a try?
AOL mails out many "free trial" disks. Too many. The one I received this month was for WinDoze - I don't run WinDoze, and once requested a DOS disk from AOL, you see - and the back of the mailer described all the wonderful things one could do on AOL. One was "ACCESS the Internet FREE!" None of the other "wonderful things" were advertised as being free, just that one item. Now, is it reasonable, therefore, to conclude that "free" means "free," or does AOL use a definition of that word that nobody else is aware of? In short, do you, or do you not, consider this to be deceptive advertising?
Furthermore - and this applies to Mac disks, too, like the ones distributed with Mac Warehouse catalogs - all these disks claim the ten "free" hours are a "$40 value." Now, try as I might I can't quite figure out how this number was arrived at: 10 hours @ $2.95 = $29.50, and even granting half-a-buck for the disk itself it would seem that AOL is ::ahem:: exaggerating by a third; moreover, since the real cost of the first 5 (? or is it 4?) hours is $9.95, the real value is even further from the claimed $40. Is this deceptive advertising, some sort of "new math," or just AOL's way of finding users who - unable to count past ten with their shoes on - won't protest when they're overcharged?
It is nice to know, however, that AOL is, at least according to Pam McGraw, reviewing its policy of allowing any idiot, pervert, or illiterate with the ability to type "install" full access to the Net. Do be sure to keep us posted should the policy actually change.
--
************************************************************************ * Keith Kushner * Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal * * mycroft@dorsai.dorsai.org * * ************************************************************************
They hadn't used those hours, so their expectations of not being charged were reasonable, and didn't "imply" they thought the membership fee was waived.
: nor was there a summary of how many hours were actually used
Even before they posted the number used--five--I pointed out that a bill of exactly $9.95 would be impossible; it was more likely a billing error.
After that number had been posted, Gene wrote
: Let's let the original poster clarify his statement in light of my
: response
Realizing his error twenty minutes later, Gene then added
: the statement from the original poster implied he was offered 10 free hours
: with no expectation that he'd be charged if he went beyond that figure
Let's re-visit that...
> I tried AOL again and canceled after a week...
>
> Today I received a bill on my credit card for 9.95. When I
> called AOL, they said I had actually resubscribed to AOL, which
> is news to me
It "implied" to me AOL made a mistake. You assumed the poster had used more than ten hours in seven days rather than that AOL screwed up.
Gene earlier posted
: I hate to be the one to state facts, since most of the messages in this
: newgroup consist of flames and erroneous, unsubstantiated charges against
: AOL.
: I just wanted to set you straight about what you did here.
And a good job you did of it.
: Gene
destiny@crl.com /\ alt.aol-sucks FTP site
/ \ ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/ro/destiny/aol/
==============================================================================
/__________\ Year-end review includes "Over-billing" section
From: tfinley@en.com (Tom Finley)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.online-service.america-online
Subject: Re: BEWARE: AOL deceptive phone practices
Date: 25 Jun 1995 12:02:10 GMT
Organization: The Q Continuum
I wonder when Gene will admit that he's wrong...
-- Tom Finley, tfinley@en.com http://www.en.com/users/tfinley/aol-sux/aol-sux.html
From: pilgrim@teleport.com (Vinny Hrovat)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: BEWARE: AOL deceptive phone practices
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 20:16:23 GMT
Organization: The Foot of Grix Foundation
In our last episode, gene@aol.com (Gene) spoke thusly:
>I hate to be the one to state facts, since most of the messages in this >newgroup consist of flames and erroneous, unsubstantiated charges against> >AOL.
(We'll get back to that one in a moment...)
>But here's the story:
>You agreed to accept AOL's 10 free hour offer, which means, in effect,
>that you actually resubscribed to America Online--the same holds true for
>anyone who accepts this offer; and if you ran over your 10 hour limit, you
>are obligated to pay the monthly fee
^^^^^^^^^^^What? So your free isn't "free" anymore after you use it all up? 9.59 hr is free, but 10.0 hr costs $9.95? Show me, specifically where this is written or stated so that a customer can see/hear this before s/he extends a credit card number. Has ANYONE else EVER heard of this before?
Meanwhile, Tom Finley spoke along the lines of:
> *sigh* Time to set this idiot straight.
Agreed. I suspect that Gene Steinberg is either outright lying or doesn't know what he's talking about. Instead of dealing with facts, he tries to hide behind grandiose language about "erroneous, unsubstantiated charges" (I wonder if that blanketed misstatement was meant to cover the Cincinnatti Enquirer's reporting about AOL and child pornography). And yes, Tom, i agree: Gene Steinberg is apparently not very smart.
>Peace, >Gene Steinberg >America Online Forum Leader, Macintosh Multimedia Forum >Author, "Using America Online" & "Using The Macintosh/Special Edition"He's also stopped using the last two lines of his signature as of today. Interesting.
---
Vinny Hrovat / pilgrim@teleport.com
Opinions expressed herein are mine, etc.
From: sburr@primenet.com (Steve Burr)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: Nominations Now Being Accepted: June Bonehead of the Month
Date: 2 Jul 1995 01:18:18 GMT
Organization: Sensible Party
In article <3t4jn6$9sn@maureen.teleport.com>, pilgrim@teleport.com wrote:
> I instead nominate gene@aol.com. [for bonehead of the month]
Whatever happened to old Gene? I miss him. And I'm still kind of miffed that I never got his fax number.
Anyway, I second the nomination.
--
Steve Burr
Kids' Web: http://www.primenet.com/~sburr/index.html
From: tfinley@en.com (Tom Finley)
Newsgroups: alt.america.online,alt.online-service,alt.online-service.america-online,alt.online-service.compuserve,alt.online-service.delphi,alt.online-service.genie,alt.online-service.prodigy,alt.online-service.well,alt.aol-sucks,alt.aol.rejects,alt.
internet.services,alt.internet.access.wanted,,alt.netcom.sucks,alt.2600
Subject: Re: BEWARE: AOL deceptive phone practices
Date: 29 Jun 1995 12:34:05 GMT
Organization: The Q Continuum
Gene (gene@aol.com) wrote:
: Like most of your other responses, you are totally wrong. AOL's original : newsgroup reader was in a public preview mode (thus a beta). About a dozen : messages at the time had multiple posts. The bug was fixed within : hours--end of story.
I don't really contest that, but... shouldn't AOL have tested the reader before releasing it to the general population?
Just a thought. *roll*
: As to the rest of the discussion: Until I hear from the person who posted : the original complaint and have a chance to question him about the details : of the offer (not what you folks determine what it is for the sake of your : various conspiracy theories), I will leave it as what I originally said. : The offer was misinterpreted, or AOL made a billing mistake. No big deal. : It happens.
I wonder when Gene will see the five messages from Chee in here.
: I don't wish to tell one and all that AOL is absolutely, utterly perfect : in all respects.Then why were you telling Chee he was wrong for saying it wasn't?
: Clearly no large, rapidly growing company can avoid : making misakes from time to time, or having its share of growth pains. One : just has to take it with a logical perspective.
Take your own advice.
-- Tom Finley, tfinley@en.com http://www.en.com/users/tfinley/aol-sux/aol-sux.html
Coming soon: