Baby, There's a Shark in the Water!

UPDATED:

Recently, the website www.deepdiscountdvd.com posted the complete "Batman Anthology" Blu-Ray set for the ridiculously low price of $12.75.

This price seemed too good to be true, and it was. Below is excerpted my email exchange with their customer service department. In the spirit of the season, I have posted their messages in a festive shade of vomit.

---------------------------

Due to a pricing error on our website we have cancelled your recent order.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you and we hope
that you will replace your order now that the pricing has been corrected.

My first message, sent through their "Contact" page:

(This message was cut and paste from an email which I attempted to send in reply to your cancelation notice. Suffice it to say, it's being immediately bounced back did little to cheer me up. Please provide an email address that I can reply to.)

First and foremost, this "pricing error," so close to the holiday, comes as a particular disappointment. The manner in which it was communicated has left me scrambling to find a suitable alternative on rather late notice (the package would not have arrived by Christmas, but rather in time for the recipient's return from a visit home).

Furthermore, has my entire order been canceled? To quote your email: "we have cancelled your recent order." Listed beneath this is the "Batman" anthology, but not the "Kill Bill" films. Were these also canceled? I would like for them to be, and for the preauthorization for 49.94 to be lifted from my Visa card posthaste.

When a deal appears "too good to be true," it often is -- such is the case here. The difference between those businesses who retain clients, and those who do not, is a simple one -- the former business sucks it up, apologizes, and takes a slight hit, whereas the other sends impersonal, form emails, confusingly notifying their clients that their order has been canceled (whilst not listing the entirety of the alleged canceled order). This is particularly true when a first-time client is "snared" with such an overwhelming discount (and, incidentally, ends up buying even more; please Google "loss leader" to get some idea how you might have better handled this situation).

I expect I will continue shopping elsewhere. Please confirm that the whole of my order has been canceled, and not just the "Batman" anthology.

Best,
James Barry

Subject
---------------------------------------------------------------
[DeepDiscount.com] - Cancel Order Request


Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response (Kristina) - 12/22/2010 04:38 PM
Thank you for contacting DeepDiscount!

ERRORS AND OMISSIONS POLICY

In the event a product is listed at an incorrect price due to a display or typographical error, or an error in pricing information received from our suppliers or store partners, DeepDiscount.com shall have the right to refuse or cancel any orders placed for product listed at the incorrect price. DeepDiscount.com shall have the right to refuse or cancel any such orders whether or not the order has been confirmed and your credit card charged. If your credit card has already been charged for the purchase and your order is cancelled, DeepDiscount.com shall immediately issue a credit to your credit card account in the amount of your original charge.


DeepDiscount.com makes every effort to provide accurate and current information concerning all products. However, information errors and omissions may occur in the data entry or transfer process or as a result of information provided from our suppliers, store partners, or other third parties, and except as set forth in this policy statement, DeepDiscount.com shall have no liability for any such errors or omissions.

which is found http://www.deepdiscount.com/error-omissions-policy/.

We are sorry for any inconvenience that you have experienced.

Again, thank you for writing DeepDiscount.com. We appreciate your business.

Regards,

Customer Service Department

DeepDiscount

Dear (Kristina),

I appreciate you taking the time to copy and paste a lengthy, broadly-defined "response" to my previous query. As much as I would have liked for the questions I posed to have been addressed in some specific or thorough fashion, I understand that it's the holidays, and it's very difficult to offer "good" service during such a busy period.

(Incidentally, I used to work for an online retailer, and freely admit that, when confronted with several hundred client emails, I sometimes used the same approach. Perhaps your experience is different, but I got called out on it so often, I started actuallyreading clients' emails as though they were individuals, with unique concerns and questions; ended up saving me a lot of time replying to the same clients!)

Thankfully, your automated message systems has just answered the question that you failed to even address: it appears that the "Kill Bill Vol. 2" Blu-Ray has shipped, so that's a wash. I will contact you upon receipt of it to arrange for you to have it shipped back to you. In order to avoid any further inconvenience on your end -- which is what I'm here for, after all! -- I request that you neither send, nor charge me for, "Kill Bill Vol. 1," from the same order. I might have gone to the trouble of canceling the order myself, had I not been assured at check-out that I did not need an account to make a purchase. Seeing as the cancelation method detailed on your site assumes that one has created an account, I thought it'd be more personal/possible to do it this way.

Someone messed up, and a lot of people jumped at what looked like a great deal -- I understand that this puts your company in a difficult situation. Barring the ability to offer the item (the "Batman" Anthology) at the price listed, I had hoped for at least some semblance of customer service. Here are some examples of replies that would have led me to reconsider my decision never to do business with you again:

-"We sincerely wish that we were able to offer the product at the price listed, but the overwhelming demand -- and the need to treat all of clients equally -- were simply too great for us to feasibly do so. To make it up to you, we'd like to offer you (free upgraded shipping/a slightly reduced price on the item in question/any gesture, however small, that shows that we are human being interested in establishing and maintaining a relationship with you). We look forward to hearing from you, and wish you the happiest of holidays!"

-"Warner Bros. Pictures has insisted that we not offer the 'Batman Anthology' at such a low price-point, despite our desire to do so. We apologize for this inconvenience, and hope that we can make it up to you with (see above). Please, do not hesitate to contact us if you've any further questions or concerns, and Happy Holidays!"

-"That infernal Julian Assange has been tampering with the prices on our sites, ever since we had to cancel his order of 'The Pelican Brief.' We apologize for any confusion that this may have caused, and encourage you to contact us if you've any further questions or concerns."

Of course, the first of these is preferable, but what company has never deferred responsibility in order to save face? Had I received a complete lack of reply, I might have at least convinced myself that a thoughtful, thorough redress of my grievances was being toiled over at the DeepDiscount home office, in much the same way that I keep telling myself that Daddy just "went out for some smokes." As it is, the promptness of your reply is betrayed by it's cold and impersonal style, to say nothing of the fact that it DID NOT ADDRESS MY QUESTION.

In my previous message, I indicated that I will not be shopping with DeepDiscountDVD.com again. In the spirit of the season, I shall henceforth share the joy of not patronizing you -- as you have me -- with others!

Best,

James M. Barry

--------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:

I received a reply to my last message. While I'm still not entirely certain that my message was read in full, I do appreciate the effort:

I am sorry but we can have arrangements made on our behalf to have the item returned ourselves and I completely understand that this was just one of those things that seemed too great to be true but under the company policies I am directed to give our customers a copy of the policy of error and omissions. It is amazing how some people come out of their shells that can be revolting then there are people like you who just seem so real, people like you are more needed in this world. It is kind words that go much further in life and it becomes really appreciated and understanding and I so from the bottom of my heart wish you the greatest Christmas of all. I know we all need to be reminded sometimes what it is and you helped me be reminded in some small way, so I personally thank you :)

Happy Xmas, everybody!

The "Jackass 3D" Prophecy

I am a follower of an admittedly obscure religion called ArcLightism. The tenets of my faith are outlined in a prophetic text called the Cinema Doctrine; I believe that this book offers the best moral guidance available to the human race, that it was written by the Creator Himself, and that it’s every word is true.

One of the more controversial passages in the Cinema Doctrine is known as the “’Jackass 3D’ Prophecy,” outlined in chapter 7, verse 12 of the text. It reads as follows:

“On October 21, 2010, at 8.20pm, there shall be a great, cleansing fire in the theater presenting ‘Jackass 3D’ at the ArcLight Cinema in Hollywood; woe is the fate of the unbeliever!”

In spite of it’s specificity, many adherents of ArcLightism have dismissed this passage. They reason that this must be an instance of the Creator’s words getting “lost in translation,” or that it is merely an elaborate metaphor which lies beyond mere human comprehension. These ArcLightists, good intentions notwithstanding, are wrong. I am among those who believe that we cannot pick and choose which parts of the Cinema Doctrine are to be believed – it is inerrant in it’s every word (Chapter 1, verse 3).

As the date of the screening approached, I was obviously compelled to warn those around me, whether or not they share my faith. Some dismiss me as a lunatic, while still others think that, while I am "misguided" in my approach, it is not their place to question my deeply held religious convictions, so long as I am not hurting anyone. From where I stand, this will not do; my faith compels me to try and save those whose lives are, in my Doctrinally-based worldview, in imminent danger.

The ArcLight Cinema in Hollywood, while skeptical, has given me an audience. Like so many others, they say that they can see no empirical evidence which "justifies" my beliefs; after all, their fire alert system is state-of-the-art, and “there is no evidence whatsoever that this particular auditorium, at this particular showing, is any more or less susceptible to fire than any other” (from their somewhat condescending press release, dated October 10, 2010). Despite the protests of myself and many other fundamentalist ArcLightists, they plan to proceed with the screening as scheduled.

My ArcLightist friends and I have made signs warning of the Great Cleansing Fire, citing chapter and verse, and arrive to the theater early on the afternoon of October 21, 2010. We are here to show the nonbelievers the error of their ways, and to warn any who might plan to see “Jackass 3D” at 8.20pm of the divinely-sanctioned consequences of their actions. Most people walk past us without so much as making eye contact; we are, after all, just a “fringe” sect, but far be it from them to challenge our unwavering religious devotion (this they would do at their own peril; ref. Cinema Doctrine, Chapter 4, verse 7). A few, upon hearing and reading our dire warnings, decide that it is best to hedge their bets, and while they may not necessarily believe the Cinema Doctrine in it’s every word, they opt not to attend the screening. I raise my eyes to the heavens, and thank the Creator for every soul I’ve helped set on the path to salvation.

Then, to my absolute horror, my friend Robert arrives at the theater. In spite of his unwillingness to believe in the divinely-penned Cinema Doctrine, I still love Robert dearly; it is my hope that, seeing how good and righteous a life I live, he will eventually come around, and embrace ArcLightism. The Creator assured us in Chapter 2, verses 3-7, that we would be met with skepticism, and that we must face it head-on. It is incumbent upon the Saved to share their joy with those around them, and to spread the gospel of the Cinema Doctrine to all who will hear.

I ask Robert, my voice betraying my nervousness, what brings him to the cinema on this particular evening. His reply, though not entirely unexpected, fills me with a profound sadness. He is attending the 8.20 showing of “Jackass 3D.”

Robert and I have had many discussions about our differing worldviews, all of them civil (if at times rather heated). We have discussed the “’Jackass 3D’ Prophecy” at length – he has always sited it as one of the primary reasons he is unwilling to embrace ArcLightism. Robert believes that any Creator who would plan such a “barbaric” act is not worthy of worship; I retort that it is not our place to question the Creator (after all, the Creator Himself said as much, many times over, in the Cinema Doctrine!).

I plead with Robert not to attend the showing, if for no other reason than out of deference to my faith. After all, it is only a single screening, and what if he’s wrong? What if, I reason, the “’Jackass 3D’ Prophecy” is true, and his hubristic lack of faith results in his own demise? If he is wrong, then he will have perished whilst flagrantly disregarding the Creator’s Revealed Law (which, ArcLightists will know from Chapter 3, verse 17, will result in “a suffering [which] transcends that of mere non-believers, one thousand times over”)!

Robert becomes frustrated with my “ranting and raving,” as he calls it. While our discourse has always been cordial, it is obvious that we are now at a tipping point. While I value Robert’s friendship – because I value it! – I cannot sit idly by and watch him throw his life away. If he could only understand why I believe as I do -- if he would only embrace the Cinema Doctrine as the perfect distillation of human values that it is, and embrace the comfort it offers -- his life would be not only saved, but vastly more fulfilled!

At 8.10pm, after several minutes of increasingly frantic debate, Robert walks away with a curt “I’ll see you after the show.”

**********

It is now 9pm. I am sitting in my car, sobbing and praying for guidance from the Creator. While several of my fellow ArcLightists have stayed behind to watch the fulfillment of the Creator’s glorious prophecy, I haven’t the constitution for it.

“Please,” I implore Him Most High, “if you would only spare Robert, then the Great Cleansing Fire will have served an even greater purpose; surely, he will see the error of his ways, and will devote the rest of his life to Your service!”

I stop myself, horrified at what I’ve just said. My love for Robert notwithstanding, he has made his choice; how presumptuous of me to question the will of the Creator, however heartbreaking the loss of my friend might be. I dry my eyes, and apologize for my lack of faith.

If it is His will to spare those in the theater – an eleventh-hour reprieve, evident of His limitless mercy and forgiveness -- then so be it. The will of the Creator is inscrutable, and, come 10pm, my faith shall only be strengthened.

A storm brews on the horizon, the clouds absorbing the lights of the city on their path to the heavens. I start the car and drive away.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President,

Let me begin by saying that I voted for you, and quite enthusiastically. I'm sure you're sick to death of hearing from disillusioned Democrats; while I am frustrated at much of what's going on in our Federal Government, on both sides of the aisle, I understand that change takes time. As a gay American (I can only imagine the anticipatory eye-roll those words evoke in whatever aide is tasked with reading this!), I understand that equality is a long, arduous and painful struggle. I get that. I just want to know why.

Time and again, you've stated your belief that "marriage is the union of a man and a woman;" this has been the most consistent part of your LGBT policy. I'm not writing to ask why you haven't ended DADT by Executive Order, or why the repeal of DOMA seems like little more than a carrot for keeping you in office for another term. These are contentious social issues, as they say, and they require a pragmatic approach. I'm willing to give you some leeway on that.

No, I want to get back to that quote we've heard so often from you, before and after your election: "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Mr. President, why do you believe that?

In light of the recent Federal ruling to strike down California's Prop 8, legal scholars have been going on and on about "findings of fact," "strict scrutiny," "suspect class," and all sorts of other legal terminology that can be, quite frankly, a bit confusing. I think I got the gist of Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling -- that personal moral beliefs are not sufficient justification for the denial of citizens' rights. Since the forces arguing in favor of Proposition 8 provided no other compelling evidence -- and, indeed, declared at once point that they did not really need any! -- Judge Walker's opinion sounds rather unimpeachable to me. Of course, I'm a bit biased; the outcome of this case will ultimately determine whether I can look forward to marrying someone I'm in love with, or whether I'll simply have to resign myself to someday marrying a female friend, that we might reap the benefits -- particularly healthcare-related -- that marriage affords at a federal level. (Please note that I do not intend to enter into such a "sham" marriage; that said, it is my understanding that it is fairly easy to do so, and that it would take very little in the way of legal acrobatics for such a marriage to hold up to legal challenges -- after all, what place does the government have telling us who we can marry, so long as their anatomy is not too similar to our own?).

I've read the Constitution, but I am certainly not a scholar on it. Fortunately for the American people, you are. That's a big part of the reason I cast my vote for you, and why your stance for "traditional" marriage (with the runner-up prize of domestic partnership for us noisy gays) always struck me as a little odd. Of course, the Founding Fathers could not have anticipated that the Fourteenth Amendment would one day be used to allow same-sex marriage; I don't need to tell you that the Founding Father could not have anticipated the Fourteenth Amendment. Sometimes, we are cannot simply ask ourselves, "What would the Founders have done?" (Such conjecture coming from National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher, whose ability to vote and own property would have come as something of a shock to anyone living in the 18th Century, seems particularly ironic.)

I apologize if I'm rambling; obviously, there's a lot on my mind. Fortunately, I live in one of those states where I couldn't be fired if someone were to look over my shoulder and see the phrase "[I am a] gay American," so perhaps I've given myself a bit too much leeway. Let me return to my main point: let's get back to what you believe, Mr. President.

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Why do you believe that, Mr. President? I imagine it's got something to do with your faith, which I have the utmost respect for (although mine didn't survive attempts at "curing" me). With all due respect -- and with deference to the Honorable Judge Walker -- that's simply not a compelling reason to deprive an entire class of Americans the full benefits of citizenship. Please, tell me how this belief is compatible with the United States Constitution, which you have spent years studying, whose tenets you've devoted your life to upholding, and whose integrity you have sworn an oath defend. In spite of my strong views on this matter, and the low probability that they will be utterly changed, I would love nothing more than to, for once, read a well-reasoned, constitutionally-based argument for the denial of marriage to American homosexuals. I've yet to see such an argument from opponents of same-sex marriage, and, with all due respect, your belief in the exclusivity of marriage to "one man, one woman" finds you in firm opposition to same-sex marriage.

I doubt that this letter will reach the desk of the President; I would be surprised if the aide in charge of sifting through your correspondence has more than skimmed it (pleasantly surprised, of course). Nonetheless, I am sending it with the slightest hope that we might hear something beyond, "I believe ..." as justification for a major matter of U.S. domestic policy. I have gone out of my way in this letter not to come across as someone who feels "entitled" to any special insight, simply because I voted for you. Nonetheless, I think that this is an answer to which all Americans, on both sides of this issue, are entitled.

Respectfully yours,

James M. Barry

Burbank, California