[Ermine] Fwd: post-pennsic blues...

>Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:58:32 -0400
>To: sca-middle@dnaco.net
>From: Sarah Dorrance <sarah.dorrance@oriel.oxford.ac.uk>
>Subject: post-pennsic blues...
>
>(or, adding insult to injury)
>
>Those of you who were online in late July would remember my cry of
anguish: "Siebert and I can't make it to Pennsic because we don't have enough money to pay for our wedding deposits, and the only way we could come up with the money was to accept a position in a medical research study! Waaaah!"
>
>This is the first year that I have skipped Pennsic. I have been poorer; I
have seen many tight Pennsics; my motto used to be "The world stops for Pennsic - how could I not go?" Especially given that this Pennsic I had already committed myself to teaching classes, singing in the choir, etc. My lor has never missed a Pennsic either, to the best of my recollection. It should say something about our state of desperation (and the ridiculous expense of throwing a wedding - damn, that drive-thru chapel in Las Vegas is beginning to look good!) that we decided at the last minute that Pennsic would be a very bad idea. What, frugality in the face of this annual pilgrimage? Fie on common sense!
>
>Matters have just been made worse.
>
>Siebert has been trying to get a refund since July (admittedly, after the
cut-off date, but I ask you, how exactly does one plan for an emergency? Perhaps having a promised source of financial assistance suddenly withdrawn, which forced us to come up with alternative means of paying for our wedding deposits, does not constitute a dire emergency - although it certainly counts as an unplanned crisis, We decided that our wedding was more important than going to Pennsic, although we had not expected to be forced to choose between the two events. However, what if something truly dire had occurred? An accident, a death, a tornado encountering our house, etc? Those sorts of accidents are just as unplanned...) His belief is that because we were prevented from attending Pennsic by unexpected matters beyond our control, we ought to get our money back. The whole idea of non-refundable deposits seems absurd in the light of family emergencies.
> >
>I can see the rationale behind non-refundable deposits - sort of. The
purpose seems to be twofold: to limit attendance (I remember when the talk was of only allowing pre-registered campers to be admitted to Pennsic, period) and to make money (which is used to improve the campground).
>
>However, that does not justify the way Siebert was treated.
>
>My lord had been trying to reach the Coopers via telephone for weeks.
Every time he called, he got an answering machine. The machine whirred on for a few seconds before it cut him short and gave him a fax tone. Siebert therefore had no way of leaving an actual message. When he finally got through to a live voice (Bob Cooper, I think) he was told that "sometimes the answering machine does that if you have a lot of static on your line." We have no static. It is our suspicion that the answering machine was never rigged to take messages at all - we just got redirected to the fax. Obviously there is no way of proving that.
>

>Mr. Cooper was also extremely rude - when my lord tried to explain our
extenuating circumstances, Mr. Cooper kept cutting him off. Siebert says his tone of voice was very "bullish," curt, and abrupt; and when he tried to reason with Mr. Cooper, the man simply hung up in the middle of the conversation. I have worked in customer service - that sort of phone behaviour is simply unjustified. It's also, obviously, a bad way to keep business. Mr. Cooper is perhaps secure in the knowledge that he will have enough customers returning for Pennsic War that one disgruntled person simply doesn't matter. I don't agree with this viewpoint, because I believe that courtesy is always important no matter what - but oh well, maybe I should be charitable. Mr. Cooper was perhaps having a bad day, or possessed by his evil twin. How can we know what was going through his head?
>
>When my lord tried to call back, he got the administrative office, who
bounced him to an answering machine or something of that sort. Maybe Mr. Cooper was too busy to continue the interrupted conversation.
>
>I am sure that my lord will probably stand absolutely no chance whatsoever
in small claims court should he try to recoup our loss (which we really couldn't afford to lose - I know a hundred twenty dollars is small change, and we should be gracious about losing it, but right now money is a little tight; and there is the principle of the thing. What, I ask again, if a truly terrible accident had occurred? What if I had been in an automobile accident and hospitalized in a body cast, for instance, as opposed to merely left high and dry waiting for financial assistance that got withdrawn at the last minute?) Still, this discourtesy on the part of the Coopers is extremely troubling. Could they not have been polite and apologetic about delivering bad news? Their manner (and unreachability) seems to indicate a money-grubbing, callous, selfish approach towards business, and I am sure that they do not want to project such an image.
>
>Sigh.
>
>

--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--- From: Sarah Dorrance <sarah.dorrance@oriel.oxford.ac.uk> --+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--- Received on Fri Aug 28 12:02:56 1998