🚀 go-pugleaf

From:    Matthew Franckiewicz 
To:      All                                      Msg #86, 21-Jun-88 02:38pm
Subject: Byte4

FLAME ON AGAIN 
 
For the benefit of those of you who missed previous episodes of this soap 
opera: In late 1987, I subscribed to Byte Magazine.  I sent them a check for a
two  year subscription.  Although they cashed my check, they sent me a dunning
letter, and a "Notice of Cancellation".  I responded to both with notes saying
that I had paid the bill.  I have yet to be graced by a response to either of 
my notes. When my bank statement arrived, indicating that my check was 
cancelled before the subscription was, I called their customer service (ha!) 
number.  I related the situation, and requested a refund.  The customer
service  
(ha!) representative promised to send one.  Nothing happened, and I telephoned

the customer service (ha!) number again on March 10.  During an interminable 
conversation with an alleged person, I stated, iterated and reiterated the 
facts.  Again I received a promise of a refund, supposedly to arrive in about
5  weeks.  Subsequently, Byte began arriving.  By this time, I did not want
the  magazine, and regarded its arrival as an insult.   
 
OK, now for the news.  Of course, the promise of the customer service (ha!) 
representative was, once again, not kept.  I telephoned again on April 27, and
spoke with a different customer service (ha!) representative, in this case one
who was probably smarter than the average turnip.  She told me that from what 
she could see, nothing at all had happened regarding my refund.  She said she 
would initiate the process, but was not optimistic. 
 
I thereupon wrote a letter to the president of McGraw Hill, on my legal 
letterhead, setting forth the facts.  He responded with a letter saying he was
directing someone to investigate, and that someone would contact me within one
week.  This was one promise from McGraw-Hill which was almost kept.  I
received  a subsequent letter, dated 7 days after the previous letter, but
postmarked 10  days after the previous letter.  This second letter did not
reach me until  substantially later, however, perhaps because of the address
on the envelope,  which I reproduce verbatim below: 
  
             Mr. Matthew M. Franckiewicz 
             Attorney at Law 
             902 Lincoln Highway 
             North Versailles, PA 15137 
             1000 East Main St. 
             Plainfield, Indiana  46168 
  
(Are these guys the gang that can't shoot straight, or what?) 
 
(Continued next message.) 
 
 ... ...-....

--- ConfMail V3.31
 * Origin: NEVERBOARD  Pittsburgh [Alternet 522/2] [DR_DEBUG HUB] (1:129/18)


From:    Matthew Franckiewicz 
To:      All                                      Msg #87, 21-Jun-88 02:39pm
Subject: Byte5

This second letter promised a refund, and said that I should receive it within
10 days.  Imagine my lack of surprise when no refund arrived.  After about 3 
weeks had passed, I telephoned the sender of the second letter (yes, collect, 
of course).  I was told that he was not there.  The following week he returned
my call, leaving a message on my answering machine.  I called him again at 
about 2:30 p.m. (same time zone) and was told he was out to lunch.  (While
this  may explain a lot about the nature of the problem, I strain to resist
the  temptation to say something obvious.)  I left another message, but he has
never  replied to it, and I doubt he ever will. 
 
Yesterday, June 13, merely a month and 3 days after the letter which promised
a  refund within 10 days, a check arrived.  The check was dated June 9.  I
have  not yet attempted to cash this check, and when I do take it to the bank,
I will  do so with some trepidation. 
  
In summary, it took me five telephone calls, two notes, a letter on my legal 
stationery, about four hours of my time, and nearly six months, to induce Byte
Magazine and/or McGraw-Hill to provide restitution for their error.   
  
If you are considering a subscription to Byte, you must ask yourself whether 
you are willing to risk being subjected to the same treatment I received. 
(And  if you are not a lawyer, perhaps you may risk even worse treatment.) 
Moreover,  where an organization cannot accurately state what it is going to
do, can you  believe its statements about what a piece of hardware of software
is going to  do?   
    

--- ConfMail V3.31
 * Origin: NEVERBOARD  Pittsburgh [Alternet 522/2] [DR_DEBUG HUB] (1:129/18)

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
Disclaimer? I     |
claimed something?|            Insert your favorite quote here