Does Anyone Think Journalists Are Angels?

Yesterday, several news articles and reader comments reminded me why I have such low regard for the media—conservative as well as liberal. This low regard, however, is well deserved and based upon years of observing human nature—also held by me in the lowest esteem. Working in a primarily cash industry, I know that given the opportunity, practically everybody will steal.

Everywhere you look you see an attempt to thwart thieves and robbers: locks, passwords, concealed carry permits, pin numbers, software validation, and time clocks. These and countless other devices exist to keep people from stealing—or at least to make it more difficult. As a society, we simply accept these circumstances because thievery is ubiquitous.

We’d like to think that there is a class of people who can be trusted—especially those who oversee our security—such as policemen, judges and legislators. But the only reason we have to trust them is that they haven’t yet been caught (with the exception of Alcee Hastings, the Federal Judge convicted of bribery and perjury, impeached and removed from the bench who now is the honorable Congressman from Florida.)  But, I’m certain that every police station in America has lockers where cops can secure their valuables from other cops—illustrating that their perspective is merely that of society in general: if you can steal it, go for it.

Years ago, I pulled into a self-service gas station on Thanksgiving morning. Back then, you paid after pumping the gas. After filling my car, I walked over to pay the cashier and found that the station was closed for the holiday.

I thought that if I drove away, I could surely be arrested for theft.  I tried to insert a check for the gas between the panes of glass at the pay booth, but it wouldn’t fit. I walked out to the street to consider my options.  Fortunately, a policeman was driving past.  I flagged him down and explained that the owners had closed the station but had left the gas pumps on. He said, “You mean you can get free gas?”

I explained that if that was my intent, I would hardly have gone to the police first. Then it dawned on him that he could contact someone who could stop the distribution of “free gas.”

Accustomed as we are to the fact that theft is a way of life, we’re less likely to realize that lying is equally widespread. As a child, I believed that if something was printed in the newspaper it had to be true. I remember hearing others say, “They couldn’t write that unless it was true!” By the time I was in the 8^th grade, I knew that people could write pretty much anything they wanted to write.  There were no journalism police. That’s good because truth can be difficult to identify and hard to defend against opposing views—particularly if liars have more money and influence than those who are telling the truth. It’s bad because society at large still thinks that if it’s in print, it’s probably true. Just look at how often footnotes in history essays cite newspapers.

Which brings me to yesterday’s “aha.” Media outlets keep reminding people of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. A couple of weeks ago, Romney had referenced the perspective he got while roughing it as an LDS missionary in France. Since then, reports have appeared claiming that is bogus. For example, The Telegraph wrote, “Much of Mitt Romney’s life as a Mormon missionary in France was not as poor or arduous as he has claimed, say those who knew him at the time.” The problem with that line? It claims that “much” of his life was not as poor as he claimed—not that what he said was false. Actually, during the 30 months that he was in France, he spent 8 months living in the Church’s mission home—a palatial setting with all kinds of amenities.  What about the other 22 months? He lived in slums accurately reflected by his recollection.  I’m pretty sure he faced those conditions because I was in Europe a few years after that and lived in the same conditions:  apartments with no toilet or shower and lots of rats. I lived in nicer apartments as well; but The Telegraph’s assertion is false: 8 months out of 30 hardly qualifies as “much.” A similar twist of the truth appeared on one of my formerly favorite websites when Romney responded to a reporter’s question asking if Gingrich should give back the money he got from Freddie Mac.  In response, Romney said he thought Gingrich should give the money back. Hotair modifies that to, “Mitt Romney’s demand that he return over a million dollars from Freddie Mac.”

It seems to me that it’s reasonable to paraphrase someone else’s comments; but a paraphrase should retain the original meaning of the quote. There is a big difference between agreeing affirmatively with a reporter’s suggestion and calling that agreement a demand. It’s a basic question of integrity. However, we shouldn’t be any more surprised to see the media lie than we are to see politicians steal.

Newt's Incredible Luck in Securing Employment as a Historian at Rock Star Wages

Is anybody in America stupid enough to believe that Newt Gingrich earned $1.6 million in three years to give “advice as a historian?” That’s his explanation—without cracking a smile. Here’s how that surely came about:

Freddie Mac’s Board of Directors needed advice on how to remain solvent—given the fact that they were guaranteeing the principle and interest on billions of dollars in bad loans. With a very bad business model, and financial disaster on the horizon, they made the only really logical decision: they hired an historian. That makes all the sense in the world. No reason to horse around with an economist, or an MBA, or even a good defense attorney. They needed a guy whose expertise was on the Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960. Of course that makes sense.  The fact that he knew lots of elected conservatives who were adverse to this fiscal madness had nothing to do with it. They didn’t need a conservative lobbyist—they needed a historian—seriously.

That wasn’t their first choice, though.  They were conflicted between the allure of a historian and the more sensible idea of getting a community organizer; but come on, he already had a job.

Harold Bloom on the Mormon Menace

Earlier this week, an essay appeared in the New York Times by Harold Bloom titled, Will this Election Be the Mormon Breakthrough?  I noticed it was cited on a blog and so I left a comment there.  My reply to his most recent rejoinder was too long to fit in his comments section so I have posted it here.Readers might find it to be easier to follow if they read John's blog comments first.

John:

When I first read Bloom’s essay, I was disappointed at several factual errors; but had not considered whether or not it was an “anti-Mormon diatribe.” I am inured to anti-Mormon propaganda and find it generally entertaining—so I rarely think of any of it in the context of a diatribe; however, as a result of your reply to me, I went back to re-read it. I don’t think it is anti-Mormon as much as it is anti-American Religion with a healthy dose of condescending ignorance.

I do consider myself conversant with anti-Mormonism; and consequently, as I noted above, I’m more likely to be entertained than offended by it.  That is not the case in this essay: it is incredibly offensive.

You provided a list of 5 points that you take from Bloom’s piece, which you suggest make up the thrust of his essay.  Generally, a good essay states the premise at the beginning, submits evidence for that premise in the body of the essay and concludes by re-stating the premise as having been established.  His essay consists of uninformed assertions followed by additional uninformed and bigoted assertions, ending in a final fear that Republican politics are little more than an a choice between a theocracy led by zealots and a theocracy led by ignoramuses.

Bloom’s hostility towards people of faith (limited here to American religions; but it likely extends to all branches of Christianity) is clear in his description of “omens that will darken” as they’re arrayed against Obama’s quest for a second term.

To explain this looming disaster, Bloom writes that Mitt Romney is “deep within the labyrinthine Mormon hierarchy.” That assertion is laughably false.  Romney served—seventeen years ago—in the temporary,  local leadership positions of Bishop and Stake President.  But seriously, “labyrinthine?”    Aside from local leaders of congregations, the LDS hierarchy consists of the president with two counselors, 12 apostles and an additional two quorums of 70 men each to assist them. Those “deep within” the quorums of 70 serve only temporarily. An additional 3 bishops oversee the administration of church finance and property concerns.  Romney never has been in that hierarchy—deep or otherwise.

The next big blow to Bloom’s credibility comes when he claims that Mormon leaders are “plutocratic oligarchs” while referring to America’s “supposed democracy.” As is typical with many professors, he falsely denigrates both America and Mormon leaders.  Leaving aside his swipe at America’s constitutional republic, he either knows nothing about actual Mormon leaders; or he has no concept of plutocratic oligarchies. While it’s true that Mormon leadership is confined to a small group of about 150 men, they could hardly be considered plutocrats—ruling by virtue of their wealth. The current president, Thomas Monson, worked as a book publisher before being admitted to the Quorum of 12 Apostles. Until very recently, he lived in a modest home in my middle class neighborhood in Salt Lake City. His predecessor and those before him could hardly have been considered plutocrats. For the most part they have been businessmen of modest means, teachers, attorneys and a physician.

This brings me to the first item you took away from Bloom’s essay:

 1. Mormonism "was as much a departure from historical Christianity as Islam was and is." But then, SO ARE MOST OTHER AMERICANIZED CHURCHES.  

 Well, that’s pretty much the premise of Mormonism isn’t it? Mormonism is predicated on the position that historical Christianity is a vestige of a pristine Church that fell into apostasy.  As far as Islam being a “departure from historical Christianity,” It’s apparent that Bloom has no firmer grasp on Islamic history than he has on Mormonism. 

2. Mormonism is uniquely American precisely because we have made a cottage industry of reinventing the church.

Honestly, Bloom’s essay is pretty bad when it comes to logical thought; but that non sequitur had to come from somewhere else.

3. American religion, like American culture, is centered upon the denial of death [literalizing an ancient Christian metaphor.]

You left out the part in brackets; but its context is essential to see what Bloom is claiming. 

According to Bloom, only American Christians actually have the temerity to believe in a literal resurrection—and as a result “deny death?”  Likewise, historical Christians only looked on the idea of the resurrection of Jesus as a metaphor? That's nonsense. American Protestants aren't the only Christians who believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. I’ve talked with a significant number of European Catholics who believe in a literal resurrection; and I would submit that it is the central theme of Christianity worldwide. Belief in a literal resurrection certainly is the central theme of Mormonism; but it could hardly be classified as “denial of death.”

4. Our religion is shaped by individualism, "freedom," and the American Jeezus.

Our religion is shaped by its tenets found in scripture. While the freedom to choose is basic and explained in 2 Nephi 2, that freedom is possessed by all the descendants of Adam and Eve—not just Americans. As far as the “American Jeezus” goes, I was unfamiliar with the concept and went to the Urban Dictionary for a definition. It seems to be a romanticized idea of what a politically correct Jesus would embrace. It claims that this “Jeezus” hates gays, doesn’t allow women to end pregnancies from rapists, believes in guns, hatred of others, and social Darwinism.” I’m pretty conversant with Mormon theology and that is a categorically false caricature of American Christianity in general and Mormonism specifically.

5. The LDS is evolving into just another Americanized Protestant sect.

Evidence supporting such an assertion would be interesting to assess. Since Bloom provides no evidence I would point out that a wide doctrinal gulf separates the LDS from Protestantism; and it isn’t disappearing in some mythical evolutionary process. Mormonism differs radically from Protestantism (and so-called Christian orthodoxy) today and historically. Their irreconcilable differences include diametrical opposition in their views of the nature of God, scripture, man, sin, soteriology, creation, revelation and the afterlife. There isn’t one particle of these tenets that has evolved since the time of Joseph Smith; and they separate us absolutely. Bloom’s assertion is little more than wishful thinking. He would do well to become informed about these subjects before making such wild and speculative claims in the future.

Bloom's essay seems to serve as a warning to America against a possible Romney presidency. It's hard to see any connection with reality.

HDR Photography

When I write on this blog, the subject matter--more often than not--deals with religion, and rarely with politics. Once in a while, I come across something else that occupies my mind for a while and I think, "I ought to put that on my blog." This is one of those items.

Last winter, I came across a couple of pictures of the Salt Lake Temple--posted on a blog by a visitor to Salt Lake City. He referred to the pictures as "HDR" photographs--which I had never heard of.  I learned over a couple of weeks that this is a way to take pictures that more closely mimics the  human eyes' ability to perceive texture. Standard photography is limited when both bright and dark images are captured in the same frame. For example, when taking a picture from inside a room looking out the window, if the exposure is correct for inside the room, everything outside will be washed out. Conversely, if the exposure is appropriate for sunlight, everything inside the room will be too dark. HDR photography allows the photographer to use computer technology to take several photographs at different exposures and fuse them together later. This makes it possible to capture the image of a dark gray temple with a bright blue sky in the background where the colors and features appear as they would when seen by the human eye.

The more expensive camera you have, the easier it is to produce HDR images, and since I have a low-end Nikon, I've had to work a little harder than if I had a higher end camera. I'm still learning how to work around problems like movement of people or clouds between exposures, but the clarity of the photographs is so high that I'm very disappointed that I didn't know of this technique a year ago when I went to Israel and Jordan.

With an entry level Canon or Nikon camera and about $100 for software, anyone can produce remarkable images. With HDR, I've found a renewed interest in taking photographs.  Pictures have to be taken in "RAW" format--which I now do exclusively, and a great on-line tutorial is available to learn the basics. Even single exposure images have an added dimension of texture unavailable in standard JPG format. Here are a couple of the pictures I have taken since last February.

Philosophy and Theology

I wrote that I would write more later about the different perceptions of God between LDS and perceived Christian orthodoxy. It's now much later; but I have spent some time following up on ideas related to this subject. Here is what happened in the interim.

It's clear, as noted by the scholar Edwin Hatch, that there is a vast difference between the doctrines of the New Testament and those promulgated at Nicaea. Following our discussion on the creeds, and while I was preparing to teach my New Testament class, I was struck with this passage from Revelation 9:20

And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk.

 The striking part is the very clear contrast between false gods and the God of Israel. The devils and idols cannot see, hear or walk. Perhaps that stood out for me because I had been listening to some remarkable lectures on Christian theology by Professor Phillip Cary. He had provided a rule for interpreting scripture in the course of one of his lectures, noting that scripture is interpreted literally unless it would be ludicrous to do so. He gave as an example a passage from Genesis that couldn't be taken seriously--where God is referred to as walking in the garden in the cool of the day. (Gen. 3:8) Professor Cary explained, "If you take that literally, you're not taking the text seriously. God doesn't literally walk in the cool of the evening."

I thought that was a rather cavalier attitude and hoped he would be willing to respond to an email from me. He graciously and quickly replied and gave me permission to quote his answer:

You raise an important issue.  I don't think Rev. 9:20 decides the issue, since I would take its point to be that idols are not even alive, much less divine.  And in any case, from an orthodox (non-anthropomorphic) perspective, God's seeing and hearing are as metaphorical as his walking, since he has literally neither eyes nor ears, any more than he has legs.

Yet the general issue you raise remains. It's not hard to arrive at a very anthropomorphic conception of God if you don't accept the alliance between Christian doctrine and classical philosophy. You don't have to be a Mormon to take this path.  All you have to do is take literally the attribution of emotion to God in the Old Testament. For if God literally has emotions, then he must exist in time (so that his emotional states can change) and if he exists in time then he must also exist in space (as if clear from modern physics and Einsteinian relativity theory) and if he exists in space he must have some kind of body. (Phillip Cary 2/23/2010)

 I am still astounded at the implications of his answer--which is representative of mainstream orthodox Christian theology. The requirements of classical philosophy remove God from both time and space. This constructed Being of philosophical conclusions can experience no emotion--neither compassion nor tenderness. He is so transcendent that he does not love, neither does he mourn. This is the meaning of a God without body, parts, or passions.

As I mulled over the ramifications of the orthodox perspective, I remembered that Judaism shares to a great extent the same philosophy regarding God existing (if that is possible) outside of time and space who neither walks, nor sees, nor eats, nor smells (see also Deut. 4:28). I wrote to James Kugel, a professor of Hebrew who had been quoted in a news report as having concluded that the God of the Old Testament was corporeal. I wrote to Dr. Kugel and asked him when he believed the change of perception took place so that the Jewish idea of God mirrored that of Christian philosophy.  He suggested that I read his book, "The God of Old," since it is a fairly complicated answer.

I read the book which led me to several others on Jewish theology by Gershom Scholem. Essentially, the rabbis of the middle ages became concerned that their concept of God wasn't as transcendent as the God of philosophical Christianity; so there was a concerted effort to modernize the God of Judaism. Kugel quotes Scholem as lamenting this development because it changed what it was that made God a "living God."

The philosophers and theologians [of medieval times] were concerned first and foremost with the purity of the concept of God and determined to divest it of all mythi­cal and anthropomorphic elements. But this determina­tion to ... reinterpret the recklessly anthropomorphic statements of the biblical text and the popular forms of religious expression in terms of a purified theology tended to empty out the concept of God ... The price of God’s purity is the loss of his living reality. What makes Him a living God ... is precisely what makes it possible for man to see Him face to face. (G. Scholem, “Kabbalah and Myth”) [Kugel, James "The God of Old" p. 201]

Kugel points out that earlier Israelites conceived of a God as "a physical being not much bigger in size than an ordinary human." This reminded me of a news report of Mormon missionaries in 1836 in the Ohio Observer:   "They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself."

The orthodox perspective that denies the "body, parts and passions" of God stands in stark contrast to the personage described by Joseph Smith. The passages we view as literal, they see as "figurative expressions accommodated to our way of conceiving things." I see some real problems with such explanations as did early LDS apologist B.H. Roberts--because the passages aren't figurative of anything other than anthropomorphic characteristics. One  passage in particular--Deuteronomy 23:12-14-- illustrates this point.

Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:  And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:

Why were they to bury this waste? The answer comes in the next verse: "For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp..."

And this is only one instance of scores of other passages referring to God as a corporeal being. But more important to me is the certainty that God loves--"For God so loved the world." He is not merely the attribute of love; he does love with tender compassion. That is the nature of a perfect Father.

As B. H. Roberts pointed out years ago, Jesus Christ is the manifestation of the Father. He is the express image of His Father. He existed in both time and space, he displayed tenderness, loving kindness and anger. He wept. His nature did not change at his resurrection as is demonstrated in the Book of Mormon. 

And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them. And when he had done this he wept again;

He continues to exist in both time and space as a resurrected being. He possesses all the attributes He manifested in His mortal ministry.

The Nicene Creed

I had the opportunity for the past two weeks of appearing on Pastor Jason Wallace's television program "The Ancient Paths."  Pastor Wallace is really an enjoyable host and interviewer. We're able to discuss our differences and disagreements agreeably and without discourtesy. He's probably as perplexed that I'm a Mormon as I am that he's a Calvinist. He invited me two weeks ago to come on his program and discuss the Nicene Creed.

Since it had been quite a few years since I had read that specific creed I re-read it.  Mormons have an almost automatic aversion to most of the creeds (even though we have our own 13 Articles of Faith that probably qualify as creedal statements) and I was surprised at how little disagreement I personally have with the creed of Nicaea. As we discussed the words and thoughts expressed in it, I noted that they aren't problematic for Mormons. What is problematic is that they prescribe belief as a condition of fellowship. Mormons perceive behavior rather than belief as the litmus test of fellowship.  I'll write more about that later; I just remembered I'm late for choir practice.

Think Twice About Getting the Google Nexus One Phone

If you bought a Google Nexus One, pray that you never have to have it repaired.

I bought the new Google phone manufactured by HTC. After using it for a couple of days, I thought, "This is cool, I'll get one for my wife." That was a $529.00 mistake.

The phone's "haptic response" didn't work. What's "haptic response?" It's a remarkable innovation that silently tells you the phone is accepting your keystrokes. It's a very brief vibration of the phone with each keystroke. After a few minutes of investigation, I learned my wife's didn't work.  I called HTC's repair site for what was the first of a series of useless and exasperating discussions.It went like this:

"Can you tell me your name?
"What is your email address?
"What is your telephone number?
"What is your home address?

After giving the appropriate replies, I explained the phone's problem. The service representative said that I needed to send the phone to the repair center so it could be evaluated. I said, "OK, what do we do?"  She said: "What's your name?"

I said, "Didn't I just give you all that information?"  She said, "Yes, but that was on a different screen, I need it again."  She then explained that she needed my email address, home address, phone number and credit card number. There is a $38.00 fee for examining the phone if it turns out that it had been damaged by me so she needed my credit card number..  I said, "OK, here's the number." She said, "Not yet. I have to get permission from my supervisor for you to send it back." Although I didn't say it, I thought, "You need PERMISSION to provide warranty service--on a brand new phone that arrived with a defect?  She asked for permission to put me on hold. Every 45 seconds or so, she came back on the line to tell me she was still working on getting permission. After about 10 minutes she came back and said, "OK, could you give me your name and address?"

"Seriously? What have you been doing with it each time I gave it to you?"  She apologized but said I still needed to give it to her. She said she was having trouble getting the computer to take the information. Would I mind if she called me back in about 20 minutes?

No call came; but the next day I got an email with a FedEx label and instructions on how to return the phone. (How in the world did they find my email address?) I packed up the phone according to the instructions and dropped it off at FedEx on Saturday evening..

Two weeks later, with no communication from HTC, I checked the tracking number through FedEx and learned the phone had been delivered two days after I had dropped it off.  Reluctant to call HTC, I looked for some way to check the status on their web site but found a phone call was the only option.  I called.

"So that we can work effectively with you,
"Can you tell me your name?
"What is your email address?
"What is your telephone number?"

I provided the information and explained why I was calling. She explained that she would have to transfer me to the service center.  I got my name, email and phone number ready. That's what the next person asked for. I was told that the phone had never arrived.  I gave her the tracking number and explained that it had been delivered January 25th.

She said, "Hmmmm. Can I put you on hold while I look into this?"

A few minutes later she returned and explained to me that it had indeed been delivered on January 25th but they didn't know where it was.  She said that this is a problem (!) and she would submit an escalation ticket to have it looked in to.  "The escalation team doesn't come in until 10:00 so you should hear back from us in about 2 days."

Two days later I got an email explaining how to ship my phone to HTC. "That's odd" I thought, but now I expected things to deteriorate. Why tell me how to send them a phone they already have? I replied to the email and explained that after several conversations, I now have the same information I started with, to wit: I got a bad phone from them, I mailed it to them, they lost it.  I invited them to get me some new information that I didn't already know.

This morning I called again for an update.  After the initial exchange of the same information of name and email and phone number, they also asked for the HTC ticket number (which you would think would include all the information they keep taking down), He looked up my record and said, "Apparently you refused delivery of this phone?"  Incredulous, I asked when they sent it to me so that I could have refused it.

(Hold please)......."Here is what happened. We wrote down the wrong serial number on the phone. When your phone arrived it didn't match our number of your phone so we didn't repair it.  However, I am sending in an escalation notice so that they'll look into it."

"A new escalation notice? What good will that do? Didn't somebody send an escalation ticket on Monday that proved to be a waste of time?"

"Well, they did find the phone."

"But that didn't accomplish anything towards the goal of getting me back my phone did it?"

"What? Didn't they send you a loaner?"

"No." (When you order the phone they engrave two lines of text of your choice. I had them put my wife's name and the second line said, "If found, call XXX-XXX-XXXX with my phone number for the contact. The service department had that phone with my telephone number on it and they didn't take the time to tell me what was happening when the serial number didn't match. Incidentally, they don't swap out phones if they're engraved.)

"hold please..... We're issuing you a refund for the phone some time next week."

"Ah," I thought, "some real, albeit very late, customer service." Then it hit me: these people have been so clueless, they're not doing what a normal company would do in such a situation. They're not making anything right; they just want to start over.  "So, what about my phone?"

"It won't be repaired. We wrote on the ticket that you had refused shipment so that you would get a refund and now you just need to buy another phone."

I can understand a less than satisfactory experience with customer service; but I don't see how that can happen every time I call.  I think Google made a mistake with this partner. It kind of reminds me of new Coke.

UPDATE: Feb 15 2010 - I got a call from HTC telling me that the problem was related to the fact that they had recorded the wrong serial number; but they were going to issue an "escalation ticket" so that Houston can proceed with its repair. Once again, they told me what I already knew; and their news didn't indicate that anything would be resolved. She did start to ask me to confirm my telephone number and then realized she had called me and just asked for my address and email. I noted that this was at least the ninth time I had proffered this data and she was pleased because she said they're all supposed to asked for that information each time they contact a customer. Apparently, HTC could not proceed to repair my phone until they called me and went through all the processes we've been through 4 times now. I noted that this was not only astonishingly useless but equally aggravating. She apologized and reiterated that it was necessary to contact me to issue an escalation ticket because the previous two escalation tickets needed to be closed before any further work could proceed. Apparently, further work must be metaphorical or necessary for additional irritation to the customer since no work whatsoever had been done on their part after 3 weeks-- except of course--writing down my name and address and issuing those essential escalation tickets.

UPDATE: Feb 16 2010 - I got an email from HTC. It had to be good news.  How surprising to learn it was another FedEx label to send in my telephone for repair. It included this solemn warning: "You must access the URL on or before the Label Expiration Date of 2010-02-23" and, "If you require more information about this shipment, please call 888-617-1113."

I called. I explained that this had ceased to be entertaining and asked why they're sending me another label for a phone that never goes anywhere.  He asked if I had an HTC work order number. I read it to him from the original email confirmation. He could see a record of all my conversations and didn't need any other information. He said, "Don't worry about that. Those labels are emailed automatically whenever a work order is generated."

"Just to aggravate customers?"


UPDATE: Feb 17 2010 - At work this morning  a gmail notifier indicated a message from HTC Customer Service. They were responding to a survey they sent me on Sunday because I had interacted with Customer Service. Of about 22 items, I had rated all but one as "unacceptable" --mainly because there wasn't a lower category. The one I ranked as acceptable was "Was your service representative polite?" They have all been very polite and very useless. Well, apparently something I wrote gave them reason for concern so Nate called and left a message on my voice mail that he wanted to make sure "HTC was meeting my needs satisfactorily." He left a number and asked me to call him back. I was so excited to find out what they weren't going to do today, that I immediately called at 9:36 am.

He asked me how everything had turned out. I laughed and gave him a condensed version. He apologized. I said I was tired of hearing people apologize who had no more power to make things right than I had. What I really wanted from HTC was some semblance of customer service. He quickly scanned the history of escalation notices and said, "I know who I need to talk to about this. I will make a couple of calls and call you back in 10 minutes. What's the best number to reach you?"  I gave him my office number and waited by the phone for the next 10 minutes times 12.  Then, I forwarded my office number to my cell phone.  Five hours later I called his number several times, but all I got was a message that he was unavailable. I should have known it was only a ruse. Last time they said they'd call back in 20 minutes and never did.  I wonder if they will ever call me if I don't try to contact them?

I think HTC would be more profitable if they got rid of all their customer service personnel. They're very good at apologizing and being polite, but what they need is people who can resolve customer service problems. As long as they can't do that, why employ them?

UPDATE: February 22, 2010.  Today marks the four week anniversary that HTC has had my phone. I called their service center on Saturday to find out why they hadn't returned any of my calls. The guy told me that he didn't have any information but that he was going to send an email to his supervisor and she'd call me on Monday. I explained that I was tired of hearing nothing except what I already knew and asked him to make sure that when she called me she should have some information related to when I would get my phone or a refund. He said the email was going out right then.

No call from his supervisor today so I called HTC and asked if they had any information. Here is what he told me.  Here is a transcript of the recording:

"All right, I received a message here from our repair center and it said that the serial number for the received device does not match the in-bound device. They have discarded the ticket and have asked to re-create a new ticket with the proper serial number, so I guess I need to do that.  That message was sent to our system on, uh actually, that message was here today, Let me see if I can find if that ticket was created. I'm going to search by the serial number to see if that ticket has been created.  Sorry, there's a lot of different tickets, there's a lot of information that's been shuffled around to that uh......I'm going to get a supervisor over here just to confirm this--but it looks like I got a response today from the repair center in Houston, and it's asking us to create a new ticket with the proper serial number. Well, this ticket is closed, so that's OK--all of your tickets are closed, so we do need to create a new ticket and everything should be fine."

Looks to me like we're in a repeating loop--or this is the best story they have and they're sticking with it. Two weeks ago, they told me the wrong serial number was recorded and they had to create a new ticket.  Last week, Angie called me and told me the wrong serial number was recorded and they had to create a new ticket. I just got off the phone with Matt who told me the wrong serial number was recorded and they had to create a new ticket.

UPDATE! March 2, 2010:  My phone arrived via FedEx on Wednesday. It was such a relief to see the package and visualize an end to this astonishing adventure--which, I learned, had not concluded. They did not fix my phone; they just sent it back.

Everyone at home laughed.

I got another survey inviting me to rate customer service.

I have learned why HTC kept stopping work and had the wrong serial number.  On my first call they asked for the serial number of the defective phone. I read it to them and they recorded it. They sent me a shipping label with instructions to pack the phone carefully to avoid damage.  I put the phone in one of the two boxes they came in and sent it out. The box had a serial number on it--the serial number for the working phone. When it arrived in Houston, someone used a scanner to read the serial number on the box. That number wasn't the same as the number they were expecting so they set it aside, unable to work on it. They didn't check the phone--that was the number they needed.

Two weeks later, I called to find out what was taking so long. They concluded they could repair it by creating a new ticket with the serial number from the box. So, armed with a new work order and new serial number, the technician opened up the phone. The serial number didn't match the work order so he couldn't fix it.

When I called the following week they issued another work order with the first serial number. That apparently made it possible for them to mail the phone back to me so we could start over.

UPDATE March 4, 2010:  I got my phone back today. It still doesn't work. I don't understand why they would send it back non-functioning without any comment. Tomorrow I'll find out how good my VISA Platinum purchase protection is.

UPDATE March 5, 2010:  I didn't turn the phone off yesterday when I--in total frustration--set it down to write my update. This morning, I picked it up to mull over my next step. I went to turn it on and it vibrated. Aliens must have visited my home during the night because now it works. It didn't last night; but now it does everything it's supposed to do.