Skip to main content

steve bickley, we hardly new ye

i got a letter yesterday that shocked me, not because of the content, but because of the person who sent it.

i've come to recognise the rounded variety on century gothic that bell canada uses in their love letters to me and, since i hadn't blogged about them  in a while, i was greatly looking forward to another "please come back" missive from my mysterious suitor, mr. steve bickley. so imagine my surprise when the letter turned out to be from a woman by the name of heather tulk, who seems to have taken over mr. bickley's position as senior vice president of residential services.

i've no idea what's become of steve. did my consistent rejections, on the basis that bell had treated my like an inmate in their telecommunications prison, who tried to bill me for months of service when they forgot to disconnect my toronto line and accused me of lying when i insisted that i had ordered a disconnection (and even claimed that i should pay if they had been at fault, which they were), drive him into some sort of frenzy? while i don't think i'm ugly, i'm not generally the kind of girl who makes men crazy, even if they have been sending me letters for almost three years to tell me how much they miss me.

heather's letter is interesting. she's obviously after me to return to bell, but she avoids any mention of my whole history with steve. she makes no mention of him, or of the fact that i was once a bell customer. her case is ruthlessly practical: i should go back to bell for purely fiduciary reasons. i will save, over the course of two years, almost $1400 from what i'm currently paying videotron (how do they know?) for my services. i respect that practicality, that forwardness, that desire to start from a clean slate. there's something in it that touches a chord in my chilled heart.

CAN A NEW BELL FACE WIN ME BACK?



when i googled ms. tulk, i found out why. turns out, she, like me, hails from eastern canada. she has that awareness of the importance of dollars and cents that is bred in the blood of an area of the country that generally has very little of either. while she comes originally from newfoundland, she has spent, as far as i can tell, the last several years in a position of high authority with aliant, bell's arm in the maritime provinces. it was on reading that little tidbit that her message went from striking a chord to striking a nerve.

you see, dom and i bought my mother a portable phone for christmas. we wanted her to have this because we knew that, in the spring, she was due to have hip replacement surgery and neither of us wanted her to be phone-less in case of an accident or to have to exert herself to answer the daily calls i'm going to be giving her until i'm sure she's all right. because my mother has digital internet service through alliant (as well as her cable and phone service), she needed to get a noise reduction box to keep her phone and internet service from interfering with each other. ok, i understand. we have one of those too.

however, when she called aliant, they told her that, if she were to install the device to allow her internet and phone to work together, her cable would stop working. excusez-moi? no matter what this poor woman does, having a portable phone is going to deprive her of one of the services that she pays for from bell aliant? end of story?

sadly, yes, that seems to be just as far as aliant is willing to help her. now my mother is freshly returned from the hospital and every time she gets a phone call, she has to make her way painfully to a phone anchored to the wall because apparently, in the digital age, no one at aliant hasa ever considered the possibility that phones might be made portable.

heather, i appreciate your easterner's pluck and your attempt to court me simply by pointing out your advantages, but i can hardly return to bell's loving arms when they've treated first me and now my mother so poorly. and yes, i'm still bitter about that internet cap thing you tried to push on all of us. i'd suggest that you move on to winning back the hearts of some of the other people who ran from your clammy clutches over the years. but if you see steve bickley, do give him my regards.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …