from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C3F16F1A
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon,  7 Oct 2002 21:56:16 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 07 Oct 2002 21:56:16 +0100 (IST)
from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g97KkXK16440 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:46:33 +0100
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 5E6252940E0; Mon,  7 Oct 2002 13:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
from 192.168.1.2 (smtp.piercelaw.edu [216.204.12.219]) by
    xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A446F2940DF for <fork@xent.com>;
    Mon,  7 Oct 2002 13:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
From fork-admin@xent.com  Mon Oct  7 21:56:38 2002

Monday, October 7, 2002, 4:45:02 PM, you wrote:
T> I know I heard of this a few years back but Wired and Slashyrot are both
T> running stories on 10mbs data transfer via human touch.
T> Oh I can see it now, The first bicostal file exchange system that will see
T> the newsest Offspring tunes distribute by handshake, copulation and
Wow.  I'm just wondering how the earliest adopter of all new
technologies, the porn market will spin this one...
"New... Now you can transfer porn while you screw!'  Talk about

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238AF16F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon,  7 Oct 2002 22:40:45 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:40:45 +0100 (IST)
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 3664D2940D8; Mon,  7 Oct 2002 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
from mail.evergo.net (unknown [206.191.151.2]) by xent.com
    (Postfix) with SMTP id E8F6D2940A1 for <Fork@xent.com>; Mon,
    7 Oct 2002 14:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
(qmail 10982 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2002 21:02:27 -0000
From fork-admin@xent.com  Mon Oct  7 22:40:45 2002

They are legally required to do that.  I got a similar check because an
insurance company didn't pay a claim quickly enough.  It might have been
$.02.
Although they spent lots more than $.33 to mail you the check, the
alternative seems to be to keep the money.  Do you really want companies
to have a financial incentive to over-bill you 'just a bit' so they
could keep it?  For a company with millions of customers, $.33/customer
starts adding up.
> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of
> bitbitch@magnesium.net
> So I get a check from Pac Bell today (SBC as they're called now).
> Turns out, they went to the trouble of printing out, signing, sealing
> and stamping a check just to refund me for a whole $0.33.
>
> They easily spent more than this just getting the materials together.
> Why the hell do companies bother to do this crap?  I mean, isn't there
> a bottom line in terms of cost effectiveness?  I don't think I missed
> the .33, but I sure as hell would have appreciated lower rates in lieu
> of being returned pennies.
>
> I'm truly stuck on this though.  I don't know whether to frame the
> check, burn it, or cash it in.  Maybe I should find a way to return to
> sender, so they have to spend -more- money on giving me my .33 dues.
>
>
> Does .33 even buy anything anymore?  Funny bit of it, is I couldn't
> even make a phone call these days.
>
> *boggled*
> BB.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  bitbitch                          mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net