I am Jack's Smirking Revenge

little, yappy dogs

Tuesday, October 31, 2006


Someone out there wrote a piece about:

"The Religion of Peace Muslims vs The Slit Their Throats Muslims"

And without even reading what was obviously nonsense, I formulated my own title in retort:

"The Love thy Brother, Turn the Other Cheek Christians vs The Invade their Country and Kill Thousands of Innocent Civilians Christians"

That is, you're all full of crap.

The poor bastards in any given country are being taken for a ride just the way we are and there's not a damn thing any of us can do about it. The idea that one man can make a difference is as big a lie, in most cases, as the American Dream.

Anywhere you look, people just want them and theirs to be left alone. As long as they get that, or marginally that, as long as no rabble rousers come along to stir them up over some idea they think is important, those people will continue along with their lives.

But the rabble-rousers run the world now, because by inciting us, they can get us to worry, and by making us worry, they can get our money, which is the end result of most equations involving rabble-rousers.

Certainly there are some who mean to promote peace, love, and understanding, and solely pro-bono.

Oh, wait, those are all signs of weakness. Liberal Weenie-ism. Frowned upon, girly-man behavior.

Well, I guess Jesus Christ was a big pinko commie liberal weenie then, wasn't he?

How can this country, with all its testosterone-laden bravado, all its tough-guy mentality, all its "mine is biggest and best" bragging- how can this country stand to have a pussy as its front man? Shouldn't we replace Jesus with, maybe, a pitbull made out of iron, painted with a big red white and blue flag, with flaming eyes and a 140 decibel bark?

The sad truth, I am afraid, is Peace is bad for business. Sure, people still buy things, but the government can't enact a bunch of wartime taxes and chuck those tasty billions at arms producers, and that is apparently what we all exist to do. To make things that can be used to kill us, to assure that nobody can kill us.

Friday, October 27, 2006

The Concept of Faith

I like to read a blog by a particular godless heathen, like myself, PZ Meyers. He often features cool squid, octopus, and cuttlefish content, too.

Today he posted a particular rant which made me start thinking about faith.

His point, in one section, was to call attention to something which I had not completely realized.

Faith is a concept which some people put great stock in. Many of these people are good, upstanding folks who we would never want to be mean to, or rude to, or call out because we thought faith was hooey and recently some of the 'faithful' were making asses of themselves in the press.

So, here begins a line of reasoning.

Human beings are at best unreliable as carriers of information. The more out of the ordinary the information is, the less likely it is to be conveyed properly by a random pick of one out of six billion of us. Not only that, but our perception is faulty, it changes over time, and it also degrades over time.

Now, while I do believe that ancient peoples were as capable and able to be educated as any of us modern day people, I do not believe that at any point there were as many people as learned about history nor as able to access facts about it, per-capita-wise, as there are now. The reason this is important is that dissent seems unlikely to spring from ignorance- it's very hard to disagree with something when it's all you know.

Human beings, by and large, succumb to peer pressure far more easily in small groups than in large groups. Small town thinking and small town mentalities work very well for keeping order when people do not have the option to up and move. Thus, long ago, the option was likely to move off into the wilderness alone and likely starve, try to move in with a neighboring small town (and we all know how warmly you're often greeted even to this day in a small town), or shut up and at least pretend to agree with everyone else.

If the theory of Evolution is true, then we humans have spent a fantastic amount of time honing our intelligence against the world we perceive. That is to say, cause and effect and pattern recognition play a huge part in our ability to survive. Our physical bodies and ability to perceive not only the world around us but concepts like numbers and logic, in general, do not perform well beyond ten or twenty of anything. Why? Well, until the last few thousand years, we've never needed more than that.

The word anthropomorphism exists for a good reason. We have a bad habit of projecting our psyche on everything around us. When we find something out of place, we wonder who did it. When we are able to think the thought: "We seem out of place, who put us here?", we look to the same explanations which have always suited us- someone put us here. Bob here claims to have seen this someone, who is obviously more powerful than us if he put us here. If this someone IS more powerful, then maybe when we die they can let us keep living, since we're all a-feared of that death thing.

Now, where I was going with all that.

Religious belief is typically brought to the follower at birth, by their family, and it is done so because that is how it came to the parents. Enforced by: peer pressure.

The supernatural content of any religion cannot be proven, so the belief in it is enforced through shame (in not doing as your parents did), fear of the unknown (what if this stuff really is true), and fear of exile/retribution (I'll get kicked out of my small town/lynched if I don't shut up.) Enforced by: Lack of education and historical reference, inability to dissent, family/peer pressure.

As is already well known, god is useful for describing that stuff we can't understand. The 'simpler' a culture or civilization is, the 'simpler' their religion will tend to be, conceptually. Without getting too deep into this, I do recognize that 'simple' is a bit of a kludge, and that ancient religions were quite elaborate. The point here is the human need to explain through reasoning which makes sense to us as evolved animals the difficult and inexplicable events in the world around us. The religion that fits us culturally also fits our ability to reason and our education. Enforced by: ignorance, anthropomorphism, innate human cognitive and cause-and-effect understanding.

Religion makes sense to its followers, both as a picture of the world and an explanation for why we are here, and it fills the need to know why we are here. From that perspective, a world without that belief and structure seems like a world of peril and chaos- a home with children but no parents must be a misguided home. enforced by: need to know why we are here, fear of death.

To reiterate, religious beliefs cannot be proven true the same way science can be proven true, and people who may not actually believe continue to obey because they're ashamed, afraid, ignorant, and don't have a better answer.

This is really of no consequence, and not my point at all, but merely something I've always wanted to illustrate.

Long ago most people swore up and down that the earth was flat- believed it wholeheartely. That didn't make it true. I suspect they probably would have likewise disbelived any kind of proof of non-flatness, as well.

If you disagree, for a moment think about the theory of Evolution, and even if you don't believe it, imagine it were true.

Now imagine how popular that theory would have been, say, 2000 years ago. If god had shown up and himself declared to the world with lightning, thunder, and burning bushes, that you people all came from little ookie monkeys. Not a damn one of them would have bought it, and whatever god that was would have had to regroup and try again later, leaving out the monkeys part.

There is no reason god can't have started the universe with the big bang and just fudged a bit in his epic works to assure that 2000 years of slightly-behind-the-times thinking didn't cost him any followers.

So now, back to my point. We have perfectly nice, good, upstanding folk who also just happen to indulge the idea that a white flowing bearded old man hovers above us and calls the shots, and that they need to cater to him. I used to believe in santa claus, so, I don't blame them. We all get along nicely, and there's no reason to be mean.

HOWEVER. Some of the people who 'believe', also think that because modern science disproves their religious beliefs that it needs to be silenced. A PR battle is currently being waged across the country, and apparently with the approval of all other religious people.

As a favor to those of us who believe in and support the sciences and do so nicely, I would have to call upon all of those fine upstanding good religious folk amongst us: Please, reel in these jokers within your flock and shut them up. We don't want to start a whose beliefs are better battle, we don't want to have to call EVERY believer out and be rude to them. You are free to believe what you want, whether it can be proven or not- we'll set aside that my beliefs can be proven and yours cannot, as it is not the provability of beliefs which is the question here, but the freedom part. Let's keep it open so everyone else has the right to believe whatever they want, provable or not, differing from you or not, too, ok?

The God Delusion

First, aside from the subject matter, this post has nothing to do with the book by Dawkins, it just so happens that his title works for what I want to say, so, I'm borrowing it. Well, I should say, not having read his book, I may just be about to replicate his point precisely, but I doubt it.

Allow me to set the stage for our little story.

In this world, people who believe in a religion, they all live in a giant car specific to that religion. So the Christians all have their own giant car, and so do the Buddhists, Hindu, Muslim, etc, etc.

The cars spend their time roving around a large, sprawling valley.

Now, the athiests don't bother with the cars, but so as to not get squashed, they tend to keep to the highlands around the edges of the valley.

Occasionally a car will swing by the hillside to drop off a new athiest or pick up a new believer, and that's when the news reaches the hills: We're winning the race.

The new athiest will fill everyone else in on the news: the people in the car are racing against the other cars, but those other cars, they don't stay on the track, don't drive very politely, and they must be awful people for being that way. Oh, and the athiests, they aren't going anywhere at all, especially to whatever wonderful place awaits the winners of the race.

The strange thing is, from up on the hill the athiests can see that the cars are all just roaming around higgledy-piggledy and not doing anything even remotely resembling racing.

Oh, adds the new recruit, they're all following their own interpretation of where the race track is- of course, everyone is sure their track is right.

This scenario, to me, portrays the differing viewpoints of all parties properly.

The reason to point this out is to highlight the activities of those involved.

Those within any given car see everyone outside it as wrong, and needing to get into their car, and drive their race.

Those up on the hill see the folly of the disagreement over a race which does not exist.

My Second Official Contribution to the ISO

This one is short and easy:

Online services should never display, divulge, or in any other way expose your login and password information in any form.

That is, when I have set up an account with wonky.com and I have finished the process, I do not need a reminder screen to pop up and let me know the crucial details of my account setup, such as: "Thanks, dummy. Your login and password are: ... in case you've already forgotten."

I also do not need that information e-mailed to me.

Or printed out and sent along with any receipt or paperwork I might receive.

And my login name should not be the account name which is displayed when someone looks at my profile.

How do these ideas seem ok at any point?

It's shortsightedness on the part of the giver of the account. "We'll let them have their own account, they'll love it!" Well, maybe. With the prevalence of this kind of thinking comes the opportunity to have an account for just about every site you might go to regularly.

Which increases the chance that someone might re-use their account name and/or password...

...and coupled with the likelyhood that some moronic system is going to e-mail your password to you or show it oin the screen so someone can shoulder-surf you, this just makes life that much more enjoyable.

End of transmission.

People of the World

If all the people in the world were thought of as a single house, some of us would be the windows, some the lights, but most of us would be the bricks... and many of those bricks would belong in the basement, inside a wall, out of sight- so to speak. Their viewpoints would be limited, their abilities lacking, their value largely as a placeholder.

I wonder... how many windows and doors there would be in that house? Would it be all bricks and a couple of peepholes? Would it be all windows and doors? Would there be a walk in closet? Would it be half-built? Would the floors squeak?

As a thought experiment, I find concepts like this amusing. And of course, it's always fun to have another way to pick on people. The lesson seems to be to recognize, in any situation, whether you were focusing on the ideas of a light, a window, or a brick.

Monday, October 23, 2006


I just watched the Foo Fighters video for the song 'Everlong', directed by Michel Gondry.

Watched it for the umpteenth time, that is.

It may be the perfect music video.

Michel Gondry, the director of "The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and "The Science of Sleep", as well as some of the most remarkable music videos ever made, has infused a great song with even more- the video is campy and surreal, with great flow and style- and very fun.

There is a particular series of DVDs which are compilations of various director's works. I can say without hesitation that the most bang for the buck, and quality, is in "Director's Series, Vol. 3 - The Work of Director Michel Gondry (2003)"

Thank you to genius work like this, for making life that much more fun.

Oh, and Elizabeth.


Sunday, October 15, 2006

The News, For Losers


It takes two things to make a news item good, and by good, I mean, good in the eyes of the people who generate the news.

One, someone has to write it. Truth or fabrication. Someone must create it and then stick it out there.

Two, someone must view it and then repeat it to other(s). Word of mouth will make or break anything, and since our media does not care about truth but continued advertising revenues, it is in their best interest to find whatever will cause their readers to excitedly spread the word about some featured item.

I suppose I speak there mostly of the printed news article.

Television news is much like Keno, the gambling you play from your table in that crummy, smoky diner in Reno. That is to say, Keno is gambling for the dead, and television news is News for the Brain Dead.

Spam e-mail, cheap con advertising, and television news all share a common idea- lead the dupe on with the temptation of something [useful,good,tasty,profitable,sexy,etc]. The dupe will follow because they believe they may get their desired outcome.

The few times I have watched network television recently, I realized this little connection.

"And coming up on our 10 o'clcok news blob, we'll show you how local X is Y-ing >your< Z."

...sounds familiar, yes? Well that's because the formula for leading suckers on is being honed every working day by millions of people who hope you'll click, listen, repeat.

When the news finally hits, though, there is very little content there. You get some tidbits, a teaser, a commercial break, a teaser, tidbits, and usually around 3/4 of the way through the show you get to see that the teaser was a crummy news item with a catchy tagline. Sucker.

I have a strong suspicion that, were I capable of actually watching an entire news program, I could summarize the entirety of a 30-minute show in 1000 words or less. Probably a lot less.

It would read something like "Police shoot someone, and we imply that they probably deserved it. There's a war, far away, and people died. There was an earthquake, also far away, video clips of smooshed buildings and worried people. Local politician runs his yap, but even if you care there's nothing you can do about it. Vague hint at the weather tomorrow from the weather idiot. Assorted grunts from the sports idiot, clips of grown men chasing after balls. Fluff piece about baby ducks rescued by firemen."

Rather than aiming to be informative, useful, and honest, news settles for being tiresome, empty and dishonest.

It is as if the expected viewership is a crowd dosed on valium.

And my point can't be made any clearer than: Most people my age trust The Daily Show, a comedy program, more than we trust the real news.

So, why?

Well, obviously, advertising dollars. Cafeteria food is usually bland because we have to make sure everyone can eat it. The news can't tick off the viewership or people won't want to watch it, and then no advertising money. Not to mention you can't tick off the advertisers, or their owners, or the owner's owners. Or their neighbors, dogs, or poolboys.

But what else?

Well, if you take the country and divide the adults up into groups, I would have to guess you get a spread something like this:

5% too stupid to understand the news, and don't care whether it's valid
15% fantastically gullible, sweet, innocent and don't realize what they're not being told
30% certain the news is the truth, and that they can't lie to us
20% not certain the news is true, but largely too busy to care much
15% smart enough to be wary of the news, tend towards scholarly journals, PBS, NPR, and other assorted focused sources
10% either smart or crazy, don't believe the news or just don't have time to pay attention to it because they are busy with something else
5% not sure who this last percent is, but it should cover anyone I missed, and likely they are not the crowd the news panders to anyway

So, of this various array of mindsets, who does the news care to reach? What purpose does it serve?

I get the feeling sometimes that the news media has created an idea of popular opinion which it presents as reality, and that this idea exists nowhere but in the media. It's a lot like the idea that our government does something bad, then denies it, and later everyone just acts like- oh, ok, whatever, fine. There is not ever-increasing level of anger for the people who have been lying about everything they have done, not an ounce of moral outrage displayed that did not end with the smearing of the person doing the outrage.

What is the boiling point for the people in the middle, the 20% and 30% groups who the news exists for? When do THEY jump up from their recliners, displacing their tv tray and microwavable dinner, thrust their fists in the air and bellow at their tract home cieling "My god, what's wrong with the world?!?"

Without the complacent cows' attention, there will be no change. How to get their attention, but in a good way?

Saturday, October 14, 2006

The Lone Gunmen

March 4th, 2001, the pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen"- a spinoff show from the X-files- aired in the United States on the FOX network.

The episode was written and filmed many months prior.

The core of the story is this: with the cold war over, some within our government see the need for a new enemy. They planned to fake a terrorist act in our country by overriding the controls of a commerical flight, running it into the WTC towers, and blaming it on terrorists.

The Lone Gunmen uncover the plot and foil it.

In the first image, they break into the DOD's network and find the files describing the event.

The second image shows the file in question, which they fail to download when their presence is discovered.

The final three images show the plane nearly hitting the towers before it is saved by the clever crew of The Lone Gunmen.

...now, that Condi person claims 'we' had no idea 'they' might attack using planes?

Hacking in
The file
Going to
hit the
towers... no.

Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probablity of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%. "

The reason for the law was that, when such a discussion reached this point, the discussion was effectively over, and whoever had brought it up had lost the argument.

That is to say- people get worked up when they really hate something and begin to compare it to the Nazis or Hitler.

There has been a lot of comparison between that Austrian and the current president of the United States, and this may have promoted Godwin's Law up through the ranks. Plenty of people object to the comparison, for a variety of reasons. But is there more to it than merely 'we hate him so much'? Can some kind of proof be laid out and compared for accuaracy? Get your gag-reflex in check, we're about to see that guy's name a lot.

Hitler: Reichstag Fire
Bush: 9/11, theft of second election
Conclusion: while some believe Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened, and that his second election was fixed, it cannot be proven, so comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire is not valid. The Reichstag fire has been called Hitler's enabling moment, where he was assured dictatorship. 9/11 and the ensuing worry about our country's ability to protect itself can be viewed as the reason the second election results were never investigated- many believe the results were tampered with. If Bush somehow continues onward and becomes the dictator of this country, then it's safe to say the comparison is valid, but he hasn't. Yet. The passing similarity of the events is not enough- not a valid comparison.

Hitler: used the media to brainwash the country
Bush: used the media to brainwash the country
Conclusion: Bush does not have direct and exclusive control over the media, although most major media sources do parrot the whitehouse stance on 9/11. There is a full range of news from far right to far left. As with all wars, the CIA has done their job and correctly seeded the media with just what was needed, but that can't be proven- not until 50 years from now when it is revealed that, indeed, the CIA was doing what they have been for decades. Probably true, but yet unprovable.

Hitler: often claimed that god wanted him to rule Germany, and do what he was doing
Bush: often claimed that god told him what to do, encouraged him to be president
Conclusion: there are simply too many quotes in the press and on video to ignore this one, it's valid. The two are both examples of manipulative media-whores.

Hitler: spied on his own countrymen
Bush: spied on his own countrymen
Conclusion: as the media is slowly beginning to reveal, the Bush administration has taken liberties above and beyond that of law enforcement, spying on whomever they saw fit. this comparison is valid.

Hitler: gave riveting, powerful speeches
Bush: gives riveting, powerful speeches
Conclusion: ok, I included this as a joke. Sorry. Back to the comparison.

Hitler: was extremely secretive
Bush: is extremely secretive
Conclusion: this would depend on how much attention you were paying to Bush, and whether you thought that certain evidence or information was something any president should have to divulge- regardless of whether all previous presidents had. This comparison would take a lot of effort to call completely true- assuming anyone caring to think about this kind of thing would want more details, we'll say it's somewhat true.

Hitler: claimed to be one of the regular people 'just like you'
Bush: has used his 'just like you' image to his advantage
Conclusion: I had trouble finding historical references online specifically citing this behaviour, but as the inventor of the Volkswagen, 'the people's car', it's hard to ignore. Just like you, it's true.

Hitler: supporters followed and believed blindly
Bush: supporters follow and believe blindly
Conclusion: Many of Bush's followers will not stop to listen to any truth which makes him look bad whether it is provable or not. However, there is no way to prove the entirety of follower blindness for either leader. The fact that Bush was elected does not prove blind-follower-ness if there is the possibility that the election was rigged (and if it were, his followers wouldn't be blind, they'd be fabrications), so this whole argument is invalid.

Hitler: started a war for political reasons
Bush: started a war for political reasons
Conclusion: While the White House still insists it never lied or misled, it is widely accepted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan which was started "to capture Osama Bin Laden" has ended and Bin Laden has still to be caught, and, in fact, the white house has stopped looking for him. The fact that there really is no connection between Bin Laden and Hussein, Al Qaeda and Iraq is completely ignored in the media- it's sad, really. This comparison stands as true.

Hitler: drastically altered laws to better suit his rule
Bush: drastically altered laws to better 'protect'
Conclusion: Hitler, thanks to the Enabling act of 1934, had complete lawmaking power. In the wake of 9/11, eager lawmakers rushed many alterations of rights and standing laws into the books in the name of better 'protecting' the citizens. Conclusion: valid.

Hitler: vilified Jews (and Many others) as enemies, killed them
Bush: vilified Afghani and Iraqi as enemies, killed them
Conclusion: invalid comparison, even if we accept that the Iraq war of '2004' was started for political gain- our wars haven't been in the name of protecting us since we fought the British off ages ago. The Many were citizens in Germany and other occupied areas, they were singled out in many cases by their own neighbors, rounded up and taken away. The Afghani and Iraqi killed were not and are still not considered USA citizens, they are not rounded up so much as killed like fish in a barrel in an un-matched battle with our gigantic military power- that is, these deaths happened under the guise of war, not secretly in internment camps. Civilian deaths continue to happen, and if they do, now that the 'war' is 'over', they could validate this comparison.

And now, having made that effort, these comparisons, I have to say, Bush is nothing like Hitler. Terrible historical figure or not, Hitler was a smart person who rode a political trend in his nation to its ugly end. Bush is simply a vacuous idiot who neither formulated nor controls any of what is happening- he is an excuse, a diversion, and a disgrace to our great nation.

The Nazi party, however, and our current administration, share likenesses due to the situations they found themselves in and the attitude they held before they ended up there. See also: "The Project for a New American Century". If they aren't cousins with the Nazis, I'll eat my hat. If you do not know what this is, then go look at the site. Read what they say. They are right-wing neocon warmongers- nothing more fancy, well-heeled skinheads. Their website has been up since 10/2001, but they formed in 1997.

The holocaust taught us a valuable lesson- had things gone just slightly differently, the Nazis might have covered up their war crimes. But those we lost have had their story told, and we now know of the atrocities which happened. Just like those who died at the hands of the Nazis, the USA citizens (among others) who perished on 9/11 due to the complicity or inaction of our current Thug regime should have the truth of their passing brought to light, and the perpetrators should be tried and prisoned for their actions.

Godwin's law will have to wait in this case. We've got terribly important things to take care of.

Friday, October 13, 2006

The Next Step Towards Evil

I've figured it out.

The next step, the thing which will push our country across the line into martial law, is going to be an act on USA soil, perpetrated by USA citizens, and it will be against a law enforcement agency, government structure, or perhaps a political figure or group. It will invlove explosions and people will die. Not important people, mind you, regular folk like you and me. And certainly absolutely zero republicans will die. Maybe some democrats. Green party members.

Of course, it will all be engineered to look as if that is the case, I'd imagine.

It won't really be an actual terrorist or angry citizen group (enemy combatants) who does it, but some schmucks the Bush regime puts up to the job.

Afterward, what will happen is this-

The news will play that story and this-just-in material and nothing but for days, promotging the fear that more attacks are expected, and that the group is larger and more organized than the FBI/CIA/NSA/whoever had known or appreciated.

And that's when the general populace will really freak out.

In the name of capturing the bad guys amongst us (who don't actually exist), the powerless populace will cave in and martial law will kick in. Any town or area which puts up any resistance to the government's new attitude of "body cavity searches for everyone" will be shut down and the nearby FEMA internment camp will suddenly fill up.

The reason I bring this up is: if this is what our administration wants, it is inevitable, and can be enacted at any moment. With an election looming, I expect it to happen conviniently in time so that it will either guarantee a win for Bush,Inc again, or allow them the power to cancel the election altogether.


This sounds like the ramblings of a crazy man.

The United States is a cash cow. Our nation is fantastically powerful militarily. Without question, there is no other single nation that comes anywhere close to challenging us. Amongst the rich and powerful in the world there always seem to be, tucked away, people who are callous, soulless, and just plain evil. These people are poised to take control of our country, as what a grand prize for world domination the mighty American Empire would be!

Our people are in denial of their position. We are fearful of each other, but not the government. We are under-educated and lacking in proper analytical skill to realize the situation we are in. Many of us doen't understand what a bad thing it is to simply take what our news sources say as the truth. And of course, we are all of the persuasion that "as long as nothing happens to me and mine, then whatever happened was bad, but there's not a lot I can do about it."

I have to say all of these things. Even if it is just for my own benefit- I need to get them out there.


It seems like as we get older, we forget things, things become harder to remember, etc.

Perhaps, rather than finding ourselves increasingly unable to remember things, the case is that our powers of observation are sharpening in parallel with the number of things we must remember, giving us more opportunity to see clearly how often we forget things.

With that thought in hand, you can grow old and forgetful happily.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

I'll Call You... on that crap

Ha. Today, in one of my favorite coffee shops, I sat and listened as some fool blathered away into his cell phone. Everyone listened, mostly because you couldn't help but listen on account of how extra loud he thought it was necessary to talk in order to be heard. His call was not a short phone call, nor even a single call, but a stream of my-opinion-on-something and here's-what-we-want-to-do kinds of calls.

In case you didn't know it, the world, especially public venues such as coffee shops and restaurants, are not your office, dodo.

Also, in case you didn't know it, you do not need to talk so loud into most cellphones in order to be heard. Dodo.

In any case, this particular coffee shop is quite famous for not tolerating this kind of behavior, and the staff was rapidly growing antsy for the departure or silence of said dodo.

That moment of silence or departure, it seemed, failed to arrive with sufficient swiftness.

One of the staff walked right up to dodo and said "Hey, could you keep it down?", and dodo- who looked genuinely surprised- hung up and made a hasty departure.

Applause to the staff for respecting the other customers by pointing out the problem to dodo, as well as having the balls to, essentially, insult dodo and quite possibly lose a customer permanently.

I'd really like to see that kind of behavior more, but with our 'customer service' so often being dispensed by people who don't understand the concept or give a damn, well, I don't see that day coming anytime soon.