My Progressive rate for two motorcycles just jumped over 60 dollars for a year. So I did some investigation with a competitor and much to my amazment it was only 80 dollars for 12 months. Kind of a no brainer if you know what I mean right? So I started the coverage today I then called Progressive to cancel. I wasn't wanting a refund for the next 27 days of prepaid coverage but thought I was entitiled to one. When I got through eexplaining to the agent why I was cancelling and had listened to all of the amazement that they couldn't believe the price I got at the competitor, they told me I would be owing 12 dollars and change......I said what? Theysaid yes, I said why?! She did some research and told me that Progressive has a 30 dollar cancellation fee in California. If I leave it in force and cancel at the end of the policy period then it doesn't apply.. Go figure another no brainer but really? I did inform her that I would not be returning to Progressive in the future even if they were cheaper because of this one fact. Of course she didn't care....lol too big to care....
Monday, December 2, 2013
Progressive sucks.....
money from everywhere. I have been a Progrseeive customer for several years now. Why did I go with them? It wasn't Flo or the snappy commercials. It was however price. Quite honestly that's their market, the price shopper. Now if I needed insurance for a premium situation I would have made a different choice of companies. All I really need is basic insurance to meet California DMV's requirement for my two motorcycles. I've now been riding for 40 years and had a motorcycle license for the last 31 years
Friday, August 23, 2013
This is hilarious!
Trader Joe's takes a pirate to court
(CNN)
I've often said I'd like to smother my entire body in soy sauce. But enough about my eHarmony profile.
The truth is I'm completely smitten with one particular sauce from Trader Joe's called Island Soyaki. It's a little gift from heaven made with pineapple and ginger and garlic and sesame seeds. And if given half a chance I'm fairly certain it could ultimately lead to world peace.
"Damn, this is delicious! Why are we even fighting?"
"Your God is different than our God."
"Ah, right. That."
Perhaps it'll take more than just Island Soyaki to bring us all together. But it's a starting point. Unfortunately, however, the revolution won't begin in Canada -- because they don't have Trader Joe's.
Instead, what they do have in Vancouver, British Columbia, is a place called Pirate Joe's, which is an "unaffiliated unauthorized re-seller of Trader Joe's products."
Essentially, it's like an eBay store for chocolate-covered nuts.
(I'm pretty sure there's also a place for that on Craigslist. But it's waaaaay different. So I've heard.)
Naturally, this imposter store is now being sued. Trader Joe's, who declined to comment for this article, filed their complaint in Washington state in May. Then, earlier this month, lawyers for Pirate Joe's fought back, delivering a motion to dismiss. And that's when the whole thing finally made news all over the Web.
It's a good old fashioned food fight!
Basically, Trader Joe's isn't too pleased that the owner of Pirate Joe's literally crosses the border into America, purchases tons of food from their stores, hauls it all back to British Columbia, and then re-sells it for a higher price.
Of course, Pirate Joe's doesn't feel they're doing anything legally wrong -- it's the basic principles of import/export, and their website specifically points out that they even "add Canadian compliant ingredient and nutrition facts labels."
Calories 110 (Sorry.)
Fat 7 g (Sorry.)
Cholesterol 30 mg (Sorry.)
So, as someone with six functioning brain cells and zero business sense, I have to ask: What's the problem?
Because, really, it all seems very win-win-win. Trader Joe's sells a lot of product. Pirate Joe's makes a little money. And people in Vancouver can have soup from a box.
Ain't life grand? Let's all get naked in a tub of Island Soyaki!
But apparently it's not that simple, for this is about trademark infringement, false advertising and a host of other legal issues arguing that Pirate Joe's hurts the Trader Joe's brand.
(That said, life is still pretty grand. And I'm totally game for filling up the tub.)
Now, what makes this all so truly weird and amazing is that the owner of Pirate Joe's, Michael Hallatt, calls himself Trader Joe's "best customer," and claims to have spent more than $350,000 with them over the past two years to supply his similarly-themed shop in Vancouver.
And Trader Joe's is basically saying, "Hey, thanks for giving us heaps of money. But go to hell."
Because, clearly, it's not about earnings. It's about branding.
Trader Joe's has worked hard to create a positive public image, and they certainly have every right to protect that. To Hallatt's credit, though, he has at least stopped selling perishable goods, for he says he understands that if something were to spoil, it could lead to health risks that might tarnish the reputation of Trader Joe's.
So, he really is trying.
But with all the legal back and forth, things are getting rather intense. So much so, in fact, that Hallatt recently dropped the "P" from the name on his store front so that it reads _IRATE JOE'S. Which is to say, he's not overjoyed about the lawsuit.
On top of that, running his business has become increasingly difficult. Some Trader Joe's stores in the Pacific Northwest have begun asking him to leave. So he's resorted to shopping with cash while dressed in drag so as not to be noticed.
I do it to feel pretty.
Anyway, it's all sort of a moot point for me here in America. Trader Joe's is right down the street from my house, their shelves are always stocked with plenty of Island Soyaki, and a red, white and blue bald eagle soars over my really large tub.
Ain't life grand?
The truth is I'm completely smitten with one particular sauce from Trader Joe's called Island Soyaki. It's a little gift from heaven made with pineapple and ginger and garlic and sesame seeds. And if given half a chance I'm fairly certain it could ultimately lead to world peace.
"Damn, this is delicious! Why are we even fighting?"
"Your God is different than our God."
"Ah, right. That."
Perhaps it'll take more than just Island Soyaki to bring us all together. But it's a starting point. Unfortunately, however, the revolution won't begin in Canada -- because they don't have Trader Joe's.
Instead, what they do have in Vancouver, British Columbia, is a place called Pirate Joe's, which is an "unaffiliated unauthorized re-seller of Trader Joe's products."
Essentially, it's like an eBay store for chocolate-covered nuts.
(I'm pretty sure there's also a place for that on Craigslist. But it's waaaaay different. So I've heard.)
Naturally, this imposter store is now being sued. Trader Joe's, who declined to comment for this article, filed their complaint in Washington state in May. Then, earlier this month, lawyers for Pirate Joe's fought back, delivering a motion to dismiss. And that's when the whole thing finally made news all over the Web.
It's a good old fashioned food fight!
Basically, Trader Joe's isn't too pleased that the owner of Pirate Joe's literally crosses the border into America, purchases tons of food from their stores, hauls it all back to British Columbia, and then re-sells it for a higher price.
Of course, Pirate Joe's doesn't feel they're doing anything legally wrong -- it's the basic principles of import/export, and their website specifically points out that they even "add Canadian compliant ingredient and nutrition facts labels."
Calories 110 (Sorry.)
Fat 7 g (Sorry.)
Cholesterol 30 mg (Sorry.)
So, as someone with six functioning brain cells and zero business sense, I have to ask: What's the problem?
Because, really, it all seems very win-win-win. Trader Joe's sells a lot of product. Pirate Joe's makes a little money. And people in Vancouver can have soup from a box.
Ain't life grand? Let's all get naked in a tub of Island Soyaki!
But apparently it's not that simple, for this is about trademark infringement, false advertising and a host of other legal issues arguing that Pirate Joe's hurts the Trader Joe's brand.
(That said, life is still pretty grand. And I'm totally game for filling up the tub.)
Now, what makes this all so truly weird and amazing is that the owner of Pirate Joe's, Michael Hallatt, calls himself Trader Joe's "best customer," and claims to have spent more than $350,000 with them over the past two years to supply his similarly-themed shop in Vancouver.
And Trader Joe's is basically saying, "Hey, thanks for giving us heaps of money. But go to hell."
Because, clearly, it's not about earnings. It's about branding.
Trader Joe's has worked hard to create a positive public image, and they certainly have every right to protect that. To Hallatt's credit, though, he has at least stopped selling perishable goods, for he says he understands that if something were to spoil, it could lead to health risks that might tarnish the reputation of Trader Joe's.
So, he really is trying.
But with all the legal back and forth, things are getting rather intense. So much so, in fact, that Hallatt recently dropped the "P" from the name on his store front so that it reads _IRATE JOE'S. Which is to say, he's not overjoyed about the lawsuit.
On top of that, running his business has become increasingly difficult. Some Trader Joe's stores in the Pacific Northwest have begun asking him to leave. So he's resorted to shopping with cash while dressed in drag so as not to be noticed.
I do it to feel pretty.
Anyway, it's all sort of a moot point for me here in America. Trader Joe's is right down the street from my house, their shelves are always stocked with plenty of Island Soyaki, and a red, white and blue bald eagle soars over my really large tub.
Ain't life grand?
Monday, June 24, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
All US families futures at stake!
The US government is trading your jobs and your control of your own future without even informing you. Let alone giving you a voice. We watched as NAFTA help destroy our economy, now TPP is being negotiated and the government only shares the info with 600 lobbyists and not the American people. Go to the link below and sign the petition to have some kind of voice. Or don't and find yourself and your family in a future that you could have prevented.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Stockton Teacher fired
Stockton teacher, fired over porn: 'I did make a bad decision'
Updated 4:01 PM April 18, 2013
STOCKTON, Calif.
State officials have affirmed a Northern California school district's decision to fire a 37-year-old high school teacher accused of using a school-issued laptop to help set up pornographic websites.
A three-member panel from the state Office of Administrative Hearings said it found that numerous files on the Lincoln Unified School District laptop once used by Heidi Kaeslin were pornographic, lewd, vulgar or repugnant. It also said her conduct was immoral.
The school board on Wednesday adopted the panel's March 29 ruling, The Record of Stockton reported Thursday.
Kaeslin was a special education teacher and former girls' soccer coach at Lincoln High School in Stockton when she was fired last year. The district accused Kaeslin of keeping thousands of pornographic and erotic images on her school-issued laptop, then lying about her activities when administrators questioned her.
The district said it was subject to embarrassment due to the now-defunct websites and other online references to Kaeslin's involvement with them, which officials say lasted from late 2010 until at least April 2011.
Kaeslin has said her involvement in the websites with former Stockton police officer Richard Fields, who was assigned to the high school as a resource officer, lasted only a few days.
Kaeslin told the newspaper last month that she is the victim of a vendetta by her estranged husband, who was angered by her extramarital affair with Fields.
Kaeslin said she and her husband are embroiled in divorce proceedings and share custody of their two young children. She said she used working on the websites as a pretext for spending time with Fields.
"From Day One, Rich wanted my help, and we joked about how we're business partners because that was the way that we could have our affair," Kaeslin said.
Kaeslin said she admits using the district laptop to access files containing pornographic material. But she add added she purposely did not save the files to the computer's hard drive and never realized they would nonetheless remain on the device.
Kaeslin said if she had been assisting Fields in the "hot-air balloon business," she "wouldn't be in the same spot." Fields has said the allegations against Kaeslin were overblown.
"I did make a bad decision," Kaeslin said. "When I said that I stopped, I felt like I corrected that part of my bad decision-making process."
Kaeslin said her mistakes included the affair. She added: "Yeah, I made some bad choices. Do I feel like I should be fired over it? No."
The district said Kaeslin has until April 26 to ask the state panel to reconsider its ruling, and until May 27 to appeal the decision in court.
Copyright 2013 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Updated 4:01 PM April 18, 2013
STOCKTON, Calif.
State officials have affirmed a Northern California school district's decision to fire a 37-year-old high school teacher accused of using a school-issued laptop to help set up pornographic websites.
A three-member panel from the state Office of Administrative Hearings said it found that numerous files on the Lincoln Unified School District laptop once used by Heidi Kaeslin were pornographic, lewd, vulgar or repugnant. It also said her conduct was immoral.
The school board on Wednesday adopted the panel's March 29 ruling, The Record of Stockton reported Thursday.
Kaeslin was a special education teacher and former girls' soccer coach at Lincoln High School in Stockton when she was fired last year. The district accused Kaeslin of keeping thousands of pornographic and erotic images on her school-issued laptop, then lying about her activities when administrators questioned her.
The district said it was subject to embarrassment due to the now-defunct websites and other online references to Kaeslin's involvement with them, which officials say lasted from late 2010 until at least April 2011.
Kaeslin has said her involvement in the websites with former Stockton police officer Richard Fields, who was assigned to the high school as a resource officer, lasted only a few days.
Kaeslin told the newspaper last month that she is the victim of a vendetta by her estranged husband, who was angered by her extramarital affair with Fields.
Kaeslin said she and her husband are embroiled in divorce proceedings and share custody of their two young children. She said she used working on the websites as a pretext for spending time with Fields.
"From Day One, Rich wanted my help, and we joked about how we're business partners because that was the way that we could have our affair," Kaeslin said.
Kaeslin said she admits using the district laptop to access files containing pornographic material. But she add added she purposely did not save the files to the computer's hard drive and never realized they would nonetheless remain on the device.
Kaeslin said if she had been assisting Fields in the "hot-air balloon business," she "wouldn't be in the same spot." Fields has said the allegations against Kaeslin were overblown.
"I did make a bad decision," Kaeslin said. "When I said that I stopped, I felt like I corrected that part of my bad decision-making process."
Kaeslin said her mistakes included the affair. She added: "Yeah, I made some bad choices. Do I feel like I should be fired over it? No."
The district said Kaeslin has until April 26 to ask the state panel to reconsider its ruling, and until May 27 to appeal the decision in court.
Copyright 2013 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Monday, March 25, 2013
I found the graphic....
But changed it a bit.....
"If you find it necessary to judge me with your past......
Don't be surprised when you wake up in my past"
"If you find it necessary to judge me with your past......
Don't be surprised when you wake up in my past"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)