3

Monday, January 5, 2009

Virgin Mobile...engages in fraud and deceptive business practices!

False advertising at Virgin Mobile



You've probably spied them in Rite-Aid or CVS.

Virgin Mobile hawks cheap phones at the local pharmacy that you can snatch up and activate without a credit check or long-term contractual agreement or deposit.

The premise is simple.

Buy a phone (in the price range of $19.00 for a no frills model or $39.00 for one touting special features such as text messaging), purchase a "top up" card ($20.00 minimum) to cover prospective monthly calling fees, then hop on the internet and activate the phone with little ado.

Ha!

What a load of baloney.

Consumers are complaining that Virgin is not only engaging in deceptive business practices, but outright fraud.

For example, one shopper purchased a lower-priced model and a twenty dollar top-up card, and was taken aback when he logged onto the sign-up web site and encountered a rude onscreen alert informing him the code was not recognized by the system.

So, the customer was forced to return the $20.00 top-up card to Rite-Aid for credit back, and use his credit card to pay the start-up monthly fee.

Annoying, because the purchaser did not want to give out his credit card number online.

Notwithstanding, due to a prior bad experience with another retail store, the consumer was also concerned that if his credit card was on file at Virgin, charges may be billed automatically to his account without notice.

Other individuals have also experienced a wide range of problems which smack of deceptive business practices - and in some instances - outright fraud.

For example, one customer purchased a cell phone to use in emergency situations only.

So, during the course of the month - there being no moments of crisis to warrant use of the cell phone - a credit remained on the account in the sum of approximately $19.00.

At this juncture, the owner of the phone began to receive urgent notices from Virgin that he must immediately "top up" the card with a $20.00 payment or face disconnection.

Calls made fast and furious to Virgin were ignored.

So, when a top-up was not forthcoming, the mobile team cut service.

And, the customer was out $19.00 cash and the cost of the cell phone!

In addition to deceptive business practices, failure to disclose, and fraud - Virgin recklessly and without remorse - violates a customer's right to privacy without batting an eye, too.

For instance, within two days after a cell phone was activated, the startled consumer began to receive rude calls from bill collectors!

Imagine that!

Virgin made the number public without notifying the client or obtaining permission first!

Ironic, because the customer activated the new number for the express purpose of having a private line exclusively for close friends, family members, and co-workers.

Again, in this instant case, Virgin ignored complaints that were lodged with high-level management at the company headquarters.

In fact, when the individual filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, Virgin did not respond to the BBB queries in respect to their investigative probe, either.

Although Virgin execs have had over a month to address the allegations of wrongdoing, no one at the cell phone carrier has uttered one peep or made any good-faith effort to resolve the dispute.

Clearly, Virgin Mobile is run by a bunch of arrogant S.O.B.'s, who care nothing about providing the goods and services promised, customer satisfaction, or honoring a citizen's right to privacy.

In sum, Virgin is a rogue cell-phone carrier that should be avoided like the plague!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Men's fashion tips...thrift shop bargains!


Due to the economic downturn in recent months, many dudes are trotting off to local second-hand shops - "Out of the Closet" and "Goodwill" for instance - to rustle up quality clothing at bargain-basement prices.

With a keen eye, and a few practical fashion tips in mind, it is wholly possible for a discerning shopper to piece a wardrobe together for the New Year without a big outlay of cash.

For starters, always check subtle design elements of sport coats and suit jackets, to avoid a "dated" look.

For example, pay particular attention to the width of the lapels.

If they're too wide, your lack of fashion sense will stick out like a sore thumb.

Also, scrutinize the article of clothing to ensure fasteners - such as buttons - don't draw attention to a fad popular a season or two ago.

Likewise, get up-close and personal with collars on dress shirts off the rack.

Are the edges frayed?

Maybe, they've lost their "retention" and flop about the neckline.


Bad news!

Also, ensure that the collar suitably frames a well-knotted tie when the top button is fastened.

Dress pants have a number of pitfalls to overcome, too.

A cuffed leg may not be in currently in style, a shine in the pants may signal you came from the wrong side of the tracks, and pleats that spread out instead of retaining their "creases" uniformly are strictly a "no no".

Most men have difficulty with ties.

Bottom line?

Make sure the cravat coordinates tastefully with the colors of the ensemble.

Then, scrutinize their faces closely to weed out the ones that are faded, stained with ketchup or mustard, or just plain out-of-style.

But, if the one that catches your eye is a vintage piece, snap it up.

They never go out of style if they're matched up and knotted properly.

Speaking of knots, ensure there is enough of the lush fabric to not only perform a crisp Windsor or four-in-hand knot, but allow the tip to follow precisely at the belt-line at the waist.

Avoid belts with oversized gawdy buckles, tooling on the leather that is hokey, and fashion flourishes that detract.

Two-tone shoes may have been in vogue a decade or two ago, but went the way of the dinosaur, for now at least.

Patent leather, iffy.

Pay attention to the eyelets for the shoelaces, backs that are broken-down from lack of use of a shoehorn, and detailing like snappy buckles and winged doo-dads once in vogue.

The deft arrangement of a pocket handerchief - and the subtle fashion sense needed to puff 'em up just right in the pocket - is a lost art.

But, if you're capable, they're a classy touch to the overall ensemble.

So is a hat!

Slouchy ones, wool-knits, fedoras, and those that express individual style.

It all makes sense, doesn't it?

Just think, get a little more creative in your approach to fashion purchases, and you just may end up standing out in the crowd - a fashion plate - instead of a carbon-copy of all those wanna-be dudes who don't have a clue about style from the get-go!

Sunday, January 4, 2009

Bette Midler...wows critics & fans in Vegas! Long way from Continental Baths...




Critics are raving about Bette Midler's dazzling new headlining show in Vegas at the Colosseum now through January 25th.

Time Magazine gushed:

"Midler is incandescent, and the new show ...is a fresh, sinfully satisfying distillation of her career."

But my fave flowed from the pen of a journalist at the NY Times.

"Like all glittering showgirls, (MIDLER) may wear sequins like a second skin, but the woman underneath is all flesh and blood, humor and heart."




The Divine "M" is wowing 'em every night at the Colosseum, according to USA Today.



I caught Ms. Midler's act for the first time back in the 70's (gosh, time flies) at the Palace in New York City.

I recall one particular number where - to the delight of ecstatic fans - Bette trotted out on stage in a hula outfit (or something to that effect) and teased the audience with a novel number from her extensive repertoire of hits.

About mid-way through her extravagant well-executed appearance - Ms. Midler introduced the audience to her young accompanist - an unknown by the name of Barry Manilow!

"He's going to be big," she enthused after a wild round of applause.

Back in the heady days of Disco, Mr. Manilow was paying the rent by conjuring up jingles for TV Commercials.

And, of course, by playing back-up for Midler not only at concert gigs on the road at whiskey joints around the country, but during her regular sold-out appearances at the trendy Continental Baths (a gay bath house) in downtown Manhattan.

Babe, you've both come a long way!

If you're in the desert oasis, catch the must-see musical extravaganza.

Ticket info: www.ticketmaster.com


Saturday, January 3, 2009

New York Times...Arts & Leisure Weekend! January 8th-11th...




The New York Times hosts its 9th Annual Celebration of the Arts LIVE at the TimesCenter commencing January 8th - 11th.

The stimulating week-end event features scintillating interviews and open dialogues with New York Times journalists and a handful of high-profile talent and thinkers from the arenas of art, film, theater, dance, music, television, literature, media and politics.

Here are a few highlights of the thought-provoking discussions slated for the exciting event.

Thursday January 8, 20096:00 PM – 7:15 PM

Never Settle

Guests:
Glenn Close, , Rose Byrn, Tate Donovan, Todd a Kessler, Glen Kessler, and Daniel Zelman.

One of the Emmy-winning stars, a handful of actors, and the creators-writers-producers of the FX series “Damages" - the legal thriller set in New York - talk about driven characters and high-stakes battles.
Interviewer Bill Carter.

Friday January 9, 20096:00 PM – 7:15 PM

PILOBOLUS DANCE THEATRE

The dancers & artistic directors of the innovative dance troupe reveal a behind-the-screen look at their newest collaboration - “Darkness and Light" - and discuss steps the company has taken to become a pioneering 21st -century American arts organization.
Interviewer Robin Pogrebin.


Saturday January 10, 20092:00 PM – 3:15 PM

TAVIS SMILEY

A Voice for Change

The broadcaster, author, advocate, philanthropist and host of the award-winning PBS late-night talk show gives his perspective on the news and issues that are shaping American life today. Interviewer Matt Bai.


Saturday January 10, 20096:00 PM – 7:15 PM

VAMPIRE WEEKEND

The smart indie pop group comprised of four former Columbia students discuss how they got together, the success of their debut album, and where they’re headed now.
Interviewer Ben Sisario.

Sunday January 11, 200912:00 PM – 1:15 PM

Obama's 1st 100 Days

Guests:
Peter Baker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and Jeff Zeleny

The team of Times reporters assigned to cover the new Barack Obama administration discuss what to expect in the President-Elect’s critical early months in office.
Interviewer Richard L. Berke.

Sunday January 11, 20092:00 PM – 3:15 PM

Jazzy Numbers

Guests:
Gal Costa & Cassandra Wilson

The subject is Tropicalismo and home-grown American jazz: two Grammy-winning vocalists, one Brazilian and one New Yorker by way of Mississippi, listen to recordings that have meant the most to them and riff on what matters in music. Interviewed by Ben Ratliff.

Info: http://www.artsandleisureweekend.com/





Friday, January 2, 2009

Brad Pitt...embarrassing lost interview. Ouch!



Brad just might make my worst-dressed list to be unveiled Feb 1st!



On the eve of the release of - "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" - Showbiz Tonight (a News Magazine show) dragged out an old clip of Brad Pitt waxing philosophical about his acting aspirations and the vagaries of fortune and fame.

Oh my gosh - what an embarrassing ten minutes-or-so on celluloid - for the once-studly young romantic leading man!

Sporting a pair of ubiquitous horn-rimmed glasses (Poindexters), and a dippity-do haircut, the heart-throb's hands consistently flapped in the breeze, as he elucidated (!) his thoughts in a whispy faggy little voice, sure to have raised eyebrows in living-rooms around the country.

On a couple of occasions in the conversation, the then-wimpy actor used a dated hand expression - pronounced quotation marks in mid-air - to get points across to the host.

But frankly, the boy wonder looked positively silly, as he rambled on in a most disconcerting way.

Even the host poked fun at the elusive star after the segment was broadcast to viewers.

When the spot wrapped, I even shook my head in disbelief.

How did Pitt ever end up on the road to stardom in view of the silly-as-a-goose persona that he once projected in those heady days of his naive youth?

Well, you know what they say!

It's who you blow - not what you know - eh?

A tip for you Brad.

Gobble up all the copies, pronto!

And, burn before screening, too!




Brad, buttons pulling at the vest are a fashion no-no!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Curious Case of Benjamin Button...oops! Blooper, did you catch it?



On the eve of the glittering premiere of the feature film release for - " The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" - the producers trotted out Brad Pitt on the red carpet to promote the intriguing F. Scott Fitzgerald story adapted for the screen, newspapers around the country were blitzed with eye-catching ads heralding a Benjamin Button "industry buzz" touting potential Oscar nods, and so forth and so on.

Pity they spent so much money on promotion and patting themselves on the back!

After all, into the first few minutes of the film, an obvious "blooper" indicated to me that some very sloppy filmmaking threatened to keep the Oscar at least an arm's length away.

Insiders - who have taken in the big-budget feature from Paramount & Warner Brothers - undoubtedly spotted the glaring gaff onscreen right away.

What exactly is a blooper?

Many familiar with the process of shooting a movie are undoubtedly aware that scenes are put together "piecemeal".

Generally, a director from the old school sets up the camera for an establishing shot, which is also known as the "master".

For example, if a scene takes place in a trendy cafe, the audience is first treated to a bit of footage that establishes the location of the characters in the storyline.

Then, the camera may zoom in for a close-up of the lead actors.

Usually, a two-shot is filmed showing the characters engaging in conversation - at which point - the director sets up the camera to capture each actor individually.

Later, in the production studio, an editor will "seamlessly" piece the clips together to give the appearance of an on-going chat between the characters.

As the scenes are being put in the can - a script supervisor and a staffer in the "continuity" department - take note of the clips that have been shot, what footage needs to be filmed to ensure the segment makes logical sense when edits are conducted later in the production studio, and so forth and so on.

On occasion, there are slip-ups.

For instance, when one segment is shot for a bar scene, there may have been a beer bottle on the counter.

During the course of the "set-ups" (when cameras are placed in position, lighting is established for the shot, etc.) the lowly bottle of ale may have been innocently moved by a crew member.

The end result?

As a filmgoer is watching the film, a beer bottle vividly appears on screen one moment, then vanishes the next.

This is a called a "blooper".

The one in "Benjamin Button" was quite glaring to me!

Anyone who took in a screening this past week may recall - that in the opening scenes of "Button" - a baby is left on the doorstep of an institution.

When a resident of the facility spies the child, she swoops it up into her arms, and sneaks it into her private quarters.

As she is coddling the child, there is a knock at the door.

Without much thought, she opens the top drawer of a dresser nearby - tucks the child lovingly inside - then slides it closed.

"Queenie" proceeds to open the door a crack and chat with an elderly woman.

At this juncture, she is inclined to get back to her duties tending the residents.

Now, Queenie half-turns toward camera at the door - glances at the child in the open drawer for a second - then exits.

Now wait a minute.

Did you catch that?

Before Queenie answered the door, she closed the drawer with the baby hidden inside the cozy little space.

But, when she turned back to gaze toward the dresser, the drawer was open revealing the child contentedly laying inside.

Did the drawer magically open by itself?

Obviously, someone on the set made a big boo-boo!

Or, there was a problem with footage back at the studio, so producers opted to edit the two scenes together in spite of the fact they did not "match".

I expect the filmmakers thought no one would notice?

Now that the Oscar ballots have been mailed out, and nominations are being considered by the Academy, I have to seriously wonder about one thing.

Can the powers-that-be give an Oscar nod to "Benjamin Button" in spite of the fact the director, the film editors, and producers screwed up so miserably in respect to a basic fundamental aspect of filmmaking?

Only Oscar knows for sure.

The envelope, please!



*A review of Benjamin Button will follow
http://www.julianayrs.com

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Harry Potter...fan will publish Lexicon for popular movie franchise!



In retrospect, it appears that a claim by J.K. Rowlings that she won a court battle last year over Harry Potter copyright issues, may have been a trumped-up spin on the actual court ruling to save face for the author.

A case in point.

Last year, J.K. Rowlings filed a lawsuit against a young writer in a bold-faced effort to block his efforts to publish a useful tool to enlighten fans about terminology used in the Harry Potter fiction materials.

In the contentious court battle that followed, a myriad of intriguing aspects of law came to light.

For example, lawyers for Ms. Rowlings argued strenuously that the "Lexicon" crafted by Steven Vander Ark violated copyright laws and that - in sum - Vander Ark was seeking to obtain ill-gotten financial gains by virtue of the fruits of Ms. Rowlings creative labor.

In response, Vander Ark - a mild-mannered librarian - broke down on the witness stand under the stress of the allegations.

According to his testimony, he was not seeking to "steal" any material from Ms. Rowling - or claim any of the original fiction materials - as his own.

In sum, he stressed for the record that he merely drummed up the idea in a good-faith effort to publish a sort-of encylopedia of words and phrases, so that fans of the popular best-selling series could better understand the fiction materials onscreen and off.

During that trial, I penned a post on the maneuverings that went down in court.

Post:

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2008/04/jk-rowlingsbig-meanie-with-big-bucks.html

Shortly after that first round of legal tit-for-tat, it was announced that Rowlings had prevailed in the action.

Curiously, in a sort-of footnote, it was noted that an "agreement" had been reached between the two parties.

Huh?

Just this past week, the obvious conflict resolved itself in my eyes, when Steven Vander Ark announced that RDR Books will publish his unauthorized guide to the Harry Potter fiction series and other related materials.

At that press conference, Vander Ark and the publishers noted that the revised manuscript met with the guidelines of the court set forth in the prior litigation.

Ha!

Obviously, in order to "settle" the suit, both parties agreed to specific terms.

J.K. Rowlings would claim victory in respect to the basic copyright issue, while Mr. Vander Ark would be free to publish his own "Lexicon" on Harry Potter materials provided the manuscript fell within the guidelines set by the Judge.

Personally, I am looking forward to Vander Ark's encyclopedia so I'll be able to fathom a lot of that troublesome - but intriguing - gobbley-gook spounting from the mouths of the Potter characters ad nauseam!


Juicy gossip on Daniel Radcliffe: http://www.julianayrs.com/

 
coompax-digital magazine