Sure. I believe you.

Via Penny Arcade, I was linked to this post about a group called the Entertainment Consumers Association. To sum up if you don't want to read:

ECA is an online organization. They offered a free one-year membership coupled with some discounts on video games. Some people who signed up decided to cancel after some of those discounts disappeared. A few people found a cancel button online, but it was later removed. People were instructed to use snail mail to cancel their purely online service.

Now, the post I link to includes a letter from the president of the organization that attempts to explain this by placing the blame for the cancelled discounts and the need for snail mail cancellations on scammers. In part, he says:

We explained that we are working on ramping up infrastructure to become more automated going forward, but due to a small but active number of members who were repeatedly joining, leaving and re-joining the organization – in an effort to exploit our member benefits and unduly take advantage of our partners' generous offers – we would require a mailed letter, as per our membership agreement.

The problem with this statement, in my mind, is that they require you to provide a credit card number, and therefore presumably a billing address and a real name, to join (yes, even with the free membership). It would be trivial, one would think, to prevent people from signing back up again if their name and billing address matched a recently-cancelled account, or to prevent them from getting any deals aimed only at new members. So I'm a little dubious about their reasoning.

Please note I have no dogs in this fight. I'd never heard of the ECA before today, in fact. But I was struck by the completely sense of dishonesty I felt behind the published statement, not simply in that passage, but overall. It had the distinct odor of CYA, with just a hint of the scent of Lying Corporate Bastards.

The moral of the story, if there is one, is this: don't piss off the intarwebz. Everyone, including people not even remotely connected to you, will find out.

Pet Peeve #ILostCount

I just love reading a random blog and seeing, in the comments, someone roundly and smugly criticize someone else for using singular 'they'. I especially love it when that comment is followed up by a person basically saying how it's the result of how uneducated modern people are.

Look, you may not like it, but a) it's been in use a long, long time, b) it's accepted professionally by some editors and style guides, c) IMO, it's a lot less clunky than saying 'he or she', and d) (also IMO) it's a lot less bother than rewording your sentences entirely to avoid it.

If you're going to bitch about it, at least show some awareness that it's a matter of opinion.

Next up: I will tackle the myth of the double negative in my essay, "Why conversation is not mathematics."

Mid-Top-Chef reaction

Michael V (interview): Kevin cooks the kind of food I cook on my day off.
Michael V (to Tom C. during walkthrough): I'm making couscous and tzatziki.
Me (to Michael V's image): I can make those on my day off. Or any other day. What does that say about you?

Wow Me or GTFO

I'm going to rant a bit about Project Runway now, and then I'm going to tie it in a bit to my feelings about Top Chef, and then I'm going to wonder if I should go back to watching neither of them and just sticking to the recapper's blogs as I did for S5 of both. Suitable warning: This is extremely long. If you don't want to read lots of words, don't clicky:

It's really not that hard

Tonight's Top Chef involved needing to cook for a vegetarian. This was a twist on what looked like an otherwise straightforward dinner party, so I do understand the chefs being thrown for a loop at first, but they got to go straight into looking through the non-meat products (fresh ones from a Farmer's market, Tom Collichio says in his blog, so probably plenty of good choices even aside from anything they normally had on hand). But the dishes were not, really, all that great. Many of them looked a lot more like appetizers or sides than entrees, and almost none of them included a protein.

Massive Eyerolling

Dear Designers,

You were asked to do a Bob Mackie-style outfit for a singer. Bob Mackie-style stage outfit! I know most of you would not normally do something like his costumes, but you'd think one of you might've realized that he rather likes colour. Black, white, grey, black, white, black and white, white, grey... I think I saw a hint of blue somewhere, but it was pretty subtle. 'Subtle' is not on the list of words I think of when I think of Bob Mackie's stagewear.

In fact, while we're on the topic: just what do so many of you have against colour this season? I've seen more black, white, and grey than I can take. And I like grey (and black, but everyone likes some black I think). Even when you were supposed to make something blue I saw grey! Yeesh.

That having been said, I'm glad to see Carol Hannah finally win one, even if it was with a black dress. She's not my favorite designer (sorry, but I like Gordana more!), but I think she got ignored for good outfits more than once, so it's nice to see her get some kudos for her skill.

Anyhow. Colour, people. Don't be afraid of it.

Hugs and Kisses (except to Irina)!

I may have to buy the November Playboy

Cuz, like, um... this is their cover (work safe unless risque and the word 'Playboy' count as non-work safe where you work):

I know I said I wasn't likely to watch...

...but I've been watching Top Chef regularly this season again.

I think it's obvious at this point who the front-runners are, the probable top four. Granted one of them might screw up (anyone can have an off day, or succumb to the pressure of time), but really it's been pretty clear for a couple weeks that Kevin, Jen, and the Voltaggio brothers are the likeliest top four. If one of them screws up badly enough, I suppose that Mike I. might be in instead, but I don't think he's as talented or creative as that group. Plus I can't stand him, so I hope he doesn't make it. Laurine also might have a shot, but again, I think it would take one of the others screwing up.

No offense to Robin or Ash, but I don't think either of them likely to make it to the top. I kinda like both of them and I don't think they're incompetent, but I don't think either of them work well with the time pressure or in front of the cameras, and they haven't shown a lot of flair. Eli, well, I don't like him, and he's not any more likely than either of them to make it, for similar reasons plus a general blindness to his own faults.

I'm torn on who I want to be the winner. As far as skill goes, I think the four best are all on par with each other overall, so I wouldn't be disappointed at any of them. I'm inclined to root for Kevin, who sort of slid into being my favorite personality-wise, but I kinda want to root for Jen's quiet competence as well. If it comes down to those two I think I'd be pretty happy either way (the loser might not get the money but the publicity can't hurt).

Now to be fair...

I have noticed a trend lately in U.S. fashion shows to use a) more women who look like they're naturally lean rather than starving themselves, and b) models who actually are a bit larger, albeit still not anything like average size. I've even noticed some of the shapes of clothing looking more adaptable to different body sizes (fewer microbodices, looser construction, etc.).

But I'm not going to stop thinking model size choices are odd just yet.

Some Statistics

Average height of women in the U.S.: Approximately 5'4"[1]
Average dress size of women in the U.S.: 14^[1,2]
Size "plus size" begins at: 12-18, depending on the store.

Typical height for models: 5'8" and above
Typical dress size for "normal" size models in the U.S.: 0-4^[2,3]
Typical dress size for "plus" size models in the U.S.: 8-12^[2,4]

[1] Height based on 2002 CDC report, the latest available. Dress size is from fashion media reports; CDC reports 36" average waist, which depending on source may be anything from 14-20.
[2] Standard U.S. dress sizes. Where "standard" means "not really".
[3] Some firms and designers may go slightly higher.
[4] Some firms and designers start or go higher.