It's a fun, teaching moment

I spoke with Dickey the Peap over the Easter Holiday weekend. I was surprised at both the depths of frugality exhibited by the short armed one and, yet, amazed at the training he employs in developing a successive line of little Frugal Ones ensuring the future will always be tight. Rather than me, however, being the arbiter of such an issue, I will leave it to our 2 faithful readers to judge for themselves. Making a couple of slight variations in the information input port of the Factorcrap Truthometer Deluxe, I developed a simple visual test to confirm my suspicions, explored the possibilities, made my own determination, then ran it through the mechanical marvel for validation. As expected, total vindication was indicated.

A bit of background:  Apparently the 2 little Grand-Peaps were coming over later in the afternoon for an Easter Egg hunt.  Mrs. Dickey the Peap correctly surmised that perhaps the heat from the  brilliant sunshine would penetrate the inside of the plastic eggs being planted around the yard and melt the chocolate candy inside.  Dickey agreed and realized that wouldn't be too much fun for a couple of little kids to find melted goo around the yard and chose to cancel this event for "the kid's sake."  I suggested that instead of placing candy in the plastic eggs, he actually place a few coins or bills  inside.  They would still have the thrill of hunting the eggs and actually get something that would be of use to them in the future rather than a temporary sugar high.  Being part of no such type of thinking, the Frugal One immediately improvised an alternative plan that included both an instant reward which also could be used as a teaching aid for later in life.  I applaud the creativity, but do wonder at the "fun" factor.  ("Thanks, Grandpa.  That was a lot of fun".  Imagine the disappointment on the sweet, little, angelic faces.)     

I chronicle this experience only to share and have peer review done by our readership. The test is actually quite simple. What is pictured in this image that was included inside each of the eggs to be found:?

A)  That is a pair of small pinus sylvetris seedlings starting their life that will one day grow to be part of a strong and healthy forest eco-system.  

B)  Say, that isn't marijuana plants is it?  I hear they grow those things in the forest out there.  

C)  Those appear to be perfect  gifts for a couple of kids that will grow along side them in time.   Think of them as future, potential  stumps they could bury money under.

And the education continues.  

That's Right. We bad, We bad.

Normally the one to discover, direct, and deliver a good verbal kick in the ass, today it appears the target of my efforts appear to be myself. I actually underestimated the power, reputation, and general image of our FTI "Brand". Not realizing the impact we have upon people and entities, I obviously have something more here than what I had originally intended. Case in point: the immediate and swift backtrack by the folks over at World Entertainment.

A scant 16 hours after affiliating the slime operators of the money grabbing, thieving bastard, adult website operator to our own website here as unknowing sponsors to our efforts, the unauthorized $30 they lifted from our bank account a week earlier was mysteriously returned to the general coffers of the FTI Petty Cash fund with no apology, no explanation, or, for that matter, no request to never contact them again. Simply our 30 clams. I am a bit surprised that a request didn't accompany the funds to never mention them in the same breath again with our organization, but, on the other hand, I like to think they don't want to be messin' around with us here at FTI.

"We don't take too much shit, we take a little bit, we don't take no money."

Jukebox: He's on his way

....And don't forget to recognize our unknowing sponsor

(........Time check: The following is written on my personal time; Perhaps it is best not to surmise about me while you are reading it on company time...)

Doubling as both chief financial officer and Director of Institute Safety, Mrs. Kfred asked me recently if I had written a check in the amount of $29.95 to "World Entertainment." Knowing that all expenditures I make on behalf of FTI are scoured daily for any inconsistencies, I stated I had no recollection of such a disbursement. "Well, the bank has allowed a withdrawal from someone with this name." Checking the bank website, sure enough, a withdrawal and digital image of the "receipt" transaction was there from World Entertainment. On the receipt was a toll free 877 number along with the statement of a 30 day moneyback guarantee. Now, I figure if am out 30 bucks I might as well call and know what the hell I bought. I dial the number and am answered by a pleasant sounding woman whom sounds like she has just swallowed a spoonful of peanut butter. "Good mornidn, websur pserckskaces." I said "pardon me?" She repeats it again. Rather than embarrass myself to ask her to repeat it a third time, I said, "Look, you guys just took 30 bucks out of my checking account and I figure I ought to know what I got for it, 'cause no one asked me." She said, "Oh. Well, we do web hosting". "Web hosting?", I said. "I don't need web hosting". She replies, "No. Its for your subscription to World Entertainment, it's an adult website". Aha! I've been found out! (Negative; I have not been found out. I waste my time in a number of methods including writing this nonsense, but, with upward of 40% of all web traffic related to porn (and most of it is free), why anyone would pay to subscribe to any adult website is beyond me. To each their own. Whatever.) I gently and calmly relay to her that I did not authorize or sign up for this service. Immediately she says, "Do you want a refund?" I thought this was odd as I hadn't even got to that point, though, I was certainly going to exercise my 30 day money back guarantee option and ask for one. "We do them all the time". Obviously, this was not an isolated incident. I was given an "incident refund reference number" and assurance that my 30 smackers would be returned within 2-5 business days. We are now approaching Day 7 with no money in sight. I have the sleuths at my bank working on it, so, figure I will see something within at least 2 weeks anyway. (On a side note: It's amazing how quick they can remove money from your account, but be damn slow in returning it. I heard that a truck hauling chickens to the processing plant overturned on the electronic highway the other day and they have been having a helluva time getting it all cleaned up. Hmmm.)
Anyways, I guess the only recourse I have is connecting the folks at World Entertainment with our efforts here at FTI. I don't even know what kind of adult website they run or promote, but, hey, if our affiliation doesn't shame them into going legit, I don't know what will.

Brother, can you spare 200k?

Most serial stories follow a similar format. Lay out the premise, describe the dilemma, report the latest chapter, resolve the issue, and then repeat. It makes for a continuing story that keeps bringing people back. I, unfortunately never wanted to be in this place; I don't want to bring people back and I want this to end. Well, it's not over, but, it just took a giant step toward it.  Like 3 steps ahead.

Yesterday, we received a decision from the state Court of Appeals that the judgment debtor's appeal of an earlier decision to vacate his security bond and release the current money to us was denied. I, and my fellow plaintiffs, just picked up $95k in cash plus 2 pieces of real estate! I am not crazy about having dirt as now we have to sell it to realize the value of it. Sales around the compound are normally depressed even in the best of times and now to have another 2 hit the market won't help matters. But in the end, I don't care. After nearly 5 years of this nonsense, I am going to see some of my money back. In the meantime, the deadbeat still owes and additional $180k on top of that presently and I know he will drag that out for as long as possible, hence, the amount in today's subject line. I will have to alter the deadbeat meter to the the right of this article to reflect a more accurate appraisal of the situation and will do so after some further legal clarification.  This could, of course, be all for naught and we would have to return the money if he wins on appeal.  I don't worry about that, though, so will keep the money on the shelf until this is all over, but feel a whole hell of a lot better knowing it's back on my side of the table.   In the meantime, I am going to kick back and relax a bit.  It's been a long and winding road.  

Jukebox: I see it a comin'

Darby O'Peap and the little people

The Frugal One is in the middle of  planning for his annual St. Patty's Day bash. Preparations are currently being conducted at a feverish pace in order to meet the schedule as planned prior.  Unlike in earlier parties,  extra security has been hired to police the behavior of guests and a special  "volume-pour" monitor will be on hand to ensure that all drinks are honestly poured and not shortchanged as suspected in years past. Our 2 faithful readers will remember the hue and cry that occurred over that observation when we immediately recounted it in year's past.   After considerable editorial debate, the situation was resolved.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:   Though this entity did publish an official apology, whispers have always remained about the true strength of the cocktails involved.)  Regardless, ours is not to question, rather, merely inform.  

From renting chairs and  glassware to cleaning up around the party site, many tasks are being accomplished. This year holds special meaning as this may indeed be the last year it is conducted.  Though upwards of 40-50 guests are expected to partake, general concensus is that most revelers are finally figuring out that the lure of free watered-down Irish coffees and healthy snacks (thank you Mrs. O'Peap) is simply not worth the $8 per car parking charge, $6 table minimum , and $1 per person exit fee.

It's always those nuisance fees that kill you, isn't it?  

COMING NEXT:  We finally are going to realize our own pot of gold!

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Kfred

Ever testing the depths of my personality (Boy, there is a slow, fat one right down the middle of the plate!) I took one of those on-line personality tests the other day. The idea is to identify different traits of a person to see what "type" of person they are and how compatible to a certain situation they would be. I have always viewed these type of test as a novelty and now am almost sure of it.

The test begins with the admonishment that you can't cheat the test. There are no right answers. Just read the statements and answer them honestly. If you are unsure, go with your first reaction. OK, fair enough; that is how I trust most of those tests, anyway. There were seventy-five identical sets of statements. You are instructed to choose the one how someone judging you would want them to be answered (to form a positive reaction of you) while answering the second one with the way you truly feel. For nearly seventy of the questions, I think I answered both sets identically. Upon completion of the test and before scoring, I received the message that I should review the answers on statements that I had made about how I really feel as my answers had scored an "unusually favorable reaction"! What the Hell! There is something wrong with me for scoring as a favorable personality?

I think maybe my confusion is how the statements were worded. For example, "Most workers left on their own will do the right thing" and "Most workers left on their own will not do the right thing". I indicated on both sets of answers to the former. I initially trust all people that they are here to do the right things. I am not paranoid or suspecting of people. Likewise, "Bosses will take advantage of their employees if they can" and "Bosses will not take advantage of their employees if they can" was answered with the latter. I think most bosses realize it is better to treat people well as they will be more successful if their employees are happy and successful as well. "I have stolen an item of value" and "I have never stolen an item of value" was an interesting statement. You would initially want to answer as never having stolen anything of value, but, of course that would be a lie. I selected the first statement. I have stolen second, a kiss, time, an idea, and someone's girlfriend to name a few. And yes, when I was 12 years old, I stole a cigarette lighter. Does that make make me a bad person?

In the end, I immediately jumped to the end of the test not reviewing a single one of my questions and pushed the "Finish" button. My answers are my answers. I answered truthfully. If that makes me appear to be too good to be true and unbelievable, so be it. I always will have the simple chronicles of truth, fact, and thought displayed here on an intermittent basis as basis of proof.

Honest.

Jukebox: So much for that trust concept