| 1. Posted by delta901 |
Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:45 pm |
"Nobody in the industry has ever said that Bluetooth would always be cost free. It will vary from operator to operator," Motorola spokesman Alan Buddendeck said.
That's BullShit!
Bluetooth costs $$$. The consumer pay for it, and have the right to use it!
It is just like you buy a car but car key isn't included. You must rent the key to drive it!
|
 |
| 2. Posted by Daniel Y |
Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:55 am |
It's time someone took these wireless companies to task for:
1. charging for things that should be free
2. changing the terms of their contracts in mid-stream
3. charging for value they don't add
4. a vicious rate structure that penalizes customers for being uninformed (e.g. minutes and text messaging overages)
5. not informing customers of their glut of rate structures (even their own people don't know)
6. trying to nickel and dime their customers to death (cost per kb for data)
|
|
| 3. Posted by PunkRock |
Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:58 am |
Is it just me or do the CDMA carriers seem to have their phones IrDA disabled, Bluetooth disabled, and conveniently have a menu for downloading multimedia through their network for a fee?
All the GSM carriers' phones seem to have multiple ways of transferring.
It's just a case for making a dollar at the expense of consumers...
|
|
| 4. Posted by D-Ice |
Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:06 pm |
It's about damned time that people stand up to Verizons greed!!!
It is just like you buy a car but car key isn't included. You must rent the key to drive it!
When I buy my cars, I never rent keys? You probably work for Verizon, and upset that your company is geting sued for being greedy. 
|
|
| 5. Posted by delta901 |
Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:29 pm |
It's about damned time that people stand up to Verizons greed!!!
It is just like you buy a car but car key isn't included. You must rent the key to drive it!
When I buy my cars, I never rent keys? You probably work for Verizon, and upset that your company is geting sued for being greedy.
 the other way around! I am a consumer! I hate the way companies put those "internet key" ways to easy to "accidently" access! All of my family, who has a phone, at least twice being charge for that "BS" KB internet.
|
|
| 6. Posted by D-Ice |
Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:34 pm |
Well after I found out that Verizon denies access to download files via WAP I droped the internet service....
|
|
| 7. Posted by caeric |
Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:36 pm |
Interesting thought. Telus Mobility also came out with the v710, and GASP it also is locked down. Interesting though, that Verizon has an add on service, they haven't introduced that yet for Telus. Also interesting that I bought this phone exclusively for Bluetooth usage on my PDA and desktop, and was assured that this was the right phone. (In their defence, this is the only BlueTooth phone for Telus).
|
|
| 8. Posted by Samsung |
Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:46 am |
It's time someone took these wireless companies to task for:
1. charging for things that should be free
2. changing the terms of their contracts in mid-stream
3. charging for value they don't add
4. a vicious rate structure that penalizes customers for being uninformed (e.g. minutes and text messaging overages)
5. not informing customers of their glut of rate structures (even their own people don't know)
6. trying to nickel and dime their customers to death (cost per kb for data)
1. Get used to it nothing in this world is free
2. I believe if you read your contract most service providers reserve the right to change the terms and conditions.... If you dont agree you should sign.
3. I dont even understand this one
4. Its the cust responsibility to educate themselves about their rate plan and features... If you dont do your research then you deserve to get charged.
5. Refer to number 4
6. I agree that data charges can be a little ridiculous but if you dont agree to the way the service provider charges then dont use the service.
|
|
| 9. Posted by Allen |
Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:10 am |
Those adventurous enough can attempt to activate their Bluetooth by hacking the firmware.
|
|
| 10. Posted by jackdhammer |
Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:01 pm |
It's time someone took these wireless companies to task for:
1. charging for things that should be free
2. changing the terms of their contracts in mid-stream
3. charging for value they don't add
4. a vicious rate structure that penalizes customers for being uninformed (e.g. minutes and text messaging overages)
5. not informing customers of their glut of rate structures (even their own people don't know)
6. trying to nickel and dime their customers to death (cost per kb for data)
1. Get used to it nothing in this world is free
2. I believe if you read your contract most service providers reserve the right to change the terms and conditions.... If you dont agree you should sign.
3. I dont even understand this one
4. Its the cust responsibility to educate themselves about their rate plan and features... If you dont do your research then you deserve to get charged.
5. Refer to number 4
6. I agree that data charges can be a little ridiculous but if you dont agree to the way the service provider charges then dont use the service.
I agreee with you for the most part except on the bluetooth issue. Bluetooth is more of a function than it is a service. When you buy something with a certain function you shouldn't have to pay to use that function as it should already be included in the price.
The best two analogies I have heard were:
If you bought a remote for your TV and had to pay everytime you used it, or if you bought a monitor for your PC and had to pay for the picture to show up. It's not like Cable for your TV where you are paying for the service provided by the cable company, they are making you pay to change the channels on your TV. Now if they advertised it as such saying the phone can be "Bluetooth enabled" for an extra fee than that would be different. However they know that no one would want to pay extra from them for something they can get for free somewhere else. So they advertise the phones as having bluetooth and leave out the part where you have to pay to "change the channel".
Also just because someone offers a service dosen't mean they should gouge on price. You are right, if you don't like what you are being charged don't use the service. It's just too bad there is no happy medium. People should expect to pay for data tranfer over someones network but they shouldn't be gouged. Pricing I believe needs to reflect the capabilities of the provider combined with the size of files being sent in todays world. Back in the day a 1meg file was gigantis. Now it is the norm. Pricing should reflect the fact that larger files are being sent, not try and juice you because of it.
|
|
| 11. Posted by Lydon |
Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:21 pm |
First of all, LOTS is free in this world... if you complain! I have an idea, just stop buying Verizon products and complain about their service. If enough ppl stand together, the consumers will win!
|
|
| 12. Posted by GSMDude |
Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:54 pm |
I suspect Verizon disables Bluetooth to protect themselves. If everyone had Bluetooth enabled, one customer could buy stuff from Get It Now and send it to everyone! Granted I don't agree with disabling Bluetooth, from their standpoint I can see why they did it. I know I'd be tempted if I had the option...
|
|
| 13. Posted by tvfilmfl |
Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:57 pm |
I just bought the Motorola V710. Have already within 1 week seen many of the flaws reviews have mentioned. Was duped by Verizon saleman about its Bluetooth capabilities (told not only could I get a Bluetooth headset for hands-free use, but also to connect to my PC & Laptop for downloading my own MP3's for ringtones& pics for screensavers. I was also duped about it coming with a TransFlash card in package. In short...how do I become a part of the class action lawsuit? Anyone with the contact info on the law firm, please e-mail me ASAP. My belief is that the ability to work with a remote isn't something I should buy as a service when its part of the hardware. Games, Web, E-mailing pics to others,etc. OK But he clearly told me I could send the pic I took to my own e-mail address for free. The lies were so thick I'd have to use a chain saw to cut thru them to the truth. Wish I would have seen this sight before buying and renewing w/Verizon for two more yrs.!
|
|
| 14. Posted by hotcognac |
Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:32 pm |
I am a new victim of the fraud committed by Verison and Motorola on the so-called Bluetooth V710. Inasmuch as the local store has refused to take the phone back nor release me from a two-year plan and now refuses allow me to speak to anyone in authority at Verizon, would love to have somebody tell me what my next step should be.
Can anyone supply me with a time frame of when Verizon/Motorola fraud was brought to the public's attention.
Thanks. John
|
|
| 15. Posted by matthewdaniel |
Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:37 pm |
Everyone here is way to sinical about the blue toothe issue. If all verizon wanted on their network was a phone with wireless earpiece capability why shouldn't they be able to release a phone with just that. Just because blue toothe has the ability to do more than said feature doesn't mean that verizon should be forced to support such features.
bluetooth is also used in nintendo's new handheld game device in order link to other users to play games. Should verizon now be forced to support this feature.
If verizon does not want a phone that will bypass their get it now or picture network they should not be foced to offer phones that bypass those features.
Or maybe some of you bitter people in this forum would be more happy if everytime you transferred a picture Verizon would pay you .25 cents.
One last thing, the car analogy is completely irrelivant. If you want to compare this situation to car companies every single one that has purchased a vehicle has purchased a vehicle who's top speed has ben limited by the car company. Oww... there's an idea... lets get trigger happy with our lawsuites and sue ford. There a big company and they don't deserve their money anyway.
|
|
| 16. Posted by hotcognac |
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:53 pm |
Everyone here is way to sinical about the blue toothe issue. If all verizon wanted on their network was a phone with wireless earpiece capability why shouldn't they be able to release a phone with just that. Just because blue toothe has the ability to do more than said feature doesn't mean that verizon should be forced to support such features.
bluetooth is also used in nintendo's new handheld game device in order link to other users to play games. Should verizon now be forced to support this feature.
If verizon does not want a phone that will bypass their get it now or picture network they should not be foced to offer phones that bypass those features.
Or maybe some of you bitter people in this forum would be more happy if everytime you transferred a picture Verizon would pay you .25 cents.
One last thing, the car analogy is completely irrelivant. If you want to compare this situation to car companies every single one that has purchased a vehicle has purchased a vehicle who's top speed has ben limited by the car company. Oww... there's an idea... lets get trigger happy with our lawsuites and sue ford. There a big company and they don't deserve their money anyway. MatthewDaniel:
Not only do you presume(not assume) to know what others KNOW, it is very much apparant that you do not get it. If you read the BlueTooth/Verizon situation as it factually appears, Verizon lied, misrepresented and stole money from its customers by alleging a phone did something that IT DID NOT DO and they knowingly did so. I purchased by V710 because I exhibited by PDA to the salesperson who confirmed the V710 ability to transfer date to that PDA and my other BlueTooth devices. I did not need a wireless earpiece. I am not faulting Verizon to purchase a phone for whatever reason or devices they wish to put in their phones. However, this phone would not have been purchased by thousands of people had Verizon not committed fraud and deceit to promote a phone by indicating it was BlueTooth enabled to ALL other BlueTooth devices. Maybe your thinking would be better served if you were to advise Verizon to stop promoting the V710 as they currently are. At least that way they could reduce the number of future litigants. It should be obvious to all that it is Verizon continuous(not continual) sales mispresentations that keeps the fires burning to pursue the avenue of redress.
As for the previous Verizon supporter, I suggest a logic retooling and use of a dictionary(a spell check would of course be most convenient but I do not wish to further tax his ability to think clearly).
|
|
| 17. Posted by hotcognac |
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:56 pm |
And yes, of course, that should be "litigants"
|
|
| 18. Posted by matthewdaniel |
Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:51 pm |
You are obviously jaded from your experience in the situation which affects your ability see things clearly. If, as you say, we look at things factually, Verizon wireless (the company) had no intention of marketing it as a fully capable Bluetooth device. Verizon makes their entire sales staff take training courses on the features of the Motorola v710 in which it explicitly says with which devices the handset will connect. So the companies intention was never to have it sold as fully capable. Just because of the lack of competency of your sales rep, Verizon should not be held liable. What more do you expect of them than to make mandatory a training class that says what devices the 710 pairs with. Back to the Ford analogy, if your Ford rep took a training class in which he was taught that the governor limits the speed of the car and he told a customer, "the speedometer says 140 so that is how fast it goes." should Ford be sued? I think the answer is apparent.
The most that you managed to do in the last post was reiterate that no one has any logical reason to hold Verizon accountable other than, “I was told the wrong thing by somebody incompetent.” Your ad hominem logical fallacy proves that rather than refuting my logic you have to try to belittle me by insulting my spelling and my logic, which by the way is accurate (logic not spelling). As far as my spelling, even though it is irrelevant to the conversation, I am at work and did not have time to check my hastily written reply.
|
|
| 19. Posted by eact1 |
Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:16 pm |
TO: xXxSAMSUNGxXx
2. I believe if you read your contract most service providers reserve the right to change the terms and conditions.... If you dont agree you should sign.
The above is correct, but then again if it is a contract how can the change it, if you cant leave them when you want without paying a penalty then they should not have the right to change the terms and conditions because that should invalidate the contract.
I work on a boat three weeks 12 hours a day, but I am on the job 24 hours a day, so that I can have communication I have no choice but to sign.
|
|
| 20. Posted by Verizonuser82 |
Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:46 pm |
In some words the problem is kind of solved. When looking on the verizon website i haven't seen the phone on there for about a week now. This will help future bluetooth buyers but verizon is definately treating customers who have already purchased the phone (was about to, good thing) terribly. Even if the sales reps were trained poorly, who trained them? Verizon!
|
|
| 21. Posted by veilfore89 |
Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:32 am |
Well just as said, even if it is relentished that they restrict the Bluetooth on the new phones, the old buyers are still screwed. This goes for the V710 and E815 I believe. Only if you want to pay for a new phone does this whole law suit become truely beneficial. The lack of customablility and flexibility in CDMA phones is the whole reason I want to stay GSM forever. They should let up and stop being so greedy, but they have to make money somehow, show some pitty for the company their bag of tricks are no different than any other companies, all Cingular users and so on know that all companies have their ups and downs. In time Verizon should wise up, if not they'll get caught up in all their law suits and go out of business or be bought out. Simply said.
|
|
| 22. Posted by TipiCrawler |
Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:02 pm |
Well.....it is my opinion that people who know nothing about technology or contractual obligations......shouldn't own little pieces of technology nor sign or agree to contracts. Looking cool with a bulbous blue object hanging out of ones ear is hardly what the designers had in mind when creating the bluetooth earpiece. Networking and working together was the general idea. If people can't share ideas on a forum such as this without getting testy? Well what does that say for the brainpower listed here? <loved the spell check comment though LOL>Your friendly RED friend......TipiCrawler 
|
|
| 23. Posted by Allen |
Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:03 pm |
Verizon Wireless Settles Motorola V710 Bluetooth Lawsuit
Users who bought a Motorola V710 have a few options before December 9, 2005:
1. Keep the V710 and receive a $25 credit from Verizon.
2. Return the V710 (including all accessories) for a full refund but keep their service.
3. Return the V710 for a refund and break the service agreement without a termination charge.
4. Ignore everything.
|
|
| 24. Posted by TipiCrawler |
Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:09 pm |
LMAO ok now thats funny......Allen you should post that on the joke page...ar.....ar
|
|
| 25. Posted by stargrl357 |
Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:36 pm |
Whys that funny? I'd like $25... but I'd like even better to leave, which now I can.
|
|
| 26. Posted by 5oclock |
Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:10 pm |
The lawsuit result is a bummer for those of us who bought our phones more recently.
I'm a bit surprised by the troll/shills on this board. Some people will defend the stunts corporations pull no matter how undefendable it might be. Bluetooth is intended for communications between devices. There's no reasonable explanation for Verizon to arbitrarily limit bluetooth features that are already included in the phone. Don't kid yourselves - this is done to coerce people to use their overpriced services.
As for switching to other providers, it's not like the other providers aren't pulling the same garbage. The shills on this board seem to think that screwing people is okay because folks can just switch to other companies, but you can't ... the other companies are pulling the same stunts. They're all doing it which means that we are left with NO CHOICE. When are the shills going to wake up and stop making excuses for this bullshit.
If you bought a car and paid extra because of the really nice stereo it came with, do you feel it would be okay for the car manufacturer to arbitrarily lock out the CD player? The CD player is already in the stereo and you paid extra to get it, so I don't see why you should have to be locked out of that feature.
This goes down to the basic issue of the concept of ownership. Does Verizon own this device or do I? The same thing is starting to happen with PCs; Microsoft and others are planning to include various features to control what you can do with your PC. The shills will surely fall for the pitch that is done under the guise of protecting copyrights, but don't kid yourself. Those "protections" are added to hurt competitors and to force us to buy services that could otherwise be obtained at no extra cost.
Just because a company wants wants your money does not mean that they have a right to it.
|
|
| 27. Posted by TipiCrawler |
Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:34 am |
I agree it was done purposely.Tipi Crawler
|
|
| 28. Posted by veilfore89 |
Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:02 pm |
Not bad, I'm sure theres a few people that are going to want to walk away from this Verizon free..
|
|
| 29. Posted by talktome |
Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:08 pm |
IN the Los Angeles and Orange county areas, verison has the best service. No dropped call's, no static, just good solid service. I dont like that I was told to buy a connectivity kit in order to sync with the computer, which by the way, does not support APPLE! I am tempted to switch, but verizon seems to have the best service. As far as the V710 is concerned, my husband has had to return two of them. They turned themselves off randomly and one wouldn't turn back on even to charge. My daughter has returned two and my mother in law returned one. I am the only one in the family who has not had any problems with the phone. I think they had a bad batch of them made. I still don't know if we will stay with verizon or not. Husband is thinking of maybe changing to cingular. I have reservations because of the good service with verizon.
|
|
| 30. Posted by Verizonuser82 |
Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:45 pm |
Definately stay with verizon and choose option 2. You will keep good service and get upgraded phones so everyone wins. Try to stay away from cingular, reception is terrible after att merge. There are pros and cons with CDMA (VERIZON) and GSM (CINGULAR) networks, but after losing my old voicestream ( old T-Mobile ((GSM)) ) simcard with all contacts, and my own number. GSM and Simcards are not for me. The sim card is like having a whole nother' phone. TOO MUCH RESPONSIBILITY FOR ME> When i lost my verizon phone they quickly replaced phone and contacts and KEPT MY NUMBER!!
|
|
| 31. Posted by TipiCrawler |
Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:47 am |
Don't be afraid of Cingular, they have spent alot of time and money on training in the call centers and lets face it a cell phone is a cell phone is a cell phone..there are going to be dropped calls and non service areas no matter who you are with.  the v170 issue may just be that they don't turn the phone off and on often enough....even computers need to be rebooted sometimes....as do cell phones. Hope that helps:).TipiCrawler
|
|
| 32. Posted by flatfeebroker |
Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:07 pm |
I purchased a adapter cable from Motorola to download all my photos to my PC. I am in the Real Estate Industry and need photos on a constant basis. Problem #1 I come to find out that my new phone purchased from Verizon has been disable by verizon so I cannot use the USB transfer to my PC. Motorola could not help me.
# 2 I contacted Verizon, they did not seem to care and did not want to help.... I told them this sounded like a lawsuit .... especially with over 1 Million Realtors using photo capable cell phones, along with the rest of the population.
The Verizon employee I was complaining to, mentioned at the end of the conversation that she had heard of a law suit in the work.
And here it is. Congratulation for starting and finishing the Job before I became more irritated and frustrated.
Verizon seems to have good service, I have been with them for years, but disabling my phone to charge me more for the designed tools already on the phone is B.S.
It's always something..................... Corporate stooges made a bad decision. Someone will or should be loosing a "High Paying" position for this poor judgement call.
MLSbyOwner.net
|
|
| 33. Posted by TipiCrawler |
Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:38 pm |
In defence of the cellular providers.....if the phone had a compartment you could sit in and fly to the moon......should the providers let you fly at their expense? I bought a new car this year..the car uses gas and plays cd's but Ford didnt offer me either..am I upset? Nah
|
|
| 34. Posted by flatfeebroker |
Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:46 pm |
There are enough troubles with technology already...... but to disable working technology from Motorola to make Verizon an extra buck is just wrong.
|
|
| 35. Posted by TipiCrawler |
Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:55 pm |
All companies do that or text messaging and multi media messaging would be free....
|
|
| 36. Posted by flatfeebroker |
Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:40 pm |
I have no problem with Verizon charging for the text messaging and Emails. It is the disabling of the V710 phone, so that photos & video cannot be downloaded to a PC using Motorola USB hardware.
I now must purchase off brand memory cards at $50+/- and go through a process to download the photos onto a memory card then upload the photos to the PC. All this is unnecessary with the Motorola software and USB hardware I have already purchased.
|
|
| 37. Posted by TipiCrawler |
Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:30 pm |
<perks o.0>
|
|
| 38. Posted by stanswx |
Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:46 pm |
So when will the v276 get this support from users? I'd like to be able to transfer ringtones and pictures to my phone over the data cable. Can't hack it like the 265, at least no one has figured it out yet.
|
|
| 39. Posted by thawmeout |
Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:11 pm |
Is there still no hack/cable to download/upload to a PC for the E815??
I am told the cable for the 710 is the same, but neeed a "workable driver"???
Tim
PS: No transfer of Bluetooth data base to the Lexus Com/Nav system. Also no way to shut off the Blue tooth connection to the Car and continue the call in private?? (could be embarrassing with the wrong person occupying the Passenger seat and the phone set to auto answer a bluetooth call!!
|
|
| 40. Posted by JSS |
Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:47 am |
In defence of the cellular providers.....if the phone had a compartment you could sit in and fly to the moon......should the providers let you fly at their expense? I bought a new car this year..the car uses gas and plays cd's but Ford didnt offer me either..am I upset? Nah
That is both very funny anf true.
I am often shocked at the entitlement expected from people. Customers were never promised nor was Verizon obligated to deliver full Bluetooth capability.
I will give a more tangible example. My DirectTV has the ability to provide me with HBO, Showtime, Starz etc. The box is capable of giving me the service. Do I complain that the rotton son-and-so's aren't giving it for free and want to charge out of greed. Nope.
|
|
| 41. Posted by farmdevil |
Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:06 pm |
Some of you people have failed to notice that when Motorola releases a phone with certain features, the development of those features has been factored into the price. They weren't free. We should be able to use them without paying a company that adds no value to those features.
|
|
| 42. Posted by Naelyan |
Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:09 pm |
That was a necro and a half. Holy damn.
|
|
| 43. Posted by joeymd1294 |
Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:12 am |
i tried to send pics to someone with an alltell phone and it sayd conection faild
|
|
| 44. Posted by Naelyan |
Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:07 pm |
. . . wow.
The reason that happened is because you have a fatal disease. Your phone knows it, that is its way of telling you. Might want to get that checked out.
|
|
| 45. Posted by BigRUSS |
Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:00 pm |
the other way around! I am a consumer! I hate the way companies put those "internet key" ways to easy to "accidently" access! All of my family, who has a phone, at least twice being charge for that "BS" KB internet.
You realize it’s not the Service provider who is making the phone right? its the manufacturer, its put there for connivance, for every 1 person who cries about " its to easy to hit " there is a thousand saying " i don’t want to have to hit 20 buttons to get in the internets" I don’t see how its too easy to hit , i have NEVER had a problem with accidentally hitting the button , and my thumb is about as big as the average key pad.
Instead of blaming all your problems on someone else GROW UP , TAKE RESPONSIBILITY , block it if you don’t want it.
|
|
| 46. Posted by gerio |
Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:40 am |
Some of you people have failed to notice that when Motorola releases a phone with certain features, the development of those features has been factored into the price. They weren't free. We should be able to use them without paying a company that adds no value to those features.
Well, I wonder if you're the only one to fail to notice that Motorola's inclusion of a certain feature is only half of the equation. The carrier also has to set up the system to use that feature. Or not, if they so desire. Or to charge to be able to use that feature. It's a two-sided equation.
But I doubt that you're the only person to miss that.
And it doesn't matter anyway, does it?
Geri O
|
|
| 47. Posted by TheWolf |
Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:40 pm |
I buy into the company greed angle. I signed up with a family plan, got a couple razr v3m's. I almost download motorola phone tools for $60, then saw a note at the bottm of the page:
"Note: If you are a Verizon customer, all multimedia and Internet connection features in this software will be disabled due to carrier request. Please contact your service provider for further information."
I had hoped to be able to create my own ringtones and wallpaper, like I can for my Panasonic cordless on my land line. WRONG WRONG Verizon is the ONLY carrier that forces its' subscribers to pay for these things. My provider told me it is not possible, "they probably make to much money that way".
|
Post a comment and discuss this story with other readers.
