Elections are Coming

Elections are coming later this year. In June is the Provincial election and October is the local elections. I’ve become increasingly anti-partisan and disillusioned with politics. Mainly the total lack of progress on important files and the focus on policy proven to have failed repeatedly. Any party/individual wanting my vote had better check most of my policy requirements.


  • Ban on new combustion engine sales starting January 1st 2030 with total ban on using combustion engines by 2040
  • A complete ban on corporate welfare and subsidies
  •   A Royal Commission into the construction industry, its ties to politics, and to organized crime
  • Pressure the Federal Government to criminalize corporate and union donations
  • A single, flexible transit pass used on all public transit in the province
  • A public education system funded from cradle to grave and no public funding to religious or private schools
  • High speed rail province wide
  • Legislation allowing cities to tax parking lots higher than surrounding properties
  • Plastic bags, straws, and bottles ban – disposable packaging ban
  • Tax healthcare profits at 90%
  • Ban automotive advertising


  • BRT improvements to include Argyle and the airport
  • End enforced car usage by having transit, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure for the entire city not just the downtown
  • Ten dollars per empty seat congestion tax for the downtown
  • Transit passes that work throughout Ontario and eventually Canada
  • Complete ban on noisey gardening equipment
  • Explore hiring the OPP or RCMP to save policing costs and maybe have traffic enforcement
  • Explore putting electricity generators into the water system
  • Build the city up and not out
  • Ban any new road widening schemes
  • Actually shovel snow off sidewalks or make property owners liable
  • Publish automobile related deaths within the city every month or quarter
  • Merge police and fire administrations and where possible facilities
  • Public spaces designed by children

Pedestrians are losing the war

Yesterday van attack in Toronto is horrifying but shouldn’t surprise anyone. Canadian cities do a terrible job protecting pedestrians from vehicles. So when someone chooses to use a vehicle as a weapon our bad urban design becomes an accessory to the carnage. Toronto’s, like previous attacks, will become another footnote of history.

Canadian pedestrians are second class citizens at best. Most cities and towns are designed to make people drive cars. No barrier between busy roads and narrow poorly kept sidewalk is the norm. Stretches of urban landscape have a gravel shoulder for pedestrians. Other areas are so congested with people waiting for irregular transit that moving through is near impossible. The lack of cycle infrastructure puts bicycles on the sidewalk which is a danger to pedestrians.

Some radio hosts and populist politicians bellow “War on cars” when ever we try to accommodate anyone who doesn’t want a car. Yet enforced car usage is official policy throughout Canada. For over a century the auto cartel has had its way with us. Billions, maybe trillions, have been spent on making communities car friendly. Transit has been nerfed and made more inefficient to drive people to car dealers. Sidewalks have been cluttered with “furniture” making a metre wide strip of concrete even more difficult to navigate.

Even the current trend of giving people more options the car still dominates. Transit hubs have people dodging cars to run and catch their connection. Crosswalks still make people wait for a car to trigger the lights. Pedestrians are forced to walk on roads or lawns to get around parked cars. Most sidewalks are where to put the snow removed from the roads. The parking lot must be navigated to get into a store.

The Toronto attack, the attack in Quebec a few years ago, and others in Europe and the USA are all reminders urban design policies have consequences. A car centric community is a community happy to have vehicle attacks, pedestrian deaths, cyclist deaths, transit deaths, and higher healthcare costs from the inactive lifestyle the car brings.

Terrorist groups are encouraging to use our pedestrian hostile policies against us. So that gives us pedestrians ammunition in the debate. Next time people complain about policies protecting pedestrians counter with them supporting terrorism friendly options. Here’s the history of pedestrians losing the war in a simple graphic. Maybe we should take a page from Ghent and reverse the pedestrian hostile trend.

It is likely we will watch more deaths before anything seriously changes in our urban design. Thine car gods demand sacrifices of human blood so expect crocodile tears, had wringing, and inertia from those in positions to do something. Maybe Monday’s victims should sue the city of Toronto for not doing enough to protect them.

Will it be Pink Triangles Next?

First they came for the came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me

~Martin Neimöller


I check off many of the privileged boxes and honestly alternate between wondering what good is privilege and feeling guilty for being born. I don’t feel threatened by others achieving similar rights and privileges that I have, equality only threatens those who exploit people. The only privilege I’m not willing to give up for greater equality is coming of age in the most media saturated place pre-web browser. Thanks to the internet most of humanity has that privilege through access to the entire world online but are seemingly even more parochial.

The internet should be something that brings us together yet it is being highjacked by those who wish to divide and rule. The internet and social media are being used to suggest people aren’t (insert social, religious, ethnic, political, etc group) enough. The latest, most progressive media and communications technologies are being used to connect regressives and promote their agendas. The example that triggered this rant being a tweet that bans Transgendered people from serving the Arsenal of Democracy.

The Arsenal of Democracy is something future tyrants need to neutralize before the next bid for world domination. Overpriced weapon systems, over deployed personnel/equipment, internal divisions based on gender, race, or orientation are all means to weaken the United States military. The argument for banning Transgendered people says they could disrupt unit cohesion. Honestly, who wants a Transgendered person covering them during combat? They might save your life and that would be terrible. Another argument is cost for healthcare, yeah USD$8 million a year is obscene, I mean that’s the same as 8 four star retired admirals/generals.

Maybe instead of a ban there should be separate units, like the 809th Transgendered Infantry Regiment, or the 5599th Transgendered Air Maintenance Squadron. As we’re going back in time maybe the 92nd Buffalo Division (Colored) could be reactivated along with the 442nd Infantry Regiment (Nisei) returning to Japanese Americans only. We mustn’t forget to reestablish the United States Marines Women’s Reserve, complete with MARPAT skirts, and matching handbags with heels. Of course these units themselves would have to be segregated so Transgendered Black people who like show tunes get their own sub-unit so they don’t serve with Hispanics who prefer Baroque Chamber music.

I served very briefly in the Canadian Army Reserves at a time when white supremacists and religious fanatics were trying to infiltrate in numbers. The era was clouded by the Somalia Affair, it was the racist that destroyed the Airborne Regiment, and they still lurk in every western military. It was listening to the white supremacist drivel in high school, along with what I watched/read, that made hate white supremacists and wish them all dead. It is racists of all variety, misogynists, homophobes, religious zealots and other hate mongers that destroy unit cohesion. You can never trust someone who believes in racial “purity” or stereotypes. In my unit a sergeant offered to take racists outback while their discharge papers were drawn up, not sure if any took the offer.

It is easy in this era to suggest the slippery slope, downfall of civilization, and other chicken little cliches. The fact is LGBQT people are some of the most vulnerable in society, the canaries in the coal mine to use another cliche. The “perverts” are always easy targets for groups using thought control disguised as “morality”. Who are these people appointing themselves as judges of morality? From what I see some are jealous of people who find themselves, find love, or find consenting adults to have fun with.

Being Transgender, or any of the other identifying attributes being used to persecute, is/are ridiculous as persecuting people who dislike bacon, like Belgian dessert beers, wear socks inside out, spell the Canadian way, prefer transit to cars, doesn’t know the difference between baseball and watching paint dry, or accountants. There are countless ways we could divide people, which reminds me of The Sneetches by Dr Suess.


So my title question: Will pink Triangles be Next? Today the pink triangle is a symbol of pride, co opted from the original use as an identifier of some one “perverted”or sub-human. When those wearing the pink triangle, or rainbow, or Star of David, or hijab, or socks turned inside out are being rounded up and sent to “re-education” centres are we going to shrug and say I’m not one of them? Right now it is Muslims, Transgender people, and a few other easy targets. Right now it is the tip of the salami being sliced, but how long before those who hate equality and human rights fabricate an excuse to come for you?

The Khadr payout #Cdnpoli

I’m outraged at the Omar Khadr payout, not that he has received the money but that we had to compensate a fellow citizen for being wronged. Going back over the events of this case shows how much injustice there has been. At one point the case was dismissed because US courts had no jurisdiction, Mr Khadr was denied adequate legal counsel on several occasions, his own government denied him counselor services and failed to demand repatriation, and testimony and evidence that could clear Mr Khadr was ignored.

Evidence obtained by torture should never be admitted in court as committing an injustice can not lead to justice. If I tortured you I could get you to admit to stabbing Julius Caesar and starting the Great Toronto Fire, you’ll say anything to get the torture to stop. The evidence and testimony of the United States soldier who was there is a key fact many are glossing over. Combine that with the fact the rest of the team involved has come forward publicly for or against Mr Khadr is also, to me, suspicious. With so many firefights going on in Afghanistan why was Omar Khadr singled out for killing someone?

Another question I have but haven’t seen asked in the media is: was the medic actively engaged in the assault? It is rare for US military personnel to wear visible medical symbols and I doubt the Medic killed was wearing anything to distinguish him from his colleagues. The Geneva Conventions make it clear that a medic engaged in activities harmful to the enemy and outside of their humanitarian duties loses protected status. It is suspicious to me that a medic not engaged in hostilities would be close enough to be hit by a grenade, but I might be wrong. The Medic may have been trying to get closer to deal with the wounded, which Mr Khadr was counted amongst.

Members of the Khadr family were terrorists, Jihadists, and sympathisers with terrorists. However to say that everyone with the name Khadr is guilty is more likely founded in racism than fact. This case, combined with the global climate of hate, has brought out some very uncivilized attitudes and prejudices. They use citizens in the Canadian Forces as shields to hide behind when they invoke “think of the troops” or similar sentiments used to cover their base hate. The biggest threat I see to Canada is white supremacy in all of its guises and other extreme right groups. Canada needs to focus on a eliminating these groups rapidly. Start by purging the military and security agencies.

Another thread I’ve seen the last few days is around a fifteen year old should know better. Really? A Jihadist father willing to send teenagers to war or have his own flesh and blood trained as a suicide bomber would no doubt thoroughly beat a son who resisted the Jihadist doctrine. When the father was out of the equation there were superiors over Mr Khadr who would have killed him if he failed to act as demanded. Add to that the peer pressure all adolescents face but in an extreme and violent environment. Then add being attacked by US Soldiers hell bent on revenge for September 11th, in the chaos of a firefight there is little opportunity for reflection on right or wrong.

My fear in all of this is we have learnt nothing, especially in Canada’s security services. This will not be used as a lesson and a warning, it has happened before in Canada and it will happen again. There are plenty of Canadians who will encourage another Omar Khadr be consistently violated by the Canadian government. We are at risk of becoming a nation of bullies when we pick and choose who the Charter of Rights applies to and who it can ignore.

I hope Omar Khadr has a long life, becomes a brilliant nurse, pays taxes, finds love, and lives happily ever after. I also hope Canada evolves to the point where we can actually live up to our own hype on human rights.

A city isn’t built in a day

The recent bus rapid transit debate in London Ontario has me playing SimCity 4 again. In Simcity, as in the real world, the fastest way to bankrupt a city is sprawl with large amounts of traffic friendly roads, highways and low density development zones. However, if you assume the car is a person’s last choice for transit and develop the city around any transit mode but the car the city doesn’t struggle with the burden of road maintenance and other services being sprawled inefficiently.

In the current city I’m building I have left space for the subway system to expand. A city of 17,000 people with a subway line, a rail line connecting to the region, a bus grid, and a commuter airport. Mass transit requires a dense population to be efficient, which is why I never use low density development zones, at least for residential. Before any new zones are added to my cities i wait until the demand has made the previous zones use their full density potential, then I put the transit system in before adding the new zones. I also ensure everyone is meters from a park or some other green space, even when at work.

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 1.22.56 PM

Using a grid system to develop a city is thousands of years old. When geography gets in the way the grid dead ends but the rest wraps around or flows where geography suits. Simcity being a game is easier to have a focused plan to build a grid, no competing interests can highjack the player’s city. The messy world we live in has NIMBY groups, speculative developers, warring ideological tribes, and short sighted leaders looking to the next election victory.

Cities have evolved for security and cooperation, walls were built to keep flood waters and attackers out, and to bring the wealth of the hinterland in. Very few cities evolved without having transportation to the surrounding region or the wider world. Cities were founded on rivers, harbours, crossroads, canals, rail junctions, and stops for resupplying the travelers. A city that allows itself to become isolated or resistant to change is only visited by archaeologists. A city must work within and regionally to plan for survival.

For a century North American cities planned for automobile transportation with anything else as an afterthought. Cities were pulled apart like stewed meat to force the network of wider roads and highways in. Low density zones sprawled across valuable farm land and nature areas to serve the car, despite city services being stretched thin and costing more. Some of the services, such as public transit, were sacrificed to keep taxes down. Most urban mass transit was kept, but as an afterthought or limited to pre-1940s growth zones.

The current aim for many cities is to densify core areas and use rapid transit as the main mode of transit through and between the densified areas. Having looked at a few plans for this I’ve noticed some are reactionary rush jobs to catch up to the cities that have been planning the city around transit and densification for a decade or two. Some have completely redone their old network to serve the new network, while others are just dropping the new technology on existing networks. The more successful ones will be the ones that have planned long term and redone their existing networks.

A long term plan for a city needs to be integrated with all services available when a new area is zoned or opened to redevelopment. I recently noticed the City of London might expand the growth zone without expanding the transit system to the existing edge of the growth zone. London is also building low cost or subsidised housing in an area that is one or two buses away from the main transit zone. This is either poor planning or a plan to keep poor people in cars. In the city pictured above you might notice a subway stop next to a bus stop in the middle of nowhere. When i do expand that city the transportation is already there for construction workers.

I recently read the article Sexism and the City which offers me some new ideas for Simcity and shows how hostile cities can be for vulnerable people. I’ve already realized keeping residential and commercial close together cuts the need for transit and parks are in every block. The Mr. Peas can’t touch Ms Potatoes approach of urban planning the last century has failed to benefit many members in society. When there isn’t a bus waiting when a train/plane unloads or any convenient connection between transit options it only benefits more car sales. Cities should stop assuming the connections aren’t needed and permit more flexible combinations of residential and commercial zones with integrated city services.

Short direct trips are better, even with a transfer or two, than long convoluted trips, this is the benefit of planning a grid system of transportation. Another benefit of public transit going to a grid or grid/hub hybrid is ridership can increase as in Houston.  Houston is one of those cities that wasn’t exactly planned to a grid originally yet they have created one for the transit system. Many US cities are further ahead in correcting the transit systems than Canada. The Canadian cities that are working to improve transit are the ones growing beyond the capacity cars can carry and are attracting the investment from higher governments and individuals.

Internal transportation for a city is useless without connections beyond city limits. Cities that are distant from their neighbours and major population centres need to show they are ready for more expensive transit options such as high speed rail. As mentioned above if existing intercity transit methods are disconnected or poorly connected it shows the city is unready or unwilling to have the new connections. Ontario has a plan to connect Toronto to cities to the west by GO Train and high speed rail. Other versions of the Ontario plan has high speed rail going directly to Windsor or even Detroit.

Cities that wish to be included in larger transit systems, such as high speed rail, should work with surrounding communities to develop a local transit system to increase potential usership and show potential visitors local travel is equally convenient to the high speed rail network. Cities that continue to focus on cars or fail to fight for inclusion in wider transit networks have only themselves to blame when population drops below the minimum required to fund current services without massive tax or user fee increases.

Cities need long term planning for connecting within and beyond themselves. It takes many election cycles to get a city ready for transformation, especially if special interest groups seek to block any or all changes. Transportation is a form of communication and if it is to succeed communication is required. Communication doesn’t mean talking a lot to people about how the new system benefits but listening to what is lacking and what needs to be improved. Pushing new transit or growth areas while neglecting current transit and areas is a good way to get animosity and push back.

As I read in the Houston case, and the Ontario Transit Guidelines, there needs to be a constant dialogue with the riders, the drivers, and the public at large. Houston found a local community came up with a better route proposal than the was offered, that proposed route was immediately tested. City planners or transit system planners do not have a monopoly on all the facts or expertise. Riders, employers, and drivers have far more information about frustrations caused by existing systems and ignoring these stakeholders leads to bad transit decisions. Even asking nonusers why they don’t use a system may show the flaws in the existing orthodoxy.

If a city wants improved public transit, cycle networks, or better pedestrian paths tomorrow then the city should have started planning twenty years ago. A plan that should have a city wide network and that doesn’t leave areas out. One last thing I’ve learnt from Simcity, if a road is congested don’t widen it to reduce congestion, stick a toll booth on it. I’ve had cities where the tolls and transit fares subsidise health and education.

Buses & London’s petty civil war #Ldnont

I wasn’t going to post more on London’s bus rapid transit but the debate going on right now has me seeing red flags from both sides and I’m coming up with plenty of questions. The now entrenched camps have signs and funds making any form of compromise implausible. Where both sides are coming from is the past, the anti-BRT side wants to remain with cars, parking, and the status of being able to afford a car, while the pro-BRT side is stuck using a London transit map from c.1914.

Both sides in this debate are triggering my bull shit alarm. The down shifters are anonymous behind signs and tactics straight from the tobacco lobbyists of the late 20th Century. The pro side aren’t anonymous but they still haven’t shown how this will function, who is benefiting from it, nor how to protect BRT from future councils stacked with anti-BRT members. We’re in a Sergio Leone movie’s cemetery having a standoff, problem is both factions think they’re Clint Eastwood when they’re not even Eli Wallach.

Both sides of this polarized debate are focused on the transportation aspects and not the social justice. Some of the poorest people in London rely on a very inadequate LTC, BRT in the current plan will make little improvement and may make some people worse off. Already London has enforced car usage for those who work in the suburbs or industrial areas of the city. Reliance on the LTC is a guaranteed way to be denied employment, just check indeed postings. The anti-BRT people have offered nothing to change this, and the pro-BRT people have shown little evidence they even care.

My problem is not that we are trying to adopt BRT, its that BRT is stuck in the old mindset of bus routes have always gone through downtown, so must always go through downtown. Doctors who are taking new patients do not have offices within the main transit zone, nor do any of London’s blue collar employers, and most of the subsidized housing will be one or two buses beyond the BRT lines. All the research I’ve seen shows these big transit projects are for the convenience of affluent people.

I’ll give BRT advocates the benefit of the doubt that they’ve studied these questions, now please show us the findings:

  • How many poor households will need cars because of BRT?
  • How many poor households will be gentrified from the transit zone?
  • Will low cost housing be built in the transit zone exclusively?
  • How long will people’s commute be going from one suburb to another?
  • What is the city budgeting for increased policing costs of transit deserts, and how is the city going to prevent transit deserts from becoming ghettos?
  • Why can’t London adopt point to point transit? How many people would be diverted from the congested routes if alternative routes were available?
  • Why adopt a route system that is crippling/failing other cities and costing billions to correct? Will there be money put aside to correct these mistakes when hubs and spokes are overwhelmed by people being diverted to them?
  • What prevents bus lanes being turned to HOV lanes by future councils?
  • Why is a single point of failure built into the system? What is the diversion plan?
  • When BRT costs go up where are the guarantees the other routes won’t be sacrificed or the system be allowed to collapse from neglect?
  • Why is the city still spending money attracting industry to areas outside the transit zone?
  • Why is the airport left out?
  • How does this system integrate with the rest of the region/province/nation/global economy?
  • How much are the fines for driving in a bus lane? Will drivers lose their vehicle/licence?
  • How much will the city spend making roads durable enough for BRT?
  • If the goal is densification, why wasn’t it planned for 20 years ago?
  • Will a downtown congestion tax and car free zones make this easier to fund?
  • Were work locations, start times, and the actual drivers who are the public face of LTC consulted?
  • Are the thousands of people beyond the transit zone second class?

I make certain conclusions based on my research in the questions above, such as hub and spoke transit systems cannot work in cities sprawled like of London, the lack of service in the suburbs can have deadly consequences as in Paris and Chicago. My growing suspicion is that BRT, as currently planned, is nothing but a vanity project and a futile attempt at placating special interests. Now questions for the down shifters:

  • Where are your detailed, costed alternatives?
  • Why are you not more transparent with your members and funders?
  • Why are using tactics of the tobacco industry thirty years ago?
  • How will you prepare London for the cultural/demographical shift away from the automobile?
  • How will road widening in London not create more congestion as it has in every other jurisdiction that has tried it?
  • Are empty parking spots an efficient use of Space?
  • How will you keep the automobile from consuming the budgets of poor London residents? Would you support a city funded subsidy for these people to drive?
  • What happens if infrastructure money for roads, underpasses, and bridges becomes tied to public transit projects?
  • How will London fit into the global trend to abandon the internal combustion engine?
  • How much investment has London lost/losing because this system is now in jeopardy?
  • Is being one of the last cities in North America to have such mass transit attracting investments/talents?
  • Are people forced to spend a high percentage of income on their car spending the rest in downtown businesses?
  • How much are businesses outside the transit zone spending on employee/customer shuttles because of current poor LTC service?
  • Is “wait for future tech” code for “I like my Edsel”?
  • When was the last time you took the bus? Was it cheaper or more expensive than parking? Was Richard Nixon President of the United States?
  • Have you factored in the increased health care costs of continued use internal combustion engines?
  • If BRT isn’t built, and businesses still fail, who’s getting the blame? Amazon?

Both sides fail the smell test, and neither side has the high ground, in fact both would need to climb up to reach the sewers. The documents I’ve read on the proposed BRT system feel incomplete and lack evidence, while the opponents produce nothing but opinion pieces and fear mongering. Both sides are using the poorest, most vulnerable people in the city as pawns. If the BRT debate was really about social justice why not connect to where the poorest are and are most likely to find work? Or most likely to end up when the transit zone prices the poor out. Something neither side has explained as far as I can tell.

BRT is not a panacea nor the apocalypse, but the bitter debate could fracture London and destroy opportunities it needs to survive. This city needs to evolve, and primitive automobile technology, whether private car or bus, is not going to help London evolve. Both sides need to remove the blinders and see what is going on in the rest of the world, or at least beyond their bubble. It is frustrating and shameful that London can’t even connect cycle routes, walking routes, and plan a few bus routes without reenacting the Hatfield and McCoys.

If anyone outside London is watching this debate then they’re watching it as a poorly written farce. To be honest the farce over Hamilton’s LRT is more entertaining, and involves London tax dollars to connect Hamilton to Toronto’s boom. If London dithers to long or looks like its unambitious there is a line up of transit projects willing to spend our share of the money. London isn’t in competition with those cities, they beat London twenty years ago, now we’re just waiting for their scraps. A half billion dollar BRT system for the downtown isn’t enough to catch up, and doing nothing puts London further behind.

All those things London now claims as benefits will go where the people, money, and efficient transit are. Bitter debate over a bus system that should’ve been completed in 1989 will not keep it all here, nor attract new benefits. London has already been thrown under the bus, its called BRT, now some are trying to throw us under the car. London should have built a LRT/street car grid that serviced more than the downtown and went beyond city limits. But then people from St Thomas, Strathroy, Ingersoll, and Woodstock could conveniently travel into London to spend money.

A tale of two customer service experiences

Some people colour to relax or geocache but I prefer Lego. I have a casual collection of Lego Star Wars Minifigures and discovered noticed awhile ago the Rey figure had a cracked torso. I filled the web form at the Lego site and the replacement arrived today. I’ve made to purchases from their site directly and both experiences have been positive. The most recent order included free shipping at CDN$35 and a free poly bag Lego set, a police helicopter with a police woman. The replacement part came with an apology letter saying the quality control people were notified.

Lego allows me to use PayPal and won’t allow me to click on items that are out of stock. BattleFront, the company that makes the Flames of War miniatures game I play does not allow PayPal so I have to go through a local store. If I could order direct free shipping doesn’t happen until US$100(CDN$140) and there is no guarantee that what ordered is available. Almost everything on my order through a local store was out of stock and so the order was cancelled as what was in stock wasn’t enough for the free shipping. I cancelled the order and have no plans of making another.

The really extraordinary thing is this past weekend BattleFront launched version four of the Flames of War rules. Customers were supposed to trade the version three book for a pair of free version four books. As far as I know no one in South Western Ontario has access to these new rules except through bootleg PDFs. When I mentioned it to Battle Front on their forums they implied I had the wrong information about why my local store didn’t receive any books.

The BattleFront representative then said stores got good shipping deals at USD$300 and a small box was only USD$30 shipping. The claim of stores getting free shipping was refuted by a store owner responding saying USD$300 was $10 shipping and not free, if the stock was available to fill the order. The store owner was saying the stock problems were so bad they may have to drop BattleFront products.

So one company apologizes and says we have a department to keep this from happening, and the second company suggests customers don’t have all the facts and their policies are reasonable. Reading the BattleFront forums as often as I do I see stock problems and customer complaints almost weekly. The new editions to the line up were apparently shipped with incorrect items. Plenty of other posts about backorders, lost orders, and damaged orders.

I guess both companies could be used as examples of customer relations in some business program. I certainly wouldn’t invest in BattleFront if I money too, it strikes me as a company committing suicide. In fact I’m really hesitant of ever buying from them again.