Teddy Talk: Creating, Collecting, Connecting

A lawyer costs $200 per hour.  She'll never recover enough money from this case to even cover the costs.
Just pull the images off your website then ignore the b*tch.

If I might comment without people taking offense...  If the buyer is from Germany and English is not her first language, she might have used the word "hate" in the wrong context.

Some of our members whose first language is German might be able to give a better perspective on this but, anyway, it is my guess that there is a tiny bit of a language barrier.

Nice picture!   :photo:

Tiff looks pretty and Cooper looks like a happy, well-adjusted Schnauzer, now.  You'd hardly recognize him from the way he looked when he first came home with you!  How has he settled in?  Just like he always lived there, I hope.

You have the right to wait until receiving the returned Bear before issuing a refund.

You have the right to inspect the Bear to be sure he is in original, re-adoptable condition and to deduct a portion of the money if he is not in adoptable condition.

You have the OPTION to refund postage if you want to but, unless there are rules to the contrary, you don't have to.
(If there are rules on eBay, et. al, or if there are laws to the contrary.)

You also have the right to deduct a portion of the sale price as a "restocking fee."  (i.e. Your expense for cleaning and repackaging the Bear in order to make him presentable to another person who might want to adopt him.)

First things first, you and the customer should agree on terms before doing anything.  It would have been better if terms were specified before the original sale was made but, if you are careful to keep communication clear, you may set terms of the refund post-sale.

If it was me, I would refund the original purchase price and the customer's return postage, given reasonable proof, but not the original postage for sending the Bear to the customer.  To use a figure of speech, I would "go halvsies" on postage.

I would inspect the Bear when he comes home to me.  If he was in original condition, I would refund the entire purchase price.  If he is not, I would deduct an amount of money equal to the cost of restoring him to original condition.

If the packaging was somehow special or unique to the Bear (e.g. a personalized box with the Bear's name on it) I would consider charging a restocking fee equal to the cost of replacing the packaging but, if the packaging is in original condition or, if replacing the packaging is not an issue for you, I wouldn't charge.

Recheck the terms of your original sale to be sure you comply with your original agreement.  Obey that agreement as much as you can.  Everything else that wasn't originally agreed to should be taken into account and communicated up front.

Don't be afraid to specify your terms and stick to them but I believe the right thing to do is to "go the extra mile" for the customer.  Just don't let one mile turn into two miles.  ;)

Okay...  You lost a sale.  That's not good.  The thing to do is to move on to recovering the Bear and making the customer as happy as you reasonably can.  The merchant's responsibility does not always end at the close of the sale but often continues after.  There are two good reasons for this and they both relate to you making more business in the future.

1)  You want the customer to be happy with the Bear and with the service they received when they adopted him.

2)  You want the customer to be happy with the way you handed the problem AFTER the sale.

In both cases, you will do yourself a favor.  Your reputation as a fair and honest business person is as important as the quality and style of the goods you sell.  That reputation is what will attract more customers or, if it is a bad repuation, will keep them away.

Washing felt is like washing an expensive, hand knit, wool sweater.

Hand wash in a basin using warm but not too hot water and mild detergent designed for hand washables.  (e.g. Woolite.)

Wash gently with your hands without stretching or wringing.
Lay flat on a clean, white, towel and blot dry, using another clean towel on top to absorb excess water without stretching the fabric.
Transfer to a flat drying screen, such as a cooling rack from the kitchen, to air dry.
When almost dry, check to be sure that the fabric hasn't stretched or shrunk.  Carefully manipulate into shape if necessary.
Return to flat drying rack until completely dry.

That's how I would do it.  Melanie washes all her sweaters and delicate fabrics this way.  I've never seen her damage a sweater yet.

I see no reason why this wouldn't work for Paddington Bear's felt coat.

Furthermore, you and the Bear now have the opportunity to pick the song that she sings when you wind her up.   

You should do the sewing and have Dad do the mechanical work.

Open the Bear up and get her ready for her repairs, let Dad fix the music box if he can then you can sew her back up.

Mechanics and technicians might do great work on machines but they often don't sew very well.  I speak from my own experience.  I can fix most anything but, when it comes to sewing a Bear back together, it's bound to be a messy job.

Facebook page?  I still never heard of it.

Hint:

"What a disgrace it is to me to remember your name"
  -- William Shakespeare (Henry IV)

What website is that?  I've never heard of it.

"What a disgrace it is to me to remember your name"
  -- William Shakespeare (Henry IV)

This +1 !!      

Let me rant, here.  I promise I'll try to get to the point.

I'm sad about Hope, too.  My stepfather has been watching the bears on the internet almost every night since the project started.  I watch occasionally to.  It's all right to be sad and it's all right to be angry but we all need to be careful how we act when we are sad and angry.

Saying that you hate guns because they kill is like saying you hate spoons because they make people fat.
Saying that you hate hunters because they shoot animals is like saying you hate chefs because they cook food that gives people high cholesterol.

It's not the guns.  It's not the hunting.  It's the PEOPLE who hunt irresponsibly and use guns carelessly who are to blame.

We could go around saying that hunting must be banned or guns must be outlawed but that's like taking all the spoon away from a fat man eating a bowl of ice cream.  He's going to find another way to eat his ice cream even if he has to do it with his hands.
More animals are killed by pollution, habitat destruction and just general disregard for the environment than are killed by hunters.  Even without hunting, many animals are still going to be endangered and become extinct.  Banning things isn't the answer.

Okay, let's pretend that we could ban hunting tomorrow.  That will make us feel good for the short term but at what cost?  It won't have a great effect on the lives of the animals living in the forest which don't get taken by hunters because, as I said, many animals die from environmental destruction.  However, it WILL give others implicit permission to seek out other things to be banned.

I ban hunting and somebody else bans smoking.  The next guy bans fatty junk food.  What comes next?  Is it not possible that somebody could come along and decide that something that is important to you should be banned?  Yes!

Los Angeles, California tried to ban putting bacon on hot dogs.  San Francisco is trying to ban putting toys in McDonald's Happy Meals!  Just how STRANGE can people be?  What are they going to try to ban next?  Is somebody going to come along and say that Teddy Bears are graven images that should be banned?  It's unlikely but, rhetorically speaking, it IS POSSIBLE.

Banning things and using laws to limit people's behavior isn't the answer.

Why couldn't the researchers come up with a plan to buy some land to make a wildlife preserve for the bears to live?
Why couldn't some wildlife conservation organization have formed a group of people to spread the word about the research project on the bears?
Why couldn't we have had better law enforcement to stop illegal or careless hunters?

Mostly, it's because of money... or the lack, thereof.

However, we have a government that's been on a multi-trillion dollar spending binge.  We have a president who goes golfing when he should be working on the economy.  We have a congress that goes on vacation when they should be voting on the budget.  We have government agencies that spend $1,000 on toilet seats.  We have an entire governmental system that has spun out of control!

We need to get those government officials off their fat butts, make them straighten out the economy then tell them to stop blowing hot air, passing stupid laws that don't mean anything.

If they did, Hope and Lilly could have been living on a specially designated preserve where hunting isn't allowed without a special permit.

I'm pretty peeved off about Hope getting shot.  Although the news reports say otherwise, I still think the guy did it deliberately.  He'd have to be pretty STUPID to hunt in that area without knowing about the research!

I'm not going to get mad at hunters, though.  I'm going to get mad at the people who I pay for the privilege to yell at!
I pay taxes and I vote.  There are going to be a lot of fat cat, bureaucrats finding themselves out of a job if they don't straighten up and fly right!

Okay...  I'm done ranting.

The soapbox goes to the next person who wants a turn.     

"Mmmm...  Yum, yum, yum... BURP!  Yum, yum, yum..."

I'd say it has a lot to do with one's sewing ability and the look that one is trying to achieve.

If you are a very practiced hand sewer, it might be fairly easy and fast to sew with needle and thread but, if not, the machine will be the way to go.  I would also venture to say that a hand stitched Bear might come out a little more rustic looking than a machine stitched Bear. 

It depends on what you want your Bear to look like.

What I meant to say is IF you hand stitch your Bears AND you want to differentiate your product from other people who make Bears using a sewing machine, you should say so in those words, "Hand Stitched."

A carpenter who uses a power saw to cut the wood still makes "handmade" furniture.

The furniture maker still guides his tools, power or manual, using his hands.  The Bear maker still guides the fabric through the machine with her hands.  Thus, the Bears are still "handmade."

If you want to differentiate your product from something assembled with a sewing machine, you could use the term "Hand Stitched."

You can put different information on hang tags versus tush tags.

Tush tags are smaller and can usually only hold a few lines of information like the artist's name/address, "Made from mohair" or "Not suitable for young children."

Hang tags have more space on which to put a logo, a slogan and some text that describes the Bear or the Bearmaker's mission statement.

Therefore, I would vote for both.  However, even without such logic, I would say that hang tags and tush tags, together, would add to the perceived value of the Bear.

I think he's a Gund, too.  I'm sure we've got a Bear like him living in our den but with more than 1,000 of them all around, they often like to play Hide & Seek. 

Our Bears are often migratory.

They'll sit in the living room, by the fireplace, on the futon in the sitting room, on the side table in the dining room or sitting on the stairway but they often move around on the change of seasons or for the holiday seasons.

Summer Bears, Autumn Bears, Halloween Bears, Christmas Bears, Valentine's Day Bears and just everyday Bears move from place to place based on time of year and where they want to be.

Every so often, I'll be walking through the living room and I'll notice a little brown streak, zipping by, out of the corner of my eye.   

The Bears are always happy when they can make people smile. 

I'd say a short leash would be better.

In some parks in this area all dogs are required to be on a leash 6 feet or shorter.  Now that begs the question of whether the owner can control his dog but, as far as I am concerned, if one can't control his dog he has no business owning one, much less walking it in public.

While not my favorite thing, choke chains or electric collars are sometimes called for when dealing with large dogs that don't behave.  It's really an oxymoron when governments pass laws that restrict the use of collars and other dog control devices then pass other laws that tell people that they must control their dogs in some other way.  That leaves the owner with little choice but to expose himself to trouble if the dog should bolt or cause trouble in some other way.

It is not out of the question for a St. Bernard or some other large dog to hurt people even if it is wearing a muzzle.  It could easily break away and knock down a child or frail adult and pin them when one good yank on the choke collar or the press of a button could have discouraged the dog in the first place.

I do not think these methods are okay to use on all dogs or even some dogs in all cases.  You would never put a choke collar on a Chihuahua but it's certainly a possibility with a German Shepherd.  Neither would you put such a collar on an old, frail dog or a small puppy.  But, if you have a large dog which needs occasional negative reinforcement, these things should never be off the table.

Basically, it's the government that says, "You can't do this" and "You must do that" which causes the problem.  People have fewer choices to control their dogs in the first place.  That puts them and other people in danger.  The law should give dog owners the right to do as they see fit, within reasonable limits, in order to keep their dogs under control and for the good of the public order.

If a dog owner does not comply then he should not be allowed to have a dog in public.  If a person drives a car and causes an accident because he didn't obey the law, he loses his driver's license.  The analogy I put forward above should also apply.  If your dog causes harm because you didn't obey the law, they you should not be allowed to have a dog.  (Unless that dog is 100% confined to your property.)

Dog breeders know more about this than I do but, as I understand, dogs (and other animals) can be inbred to bring out desirable characteristics in the bloodlines but they are supposed to be "outbred" at least one of every three generations to prevent genetic problems from causing problems for future generations.

In humans, we say that people can not marry closer than second cousins.  If you think about it for a second, that means that we have to introduce new genes in no fewer than three generations.  (Second cousins are two generations apart.)

So, if people are breeding dogs closer than "second cousin equivalent"  (animals can't technically be "cousins") they are breaking the same generational rule as humans.  We know what inbreeding does to humans but why don't people see the same problems with animals?

With that aside, it is still up to the humans to oversee the care of their animals to ensure that they grow up to be happy, healthy and productive.
We domesticated the animals.  We brought them in from their natural state in the wild and made them our servants.  We have, thereby, assumed the responsibility for their care, just the same as we care for the human members of our family.

A human who doesn't live up to that responsibility is not a moral person just the same as they would be if their abused their own children.

There's no such thing as a bad child.  Right?  Kids aren't born "good" or "bad."  Birth doesn't determine whether kids will turn into criminals or become scholars.  No!  It's the child's upbringing and education.

Same thing goes for dogs.  It's not the dog's birth that makes it a "good" dog or a "bad" dog.  It's the way the dog is trained.

At the turn of the last century, Pit Bull Terriers used to be called "Nanny Dogs."
If you wanted a dog to look after your children you would buy a Pit Bull.  Do an internet search.  Google "Nanny Dog" and see what comes up.  You'll find lots of pictures like this:

It wasn't until people started training Nanny Dogs to be fighters that they got the reputation as "Pit Bulls."

It's not the child who is bad.  It's the parents who let him go bad.

It's not the dog that is bad.  It's the owner who makes it bad.

Wildlife documentaries are in kind of a gray area.  It's a Catch-22.  While it is best to leave bears alone and let them live free, it is also important for people to see them so that they understand how important they are to the environment.

Biologists like Bittner, who respect bears and keep their distance while documenting their lives are doing the public-at-large a good service but, the problem is that they also encourage wackos like Treadway.  Not only do people like that risk their lives and the lives of other people, they encourage bears and other animals to acclimate to human presence.

That's the LAST thing we need!

We don't need giant grizzly bears who have lost their natural apprehension of humans, lumbering through populated areas, rummaging through our back yards and doing as they please.  Bears need to live in the wild where they belong and people need to live in their own communities where they belong.

Does that mean that people should never go camping or never go enjoy the wilderness?  No, but it means that people who go there should respect the fact that they are walking in the grizzly bear's back yard and act accordingly.

When too many people go trouncing around the woods, trying to hug grizzly bears, not only do they risk their own lives, they risk the lives of the public in general because those bears are now acclimated to humans.  The respectful distance between bears and people begins to break down.

When that happens, people will get hurt but, in the long run it will be the BEARS who lose because they will have to be trapped, relocated and even killed in order to protect the public.

I like to see wildlife documentaries but the take-away should be "Let the bears be bears!"

I don't know much about him but Bittner seems all right.

It's that Treadway guy who was the whack-job who ended up as a snack for a grizzly.
The thing that bugs me the most is not that he got himself killed.  He got somebody ELSE killed in the process.  He convinced his girlfriend to come with him on the last trip and they both wound up dead.

I did a little bit of reading up.  David Bittner seems like he knows a lot about bears and how to live in the wilderness.  I'd be interested to see that show but it's not broadcast in this country.  Besides, I don't have cable TV.  Only free-to-air.  (That's still nine channels worth.)

This isn't a movie about a guy named Timothy Treadway?  Is it?

If it is, don't watch it.  Just trust me.  You won't want to see it.

He certainly is an environmentally responsible bear.