Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 28 Feb 2007 15:46 In article <nav6u2dab8ldosfkqm40p3shn22253o7rn(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > > Instead you are trusting the payee to destroy the > >piece of paper you sent to him; > > > You're an idiot. Checks still move between banks, dipshit. > Dumb Dimbulb: http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/truncation/faqs2.htm#q ues1 -- Keith
From: krw on 28 Feb 2007 15:46 In article <es0ci6$joa$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > In article <MPG.204cd75ceff51c5d98a004(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <eruumf$vf3$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > >says... > >> In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000(a)news.individual.net>, > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >In article <erul1i$8qk_008(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> > > >> >> So far, I haven't been > >> >> able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will > >> >> be able to use. > >> > > >> >How about PayPal, or the equivalent? > >> > >> No, no, no a billion times no. I would never sign that contract in a > >> million years. > >> > >I hear them being disparaged like WallyWorld. Why? > > There are lots of uninformed reasons and one big real one. They gain the > power to lock up your money in case of a dispute. It isn't some third > party that holds the cash until the matter is settled. Dispute? Barb's parents are going to dispute money she's sending? If you're worried about someone locking up an account, simply use an account only for such transactions. -- Keith
From: krw on 28 Feb 2007 15:46 In article <es160h$8qk_005(a)s924.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <MPG.204cc17fb115629c98a000(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <erul1i$8qk_008(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > > > >> So far, I haven't been > >> able to develop any process that people, such as my parents, will > >> be able to use. > > > >How about PayPal, or the equivalent? > > Doesn't that involve online-edness? Likely. I don't know if there is a way around this. > I smell a bad odour w.r.t. > PayPal because it's name is being used as spam for gathering > financial data. I've never seen any evidence of either, other than the billions phishing attempts. ...just don't bite the bait! > I haven't studied PayPal yet. My mother is > quickly coming to the conclusion that checks are not a Good Thing. > They do everything checks, including buy groceries. I don't > like her carrying cash because of the gangs that have been > imported from Viet Nam and Mexico. Credit cards are likely the most secure, personally. > My next experiment is to investigate debit cards that you buy > outright and have no information embeded that can tie the > transaction back to a personal bank account. Watch out for the scam where the numbers are copied off the rack where they're displayed. -- Keith
From: MassiveProng on 28 Feb 2007 20:41 On Wed, 28 Feb 07 12:06:49 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <87ejobds6m.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>> In article <87y7mkflv6.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>> >[SNIP] >>> > >>> >I physically not bear to have any of your garbage included >>> >in this post, lest through searches of archives my name be >>> >associated with your insane ignorant gibbering. >>> > >>> >However, let me just say that I disagree with basically >>> >every sentence in your post. It ranges from meaningless >>> >to irrelevant via liberal splashings of just plain wrong. >>> >>> I know that you have your mind set to interpret everything I write >>> to be 100% wrong. You have stated this over and over ad nauseum. >>> >>> Aren't you getting bored writing the same thing numerous >>> times every day? >> >>No, this is sci.physics, where on principle I use no killfile. >>(You're in my killfile in every other group on usenet; > >Strange. I don't post to every other group on usenet. ><snip> > In this thread alone, you post into at least two others.
From: nonsense on 28 Feb 2007 20:45
MassiveProng wrote: > On Wed, 28 Feb 07 12:06:49 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >>In article <87ejobds6m.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>> >>>>In article <87y7mkflv6.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>>[SNIP] >>>>> >>>>>I physically not bear to have any of your garbage included >>>>>in this post, lest through searches of archives my name be >>>>>associated with your insane ignorant gibbering. >>>>> >>>>>However, let me just say that I disagree with basically >>>>>every sentence in your post. It ranges from meaningless >>>>>to irrelevant via liberal splashings of just plain wrong. >>>> >>>>I know that you have your mind set to interpret everything I write >>>>to be 100% wrong. You have stated this over and over ad nauseum. >>>> >>>>Aren't you getting bored writing the same thing numerous >>>>times every day? >>> >>>No, this is sci.physics, where on principle I use no killfile. >>>(You're in my killfile in every other group on usenet; >> >>Strange. I don't post to every other group on usenet. >><snip> >> > > > In this thread alone, you post into at least two others. Each of which is beyond Phil's comprehension, and yours. |