BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>A little less than a week before the midterm elections in November, a new
>PayPal account update will take effect that has sent the internet into an
>uproar-- and also drawn condemnation from PayPal's former president David
>Marcus.

>PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the update taking effect on
>November 3. You might say to yourself, well, I don't use my account with the
>financial services company for anything improper or illegal, so what do I have
>to worry about? Here's why that might not necessarily be true:

>PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited activities to
>include the "sending, posting, or publication of messages, content, or
>materials that meet certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start levying a fine when
>users are found to have shared "misinformation" or promoted content that’s
>deemed to be "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".

>And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff' through your PayPal
>account. If they become aware of you acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*,
>they reserve the right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you posting
>something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes, or ridicules 'progressive'
>ideology, or it becomes public knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or
>that you donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a PayPal account,
>say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's 2500 for each violation, so if they
>catch you doing all three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>. . .

You know what else they could do? If your name is similar to what
soemone in the law enforcement or intelligence community believes to be
a terrorist, they can put you on the "no fly" list without notice and
without an appeal because the possible air traveler isn't presented with
evidence against him and the name of the police agency that put him on
the list isn't even disclosed.

Even if you are allowed to fly, TSA could pull you out of line for
invasive body cavity searches, er, at random, before boarding each and
every flight segment.

How can any this possibly go wrong?

But let's not worry about the unintended consequences for innocent third
parties nor against people who have committed no crimes, as long as it
keeps the rest of us distracted, er, safe.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Or not.
>
>> Century Link tries to require that you go to the box outside your house
>> and disconnect the phone and connect an old freestanding doesn't need
>> to be plugged into the wall phone to prove to them that the trouble
>> isn't inside your house.
>
>> Even though I pay a lot of money for that inside the house wiring plan.
>> thousands of dollars in the years I've been here. And never once has it
>> been my fault.
>
> Paying for an inside wire plan is insane. Given that they have refused
> to send a technician to your home to perform troubleshooting, demand a
> refund.
>
> But yes, before calling them, always check that there is dial tone
> outside your home.
>
> The tools to repair telephone wire aren't that expensive.
>

What’s the point? What are the trouble is inside the house or outside the
house I still have to call Century Link.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article <tibmv5$23r15$4@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > A little less than a week before the midterm elections in November, a new
> > PayPal account update will take effect that has sent the internet into an
> > uproar-- and also drawn condemnation from PayPal's former president David
> > Marcus.
>
> > PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the update taking
> > effect on November 3. You might say to yourself, well, I don't use my
> > account with the financial services company for anything improper or
> > illegal, so what do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
> > necessarily be true:
>
> > PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited activities to
> > include the "sending, posting, or publication of messages, content, or
> > materials that meet certain criteria". The full details are explained in
> > their full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start levying
> > a fine when users are found to have shared "misinformation" or promoted
> > content that's deemed to be "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>
> > And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff' through your PayPal
> > account. If they become aware of you acting contrary to the Agenda
> > *anywhere*, they reserve the right to fine you. So, for example, if they
> > catch you posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes, or
> > ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public knowledge that you
> > attended a Trump event, or that you donated to a pro-gun cause, and they
> > know you have a PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
> > 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all three of those
> > things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
> > . . .
>
> You know what else they could do? If your name is similar to what
> soemone in the law enforcement or intelligence community believes to be
> a terrorist, they can put you on the "no fly" list without notice and
> without an appeal because the possible air traveler isn't presented with
> evidence against him and the name of the police agency that put him on
> the list isn't even disclosed.
>
> Even if you are allowed to fly, TSA could pull you out of line for
> invasive body cavity searches, er, at random, before boarding each and
> every flight segment.
>
> How can any this possibly go wrong?
>
> But let's not worry about the unintended consequences for innocent third
> parties nor against people who have committed no crimes, as long as it
> keeps the rest of us distracted, er, safe.

Just to clarify:

The same people who believed Juicy Smollett now want to be able to fine
you for "misinformation".

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>>Or not.

>>>Century Link tries to require that you go to the box outside your house
>>>and disconnect the phone and connect an old freestanding doesn't need
>>>to be plugged into the wall phone to prove to them that the trouble
>>>isn't inside your house.

>>>Even though I pay a lot of money for that inside the house wiring plan.
>>>thousands of dollars in the years I've been here. And never once has it
>>>been my fault.

>>Paying for an inside wire plan is insane. Given that they have refused
>>to send a technician to your home to perform troubleshooting, demand a
>>refund.

>>But yes, before calling them, always check that there is dial tone
>>outside your home.

>>The tools to repair telephone wire aren't that expensive.

>What's the point? What are the trouble is inside the house or outside the
>house I still have to call Century Link.

If there's dial tone outside your home, then the trouble is inside where
you'll be able to troubleshoot and repair it with proper tools. You won't
have to call Century Link and you'll be able to cancel the inside wiring
maintenance plan from which you aren't receiving any service anyway.
You'll be subject to less of their abyssmal subscriber services.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 07:34:02 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>>The Do Not Call list is a joke.

>It's useful if the FCC blocks everyone from spoofing their numbers.

Where do you get that FCC has any ability to enforce this? Both the
number that is presented as Caller ID and the name that is presented as
Caller ID Name have been settable by the person or machine placing the
outbound call since SIP became widely available, and probably under
earlier protocols. STIR/SHAKEN aren't exactly a panacea either. They
haven't thwarted shit.

>I get a call every weekday from some organization supposedly benefiting
>the police. Every time the call comes from a different number but it's
>the same guy giving the speech. Most of the times the numbers are from
>out of state but some times in state and even local. I once listened
>to their entire spiel and then made a point of asking them to remove me
>from their list (yes, it's a real live person giving the spiel) and they
>did stop calling. For about a month.

If you bother going to the trouble of invoking federal law, you must say
"Place this number on your do not call list." "Remove me" is
specifically NOT language that invokes protection of federal law, which
is almost none whatsoever. They are required to maintain an internal do
not call list, and use that in conjunction with the national do not call
list. Penalties for failures to comply with this law are almost never
imposed.

Mostly, you just verify that they've reached a telephone number that's
answered by a human being.

>I know that the FCC is getting tough on companies within the USA that
>allow that phone number spoofing, but I haven't heard what they will
>do, if anything, about the people outside the USA.

shawn, you do understand that the FCC has no jurisdiction over calls
originating without the United States, right?

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <tibmv5$23r15$4@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> > A little less than a week before the midterm elections in November, a new
>> > PayPal account update will take effect that has sent the internet into an
>> > uproar-- and also drawn condemnation from PayPal's former president David
>> > Marcus.
>>
>> > PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the update taking
>> > effect on November 3. You might say to yourself, well, I don't use my
>> > account with the financial services company for anything improper or
>> > illegal, so what do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>> > necessarily be true:
>>
>> > PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited activities to
>> > include the "sending, posting, or publication of messages, content, or
>> > materials that meet certain criteria". The full details are explained in
>> > their full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start levying
>> > a fine when users are found to have shared "misinformation" or promoted
>> > content that's deemed to be "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>
>> > And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff' through your PayPal
>> > account. If they become aware of you acting contrary to the Agenda
>> > *anywhere*, they reserve the right to fine you. So, for example, if they
>> > catch you posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes, or
>> > ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public knowledge that you
>> > attended a Trump event, or that you donated to a pro-gun cause, and they
>> > know you have a PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>> > 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all three of those
>> > things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>> > . . .
>>
>> You know what else they could do? If your name is similar to what
>> soemone in the law enforcement or intelligence community believes to be
>> a terrorist, they can put you on the "no fly" list without notice and
>> without an appeal because the possible air traveler isn't presented with
>> evidence against him and the name of the police agency that put him on
>> the list isn't even disclosed.
>>
>> Even if you are allowed to fly, TSA could pull you out of line for
>> invasive body cavity searches, er, at random, before boarding each and
>> every flight segment.
>>
>> How can any this possibly go wrong?
>>
>> But let's not worry about the unintended consequences for innocent third
>> parties nor against people who have committed no crimes, as long as it
>> keeps the rest of us distracted, er, safe.
>
>Just to clarify:
>
>The same people who believed Juicy Smollett now want to be able to fine
>you for "misinformation".

I feel safer already.

On 10/14/2022 10:28 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Or not.
>>
>>> Century Link tries to require that you go to the box outside your house
>>> and disconnect the phone and connect an old freestanding doesn't need
>>> to be plugged into the wall phone to prove to them that the trouble
>>> isn't inside your house.
>>
>>> Even though I pay a lot of money for that inside the house wiring plan.
>>> thousands of dollars in the years I've been here. And never once has it
>>> been my fault.
>>
>> Paying for an inside wire plan is insane. Given that they have refused
>> to send a technician to your home to perform troubleshooting, demand a
>> refund.
>>
>> But yes, before calling them, always check that there is dial tone
>> outside your home.
>>
>> The tools to repair telephone wire aren't that expensive.
>>
>
> What’s the point? What are the trouble is inside the house

Eunuch Derp, can you translate the gibberish for us?

On 10/14/2022 12:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tibmv5$23r15$4@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in November, a new
>>> PayPal account update will take effect that has sent the internet into an
>>> uproar-- and also drawn condemnation from PayPal's former president David
>>> Marcus.
>>
>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the update taking
>>> effect on November 3. You might say to yourself, well, I don't use my
>>> account with the financial services company for anything improper or
>>> illegal, so what do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>> necessarily be true:
>>
>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited activities to
>>> include the "sending, posting, or publication of messages, content, or
>>> materials that meet certain criteria". The full details are explained in
>>> their full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start levying
>>> a fine when users are found to have shared "misinformation" or promoted
>>> content that's deemed to be "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>
>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff' through your PayPal
>>> account. If they become aware of you acting contrary to the Agenda
>>> *anywhere*, they reserve the right to fine you. So, for example, if they
>>> catch you posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes, or
>>> ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public knowledge that you
>>> attended a Trump event, or that you donated to a pro-gun cause, and they
>>> know you have a PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all three of those
>>> things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>> . . .
>>
>> You know what else they could do? If your name is similar to what
>> soemone in the law enforcement or intelligence community believes to be
>> a terrorist, they can put you on the "no fly" list without notice and
>> without an appeal because the possible air traveler isn't presented with
>> evidence against him and the name of the police agency that put him on
>> the list isn't even disclosed.
>>
>> Even if you are allowed to fly, TSA could pull you out of line for
>> invasive body cavity searches, er, at random, before boarding each and
>> every flight segment.
>>
>> How can any this possibly go wrong?
>>
>> But let's not worry about the unintended consequences for innocent third
>> parties nor against people who have committed no crimes, as long as it
>> keeps the rest of us distracted, er, safe.
>
> Just to clarify:
>
> The same people who believed Juicy Smollett now want to be able to fine
> you for "misinformation".

Sorry, that sentence doesn't make any fucking sense. Is that more of
that Babylon Bee type "humor?"

On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 18:07:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>I know that the FCC is getting tough on companies within the USA that
>>allow that phone number spoofing, but I haven't heard what they will
>>do, if anything, about the people outside the USA.
>
>shawn, you do understand that the FCC has no jurisdiction over calls
>originating without the United States, right?

Which is why the Canadian government does a piss poor job of
monitoring the National Do Not Call List since > 50% of the calls DO
originate from outside the country so they don't check reported calls
nearly so much.

These days I just leave a whistle near the phone and wait until I get
a human being then blow it as loud as possible then immediately hang
up. That cuts down some of it....

In article <2qbmkh944ai63i0m2bk5cgn7t9bevueogo@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 18:07:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>I know that the FCC is getting tough on companies within the USA that
> >>allow that phone number spoofing, but I haven't heard what they will
> >>do, if anything, about the people outside the USA.
> >
> >shawn, you do understand that the FCC has no jurisdiction over calls
> >originating without the United States, right?
>
> Which is why the Canadian government does a piss poor job of
> monitoring the National Do Not Call List since > 50% of the calls DO
> originate from outside the country so they don't check reported calls
> nearly so much.
>
> These days I just leave a whistle near the phone and wait until I get
> a human being then blow it as loud as possible then immediately hang
> up. That cuts down some of it....

You can be successfully sued for that. It's criminal assault. Don't
do it.

Look, what's so hard about this? I don't answer the phone unless it
rings, and it's set to ring only if the caller is in my Contacts list.
If it's somebody I should talk to anyway, they'll leave a message, and
I call back promptly. Junk callers are able to bother you only if you
let them.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article <2qbmkh944ai63i0m2bk5cgn7t9bevueogo@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 18:07:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I know that the FCC is getting tough on companies within the USA that
>>>> allow that phone number spoofing, but I haven't heard what they will
>>>> do, if anything, about the people outside the USA.
>>>
>>> shawn, you do understand that the FCC has no jurisdiction over calls
>>> originating without the United States, right?
>>
>> Which is why the Canadian government does a piss poor job of
>> monitoring the National Do Not Call List since > 50% of the calls DO
>> originate from outside the country so they don't check reported calls
>> nearly so much.
>>
>> These days I just leave a whistle near the phone and wait until I get
>> a human being then blow it as loud as possible then immediately hang
>> up. That cuts down some of it....
>
>
> You can be successfully sued for that. It's criminal assault. Don't
> do it.
>
> Look, what's so hard about this? I don't answer the phone unless it
> rings, and it's set to ring only if the caller is in my Contacts list.
> If it's somebody I should talk to anyway, they'll leave a message, and
> I call back promptly. Junk callers are able to bother you only if you
> let them.
>

I keep having to let calls through because I am expecting someone from my
bank or something and I don’t know what number they’ll be using. And then
those brief windows the criminals come flooding through.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 21:51:47 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <2qbmkh944ai63i0m2bk5cgn7t9bevueogo@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 18:07:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> These days I just leave a whistle near the phone and wait until I get
>> a human being then blow it as loud as possible then immediately hang
>> up. That cuts down some of it....
>
>You can be successfully sued for that. It's criminal assault. Don't
>do it.
>
>Look, what's so hard about this? I don't answer the phone unless it
>rings, and it's set to ring only if the caller is in my Contacts list.
>If it's somebody I should talk to anyway, they'll leave a message, and
>I call back promptly. Junk callers are able to bother you only if you
>let them.

I do answer the phone but these days if I am in doubt I ask which
company the caller is calling on behalf of and if I don't get a
straightforward and immediate response end the call. Only if they're
the least bit defensive and from somewhere I either have never heard
of OR their name resembles but is not something I'm inclined to deal
with do I ever get even mildly nasty. "You're the 4th call today
supposedly from VISA - why can't they get their act together and give
me all the bad news at once?"

(I actually >did< have a problem like that where one company with whom
I used my card was compromised and my bank's response was to
immediately (and without notice to me) suspended my card and then sent
me a new card - but again, no notice until I complained and a *** 3
week *** delay.

But definitely few if any of the fakers claim I've spent money on
things I would actually spend money on.

On 10/16/2022 1:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 21:51:47 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <2qbmkh944ai63i0m2bk5cgn7t9bevueogo@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
>> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 18:07:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> These days I just leave a whistle near the phone and wait until I get
>>> a human being then blow it as loud as possible then immediately hang
>>> up. That cuts down some of it....
>>
>> You can be successfully sued for that. It's criminal assault. Don't
>> do it.
>>
>> Look, what's so hard about this? I don't answer the phone unless it
>> rings, and it's set to ring only if the caller is in my Contacts list.
>> If it's somebody I should talk to anyway, they'll leave a message, and
>> I call back promptly. Junk callers are able to bother you only if you
>> let them.
>
> I do answer the phone but these days if I am in doubt I ask which
> company the caller is calling on behalf of and if I don't get a
> straightforward and immediate response end the call. Only if they're
> the least bit defensive and from somewhere I either have never heard
> of OR their name resembles but is not something I'm inclined to deal
> with do I ever get even mildly nasty. "You're the 4th call today
> supposedly from VISA - why can't they get their act together and give
> me all the bad news at once?"
>
> (I actually >did< have a problem like that where one company with whom
> I used my card was compromised and my bank's response was to
> immediately (and without notice to me) suspended my card and then sent
> me a new card - but again, no notice until I complained and a *** 3
> week *** delay.
>
> But definitely few if any of the fakers claim I've spent money on
> things I would actually spend money on.

If I answer a call from an unknown number at all I will just accept the
call and say nothing. If they have legitimate business with me someone
will say something and ask for me by name. If they don't the call
disconnects on its own.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <tihuoo$381sd$1@dont-email.me>, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 10/16/2022 1:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 21:51:47 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <2qbmkh944ai63i0m2bk5cgn7t9bevueogo@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> >> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 18:07:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> >>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> These days I just leave a whistle near the phone and wait until I get
> >>> a human being then blow it as loud as possible then immediately hang
> >>> up. That cuts down some of it....
> >>
> >> You can be successfully sued for that. It's criminal assault. Don't
> >> do it.
> >>
> >> Look, what's so hard about this? I don't answer the phone unless it
> >> rings, and it's set to ring only if the caller is in my Contacts list.
> >> If it's somebody I should talk to anyway, they'll leave a message, and
> >> I call back promptly. Junk callers are able to bother you only if you
> >> let them.
> >
> > I do answer the phone but these days if I am in doubt I ask which
> > company the caller is calling on behalf of and if I don't get a
> > straightforward and immediate response end the call. Only if they're
> > the least bit defensive and from somewhere I either have never heard
> > of OR their name resembles but is not something I'm inclined to deal
> > with do I ever get even mildly nasty. "You're the 4th call today
> > supposedly from VISA - why can't they get their act together and give
> > me all the bad news at once?"
> >
> > (I actually >did< have a problem like that where one company with whom
> > I used my card was compromised and my bank's response was to
> > immediately (and without notice to me) suspended my card and then sent
> > me a new card - but again, no notice until I complained and a *** 3
> > week *** delay.
> >
> > But definitely few if any of the fakers claim I've spent money on
> > things I would actually spend money on.
>
> If I answer a call from an unknown number at all I will just accept the
> call and say nothing. If they have legitimate business with me someone
> will say something and ask for me by name. If they don't the call
> disconnects on its own.

In doing this, you've proven to the junk caller that it's a valid
number: Someone answered it. They don't care that you didn't say
anything.

Look, I get it. People are prone to mishandle this stuff because it
annoys them and they think they have a solution. There is no solution.
The only thing to do is ignore junk calls, set your phone to ring only
when the caller is someone known to you, etc. You cannot win, but you
can fight the bastards to a draw.

On 10/16/2022 3:14 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <tihuoo$381sd$1@dont-email.me>, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2022 1:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 21:51:47 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <2qbmkh944ai63i0m2bk5cgn7t9bevueogo@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
>>>> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 18:07:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> These days I just leave a whistle near the phone and wait until I get
>>>>> a human being then blow it as loud as possible then immediately hang
>>>>> up. That cuts down some of it....
>>>>
>>>> You can be successfully sued for that. It's criminal assault. Don't
>>>> do it.
>>>>
>>>> Look, what's so hard about this? I don't answer the phone unless it
>>>> rings, and it's set to ring only if the caller is in my Contacts list.
>>>> If it's somebody I should talk to anyway, they'll leave a message, and
>>>> I call back promptly. Junk callers are able to bother you only if you
>>>> let them.
>>>
>>> I do answer the phone but these days if I am in doubt I ask which
>>> company the caller is calling on behalf of and if I don't get a
>>> straightforward and immediate response end the call. Only if they're
>>> the least bit defensive and from somewhere I either have never heard
>>> of OR their name resembles but is not something I'm inclined to deal
>>> with do I ever get even mildly nasty. "You're the 4th call today
>>> supposedly from VISA - why can't they get their act together and give
>>> me all the bad news at once?"
>>>
>>> (I actually >did< have a problem like that where one company with whom
>>> I used my card was compromised and my bank's response was to
>>> immediately (and without notice to me) suspended my card and then sent
>>> me a new card - but again, no notice until I complained and a *** 3
>>> week *** delay.
>>>
>>> But definitely few if any of the fakers claim I've spent money on
>>> things I would actually spend money on.
>>
>> If I answer a call from an unknown number at all I will just accept the
>> call and say nothing. If they have legitimate business with me someone
>> will say something and ask for me by name. If they don't the call
>> disconnects on its own.
>
>
> In doing this, you've proven to the junk caller that it's a valid
> number: Someone answered it. They don't care that you didn't say
> anything.
>
> Look, I get it. People are prone to mishandle this stuff because it
> annoys them and they think they have a solution. There is no solution.
> The only thing to do is ignore junk calls, set your phone to ring only
> when the caller is someone known to you, etc. You cannot win, but you
> can fight the bastards to a draw.
>
The thing is, businesses I know will use various numbers to call me.
Such as an order on the way, or to confirm an appointment.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 07:39:21 -0700, anim8rfsk wrote
(in article<331061219.687277901.151502.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>):

> I suspect if PayPal decides to reach out and bill my credit card for
> Wrongspeak I’ll have a pretty good fraud case against them.

But who would prosecute the fraud case? The Justice Department
is extremely lenient with corporate fraud against consumers. And
what if all the newspapers were against you? Filing a claim
against the fraud may invite persecution of you by the New
York Times, losing your job or pension.

Another angle to look through is this may be a publicity
stunt to promote new progressive clientele. If having a Paypal
account justifies "fining" 2,500 dollars for disagreement
with Gun Control, or skepticism about Black Lives Matter, etc.,
this "mistaken" incident may serve to boost their political
connections.

On 10/16/2022 6:49 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 07:39:21 -0700, anim8rfsk wrote
> (in article<331061219.687277901.151502.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>):
>
>> I suspect if PayPal decides to reach out and bill my credit card for
>> Wrongspeak I’ll have a pretty good fraud case against them.
>
> But who would prosecute the fraud case? The Justice Department
> is extremely lenient with corporate fraud against consumers. And
> what if all the newspapers were against you? Filing a claim
> against the fraud may invite persecution of you by the New
> York Times, losing your job or pension.
>
> Another angle to look through is this may be a publicity
> stunt to promote new progressive clientele. If having a Paypal
> account justifies "fining" 2,500 dollars for disagreement
> with Gun Control, or skepticism about Black Lives Matter, etc.,
> this "mistaken" incident may serve to boost their political
> connections.
>
*PLONK*

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

> Some Canadian restaurants are adding a 2.4% processing fee on credit
> card transactions which is what they claim is their 'interface fee' (I
> retired recently but OUR credit card discount rate from our bank was
> about half that and a straight 13 cents per transaction on debit
> transactions)
>
> If I were to get one of those on my restaurant bill I would calculate
> the tip then deduct that fee and would have no hesitation telling them
> so if asked.

> Some Canadian restaurants are adding a 2.4% processing fee on credit
> card transactions

I think that is a great idea, to let consumers know exactly
what businesses are being charged by the credit card companies.
I so rarely see that in USA prices. In my opinion it's an
outrageous fraud that credit card companies forbid their
clients (businesses) from disclosing credit card costs to the
consumer by passing along exactly what they've been charged.

Historical prices of credit card fees were (are?) something
like 2% to 7% for American Express, so a bill for a dollar
should look like this:

for $1.00 goods and services

paid by Mastercard $1.02
paid by American Express $1.07
paid by Paypal $1.45

Paypal has extremely high fees for small charges like a
dollar so "1.45" might be an understatement. (Do not
make small donations with Paypal).

> which is what they claim is their 'interface fee' (I
> retired recently but OUR credit card discount rate from our bank was
> about half that and a straight 13 cents per transaction on debit
> transactions)
>
> If I were to get one of those on my restaurant bill I would calculate
> the tip then deduct that fee and would have no hesitation telling them
> so if asked.

I'd say you pick odd battles.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:40:34 -0700, chromebook test wrote
(in article<57cbd1b0-254b-4c8b-8595-01ef5d347cdfn@googlegroups.com>):

> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 10:57:58 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited activities to
> > include the "sending, posting, or publication of messages, content, or
> > materials that meet certain criteria". The full details are explained in
> > their
> > full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start levying a fine
> > when
> > users are found to have shared "misinformation" or promoted content that’s
> > deemed to be "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>
> Kanye just got kicked out of his bank....
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.tv/c/ZhHEkBwzK5Y/m/5-WH8xRcKQAJ
>
> Wonder why... hmm

Why are you referring to Google? If the article is good,
post it here.

In article <0001HW.28FCEC1B000EB5E030E97B38F@news.giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 07:39:21 -0700, anim8rfsk wrote
> (in article<331061219.687277901.151502.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>):
>
> > I suspect if PayPal decides to reach out and bill my credit card for
> > Wrongspeak I’ll have a pretty good fraud case against them.
>
> But who would prosecute the fraud case? The Justice Department
> is extremely lenient with corporate fraud against consumers. And
> what if all the newspapers were against you? Filing a claim
> against the fraud may invite persecution of you by the New
> York Times, losing your job or pension.

I'm trying to figure out how exactly the New York Times could cost me my
pension.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article <tihuoo$381sd$1@dont-email.me>, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2022 1:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 21:51:47 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <2qbmkh944ai63i0m2bk5cgn7t9bevueogo@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
>>>> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 18:07:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> These days I just leave a whistle near the phone and wait until I get
>>>>> a human being then blow it as loud as possible then immediately hang
>>>>> up. That cuts down some of it....
>>>>
>>>> You can be successfully sued for that. It's criminal assault. Don't
>>>> do it.
>>>>
>>>> Look, what's so hard about this? I don't answer the phone unless it
>>>> rings, and it's set to ring only if the caller is in my Contacts list.
>>>> If it's somebody I should talk to anyway, they'll leave a message, and
>>>> I call back promptly. Junk callers are able to bother you only if you
>>>> let them.
>>>
>>> I do answer the phone but these days if I am in doubt I ask which
>>> company the caller is calling on behalf of and if I don't get a
>>> straightforward and immediate response end the call. Only if they're
>>> the least bit defensive and from somewhere I either have never heard
>>> of OR their name resembles but is not something I'm inclined to deal
>>> with do I ever get even mildly nasty. "You're the 4th call today
>>> supposedly from VISA - why can't they get their act together and give
>>> me all the bad news at once?"
>>>
>>> (I actually >did< have a problem like that where one company with whom
>>> I used my card was compromised and my bank's response was to
>>> immediately (and without notice to me) suspended my card and then sent
>>> me a new card - but again, no notice until I complained and a *** 3
>>> week *** delay.
>>>
>>> But definitely few if any of the fakers claim I've spent money on
>>> things I would actually spend money on.
>>
>> If I answer a call from an unknown number at all I will just accept the
>> call and say nothing. If they have legitimate business with me someone
>> will say something and ask for me by name. If they don't the call
>> disconnects on its own.
>
>
> In doing this, you've proven to the junk caller that it's a valid
> number: Someone answered it. They don't care that you didn't say
> anything.
>
> Look, I get it. People are prone to mishandle this stuff because it
> annoys them and they think they have a solution. There is no solution.
> The only thing to do is ignore junk calls, set your phone to ring only
> when the caller is someone known to you, etc. You cannot win, but you
> can fight the bastards to a draw.
>

But it will still go to voicemail which proves that they called a valid
number just as much as your answering would.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> In article <tihuoo$381sd$1@dont-email.me>, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/16/2022 1:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 21:51:47 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <2qbmkh944ai63i0m2bk5cgn7t9bevueogo@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
>>>>> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 18:07:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These days I just leave a whistle near the phone and wait until I get
>>>>>> a human being then blow it as loud as possible then immediately hang
>>>>>> up. That cuts down some of it....
>>>>>
>>>>> You can be successfully sued for that. It's criminal assault. Don't
>>>>> do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look, what's so hard about this? I don't answer the phone unless it
>>>>> rings, and it's set to ring only if the caller is in my Contacts list.
>>>>> If it's somebody I should talk to anyway, they'll leave a message, and
>>>>> I call back promptly. Junk callers are able to bother you only if you
>>>>> let them.
>>>>
>>>> I do answer the phone but these days if I am in doubt I ask which
>>>> company the caller is calling on behalf of and if I don't get a
>>>> straightforward and immediate response end the call. Only if they're
>>>> the least bit defensive and from somewhere I either have never heard
>>>> of OR their name resembles but is not something I'm inclined to deal
>>>> with do I ever get even mildly nasty. "You're the 4th call today
>>>> supposedly from VISA - why can't they get their act together and give
>>>> me all the bad news at once?"
>>>>
>>>> (I actually >did< have a problem like that where one company with whom
>>>> I used my card was compromised and my bank's response was to
>>>> immediately (and without notice to me) suspended my card and then sent
>>>> me a new card - but again, no notice until I complained and a *** 3
>>>> week *** delay.
>>>>
>>>> But definitely few if any of the fakers claim I've spent money on
>>>> things I would actually spend money on.
>>>
>>> If I answer a call from an unknown number at all I will just accept the
>>> call and say nothing. If they have legitimate business with me someone
>>> will say something and ask for me by name. If they don't the call
>>> disconnects on its own.
>>
>>
>> In doing this, you've proven to the junk caller that it's a valid
>> number: Someone answered it. They don't care that you didn't say
>> anything.
>>
>> Look, I get it. People are prone to mishandle this stuff because it
>> annoys them and they think they have a solution. There is no solution.
>> The only thing to do is ignore junk calls, set your phone to ring only
>> when the caller is someone known to you, etc. You cannot win, but you
>> can fight the bastards to a draw.
>>
>
>But it will still go to voicemail which proves that they called a valid
>number just as much as your answering would.

No. It doesn't prove that it called a number that a human being would
answer despite not recognizing Caller ID.

On my cell phone, I have no useful choices other than ignoring it, in
which case it gets sent to voice mail, declining it, in which case it
gets sent to voice mail sooner, or answering it.

On my VoIP service, I could refuse the connection.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 10/16/2022 6:49 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:

>>>. . .

>>But who would prosecute the fraud case? The Justice Department
>>is extremely lenient with corporate fraud against consumers. . . .

>*PLONK*

Oh for gawd's sake. It's obviously yet another sockpuppet via a Giganews
account. They spring up every couple of months as previous sockpuppets
get filthy and holely and linty. Couldn't you have just ignored it?

On 10/16/2022 8:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2022 6:49 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:
>
>>>> . . .
>
>>> But who would prosecute the fraud case? The Justice Department
>>> is extremely lenient with corporate fraud against consumers. . . .
>
>> *PLONK*
>
> Oh for gawd's sake. It's obviously yet another sockpuppet via a Giganews
> account. They spring up every couple of months as previous sockpuppets
> get filthy and holely and linty. Couldn't you have just ignored it?
>
As soon as I saw half a dozen posts, I added it to my killfile.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 20:14:02 -0700, BTR1701 wrote
(in
article<atropos-6213A7.20140216102022@ec2-18-102-80-69.eu-south-
1.compute.amazonaws.com>):

> In article<0001HW.28FCEC1B000EB5E030E97B38F@news.giganews.com>,
> Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 07:39:21 -0700, anim8rfsk wrote
> > (in article<331061219.687277901.151502.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>)
> > :
> >
> > > I suspect if PayPal decides to reach out and bill my credit card for
> > > Wrongspeak I’ll have a pretty good fraud case against them.
> >
> > But who would prosecute the fraud case? The Justice Department
> > is extremely lenient with corporate fraud against consumers. And
> > what if all the newspapers were against you? Filing a claim
> > against the fraud may invite persecution of you by the New
> > York Times, losing your job or pension.
>
> I'm trying to figure out how exactly the New York Times could cost me my
> pension.

Where The New York Times goes, so does the rest of the
media. So it wouldn't be just the Times against you,
but PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, Comcast, AT@T, Newsweek, Time,
The Washington Post,The Associated Press, Business
Insider, the New Yorker,Google, Soros,Zuckerberg,
Larry Fink, etc., all of theunanimous media,whichnever
differs from each other onany issue. I don'tknow
exactly howtheycould take yourpension, but the
monopolypress isextremelypowerful. They can condemn
you, with a directresultin violenceand financial
destitution. Whetherthey praise orcondemn someone,
they always do so as asingle unit, amonopolyin action,
meaning if the Timesthreatens your life, sodo the rest.
IfPaypal defrauds you or ifyour pensionfund defrauds
you,you could be blamed byall, perhaps if youspeakup
about thefraud.

Crackpot talk, eh? but I feel monopolization to be a
far greater threat than a crackpot, and those
aformentioned institutions have repeatedly been
screaming that "dissent is murder", that all problems
inthe world are caused by the public disagreeing with
authority. They even have the effrontery to proclaim
that public distrust of the unanimous media is the
epitome oftotalitarianism!

And I'll repeat the statement that interest by the
Justice Departmentin prosecuting corporate fraud
perpetuatedagainst consumers is very weak, so I
wouldn't count onit for justice.

I speculate that PayPal may have arranged this
"accident" with its Service Terms to prop up their
cred with the above mentioned organizations! Paypal,
an "A" for effort!

--
I don't know yet if my newsreader will mess up my
post by reformatting