On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 22:31:55 -0700, Pluted Pup wrote
(in article<0001HW.28FD204B001AF11430A44F38F@news.giganews.com>):

> 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.

I didn't write like this my stupid newsreader reformatted
what I wrote, deleting spaces and running words together.
--
I don't know yet if my newsreader will mess up my
post by reformatting

On 10/16/2022 5:14 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.

When it goes to VM it does the same thing.

> 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.

If only.

On 10/16/2022 10:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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.

Don't tell me your own sockpuppet can't tell you. Hey, do you have the
sockpuppets talk to each other? Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak"
says about "Pluted Pup?"

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.

Most of these spam calls are initiated by a computer, which then passes
it to a human when someone _says_ something on the receiving end. If it
doesn't go to voice mail and you don't say anything, it doesn't get
routed to a human and gets tagged as a non-valid number. It takes time
but the number of spam calls I'm getting has significantly dropped since
I started doing this.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

> trotsky
>
> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"

Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
sock puppets in his sleep, so you can’t go by him and I think
Suzeeq is overreacting.

If Pluted Pup turns out to be a kook or a troll then we’ll
know but so far, he seems like a regular guy.

On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> trotsky
>>
>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>
> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can’t go by him and I think
> Suzeeq is overreacting.

Have there been any other posts from him?
>
> If Pluted Pup turns out to be a kook or a troll then we’ll
> know but so far, he seems like a regular guy.
>

In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> trotsky
> >>
> >> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
> >
> > Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
> > appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
> > sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
> > Suzeeq is overreacting.
>
> Have there been any other posts from him?

Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.

On 10/17/2022 6:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> trotsky
>>>>
>>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>>>
>>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
>>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
>>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
>>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
>>
>> Have there been any other posts from him?
>
> Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.

You would know since you're pulling the strings.

On 10/17/2022 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> trotsky
>>>>
>>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>>>
>>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
>>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
>>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
>>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
>>
>> Have there been any other posts from him?
>
> Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.
>
The other day was the first I'd seen from him.

In article <tikr25$de4e$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

> On 10/17/2022 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >>>> trotsky
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
> >>>
> >>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
> >>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
> >>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
> >>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
> >>
> >> Have there been any other posts from him?
> >
> > Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.
> >
> The other day was the first I'd seen from him.

He's like DuPree and only drops in every 10 days or so.

On 10/17/2022 5:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tikr25$de4e$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2022 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>> trotsky
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
>>>>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
>>>>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
>>>>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
>>>>
>>>> Have there been any other posts from him?
>>>
>>> Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.
>>>
>> The other day was the first I'd seen from him.
>
> He's like DuPree and only drops in every 10 days or so.
>
I've got her KF'd too.

On 10/17/2022 7:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tikr25$de4e$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2022 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>> trotsky
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
>>>>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
>>>>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
>>>>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
>>>>
>>>> Have there been any other posts from him?
>>>
>>> Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.
>>>
>> The other day was the first I'd seen from him.
>
> He's like DuPree and only drops in every 10 days or so.

Yeah, when "he" is your sockpuppet you'd certainly know stuff like that.

On 10/17/2022 11:47 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 5:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <tikr25$de4e$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/17/2022 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>> trotsky
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
>>>>>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
>>>>>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
>>>>>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have there been any other posts from him?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.
>>>>
>>> The other day was the first I'd seen from him.
>>
>> He's like DuPree and only drops in every 10 days or so.
>>
> I've got her KF'd too.

If you were smart you'd "KF" yourself too.

On 10/18/2022 12:47 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 5:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <tikr25$de4e$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/17/2022 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>> trotsky
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
>>>>>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
>>>>>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
>>>>>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have there been any other posts from him?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.
>>>>
>>> The other day was the first I'd seen from him.
>>
>> He's like DuPree and only drops in every 10 days or so.
>>
> I've got her KF'd too.

Just curious, why have you KF'd her? Whatever else, she seems
relatively well-mannered and inoffensive...

On 10/18/2022 9:02 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 12:47 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 5:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <tikr25$de4e$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> trotsky
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
>>>>>>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
>>>>>>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
>>>>>>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have there been any other posts from him?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.
>>>>>
>>>> The other day was the first I'd seen from him.
>>>
>>> He's like DuPree and only drops in every 10 days or so.
>>>
>> I've got her KF'd too.
>
> Just curious, why have you KF'd her?  Whatever else, she seems
> relatively well-mannered and inoffensive...
>

Because she replies to posts that are weeks old and doesn't seem to add
much to the discussion.

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 12:47 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 5:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <tikr25$de4e$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> trotsky
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
>>>>>>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
>>>>>>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
>>>>>>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have there been any other posts from him?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.
>>>>>
>>>> The other day was the first I'd seen from him.
>>>
>>> He's like DuPree and only drops in every 10 days or so.
>>>
>> I've got her KF'd too.
>
> Just curious, why have you KF'd her? Whatever else, she seems
> relatively well-mannered and inoffensive...

You mean other than her penchant for moralistically killfiling people, then
responding to them anyway through the posts of other people?

On 10/18/2022 11:02 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/18/2022 12:47 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 5:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <tikr25$de4e$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> trotsky
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
>>>>>>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
>>>>>>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
>>>>>>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have there been any other posts from him?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.
>>>>>
>>>> The other day was the first I'd seen from him.
>>>
>>> He's like DuPree and only drops in every 10 days or so.
>>>
>> I've got her KF'd too.
>
> Just curious, why have you KF'd her?  Whatever else, she seems
> relatively well-mannered and inoffensive...

Come on, man, suzee is a dipshit. She has zero ability to identify who
the assholes are.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:54:13 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> Just curious, why have you KF'd her? Whatever else, she seems
>> relatively well-mannered and inoffensive...
>
>You mean other than her penchant for moralistically killfiling people, then
>responding to them anyway through the posts of other people?

I think she's an idiot but at least entertaining enough (sometimes) to
keep her out of my kill file.....

On 10/18/2022 5:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 10/18/2022 12:47 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2022 5:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <tikr25$de4e$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <tikke8$dbk6$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:52 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> trotsky
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't we want to know what "Ed Stasiak" says about "Pluted Pup?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, since you asked, he (at least he sounds like a guy?)
>>>>>>>> appears to be a new poster (it IS possible) and Adam sees
>>>>>>>> sock puppets in his sleep, so you can't go by him and I think
>>>>>>>> Suzeeq is overreacting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have there been any other posts from him?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, he's been posting occasionally for about a month now.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The other day was the first I'd seen from him.
>>>>
>>>> He's like DuPree and only drops in every 10 days or so.
>>>>
>>> I've got her KF'd too.
>>
>> Just curious, why have you KF'd her? Whatever else, she seems
>> relatively well-mannered and inoffensive...
>
> You mean other than her penchant for moralistically killfiling people, then
> responding to them anyway through the posts of other people?

Well eunuch'd and anonyshitted.

In article <tij5cf$11bh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, gmsingh@email.com wrote:

> Don't tell me your own sockpuppet can't tell you.
> Hey, do you have the sockpuppets talk to each other?

You certainly have no trouble doing it.

Projection noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 10:57:58 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:

> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released a statement to media
> outlets insisting that the company will not, in fact, fine users for the
> dissemination of misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for
> misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our
> policy. Our teams are working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
> confusion this has caused."
>
> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the language noted in the
> post above is nevertheless still included in PayPal's user agreement here:

Why PayPal Stock’s Selloff Could Be Overdone
By Carleton English Oct. 12, 2022
https://www.barrons.com/articles/paypal-stock-price-selloff-51665586104

PayPal Holdings stock is down nearly double digits this week following social-media backlash to a now-retracted change to the payments platform’s terms. Wall Street is confident that the pain will be short-lived.

PayPal says policy to fine customers for 'misinformation' was an 'error'
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/paypal-says-it-never-intended-fine-users-misinformation-bloomberg-news-2022-10-10/

Shares of the San Jose, California-based company were down nearly 6% after the update, which PayPal said "included incorrect information", sparked intense backlash on social media over the weekend.

"PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy. We're sorry for the confusion this has caused," a spokesperson for the company said.

---------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaaRYZPu9dc

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> writes:

> On 10/12/2022 3:43 PM, Nyssa wrote:

>> No smartphone or overpriced on-going data plan needed.
>>
>> Nyssa, who just forked over almost $900 a couple of weeks
>> ago for a new refrigerator, in cash, with no objection from
>> the cashier at all
>
> I only spend $125 a year for my smartphone. No contract, it's a
> Tracfone.

Same here. I actually looked into getting a traditional landline when I
moved to suburban Virginia, and found that there was no company willing
to do it for residential service, not even at the outlandish price I had
been paying in Florida (~$50/month). There was only VOIP available, and
I don't see any advantage in having it.

I've read that most young people have ditched landlines entirely anyway.
I have reluctantly been thrown in with them, but it is a lot cheaper
than the AT&T landline service I had in Florida.

-Micky

Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> writes:
>>On 10/12/2022 3:43 PM, Nyssa wrote:

>>>No smartphone or overpriced on-going data plan needed.

>>>Nyssa, who just forked over almost $900 a couple of weeks
>>>ago for a new refrigerator, in cash, with no objection from
>>>the cashier at all

>>I only spend $125 a year for my smartphone. No contract, it's a
>>Tracfone.

>Same here. I actually looked into getting a traditional landline when I
>moved to suburban Virginia, and found that there was no company willing
>to do it for residential service, not even at the outlandish price I had
>been paying in Florida (~$50/month). There was only VOIP available, and
>I don't see any advantage in having it.

>I've read that most young people have ditched landlines entirely anyway.
>I have reluctantly been thrown in with them, but it is a lot cheaper
>than the AT&T landline service I had in Florida.

I ditched my landline close to two decades ago with a move, mostly
because I wanted to keep the old phone number, which I ported to a cell
phone.

You're wrong about VoIP. The advantage is how cheap it is. I use it for
various nonprofit organizations I administer. I have nine VoIP lines,
and I prepay $25 every 3 months or so. You can't beat that.

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> writes:

> What the hell is the protocol if you're in (for example) Denver,
> on the phone with your aunt in Walla Walla, WA, and she
> says to you "I feel faint" and then collapses?
>
> How do you reach emergency services a dozen States away?

You google the non-emergency numbers, explain the problem, and hope they
either patch you directly through to the 911 board, or else they'll
relay the problem to the appropriate service.

I just found non-emergency numbers for both police and fire/ambulance in
Walla Walla, WA. It's not as fast as being able to get through to 911
directly, but you and your aunt won't be left high and dry.

-Micky

A Friend <nope@noway.com> writes:

> In article <s68hkh1h1vv48lo62vptn8q1dilnedugfi@4ax.com>, The Horny
> Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>> I don't carry a cell phone either - I used to but got rid of it after
>> telemarketers got my number and started calling me. Each time if I
>> was in motion while driving I would pull over and after the score was
>> telemarketers 25 real callers 1 and my contract was expiring I gave
>> it up.
>
> This makes no sense to me at all. First, you can set a phone to ring
> only if the number calling you is in your contacts list; anyone else
> can leave a message without bothering you. Second, you're under no
> compulsion to answer the phone in the first place.
>
> Caller ID is a gift from the phone gods. Use it.

I think a lot of people simply don't know how to do this. The other day
a friend of mine was bemoaning that he was vulnerable to telemarketers
because he had to answer unidentified callers in case a call was from his
dentist or his contractor. I told him to add his dentist and his
contractor to his contacts. You can even give different ringtones to
people and businesses you consider high priority so you know without
fishing out the device while driving if it's a call you want to pull
over for.

>> I figured anybody with a legitimate need to talk to me had either my
>> work or home numbers (or both) which was usually where I was at
>> except when going from one to the other. And despite being on the
>> National Do Not Call List I have been awoken by a robocaller on at
>> least 3 occasions. Now I'm retired - well the phone is 18" from my
>> keyboard.
>
> I turn my ringer off when I take a nap or turn in for the night. I
> don't know why people don't do that routinely.

I turn the whole phone off while I'm trying to sleep unless I have some
reason to anticipate a really important call. I also used to turn the
ringer off on the landline while I slept back when I had one. It was a
whole wake-up/bedtime routine to turn comms on and turn comms off.

Since I have an abnormal and unpredictable sleep schedule, it's
especially important for me to protect sleep during daytime hours when
both random and legitimate calls are likely. It's also why I became
resigned to having a cell phone on my person almost all the time when
I'm awake, because it reduces the number of times I have to play phone
tag because I've missed a call that I actually wanted to take. Part of
"turn comms on" when I wake up is checking email, voicemail, text
messages, and Facebook Messenger, because everyone has their favorite
mode of communicating asynchronously.

-Micky