On 10/27/2021 2:06 PM, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 26 Oct 2021 22:49:25 -0700, AJL
> <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/26/2021 9:44 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> If your phone is stolen and the thief makes these spurious
>>>> transactions, where does the bank send the notification?
>>
>>> Just WHERE are those transactions committed? On your phone? Nope,
>>> at the site the app or web browser connected.
>>
>>A thief would require 2 passwords to access my bank account. One to
>>access my phone and one to access the bank app. Unlikely.
>>
>>> The bank sends it notifications to wherever you tell them to send
>>> them, like an e-mail address. You read your e-mails other than just
>>> on your phone.
>>
>>I prefer my bank CC charge notifications as texts as that way I would
>>know immediately of any fraudulent charge and can immediately stop the
>
> But if you get them as texts and your phone is lost or stolen, you won't
> get the texts!!!
>
> I get them as emails, not for that reason so much but so I don't have to
> think about them until I get home at the end of the day.

I get credit card notifications every morning when I do a one-step
update in in Quicken.

--
Ken

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> A thief would require 2 passwords to access my bank account. One to
> access my phone and one to access the bank app. Unlikely.

So, unlike the OP and his behavior, you *do* lock your phone. You
disagree with the OP: a phone should lock.

On 10/27/2021 2:06 PM, micky wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> I prefer my bank CC charge notifications as texts as that way I
>> would know immediately of any fraudulent charge and can
>> immediately stop the card with the bank app.

> But if you get them as texts and your phone is lost or stolen, you
> won't get the texts!!!

Actually I get the CC notifications as BOTH emails and texts. That way I
can also see the charges on one of my other devices I happen to be using
when home. But if I were to lose my phone I'd want to turn off all
bank notifications because I have it set to show them on the phone lock
screen even when locked. But changing the bank notifications is as easy
as going to bank website (or app) on any device and changing a few check
marks.

> I get them as emails, not for that reason so much but so I don't
> have to think about them until I get home at the end of the day.

As always, YMMV. My system has other benefits as well:

When I'm out with the wife, she goes shopping and I roam around killing
time or find a bench and read my phone. When I get the CC notification
text beep I know it's time to go meet her. Very handy. But on the scary
side I know immediately how much she spent... 8-O

On 10/27/2021 3:00 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>> A thief would require 2 passwords to access my bank account. One
>> to access my phone and one to access the bank app. Unlikely.
>
> So, unlike the OP and his behavior, you *do* lock your phone. You
> disagree with the OP: a phone should lock.

I've always locked my phone. Where did I say otherwise???

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> On 10/27/2021 3:00 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A thief would require 2 passwords to access my bank account. One
>>> to access my phone and one to access the bank app. Unlikely.
>>
>> So, unlike the OP and his behavior, you *do* lock your phone. You
>> disagree with the OP: a phone should lock.
>
> I've always locked my phone. Where did I say otherwise???

You did not contradict yourself. I was pointing out that, unlike the
OP, you believe one's phone should get locked as the first line of
defense.

On 10/27/2021 4:45 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> On 10/27/2021 3:00 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>>>> A thief would require 2 passwords to access my bank account.
>>>> One to access my phone and one to access the bank app.
>>>> Unlikely.

>>> So, unlike the OP and his behavior, you *do* lock your phone. You
>>> disagree with the OP: a phone should lock.

>> I've always locked my phone. Where did I say otherwise???

> You did not contradict yourself. I was pointing out that, unlike the
> OP, you believe one's phone should get locked as the first line of
> defense.

I believe MY phone should be locked because my whole life is on there
including the sensitive stuff. But what someone else does depends on
their situation which may be entirely different from mine. Translation:
YMMV.

BTW I carry it a bit further. ALL my devices are locked. Paranoid?
Perhaps. But over the years I've been to many home burglary scenes where
ALL the electronics were taken. Google apparently agrees with me. My
Chromebook REQUIRES locking and only allows me to use the 6 digit pin
for 24 hours or so before it again demands my full password. This W10 LT
I'm now posting with has fingerprint entry so it's a bit easier to live
with...

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>> Since all you know is your phone went missing, how do you know it was
>> stolen or whether you lost the phone?
>
> In my case, the rentacar window was broken, my little bag was gone,
> with the phone and other stuff including clothes.

If you suspect your phone has been stolen, the lockscreen is the first
line of defense against abuse or privacy invasion. I remember with my
Samsung phones that Samsung had a feature where you could remotely lock
down the phone. Even if the lockscreen were not enabled, you could
still remotely kill your phone, and later resurrect it. This is like
credit cards that let you disable them in case of loss, or reenable them
when you find them.

If you have a Google account on your phone, you can also use your Google
account to remotely:

- Show the location of your device on a map. Also shows to where it is
connected (the SSID might indicate, for example, a store), and battery
level.
- Ring your phone for 5 minutes. That's useful if "lost" just means you
misplaced it at home or where the phone is likely with hearing
distance to hear it ring. Of course, you could also call your lost
phone using another phone to hear the lost one ringing.
- Secure (lockup) your phone. Your phone is unusable to anyone. You
can add a message to show on your phone of where a finder can contact
you. Even if they managed to get past the lockscreen (not a problem
on your phone that you don't lock), securing it prevents any further
use of your phone. You will have to use your Google account to
de-secure (reactivate) your phone. After securing your phone, you can
use Google to locate it.
- Erase everything on the phone. This is the same as a reset of the
phone. No one can get at anything on your phone except use the
default OS and bundled apps.

Obviously your phone must be registered in your Google account which
also means you obviously have a Google account (and it was added to the
phone). If you are installing apps to your phones, they must be added
to have each a choice to where an app gets installed.

There are some anti-virus Android apps that can also remotely secure and
erase your phone; however, it's likely these remote management features
are part of a "home" product line, and costs money. I had an AV app
that, at first, had the remote management services, but didn't realize
it was a trial. After the trial was long over, my account vaporized,
and the services disappeared from the app. Talked to a chat rep which
verified the web services were part of a trial of the "home" services
the app used.

For now, I firstly rely on the lockscreen to block casual unauthorized
access to my phone, and all data on it, including any stored in any app
since they use accounts defined on the phone, like Google, Microsoft,
etc, to access the services to which the apps connect. You might not
have data files you care about, you might configure your web browser not
to store passwords, but those apps might've asked you for access to an
account, so a thief could use those account-based apps to do nasty stuff
in your accounts. Secondly I'll rely on Google's free remote management
services to find my phone (lost or stolen), lock it down (unusable even
if the thief gets past the lockscreen), or erase my phone if lost or
stolen (don't expect to get it back).

So, even if you decide to keep your phone unprotected by not using a
lockscreen, you could still protect it if lost or stolen *if* you create
or connect it a Google account.

Am 28.10.21 um 00:47 schrieb AJL:
> On 10/27/2021 2:06 PM, micky wrote:
>> I get them as emails, not for that reason so much but so I don't
>> have to think about them until I get home at the end of the day.
>
> As always, YMMV. My system has other benefits as well:
>
> When I'm out with the wife, she goes shopping and I roam around killing
> time or find a bench and read my phone. When I get the CC notification
> text beep I know it's time to go meet her. Very handy. But on the scary
> side I know immediately how much she spent... 8-O

Do you think that is funny? Control freak old style?
I'm very sorry for your wife.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 28.10.21 um 00:47 schrieb AJL:
> On 10/27/2021 3:00 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A thief would require 2 passwords to access my bank account. One
>>> to access my phone and one to access the bank app. Unlikely.
>>
>> So, unlike the OP and his behavior, you *do* lock your phone. You
>> disagree with the OP: a phone should lock.
>
> I've always locked my phone. Where did I say otherwise???

Why do you tell us the story of your life if it can be said in one sentence?

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 26 Oct 2021 15:19:12 -0500, VanguardLH
> <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>
>> You have no accounts at all defined on your smartphone? Else, any files
>> or data you have in your Google, Hotmail, or other accounts can be
>> accessed.
>
> I have my email passwords stored, but nothing in my email is
> confidential.

False. Having access to your email is a gold mine for identity thieves.
With that they can reset any or all of your important passwords thereby
getting access to all shopping or bank accounts.

If that were to happen and the bank found out you never locked your phone
they'd have grounds for refusing any compensation for money lost.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/26/2021 04:38 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 10/26/2021 3:17 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> The main thing about locking my phone is having to do a procedure to
>>> unlock it. I want the screen to blank after 2 minutes of disuse, and
>>> generally blank it myself when I'm done doing whatever I'm doing with
>>> it. Having to press the button to turn the screen back on and then feed
>>> in a password o some sort of gesture is NOT what I want to do.
>>
>> Until very recently I felt the same way, but a friend convinced me I
>> should lock it and I now do. Unlocking is very easy. I just touch the
>> fingerprint reader on the back.
>
> Knowing how well the one at the gym worked I wouldn't dream of using that.

It's a very, very different system and probably crude technology. The gym
has to verify you against 100s of customers based on probably a single
fingerprint. The phone only needs to do it against one person with a
series of overlapping fingerprints. Phone fingerprint sensors are fast and
accurate.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 4:45 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> > AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/27/2021 3:00 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> >>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> A thief would require 2 passwords to access my bank account.
> >>>> One to access my phone and one to access the bank app.
> >>>> Unlikely.
>
> >>> So, unlike the OP and his behavior, you *do* lock your phone. You
> >>> disagree with the OP: a phone should lock.
>
> >> I've always locked my phone. Where did I say otherwise???
>
> > You did not contradict yourself. I was pointing out that, unlike the
> > OP, you believe one's phone should get locked as the first line of
> > defense.
>
> I believe MY phone should be locked because my whole life is on there
> including the sensitive stuff. But what someone else does depends on
> their situation which may be entirely different from mine. Translation:
> YMMV.

IMO, *every* smartphone should be locked.

Those - like the OP micky - who *think* that they don't have any
personal/sensitive/<whatever> information on their smartphone are the
ones who are most likely to be wrong about that. Others have shown what
kind of personal/sensitive information there is on most any smartphone.
Sofar, I've only seen Chris Green, who is very well aware about what
could be on his phone and has taken steps to make sure that info is not
on his phone and hence he can leave it unlocked. All others are aware of
the dangers and hence lock their phones.

> BTW I carry it a bit further. ALL my devices are locked. Paranoid?
> Perhaps. But over the years I've been to many home burglary scenes where
> ALL the electronics were taken. Google apparently agrees with me. My
> Chromebook REQUIRES locking and only allows me to use the 6 digit pin
> for 24 hours or so before it again demands my full password. This W10 LT
> I'm now posting with has fingerprint entry so it's a bit easier to live
> with...

I lock my laptop and any other devices which (can) leave the house are
also locked.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 28.10.21 um 00:47 schrieb AJL:
> > On 10/27/2021 2:06 PM, micky wrote:
> >> I get them as emails, not for that reason so much but so I don't
> >> have to think about them until I get home at the end of the day.
> >
> > As always, YMMV. My system has other benefits as well:
> >
> > When I'm out with the wife, she goes shopping and I roam around killing
> > time or find a bench and read my phone. When I get the CC notification
> > text beep I know it's time to go meet her. Very handy. But on the scary
> > side I know immediately how much she spent... 8-O
>
> Do you think that is funny? Control freak old style?
> I'm very sorry for your wife.

Don't be. How other people run their lives and marriages is none of
your/my/other_people's business.

But based on your input, I'll ask my bank to remove any and all of my
wife's transactions from our on-line transaction records, until she has
informed them which transactions can be shown to me and which ones not.

FYI, she's out and about at this very moment, so I'll refrain from
logging into our bank account, in case she has made any purchases, like
- heaven forbid - groceries or something and I know when, where and how
much. The horror!

In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 28 Oct 2021 06:59:11 +0200, Joerg Lorenz
<hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

>Am 28.10.21 um 00:47 schrieb AJL:
>> On 10/27/2021 2:06 PM, micky wrote:
>>> I get them as emails, not for that reason so much but so I don't
>>> have to think about them until I get home at the end of the day.
>>
>> As always, YMMV. My system has other benefits as well:
>>
>> When I'm out with the wife, she goes shopping and I roam around killing
>> time or find a bench and read my phone. When I get the CC notification
>> text beep I know it's time to go meet her. Very handy. But on the scary
>> side I know immediately how much she spent... 8-O
>
>Do you think that is funny? Control freak old style?
>I'm very sorry for your wife.

Don't be. I used to take a friend who had no car to the supermarket and
wait for her. But waiting area was so crowded, busy, and loud I started
going 4 blocks away where there was a field and an easy chair and
reading the newspaper until she called me. We weren't married, didn't
share a bank account or we could have easily used AJ's system.

Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> AJL wrote:

>> on the scary side [with a credit card text] I know immediately how
>> much she spent... 8-O

> based on your input, I'll ask my bank to remove any and all of my
> wife's transactions from our on-line transaction records, until she
> has informed them which transactions can be shown to me and which
> ones not.

Hopefully that's a humorous post too.

Mine was supposed to be funny. A JOKE. Notice the emoticon. Perhaps it's a
language or cultural thing? BTW another advantage is that she can never
surprise me with what kind of fast food she brings home for lunch when
out shopping alone... :-) :-) :-) :-)

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> I believe MY phone should be locked because my whole life is on
>> there including the sensitive stuff. But what someone else does
>> depends on their situation which may be entirely different from
>> mine. Translation: YMMV.

> IMO, *every* smartphone should be locked.

IMO there should be world peace.

> Those - like the OP micky - who *think* that they don't have any
> personal/sensitive/<whatever> information on their smartphone are
> the ones who are most likely to be wrong about that.

Could be. Some folks ride their bikes without a helmet too (me). IMO it's
good to give micky our valued cerebral opinion on what we think is
right. It's another to tell him what to do. I'm in the YMMV camp...

>> BTW I carry it a bit further. ALL my devices are locked. Paranoid?
>> Perhaps. But over the years I've been to many home burglary scenes
>> where ALL the electronics were taken.

> I lock my laptop and any other devices which (can) leave the house
> are also locked.

ALL your electronic devices CAN leave the house. Happened to my
neighbor. The perps broke into his car at work, took his garage door
opener, got his address from the car registration, drove to his house,
opened the garage door, parked in his garage (door down) and leisurely
cleaned him out.

Lessons from this incident: Hide garage door opener. In my case the
opener is built into my cars so doesn't apply. Rip a hole through the
address on your registration. Make it look like an accident in case you
get an AH cop... ;)

In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 09:30:00 -0700, AJL
<noemail@none.com> wrote:

>
>
>I use the Gmail app so there is no password. Once the phone's signed in
>to Google all its apps are open. If you can get past my
>phone's password you'll have access to my email. So if I ever do lose
>my phone the first thing I must do quickly is get to another device and
>change my Google password.

I use gmail to but for nothing even slightly harmful to me if somone
else reads it. Mostly when I send google maps to my phone, etc.
>
>> the thief may be able to convince the bank that you have a new e-mail
>> address and want to reset the bank password.
>
>That can happen without losing your phone. I have a pin registered at my
>bank that has to be given to the bank employee on the phone. Without
>that I would have to go in person to transact business.

The interesting thing about that, is the person on the phone calls the
pin by a different name then when they originally told me to pick one.
At first, and second and third, I didn't know what she was talking about

Am 28.10.21 um 18:06 schrieb AJL:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> AJL wrote:
>
>>> on the scary side [with a credit card text] I know immediately how
>>> much she spent... 8-O
>
>> based on your input, I'll ask my bank to remove any and all of my
>> wife's transactions from our on-line transaction records, until she
>> has informed them which transactions can be shown to me and which
>> ones not.
>
> Hopefully that's a humorous post too.
>
> Mine was supposed to be funny. A JOKE. Notice the emoticon. Perhaps it's a
> language or cultural thing? BTW another advantage is that she can never
> surprise me with what kind of fast food she brings home for lunch when
> out shopping alone... :-) :-) :-) :-)
>

You are comitting social suicide. 😂

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:06:14 -0700, AJL
<noemail@none.com> wrote:

>Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> I believe MY phone should be locked because my whole life is on
>>> there including the sensitive stuff. But what someone else does
>>> depends on their situation which may be entirely different from
>>> mine. Translation: YMMV.
>
>> IMO, *every* smartphone should be locked.
>
>IMO there should be world peace.
>
>> Those - like the OP micky - who *think* that they don't have any
>> personal/sensitive/<whatever> information on their smartphone are
>> the ones who are most likely to be wrong about that.
>
>Could be. Some folks ride their bikes without a helmet too (me). IMO it's
>good to give micky our valued cerebral opinion on what we think is
>right. It's another to tell him what to do. I'm in the YMMV camp...
>
>>> BTW I carry it a bit further. ALL my devices are locked. Paranoid?
>>> Perhaps. But over the years I've been to many home burglary scenes
>>> where ALL the electronics were taken.
>
>> I lock my laptop and any other devices which (can) leave the house
>> are also locked.
>
>ALL your electronic devices CAN leave the house. Happened to my
>neighbor. The perps broke into his car at work, took his garage door
>opener, got his address from the car registration, drove to his house,
>opened the garage door, parked in his garage (door down) and leisurely
>cleaned him out.

Wow. I hope that is rare. Was there something special about him? He
had a lot of money?

I stopped leaving my car registration in my car about 50 years ago. For
roughly this reason, not to give my address to those who shouldn't have
it. I think when I got my first car, a gift from my 85-year old cousin,
that it had a registration holder with a spring that wrapped around the
steering column. I couldnt' figure out why it should stay in the car
since no one was borrowing my car.
>
>Lessons from this incident: Hide garage door opener. In my case the
>opener is built into my cars so doesn't apply.

I have a built-in opener, but it's not really a risk because I have no
garage.

> Rip a hole through the
>address on your registration. Make it look like an accident in case you
>get an AH cop... ;)

Carry it in your wallet.

I do worry about getting locked out of my own house, or losing the keys
to my car, and when I had the console open, the whole horizonal plate
surrounding the shift lever comes off. I thought about putting a spare
set of car keys including the fob, and a house key, in there.

What do you all think about that. Is anyone going to look there?

micky wrote:
> AJL wrote:

>> I use the Gmail app so there is no password. Once the phone's
>> signed in to Google all its apps are open. If you can get past my
>> phone's password you'll have access to my email.

> I use gmail to but for nothing even slightly harmful to me if
> someone else reads it. Mostly when I send google maps to my phone,
> etc.

As I've said many times here, YMMV. You originally asked for advice and
I think you have received plenty. It's kinda like riding my bike without
a helmet. I know what the advice is on that too. But since I've gotten
away with it (so far) why should I change...

micky wrote:
AJL wrote:

>> ALL your electronic devices CAN leave the house. Happened to my
>> neighbor. The perps broke into his car at work, took his garage
>> door opener, got his address from the car registration, drove to
>> his house, opened the garage door, parked in his garage (door down)
>> and leisurely cleaned him out.
>
> Wow. I hope that is rare.

Nope. Lots of burglaries in the big city. Likely yours too. But most
never make the news.

> Was there something special about him? He had a lot of money?

Nope. Completely random. They didn't know who he was until they broke in
and got his registration.

> I stopped leaving my car registration in my car about 50 years ago.

The registration is required to be in the car by law here. Probably a
holdover from the days before cops had computers.

> I couldnt' figure out why it should stay in the car since no one was
> borrowing my car.

Sometimes people "borrow" your car without your permission.

>> Rip a hole through the address on your registration.

> Carry it in your wallet.

Against the law here. Also a hassle. Hole works great...

> I do worry about getting locked out of my own house,

I hide a spare key outside.

> or losing the keys to my car,

Use a magnetic case for a spare. But not in an obvious location.

> and when I had the console open, the whole horizonal plate
> surrounding the shift lever comes off. I thought about putting a
> spare set of car keys including the fob, and a house key, in there.
>
> What do you all think about that. Is anyone going to look there?

I'm not sure what you mean here. But be creative when you hide it. My
house key is inside a waterproof bag buried beside a large flowerpot in
my front yard. Is that creative enough? And it did save my butt one time
when my locking screen door slammed shut with me outside...

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> AJL wrote:
>
> >> on the scary side [with a credit card text] I know immediately how
> >> much she spent... 8-O
>
> > based on your input, I'll ask my bank to remove any and all of my
> > wife's transactions from our on-line transaction records, until she
> > has informed them which transactions can be shown to me and which
> > ones not.
>
> Hopefully that's a humorous post too.

Yes, obviously (and so was the (snipped) rest of my post). It was a
sarcastic response to Joerg Lorenz' not so humorous - and IMO uncalled
for - post:

[Unsnip/repeat:]

<Joerg>
Do you think that is funny? Control freak old style?
I'm very sorry for your wife.
</Joerg>

> Mine was supposed to be funny. A JOKE. Notice the emoticon. Perhaps it's a
> language or cultural thing?

Yes, it was obvious that it was meant in jest. But apparently that was
not obvious to everybody.

> BTW another advantage is that she can never
> surprise me with what kind of fast food she brings home for lunch when
> out shopping alone... :-) :-) :-) :-)

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
> >> I believe MY phone should be locked because my whole life is on
> >> there including the sensitive stuff. But what someone else does
> >> depends on their situation which may be entirely different from
> >> mine. Translation: YMMV.
>
> > IMO, *every* smartphone should be locked.
>
> IMO there should be world peace.

false. wrong. incorrect. obsolete. apple had it first.

> > Those - like the OP micky - who *think* that they don't have any
> > personal/sensitive/<whatever> information on their smartphone are
> > the ones who are most likely to be wrong about that.
>
> Could be. Some folks ride their bikes without a helmet too (me). IMO it's
> good to give micky our valued cerebral opinion on what we think is
> right. It's another to tell him what to do. I'm in the YMMV camp...

Correct, hence 'IMO' and 'should'. My 'should' is an RFC-like
'SHOULD', i.e. a recommendation, not a 'MUST'! :-)

[(More) Agreed upon stuff and worthwhile lesson deleted.]

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:

>>> IMO, *every* smartphone should be locked.

>> IMO there should be world peace.

> false. wrong. incorrect. obsolete. apple had it first.

Was there any reason you didn't use any upper case letters in that
sentence? I think I know why. If so very clever...

>> Could be. Some folks ride their bikes without a helmet too (me).
>> IMO it's good to give micky our valued cerebral opinion on what we
>> think is right. It's another to tell him what to do. I'm in the
>> YMMV camp...

> Correct, hence 'IMO' and 'should'. My 'should' is an RFC-like
> 'SHOULD', i.e. a recommendation, not a 'MUST'! :-)

Interpretation is sometimes difficult even with those. For example "IMO
people who use laptops instead of desktops at home are foolish." Did he
just call me foolish? IMO he did...

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> AJL wrote:

>>>> on the scary side [with a credit card text] I know immediately
>>>> how much she spent... 8-O

>>> based on your input, I'll ask my bank to remove any and all of my
>>> wife's transactions from our on-line transaction records, until
>>> she has informed them which transactions can be shown to me and
>>> which ones not.

>> Hopefully that's a humorous post too.

> Yes, obviously (and so was the (snipped) rest of my post).

Whew. I wasn't so sure. Though looking back now it's pretty obvious as
you say.

> It was a sarcastic response to [xxx xxxx] not so humorous - and IMO
> uncalled for - post:

Thanks but [xxx xxxx] is very easy to ignore.

>> Mine was supposed to be funny.

> Yes, it was obvious that it was meant in jest. But apparently that
> was not obvious to everybody.

I'll try to be more careful in the future. Though it was true. She's out
shopping now and I just got a $$$ text beep so I know she's finished and
on the way to Burger King to bring home lunch. Yum...