🚀 go-pugleaf

Scott in SoCal wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Scott in SoCal wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> krw wrote
>>>>> info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote

>>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a
>>>>>> protection for you - there's so much credit card fraud these
>>>>>> days, I'd rather the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.

>>>>> It's a protection for *them*.

>>>> Its protection for both partys.

>>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.

>>>> Wrong. You're protected by not having a stolen card used.

>>> Heh. You think these pimply-faced, minimum-wage punks
>>> are putting any effort at all into verifying that the person
>>> presenting the card is in fact the owner of that card?

>> Plenty of them do.

> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Cant even manage its own lines. Or anything else at all either.

No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door onto its lard arse.

>>> These droids are simply going through the motions. They NEVER check signatures,

>> I've had them do that.

> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Cant even manage its own lines. Or anything else at all either.

No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door onto its lard arse.