🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 06:17:36 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>krw 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.
>
>> Wrong, as usual, Ron.
>
>How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.

That you're wrong, Ronnie?  All one has to do is hang out here for a
day and that fact becomes evident.  The fact is that it is *NO*
protection for you and somewhat of a risk giving anyone any
information.

>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>
>>> Wrong.
>
>> No Ron.  You're wrong, as usual.
>
>How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.

It's pretty obvious to anyone but a Usenet troll and welfare queen,
Ronnie.

>>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids having
>>> to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and ultimately
>>> that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card costs overall
>>> if everyone does that.
>
>> Dumb as a stump, too.
>
>Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Good thing I don't have to bullshit about this one, huh, Ronnie.

>>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.
>
>Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ? 

I made a simple comment that it really isn't as important as people
make it, and you puff it up even more with your nonsensical blather.
Who's the troll here, Ronnie?  Wanna vote?