Yet another comment on the Matthew Shinnick post.
January 8, 2007 – 6:11 amIf you're new here, I suggest you subscribe to my RSS feed. or bookmark this blog. You'll be able to easily keep up to date with new posts. Thanks for visiting!
There’s another post on my commentary about Matthew Shinnick’s story:
Sorry, bud, this seems a lot like the rantings of youth. As a 19 year old you’re probably much more versed in online scams and fraud than the average middle-aged person. Shinnick is a middle aged shirt salesman and had never sold on Craigslist before. As for the scams and how he should have known better - you think the scams would still be out there, if everyone was already “hip” to them? Why do you think some scammers target the middle aged and elderly? (Others target kids - i.e. exorbitant messaging charges for services/jokes via cell phone, etc.) It’s not because they’re dumb - God knows Depression era people as a whole save a lot more than their baby boomer kids and even younger grand-kids, as smug as they may be. You need to appreciate that not everyone knows all the same things at the same time. Certainly you could gain some more wisdom and knowledge. As stated, you have links to “MMF” sites. Which were stinky when they first came out decades ago.-left by anonymous
I’ll get to the moola statement first. MMF is “Make Money Fast” I presume? I seriously don’t know how to put this. Moola is not a make money fast scheme or any of the sort. It’s an interesting concept that I’ve always posted in the past to treat as pure entertainment. Everyone knows you’ll never win $10 million on moola, it’s just not possible. It’s just a fun concept that illustrates to you what doubling up (starting from a penny) does.
I appreciate that not everyone knows everything at the same time but the Matthew Shinnick case is a different one. It WAS blown out of proportion when Howard Clark suggested people boycott Bank of America for something they should have done… which is call the police when there is suspicious activity. Banking has been around for ages and check fraud isn’t a new thing. Writing checks isn’t even something my generation does. My point is Matthew Shinnick should’ve accepted the fact he was scammed and what happened to him with the SFPD was idiotic, but take that up with the SFPD. It isn’t Bank of America’s fault you brought a illegitimate check to them and they reported it to the authorities. There’s no way to determine at the branch if Matthew Shinnick was the scammer or the victim of a scam. What could they have done? Ask him? His reply that he recieved the check from a buyer would’ve been the same as a scammer. I’m just annoyed that they’re looking to blame the bank for their troubles in the end.
Yes, scams will always be out there to, but if people get scammed, try to go after the scammers, not institutions like the banks… or just consider it a life lesson.
4 Responses to “Yet another comment on the Matthew Shinnick post.”
No. He first asked the teller to make sure that the funds were there, what more is he supposed to do? Ask the teller before he cashes any check to do a full background check to make sure that any check he is cashing is not fradulent? In your world of “Customer Responsibility” Checks are totally useless, as any check at any time has a chance of being fraudulent, and costing the one attempting to cash it over 14K in legal fees. I suppose then you must cash checks only over 100K in value, lest you risk taking a financial loss?
Then your “argument” that “our generation doesn’t use checks” is just stupid. The buyer sent him a check, what is he supposed to do, not cash it and tell him to screw off because you say it’s not cool to use checks anymore. Please, that point is a total red-herring, I don’t see why you even included it.
It’s entirely reasonable to blame the bank for being far too quick to assume that he was a scammer, and immediatly decide to press charges against him. They could have just as easily held him in the back while they sorted things out, but they clearly demonstrated that they have absolutely no regard for the well-being of their customers. It would have taken BOA very little extra effort or change in their standard check fraud procedures to have saved Schinnick 14K in legal fees, but they don’t do this, because it might cost BOA a few bucks extra in employee man-hours.
Finally, you’re employing a really weak logical fallacy, it is not a question of whether the responsibility lies entirely with the Bank or the scammer. Only an idiot would present such a false choice. The problem here is what BOA did when they encountered possbible fraud, and their behaviour afterwards. No one here is blaming the bank for the actions of the scammer, only to their very poor reaction to these actions. They could have done it differently, but they did not.
PS. I see you have moderation enabled, and no other comments are posted to this article. It wouldn’t surprise me if you also censor this one, because it points out the huge gaping fallacies in your “argument” (more like a rant actually…)
By Anonymous on Jan 20, 2007
I don’t reject comments that don’t agree with my viewpoints.
In the end, I think Shinnick should’ve deposited the check and taken a small hit of a bad check fee.
Of course it’s a rant. I’m ranting about how I think the man is a idiot. You can’t really argue about that point because you can’t prove someone is a an idiot.
I mentioned my generation doesn’t use checks because in the original comment it mentions how scams target the middle age and how younger people are more versed in scams. Checking has been around a long time and check scams are not a new thing.
By HeJustLaughs on Jan 20, 2007
What makes you think I censor comments? Generally if a comment isn’t anonymous and isn’t off-topic to the post I let it go through.
By HeJustLaughs on Jan 20, 2007
In the end, I think Shinnick should’ve deposited the check and taken a small hit of a bad check fee.
By linda on Jul 26, 2008