Comments on: Yet another comment on the Matthew Shinnick post. http://www.endlessgibberish.com/yet-another-comment-on-the-matthew-shinnick-post/ Enlightenment. You'll find interesting what I find interesting. Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:27:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: linda http://www.endlessgibberish.com/yet-another-comment-on-the-matthew-shinnick-post/comment-page-1/#comment-74887 linda Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:50:02 +0000 http://www.endlessgibberish.com/?p=172#comment-74887 In the end, I think Shinnick should’ve deposited the check and taken a small hit of a bad check fee. In the end, I think Shinnick should’ve deposited the check and taken a small hit of a bad check fee.

]]> By: HeJustLaughs http://www.endlessgibberish.com/yet-another-comment-on-the-matthew-shinnick-post/comment-page-1/#comment-214 HeJustLaughs Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:28:45 +0000 http://www.endlessgibberish.com/?p=172#comment-214 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. 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 http://www.endlessgibberish.com/yet-another-comment-on-the-matthew-shinnick-post/comment-page-1/#comment-213 HeJustLaughs Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:26:57 +0000 http://www.endlessgibberish.com/?p=172#comment-213 I don't reject comments that don't agree with my viewpoints.<br /><br />In the end, I think Shinnick should've deposited the check and taken a small hit of a bad check fee.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. 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: Anonymous http://www.endlessgibberish.com/yet-another-comment-on-the-matthew-shinnick-post/comment-page-1/#comment-212 Anonymous Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:18:56 +0000 http://www.endlessgibberish.com/?p=172#comment-212 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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...) 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…)

]]>