# Be cautious with debit cards!

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Gerry Nightingale, Jun 17, 2014.

1. ### Gerry NightingaleBannedBanned

Messages:
278
I purchased a Wal-Mart "Visa" debit card. My intention was to use the "card" on-line to buy goods/services without the need to "give out" my actual "credit card".

Sounds reasonable, yes? (protect your credit...no one can steal "more" than a debit card has available)

.....

I used the debit card to look for an old friend, using a "people finder" site (the site starts with an "S") and then guess what happened? I thought the site

was legit (McAfee says so...and it is a "real" business with verifiable credentials).

The site offers 2 available options for use (30 or 90 day) which you can "cancel" at any time. I gave an "okay" to the 90-day option (cheaper) and made a

"one-time" search that showed a mailing address...I did NOT pursue further options of "more options", such as drivers' license, etc. (more money, of course)

......

Everything seems okay, so far.

I tried to use my debit-card a couple of days later at a store...and got the message "transaction declined". I tried the card the next day at another

retailer....you guessed it! "Transaction declined".

......

I got online and checked with Visa to see what's wrong...they tell me I have "20 dollars and 50 cents" available, which was odd since I had loaded it

15. ### Gerry NightingaleBannedBanned

Messages:
278

"What's my problem with Alex's response?"

Simple...he presumes far more than he actually knows with regard to Her and myself, and now, so do you! THAT"S the problem!

You and Alex are "presuming" that "you know something of my history with Her...and you do not. You are both COMPLETELY WRONG!

I have no intention now or ever of revealing anything regarding "our" history together.

......

Fraggle, I think I am capable of discerning the difference between an "honest comment" vs. a "cheap shot" directed at me on a personal level by Alex G.

Just how do you dare to equivocate my looking-up an address to "Cyber-stalking!"

(just because you have created an "online" personae that encourages your "real self" to be protective of your identity does not mean "paranoia is the new normal" for everyone

else...you assume far too much) Not "everyone" is obsessed with "hiding themselves"...the people who do "want to protect their real identity" are generally people who REALLY

do need to hide...they do NOT want to be revealed for the "shitty comments" they make using their alter-ego "fake?" selves.

......

FYI...a "mailing address" is available for ANYONE to look-up, it's public information! Not a "secret!"

.....

Another FYI...I need to know where she has a "definable" address for reasons YOU and Alex have never even considered! My Home (paid for) and everything in it goes to

HER when I "check-out"...any executor has the legal right and duty to "find" a beneficiary, and then charge "search fees" against the estate, and the charges could easily run-up

into the hundreds, if not thousands of dollars (yes, they can easily charge "legal fees" to an estate).

I do not want an executor to have any problems that can "justify" fees with regard to locating Her....are you "getting the picture?"

......

Hey Fraggle...you are not an "authority" with regard to MY life or Hers....there is no "situation" here for you to "pass judgment on".

Stick to evaluating whatever "delusions" I post with regard to physics theory or just about anything else, after all you are a "mod" and have the right to "say what you think"

regarding anything I post....I am, as is said, "down with that".

But lay-off my personal life with regard to my "motives" for needing to know where "She" is....you or Alex are NOT "qualified" to "evaluate" my "intentions".

16. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
My quotes of you above are a good example of what you complain about.

In his post 5, Alex made a reasonable and correct conditional statement in reply to your post. I. e. he said:
"If they don't wish to be found, yes."

That gives you no reason to call him: "pathetically inept" nor does indicate "another thread troll" who is "out of their depth" Also your speculation about his "thrilled parents" Who may even be dead for all you actually know, is more about personal matters, and not the comment on what Alex said which was an honest, factual statement of fact with no personal attack, like this extensive one you have just made.
I don't see where any one has asserted that.
Again: I don't see where any one has asserted that.
Yes, Fraggle, and you have a limited right to say what you think; but it does not include calling other posters: "pathetically inept" , "a thread troll" who is "out of their depth" Or speculate about their "parents, thrilled" or otherwise, which only you have done.

I am this thread's only listed moderator but get a lot of help from other mods, which I am thankful for. I moderate with a very light hand, too light for some mods. I will give you a few days to reconsider what you have said, your several personal attacks with no justification, especially about AlexG, but Fraggle too before deciding that with no retraction and appoligy, you need at least 3 days time out to reconsider.

Consider this an "unofficial warning" that may become official. - the choice is yours.

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 22, 2014
17. ### StrangerInAStrangeLandSubQuantum MechanicValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,396
Gerry may not have responded in the best way yet I find it understandable when someone brings up stalking after he says he's trying to find someone. It does not follow. He asks "Does looking for someone I love and care for constitute" stalking?" & is told "If they don't wish to be found, yes." Which is incorrect. Trying to find someone is not stalking, regardless of whether they want to be found. Stalking is much more than that & many many people try to find people with no ill intent & without breaking any laws or hurting anyone. IF I have much warning before I die, there are several people I will try to find. IF I win the lottery, there are probably 30 or 40. There is nothing wrong with that & without evidence of hostile intent, mentioning stalking is absurd, at best.

18. ### Gerry NightingaleBannedBanned

Messages:
278

I don't need "a few days to reconsider" what I wrote to Alex G. or Fraggle Rocker. I stand with what I wrote.

Yes, Alex G. has the right to comment. So does Fraggle Rocker, and so do you.

.....

Alex G. has some sort of "personal agenda" with me, and decided to take a "cheap shot" completely out-of-context to the Topic concerning my experiences with a debit-card.

.....

And now you have a "personal agenda" with me also, with a barely concealed threat of retaliation, and then say, "The choice is mine?" Threatening to "kill me now or kill me later"

is NOT a choice, it's a implied threat of action!

19. ### Gerry NightingaleBannedBanned

Messages:
278

Thanks!

(I think I'm going to be cleverly "modded" out and banned soon, over my "alternate theory" posted in "alternate theories". This is the real "causation!" I managed to kick

a hornets' nest, and now I'm going to be "stung to death" for it...hey, it won't be the first time!)

P.S., can you believe I get a not so subtle "warning" for daring to write a rebuttal over being accused of being a stalker....I was called a "delusional asshole" on my own

thread by a troll, I complained, and Fraggle as a MOD says, in essence, "You asked for it!" (does this sound even remotely "right" or "fair" to you?)

.....

I get accused of "being a cyber-stalker" on my own Topic thread, I respond to what is an incredibly obvious cheap-shot, and now the MOD here THREATENS ME!

For what? Responding? No...there is an agenda here that is plain. Invent excuses to implement a permanent BAN as soon as it can be managed, but make it "look like he asked for it".

.....

In any event, thanks for your #14!

20. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Just be sure: You are saying that you were justified and not breaking forum rules by calling AlexG: "pathetically inept", "another thread troll" who is "out of their depth" and sarcastically noting he "thrilled {his} parents" who may even be dead for all you actually know. I.e. you don't think you made a personal attack, in response to his, conditional, not even declarative short sentence post, which in it entirety was:

"If they don't wish to be found, yes." in reply to your question: which in its entirety was: "Does looking for someone I love and care for constitute "stalking?"

I agree with StrangerIn.. that "stalking" normally is much more than just finding someone's address, but that is quite often the first thing an internet stalker does. Some however don't do that, they just harass via the internet, even to the point of causing suicides. Google I believe has recently decided users of its services have no right to find others who may not want to be found. I also believe it is English law that has forced Google to avoid helping find people who don't want to be found or helping others to see posts and pictures they may have made.

Whether or not stalking is occurring is NOT determined by the person seeking out another, but by the person being sought. Probably few stalker believe they are stalking, but instead believe they are showing interest that should be considered flattering, not to be rebuffed, etc. I believe the guy who shot Ronald Reagan, felt Jody Foster was ignoring him (his stalking most would say) so wanted to do something she could not ignore. - Make her at least know his name if not admire his bold action etc. on her behalf.

Let me be explicitly clear: If you are to be my first ban, it is for the blatant personal attack on AlexG and has nothing to do with your question (first to even mention stalking, I think, but have not time to go back and carefully check) or his reply.

Try as I can, I find nothing in the nature of personal attack on you by AlexG's brief conditional answer to your question. In contrast your reply back to him is a blatant personal attack - completely unprovoked and against sciforums rules. I'll wait a little longer before giving you the three day time out you have clearly earned and not do so if you offer alexG a sincere apology.

I am not trying to threaten you, but as I said I monitor with a very light hand and in my years of doing so have never had to give out a ban*, but found reasonable people who have made unwarranted personal attacks do apologize, so I have not, yet, been forced to do that by the sciforum rules.

* I don't know how, so would have to ask another mod to do so for me.

21. ### Gerry NightingaleBannedBanned

Messages:
278

You are relentlessly placing me in the same category as a "cyber-stalker" and then compare me with "that guy that shot Reagan!" WTF?

......

I WILL NEVER "APOLOGIZE", SINCERELY OR OTHERWISE, FOR INSINUATING THAT I AM "STALKING' SOMEONE!!! THIS NOW INCLUDES YOU, BILLY T.!

AS WELL AS ALEX G.! HOW DARE YOU PLACE "ME" IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS "JOHN HINCKLEY"!!!

YOU ARE NOT "TRYING TO THREATEN ME"????????

YOU ARE THREATENING ME, AS WELL AS USING YOUR POSITION TO "BLACKMAIL" ME!!!! TO "FORCE ME" TO COMPLY, OR ELSE!!!

I AM A REAL PERSON, NOT AN AVATAR!!!

JUST "WHO" IS "CYBER-STALKING" WHO HERE!!!

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS "STALKING" ME!!! DENY THAT!

22. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
False I only illustrated fact that many if not most stalkers, don't consider that that are stalking with that extreme case. -zero reference to you.
both false. No one has even insinuated, much less stated, that your are stalking, How could they - you said you were trying to find old friend to save some reduction to your estate. Again, point is that the person sought, persued, etc. determins if they are being stalked or not - certainly not me, AlexG or any other person, including the person trying to track their address down.
False. no one has done that.
False. No, I am only advising you that I will apply the sciforum rule (that is my unpaid job) to any one here who make blatantly calls another poster: " "pathetically inept", "another thread troll" who is "out of their depth" and sarcastically notes he thrilled {his} parents" who may even be dead for all you actually know. As I don't actually know how to give you a three day time out, having never done it in five or more years, I will ask another moderator to review our exchanges and decide how much, if any, time out you have earned and award it to you. That may not be to your advantage, as I moderate with a very light hand, most do not.
Denied. I am only, doing my job as moderator of B&E as required by sciforum's rules.

You may reply or not - I have wasted enough time trying to be nice to you, so will only turn problem over to other moderators to review - not reply to you. I hope they have time, which I do not, to review other posts you may have made to see if only a 3 day ban is adequate.

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 22, 2014
23. ### StrangerInAStrangeLandSubQuantum MechanicValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,396
You can stop thanking me. I still support you as far as the initial conflict in this thread, still mean all I said before & disagree with the Mod's short response to me but you've had time to calm down & seem unable to. As I said before, stalking should not have been mentioned but they did not yet accuse you & the Mod did not put you in the same category as Hinckley. You go on & on blowing things out of proportion. This forum would not be much good if the Mods did not step in sometimes. Ban or not, take a few days off then tell Billy you will try to stop overreacting.