or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

It sounds like there are plenty of cases but I'm sure that the banks are not publicizing those cases. The headline was certainly open to misinterpretation, but the article makes it pretty clear that the fault lies with the banks, which have failed to foresee this issue and effectively made the authorization process the same as for activation of a physical card. In the card case, however, exploitation obviously required two failures - criminal interception of a new card and...
 I assume that you mean "straw man" arguments, but I didn't make any. The fallacies are all on your side. Your characterization of the major cause of revolution is quaint, but incorrect. The entire purpose of establishing a process of government is to serve the interests of the people and, while that has often been subverted, the implication of your statement is therefore that all governments should be overthrown. Maybe you believe that, in which case feel free to say so...
He may or may not turn out to be wrong, but he provides no reasoning or evidence for his assertions, and refuses to even to engage in discussion (the homework clause). An entirely unsupported prediction is indistinguishable from a random guess and, in this context, equally pointless.
Oh look - another poster who tries to avoid making any actual arguments with the "not doing your homework" excuse, then makes random vague assertions about unknowable things that he thinks would have happened if something else had happened (that didn't because it wasn't needed back then), and then finishes with some classic unsupported slippery slope nonsense about higher costs and government intervention. Not even a token attempt to link proposed cause and effect in any...
 It wasn't my quote, so I'm not cherry-picking anything. However, the context of the quote was clearly to support a previous comment that only a very limited part of the document contained the proposed regulations. It did just that. The rest of the quote (above) is also accurate, but did not pertain to that point. For which, however, you accused the poster of lying, taking quotes out of context, and making a point that did not exist. Don't you ever get tired of having your...
 No - he provided just one quote from that source: "The Republican commissioner acknowledged that the actual regulations take up just eight pages of the document.", and drew no specific conclusions from it. The quote is accurate, and needs no further context. And I really recommend that you don't try to do anyone's homework for them unless they are comfortable turning in gibberish.
 I'm not kidding and you, as usual, are not answering.
 In what way do those examples invalidate his previous quote? And in what sense did the quote misrepresent what Pai had said? And what did he lie about? 
Oh damn - our cover has been blown. Quick - I need a non sequitur to hide behind.
New Posts  All Forums: