"The banks" refers to the entire set, by definition. You didn't say "these" (followed by specifics), you didn't say "some" (followed by any indication of of whether that would mean 1% of them or half of them or 99% of them). No, you referred to "the banks." Why would you choose that word, if you didn't mean it? We both know - because that's how you'd like the narrative to sound, even though you know it's fiction. The only "intentional" thing here is your choice to deliberately use that very unambiguous word, and then act like a child when someone points out that here - just as in so many of your posts - you're making a bullshit sweeping assertion because it fits your pet narrative. Just like you always attempt to support that narrative by carefully never getting specific and backing up your breathless mischaracterizations.
Even as the middle school student you are, you know the difference between "this bank," "that bank," those banks," "these banks," "some banks," and "the banks." If you're going to pretend you're too dull witted to be able to choose between those words, why should anyone ever listen to anything you have to say? So which is it - too dumb, or too lying? You were too dumb to choose the right words, or you chose the wrong ones, on purpose, to paint a knowingly false narrative. The latter, based on your track record, is consistent with how you think and what you think OF the people you hope will swallow your BS without doing any critical thinking.
This site is full of people who make one-off BS remarks. But you work at it steadily because you think it somehow serves your world view to bullshit about even the most obviously debunkable things. Why? What's your angle? Why the knowing bullshit on a regular basis?
Ah, see? The moment we touch on what your words actually MEAN, you run scared and relapse back to your default juvenile avoidance. Because we sure wouldn't want to have to question what your wild assertions actually say, would we? You will only qualify yourself as right, and everyone else as wrong, but don't have the backbone to admit you're spouting bullshit when your words are compared to reality. Your 100% inability to do anything but change the subject is definitely more than just a character flaw. It's a phobia of some sort. Perhaps a support group of some sort, where you can talk to other bullshitters and admit you can't talk about your own words? It might help.
Watch, we'll do it again: Are "the banks" criminal operations? Which crime is it that all of the "the banks" are committing? Specifically.
You will now do ANYTHING to avoid showing you have no substance to back up your nonsensical assertion.
OK, so you've identified - unlike anyone else in the entire law enforcement community - over 6,700 ongoing criminal operations. So what you're really saying is that hundreds of thousands of people in law enforcement are also in on this vast criminal network? Do tell.
This is incompetence by T-Mobile, sigh. They have an (obviously) poorly designed system that handles "un-activated/unpaid for" SIM cards.
No, no. Don't you understand? Any technical mistake or oversight by any service provider or vendor is clearly them encouraging and giving permission for people to ignore the terms under which they charge every other normal person for what they sell. For example, if a waiter brings a meal to the table next to you, and the person for whom it's intended has stepped off to the restroom, you should definitely feel free to take that meal without paying for it. Also, sometimes book stores put books on racks on the sidewalk right outside their shop door. That's obviously them telling you that it's OK to just take those books without paying.
Have you considered talking to someone, you know, for a little bit of help with your inability to look at your own words and decide if you agree with them or not? That's a strange problem you have there. Let's reformat:
See? You can't even form a single sentence confirming whether your OWN assertion is simply true or false. Are "the banks" criminal operations? Yes or no.
You know, artificial shackles getting in between you and the free natural resources, much like sunshine, that is internet-connected bandwidth, DNS services, and everything else that somebody has to pay for so this entitled little jerk can be "unshackled." You know, because he's owed free stuff. Stuff that only other chumps pay for. How dare T-Mobile put shackles on nature's freely available peering systems, routers, maintenance workers, technicians, tower installers, electricity, and all of that other not-at-all-artificial stuff that they're cruelly shackling!
Interesting choice of word, "shackles." This idiot may want to consider how they're used in the real world. You know, like when you're being moved from the county lockup over to the courthouse for your arraignment.
What's gibberish? The part where I mention your own words, or the part where I point out that they're nonsense because "the banks" aren't criminal operations? Specifically, which of those is gibberish? Your sweeping assertion about 6,000+ plus businesses? Yeah, that was gibberish all right. Or is the gibberish the part where I point out that you're too cowardly to address your own nonsense, and just hide like a baby while trying to change the subject? I can see how you wish you couldn't parse English when being asked simple questions, so you can avoid acknowledging your own bullshit. That's your usual pattern.
I know, people like you find it amazing that someone can write a couple of paragraphs quickly without running it past mom first. That's OK, don't worry - you've already answered the question. You've answered #2 as expected. Thanks for acknowledging the obvious! Go on now, it's past your bed time.
I did WHAT again? Asked you a specific question about your own words, a question that you're too much of a cowardly to directly answer? Here, try this, per your own description of things. Choose one:
1) "The banks" are criminal operations, as you described them. Choosing this means you're sticking with your previous BS assertion, knowing full well that you're lying with that characterization. Or...
2) "The banks" are not criminal operations, because despite your breathless ideological urge to describe an entire industry as such, you know perfectly well that 6,000+ banks are not criminal operations. Choosing this means you have some intellectual integrity and are willing to admit that your usual off-hand remarks are deliberate, hyperbolic crap intended for know-nothings you hope will be your friends.
Because you don't have the balls to remark on your own BS (both sticking with the BS and admitting you were BSing are both just too painful to your tender, juvenile psyche, so again you will just try to change the subject), we can solve this for you by pointing out that the actual facts on the ground are (2), above. Which you already know. Now you're spared whatever night sweats it is you're terrified of experiencing as a result of admitting you shoot your mouth off with distortion and misrepresentations because you think it wins you some sort of/. brownie points among your fellow 9th graders. There, that must be a relief for you, huh? Problem solved! You're a bullshitter that knows you are, but no longer have to admit it out loud so you can stay in your safe space where mean people identifying that about you won't make you feel in any way uncomfortable. Hope your mom tucks you in nice and tight.
Fantastic non-answer, again. Are "the banks" criminal operations, or not? Yes, or no. I'm betting you are incapable answering that simple question about your own assertion.
Bombast: Claiming "the banks" are criminal operations.
Asking you why you'd say that, whether you mean "the banks" or "some banks" or "some employees at some banks" isn't bombast.
You being petulant and evasive when your nonsense is pointed out, and then your acting like a child in order to try to avoid reconciling your lazy, incorrect assertions with reality - well, it would be embarrassing for most people. You double down, repeatedly, as you've just done yet again, because even admitting you said such a witless and demonstrably incorrect thing is beyond the scope of your intellectual integrity. If "the banks" are criminals, why can't the DoJ act on your special expert inside information to prosecute, oh I don't know, maybe a few hundred of those over six thousand criminal operations? Or is it that you didn't mean such a thing at all, but were just spouting BS as usual, hoping nobody would notice?
Hey look! More ad hominem in order to avoid answering that single, simple question. Why? Because you know you'll contradict your earlier assertion or have to lie, and you don't like having to make that choice. Because you're a coward. Thanks again for being so predictable.
Hey look! STILL can't muster the courage to address the very simple topic under discussion. I'm not expressing a biased opinion, I'm asking you to back up you nonsensical, demonstrably false assertion - something you can't get specific on because you know it will illustrate that you were BSing, and don't want to admit it in writing. The exact same pattern you exhibit in post after post, in exactly the same way. Which you're doing again, right now. Rather than simply address whether 6,700+ banks really are criminal operations or not (well, are they or aren't they? - see how simple a matter that is?), you're childishly trying to change the subject through amateur-hour ad hominem, the laziest example of craven intellectual dishonesty there is.
See? Can't form even a single coherent sentence to even once attempt to back up your assertions. Which means you know they're false. At least we both know, right? You know perfectly well that when you say "the banks" are criminal operations, you're lying. It's nonsense. But rather than attempt to clarify, you simply throw around insults and slither away, hiding behind what you imagine to be intimidating condescension. Just like some pretentious phony know-it-all jerk in middle school, and for the very same reasons once challenged to back up his deliberately false narratives.
YOU: "The Math is corrupt and probably illegally combining numbers and giving false sums!"
ME: "Let's find some specifics so we can see what you're talking about. Does 2+2=4?"
YOU: "I don't like your question."
ME: "So, you can't or won't answer the question, 'Does 2+2=4' right? Just being clear."
YOU: "My perfectly adequate answer to that question, which completely backs up my original claim that The Math is corrupt, is 'I don't like your question.' "
Hey, look! A classic fustakrakich non-answer to a simple, direct question! Nothing like more lazy ad hominem and the lack of any substance in order to change the subject, right?
Again: when an employee does something wrong and costs a customer some money, is discovered by the employer to have done so and thus loses their job because of it, and the company refunds the money to the customer... why is it that you consider the entire company guilty, again? I know, you won't be troubled to specifically answer because that takes the fun out of your "All 6,700+ banks in the United States are criminal enterprises" narrative, but maybe you could act like an adult and try out an actual response to the substance of the question, perhaps as a little learning and growth exercise for your own intellectual development?
So let's be clear: if you work at a business, and your co-worker, unbeknownst to you, personally does something fraudulent or criminal. Was that you, or the company, doing the fraud? If your employer finds out about something unethical, and fires the person or manager responsible, how do you describe that? Or is the company, made up of thousands of employees in hundreds of branches and offices, guilty and subject to the business death you always seem to be lusting for?
I didn't say the bank, as a business, did it. I don't hold responsible all of those who have invested in Wells Fargo, or janitor in their HQ building, or a branch manager with whom I've never interacted. I'm glad they fire commissioned reps who pull stunts like this, just like many retailers or restaurants fire people who fake up numbers to pad their own paychecks.
I'm tending to an elderly (creeping Alzheimers-ish) parent with a Wells Fargo checking account. Out of blue she started getting a statement for a completely unused Wells Fargo-branded/partnered AmEx account. She had no recollection of ever setting something like that up, but I assumed that her trashed memory meant she checked some box or inadvertently opted in along the way without realizing it. That's still very possible. But this is even MORE possible. We are not amused.
Slashdot Mirror
"The banks" refers to the entire set, by definition. You didn't say "these" (followed by specifics), you didn't say "some" (followed by any indication of of whether that would mean 1% of them or half of them or 99% of them). No, you referred to "the banks." Why would you choose that word, if you didn't mean it? We both know - because that's how you'd like the narrative to sound, even though you know it's fiction. The only "intentional" thing here is your choice to deliberately use that very unambiguous word, and then act like a child when someone points out that here - just as in so many of your posts - you're making a bullshit sweeping assertion because it fits your pet narrative. Just like you always attempt to support that narrative by carefully never getting specific and backing up your breathless mischaracterizations.
Even as the middle school student you are, you know the difference between "this bank," "that bank," those banks," "these banks," "some banks," and "the banks." If you're going to pretend you're too dull witted to be able to choose between those words, why should anyone ever listen to anything you have to say? So which is it - too dumb, or too lying? You were too dumb to choose the right words, or you chose the wrong ones, on purpose, to paint a knowingly false narrative. The latter, based on your track record, is consistent with how you think and what you think OF the people you hope will swallow your BS without doing any critical thinking.
This site is full of people who make one-off BS remarks. But you work at it steadily because you think it somehow serves your world view to bullshit about even the most obviously debunkable things. Why? What's your angle? Why the knowing bullshit on a regular basis?
Ah, see? The moment we touch on what your words actually MEAN, you run scared and relapse back to your default juvenile avoidance. Because we sure wouldn't want to have to question what your wild assertions actually say, would we? You will only qualify yourself as right, and everyone else as wrong, but don't have the backbone to admit you're spouting bullshit when your words are compared to reality. Your 100% inability to do anything but change the subject is definitely more than just a character flaw. It's a phobia of some sort. Perhaps a support group of some sort, where you can talk to other bullshitters and admit you can't talk about your own words? It might help.
Watch, we'll do it again: Are "the banks" criminal operations? Which crime is it that all of the "the banks" are committing? Specifically.
You will now do ANYTHING to avoid showing you have no substance to back up your nonsensical assertion.
OK, so you've identified - unlike anyone else in the entire law enforcement community - over 6,700 ongoing criminal operations. So what you're really saying is that hundreds of thousands of people in law enforcement are also in on this vast criminal network? Do tell.
This is incompetence by T-Mobile, sigh. They have an (obviously) poorly designed system that handles "un-activated/unpaid for" SIM cards.
No, no. Don't you understand? Any technical mistake or oversight by any service provider or vendor is clearly them encouraging and giving permission for people to ignore the terms under which they charge every other normal person for what they sell. For example, if a waiter brings a meal to the table next to you, and the person for whom it's intended has stepped off to the restroom, you should definitely feel free to take that meal without paying for it. Also, sometimes book stores put books on racks on the sidewalk right outside their shop door. That's obviously them telling you that it's OK to just take those books without paying.
Have you considered talking to someone, you know, for a little bit of help with your inability to look at your own words and decide if you agree with them or not? That's a strange problem you have there. Let's reformat:
Are your own words accurate? Yes or no.
Wow, are you really THAT afraid of answering a simple yes or no question? What has you so frightened?
See? You can't even form a single sentence confirming whether your OWN assertion is simply true or false. Are "the banks" criminal operations? Yes or no.
You know, artificial shackles getting in between you and the free natural resources, much like sunshine, that is internet-connected bandwidth, DNS services, and everything else that somebody has to pay for so this entitled little jerk can be "unshackled." You know, because he's owed free stuff. Stuff that only other chumps pay for. How dare T-Mobile put shackles on nature's freely available peering systems, routers, maintenance workers, technicians, tower installers, electricity, and all of that other not-at-all-artificial stuff that they're cruelly shackling!
Interesting choice of word, "shackles." This idiot may want to consider how they're used in the real world. You know, like when you're being moved from the county lockup over to the courthouse for your arraignment.
What's gibberish? The part where I mention your own words, or the part where I point out that they're nonsense because "the banks" aren't criminal operations? Specifically, which of those is gibberish? Your sweeping assertion about 6,000+ plus businesses? Yeah, that was gibberish all right. Or is the gibberish the part where I point out that you're too cowardly to address your own nonsense, and just hide like a baby while trying to change the subject? I can see how you wish you couldn't parse English when being asked simple questions, so you can avoid acknowledging your own bullshit. That's your usual pattern.
Are "the banks" criminal operations? Yes or no.
I know, people like you find it amazing that someone can write a couple of paragraphs quickly without running it past mom first. That's OK, don't worry - you've already answered the question. You've answered #2 as expected. Thanks for acknowledging the obvious! Go on now, it's past your bed time.
I did WHAT again? Asked you a specific question about your own words, a question that you're too much of a cowardly to directly answer? Here, try this, per your own description of things. Choose one:
/. brownie points among your fellow 9th graders. There, that must be a relief for you, huh? Problem solved! You're a bullshitter that knows you are, but no longer have to admit it out loud so you can stay in your safe space where mean people identifying that about you won't make you feel in any way uncomfortable. Hope your mom tucks you in nice and tight.
1) "The banks" are criminal operations, as you described them. Choosing this means you're sticking with your previous BS assertion, knowing full well that you're lying with that characterization. Or...
2) "The banks" are not criminal operations, because despite your breathless ideological urge to describe an entire industry as such, you know perfectly well that 6,000+ banks are not criminal operations. Choosing this means you have some intellectual integrity and are willing to admit that your usual off-hand remarks are deliberate, hyperbolic crap intended for know-nothings you hope will be your friends.
Because you don't have the balls to remark on your own BS (both sticking with the BS and admitting you were BSing are both just too painful to your tender, juvenile psyche, so again you will just try to change the subject), we can solve this for you by pointing out that the actual facts on the ground are (2), above. Which you already know. Now you're spared whatever night sweats it is you're terrified of experiencing as a result of admitting you shoot your mouth off with distortion and misrepresentations because you think it wins you some sort of
Fantastic non-answer, again. Are "the banks" criminal operations, or not? Yes, or no. I'm betting you are incapable answering that simple question about your own assertion.
Bombast: Claiming "the banks" are criminal operations.
Asking you why you'd say that, whether you mean "the banks" or "some banks" or "some employees at some banks" isn't bombast.
You being petulant and evasive when your nonsense is pointed out, and then your acting like a child in order to try to avoid reconciling your lazy, incorrect assertions with reality - well, it would be embarrassing for most people. You double down, repeatedly, as you've just done yet again, because even admitting you said such a witless and demonstrably incorrect thing is beyond the scope of your intellectual integrity. If "the banks" are criminals, why can't the DoJ act on your special expert inside information to prosecute, oh I don't know, maybe a few hundred of those over six thousand criminal operations? Or is it that you didn't mean such a thing at all, but were just spouting BS as usual, hoping nobody would notice?
Hey look! More ad hominem in order to avoid answering that single, simple question. Why? Because you know you'll contradict your earlier assertion or have to lie, and you don't like having to make that choice. Because you're a coward. Thanks again for being so predictable.
Hey look! STILL can't muster the courage to address the very simple topic under discussion. I'm not expressing a biased opinion, I'm asking you to back up you nonsensical, demonstrably false assertion - something you can't get specific on because you know it will illustrate that you were BSing, and don't want to admit it in writing. The exact same pattern you exhibit in post after post, in exactly the same way. Which you're doing again, right now. Rather than simply address whether 6,700+ banks really are criminal operations or not (well, are they or aren't they? - see how simple a matter that is?), you're childishly trying to change the subject through amateur-hour ad hominem, the laziest example of craven intellectual dishonesty there is.
See? Can't form even a single coherent sentence to even once attempt to back up your assertions. Which means you know they're false. At least we both know, right? You know perfectly well that when you say "the banks" are criminal operations, you're lying. It's nonsense. But rather than attempt to clarify, you simply throw around insults and slither away, hiding behind what you imagine to be intimidating condescension. Just like some pretentious phony know-it-all jerk in middle school, and for the very same reasons once challenged to back up his deliberately false narratives.
See? They guy who can always say "You're wrong," but who is too cowardly to try to assemble a cogent explanation for that assertion. Ever.
No, here's how that works:
YOU: "The Math is corrupt and probably illegally combining numbers and giving false sums!"
ME: "Let's find some specifics so we can see what you're talking about. Does 2+2=4?"
YOU: "I don't like your question."
ME: "So, you can't or won't answer the question, 'Does 2+2=4' right? Just being clear."
YOU: "My perfectly adequate answer to that question, which completely backs up my original claim that The Math is corrupt, is 'I don't like your question.' "
ME: "That in no way addresses your assertion."
YOU: "You area a troll."
In the previous posts, I asked specific questions which, no, you did NOT answer at all. Look at your own non-responsive replies. Are you blind?
Asked specific questions which you cannot bring yourself to answer, because it will erode your assertion that "the banks" are criminal operations.
Yup, too cowardly to answer a simple question. Thanks for your consistency.
Your stated position: "the banks" are criminal operations.
If a waiter adds something to your bill or edits the tip you specified, does that make "the restaurants" criminal operations?
If a retail clerk mis-rings a product to falsely get better commission, does that make "the retailers" criminal operations?
Hey, look! A classic fustakrakich non-answer to a simple, direct question! Nothing like more lazy ad hominem and the lack of any substance in order to change the subject, right?
... why is it that you consider the entire company guilty, again? I know, you won't be troubled to specifically answer because that takes the fun out of your "All 6,700+ banks in the United States are criminal enterprises" narrative, but maybe you could act like an adult and try out an actual response to the substance of the question, perhaps as a little learning and growth exercise for your own intellectual development?
Again: when an employee does something wrong and costs a customer some money, is discovered by the employer to have done so and thus loses their job because of it, and the company refunds the money to the customer
So let's be clear: if you work at a business, and your co-worker, unbeknownst to you, personally does something fraudulent or criminal. Was that you, or the company, doing the fraud? If your employer finds out about something unethical, and fires the person or manager responsible, how do you describe that? Or is the company, made up of thousands of employees in hundreds of branches and offices, guilty and subject to the business death you always seem to be lusting for?
I didn't say the bank, as a business, did it. I don't hold responsible all of those who have invested in Wells Fargo, or janitor in their HQ building, or a branch manager with whom I've never interacted. I'm glad they fire commissioned reps who pull stunts like this, just like many retailers or restaurants fire people who fake up numbers to pad their own paychecks.
I'm tending to an elderly (creeping Alzheimers-ish) parent with a Wells Fargo checking account. Out of blue she started getting a statement for a completely unused Wells Fargo-branded/partnered AmEx account. She had no recollection of ever setting something like that up, but I assumed that her trashed memory meant she checked some box or inadvertently opted in along the way without realizing it. That's still very possible. But this is even MORE possible. We are not amused.