Santander trying to steal £14,200 from me

katiepyke

dalesrider wrote: »

And remember what happened to these companies......

Are you suggesting that the OP should be punished in the same way?

Another poster with SELECTIVE reading, how about reading my WHOLE post and then IF (and i stress the word IF) you have a relevant or constructive comment, then please feel free to leave one.

grumbler

innovate wrote: »

So someone goes on an internet forum and says they are not involved in ML. Then someone else comes along and says that's correct, they aren't involved in ML.

Therefore they aren't involved in ML?

I am not saying they are, but I am also not saying they are not. None of us will ever be able to say one way or the other.

Firstly, we have to stick to the facts we know instead of making assumptions. The posted facts show that the OP might have fallen victim of ML, not was involved directly into this for being prosecuted.

Secondly, I replied to the post asking whether the OP should be punished, not a person guilty of ML in general.

superbigal36

Do bitcoins grow on Binary Indexed Trees

innovate

grumbler wrote: »

Firstly, we have to stick to the facts we know instead of making assumptions

Comeon grumbler, you can do better! We don't know whether we know the facts, we only know what was posted. As with all posts, this may be fact or it may not be fact.

innovate

katiepyke wrote: »

Another poster with SELECTIVE reading, how about reading my WHOLE post and then IF (and i stress the word IF) you have a relevant or constructive comment, then please feel free to leave one.

It's always nice to see a newbie bursting in, to criticize people with several thousand posts on this forum and to lecture them on what they are supposed to post.

Suppose I'll now be the next you have an issue with.

katiepyke

innovate wrote: »

It's always nice to see a newbie bursting in, to criticize people with several thousand posts on this forum and to lecture them on what they are supposed to post.

Suppose I'll now be the next you have an issue with.

If you read my whole post hopefully you'll notice that dalesrider chose to ignore the relevant answer in my post to their own question, so therefore it was selective and dalesriders post was neither relevant or constructive and therefore pointless.

grumbler

innovate wrote: »

Comeon grumbler, you can do better! We don't know whether we know the facts, we only know what was posted. As with all posts, this may be fact or it may not be fact.

So, are you accusing him of lying? On what grounds? Only because you don't like bitcoins? BTW, I don't like them either.

innovate wrote: »

It's always nice to see a newbie bursting in, to criticize people with several thousand posts on this forum and to lecture them on what they are supposed to post.

I am sorry, but IMHO this is a pathetic personal attack that people resort to when they run out of real arguments.

And you have to know well that thousands of post mean nothing. Some people post mainly in The Money Savers Arms. Some just keep posting rubbish year after year.

innovate

grumbler wrote: »

So, are you accusing him of lying?

No I don't. What I said is that I - - - along with anyone else here - - have no means by which to judge whether the posts are lies or the truth, or a mixture. This is not specific to this thread, it applies to literally all posts where somebody reports what happened to them. That includes my posts - how do you know what I say is true or a lie?

That's obviously stating the obvious..........the only reason I stated it is because somehow the posts of the OP had been declared to be fact(ually correct). As I said, they may well be, but they may well not be. We are in no position to judge.

BTW, I don't think I have ever said I don't like Bitcoins.

grumbler wrote: »

And you have to know well that thousands of post mean nothing. Some people post mainly in The Money Savers Arms.

Of course I know that quantity doesn't equate to quality. However, if you have seen hundreds if not thousands of posts of a certain poster, you get a very good feeling for the quality of posts of a given poster.

In no circumstances do I have any time for anyone bursting into an established environment and decreeing that a long-standing and respected(*) member is making irrelevant remarks. If nothing else, it is extremely impolite - but more often than not it suggests that the "attacker" is too full of themselves.

I haven't been to The Arms in several years, and I don't know where the attacked MSEer usually posts but I have seen them constructively contributing to the board over a number of months. I also thought the particular attack was entirely unwarranted because it seemed to be a matter of "as you don't agree with me, I publically declare your post irrelevant".

(*) I judge that by the number of thanks a poster received

dalesrider

katiepyke wrote: »

If you read my whole post hopefully you'll notice that dalesrider chose to ignore the relevant answer in my post to their own question, so therefore it was selective and dalesriders post was neither relevant or constructive and therefore pointless.

I'm now wondering what of mine your post is a answer too....

The whole point of quoting is to highlight the piece you are responding too.....

So if you are going to respond to a previous post please use that...
Otherwise you post is neither relevant or constructive.

You chose to point out that HSBC had been caught money laundering.
In fact you are wrong. What they were caught doing was FAILING TO PICK UP ON money laundering.... Not actually doing it.

At no point have I passed any comment on bitcoins (no idea what the hell they are)
Nor have I belittled the Op.

katiepyke

dalesrider wrote: »

I'm now wondering what of mine your post is a answer too....

The whole point of quoting is to highlight the piece you are responding too.....

I was replying to another post not yours, I'd already replied to your post earlier.