Misuse/stupid use of payment cards
 

I am astounded that people are still giving their card details away over the 'phone (and, for all I know, in other person to person communications).

When I 'did' Facebook (that is until I realised it was fit only for draining by Sir Joseph Bazalgette or perhaps Dr. Pimple Popper) I assumed the frequent appearance of 'found' cards (often with the user data thereon displayed) was a mental aberration of the kind widespread amongst users of the sanitary end of the internet. But that is not so.

It may be well meaning to try to return a card but it necessarily puts the finder into the frame should any fraud have been carried out after the owner 'lost' it. The only fully safe action to take is to destroy it as soon as possible. It is, anyway, unlikely to be of use to the owner who will/should have reported it to the issuer who will have immediately disabled it.

I have had two recent requests for payment over the 'phone, one from a government 'directorate'. I am surprised that employers would put their staff at such risk and that where unions are involved they have not militated against the practice. I now insist on paying electronically or cancel the purchase if that is not agreeable. I also point out to the assistant how they are putting themselves at risk of suspicion and that they are encouraging be to break my Bank's rules.

Another issue is one of temptation. Some cultures consider leading others into temptation is almost as immoral as giving in to it. Of course reducing unnecessary temptations will not reduce the number of criminals but it would certainly reduce the number of crimes.

Isn't bank/issuer guidance sufficiently clear? "Do not reveal you card details to anyone". It is stupid for you to do so, unkind to those who you do it to and, I am sure, would cause your Bank/issuers to baulk at any attempts to recompense you for frauds so achieved.

I was taxying home with a friend last Saturday and was appalled to hear her card-paying for theatre tickets over her mobile 'phone and in clear hearing of both me and the taxi driver. I did not lecture her on this stupidity as she has invited me to dinner (tonight). I will wait until the port is done and do so then!

(There's a copy aboard SN too as it seems we have a body of shipmates who are displaying their inability to enjoy both sites!)

What's all this about? Could it be translated into English? Am I being incited to sue my Stockbroker? Where will it all end? Am I going to be made homeless and have to queue up outside a Food Kitchen? Ought I blame the EU?

Of course.

Various of Great Grandfather's siblings and offspring were lawyers. GGF's words to Pa on his deathbed (well, no figure of speech remained idle when a good story or lesson was to be given) were "It is better to burn in hell than go to the law".

I would, therefore, wait until your broker sues you and interim prudently avoid playing footsie with his contango, bating his bear or attempting to unbalance his portfolio (especially if that would mean invoking the working at height directive). Only then might your insurance fork out for your defence.

What is used in EO Hibernia in place of one's flexible friend? A promissory conch shell?

Another issue is one of temptation.

All Christians know the Lord's Prayer:

"And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil."

And the wording is the same in Hibernia.

Who or which? (I don't think that it is even down to the usual issue of the fondness of the pleader to the Italian capital).

I cannot find anything damning of the tempter except that it is as one that Satan find himself frequently in the Good book's frame.

During Term at Compline we used to chant;

Our Father which art in heaven
I bought a shirt for two and eleven.........

Choirmaster was not amused.

I see Rome and the highly Established Church agree on something. But Compline? Would not any prayer to "Lighten our darkness" be considered ecologically unsound these days?

Further to temptation. I see various manuals of superstition, including that authorised by HLM, rail against tempting the deity and giving-in to temptation but only learned commentaries (and the Bard) confirm that the non-diabolical tempter plies a sinful trade. Kipling must have led me astray however I still think the greater evil is to tempt. Temptation might discover an otherwise innocent villain and must, anyway, increase opportunity of a practiced villain.

Think of all the papyrus, vellum, paper and learned endeavour wasted on improving on "Do as you would be done by" or, in unabridged form, Omar's Rubaiyat (in the fairytale authored by the late Fitzgerald).

My reading of The Book of Common Prayer, a more than worthy text, has failed to find any reference to nuclear power stations or acid rain or even wood pellets shipped from the forests of Alabama, so it is therefore ecologically sound. Sir Attenborough could have written the forward.
One may not agree or even believe in the KJV or BCP but the prose therein is more beautiful than anything scribbled since.

For crissakes you two ... get a room !! :big_tongue:

Not sure how we got onto this topic but that has never precluded my 'two bob's worth' before!

As ES has said: 'One may not agree or even believe in the KJV or BCP but the prose therein is more beautiful than anything scribbled since.'

I must agree with him about the KJV. To me, it is the most beautiful expression of the English language that I know.

One need neither agree nor disagree with the content to appreciate the allure and command of the language contained therein.

Geoff (YM) :quill::wave:

We have a room already (not provided at the behest of that mythological innkeeper 'though). You appear to be in it with us Bob!

Y-M. I agree wonderful language even today but a fairy tale is still a fairy tale however well written and, as many other were as well, of sound moral guidance (give or take a plucked offended eye). My point to E-S was that it seems light on condemnation of the mortal who tempts (specifically, regarding this thread, as do the idiots who broadcast their payment card details).

When I mentioned nuclear power stations or acid rain or even wood pellets shipped from the forests of Alabama I was remis in not adding ATM's.

Regarding Mr Clay's contribution I will sit down and reflect on Leviticus 19:18 .

I just bought a new copy of Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake." I tried to read it some forty years ago, as a sort of intellectual stunt. I think I managed to trace every letter on about one third of the pages, before I found the fact that I understood nothing of it incompatible with a need for self respect. I got slightly further into Heidegger's "Being and Time", also famous for being unreadable. And, as with Joyce's work, considered as one of the literary mountains necessary to climb if you are to elevate yourself up into the upper crust of intellectual snobs. I am slightly proud of this, both of having tried to read these two "unreadable" books, and to have given it up relatively early. I am not that proud of having read Mickey Spillane's "I the Jury", and Carter Brown's "The Wayward Wahine", but those literary works I did enjoy reading. So go on, do not mind me, just know I am an attentive follower of this thread.

:applause::applause::applause: JJ.

Anyone ever tried to read 'Mein Kampf'?

I am so sorry, I didn't mean to infer that I understood the 'good book'. Just that I liked it as a work of literary art and a source of some great turns of phrase. That said it is clearly not a work advocating the immoral. Other fairy tales one can understand, even one's in which the characters are rabbits or creatures of the wild-wood. Understand yes, believe no!

My father always mentioned in wonder that his older brother (my Uncle Bruv, of fond memory) had read Joyce's Ulysses "AND UNDERSTOOD IT!". If you have climbed the same mountain (Uncle Bruv did one or two real ones when expeditioning in the Arctic in 1929) I take my hat off to you (and until the c19 hair cut, that only worn in case of a passing cortege).

Not me personally, but my 16 year old grandson requested a copy for his birthday ( a translation - not the original), and made it up to page 624 where the topic changed to eugenics and the sterilising of the 'untermenschen. He was uncomfortable with this - he'll probably continue reading it at a later date.

I think Hitler read it. Everybody else just nodded when said "Have you read my wonderful book?"

I remember the Classics everyone was buying when in the Suez canal, "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was the favorite. I just bought the Post Cards, a lot better to look at except for the dudes in black socks

No, what Hitler said was, "Hands up if you have read my wonderful book." Everyone wanted either to appear very intellectual or wanted to keep in with an upcoming politician, so they all put their hands up. Hence the Nazi salute.

Alternatively if they didn't put their hands up they got taken out back and shot.