US Bank Answers To No One They run through charges largest to smallest regardless of how they coem in so they can optimize the amount of overdraft charges. Nationwide Colorado

If I had my way about it, overdrafting your account would be considered a criminal offense. Maybe after a warrant would be issued for their arrest, people wouldn't spend what they don't have available.

I'm so sick of these meth-addicted welfare cases overdrawing their accounts so they can score more drugs, and then blaming the bank when they incur fees. Then they hop online and file a ROR so they can whine to everyone else.

So, if you're whining about an overdraft fee on this website, you are a meth-addicted welfare case and you shouldn't even own a computer. Get a job and get sober.

I have spoken.

In order to avoid nsf/overdraft fees on your checking account, set up an overdraft protection account. It could be either a line of credit, a credit card, a savings account or another checking account. Have it linked to your main checking account so that if your checking account becomes negative, for any reason, then you dont pay a fortune in fees. If for some reason you cant or dont want to get an overdraft protection account, then you need to be really careful and responsible with your checking activities, or , if that cant be done, go to a savings account only.

Once again, you admitted to not expressing yourself clearly and so this has been resolved. Are you merely trying to be obtuse?

No not at all. I was only pointing out that clearly can be interpreted in more than one way and you interpreted it in a different way than what I meant. If it's because I wasn't clear enough, that's my mistake. I thought I was being clear enough especially since I can't make that statement as fact because I don't live anywhere near him and couldn't know that. I thought people would assume I didn't mean it as fact, but fair enough.

But we cannot assume that the person is guilty and making statements about that without some kind of proof. My statement was correct.

You're right, but we can't know that the person is innocent without proof (not their statement). That was the mistake you made: to assume his statement was enough proof for it to be fact. I'm not trying to prove he's an employee and don't claim too, but that's irrelevant to the fact that you claimed to know he's not. That's impossible with the information you have.

Response: You admitted that you didn't express yourself very well and we've already been over it. 'Clearly being paid to post here' does not mean the same thing as 'in my opinion he is being paid to post here'. Did you see the Noam Chomsky thread? There is a user stating that Noam Chomsky is a pedophile. That user is making a defnitive statement as opposed to stating an opinion.

It is when I substitute a synonym: Seemingly being paid to post here. You could take it either way. If I didn't express myself clearly, then that's my mistake. It doesn't seem like I did (to me) but I guess I must have. I admit fault on that score, but do you admit that it was wrong of you to claim to know what I meant better than I do even after I corrected you? I didn't see that person's post but it's difficult to even respond to such an idiotic statement. I assume Noam Chomsky is the CEO of US Bank. Does that poster really think he's directly responsible for all the bank's policies? I've also seen the bank employees being called Jews and faggots. The latter was from someone talking about her daughter being taken advantage of by the bank. This is from an adult? That's a great example for your kids. Using this kind of language completely discredits the user and the rest of post can be ignored.

Do you see the difference between a user who admits fault but posts a ripoff report anyways and a user who may not be aware of fund availability policies or the importance of keeping a ledger (among other things)?

Yes I see the difference, but if you don't think advice will help them, why post at all?

Once again, you admitted to not expressing yourself clearly and so this has been resolved. Are you merely trying to be obtuse?

No not at all. I was only pointing out that clearly can be interpreted in more than one way and you interpreted it in a different way than what I meant. If it's because I wasn't clear enough, that's my mistake. I thought I was being clear enough especially since I can't make that statement as fact because I don't live anywhere near him and couldn't know that. I thought people would assume I didn't mean it as fact, but fair enough.

But we cannot assume that the person is guilty and making statements about that without some kind of proof. My statement was correct.

You're right, but we can't know that the person is innocent without proof (not their statement). That was the mistake you made: to assume his statement was enough proof for it to be fact. I'm not trying to prove he's an employee and don't claim too, but that's irrelevant to the fact that you claimed to know he's not. That's impossible with the information you have.

Response: You admitted that you didn't express yourself very well and we've already been over it. 'Clearly being paid to post here' does not mean the same thing as 'in my opinion he is being paid to post here'. Did you see the Noam Chomsky thread? There is a user stating that Noam Chomsky is a pedophile. That user is making a defnitive statement as opposed to stating an opinion.

It is when I substitute a synonym: Seemingly being paid to post here. You could take it either way. If I didn't express myself clearly, then that's my mistake. It doesn't seem like I did (to me) but I guess I must have. I admit fault on that score, but do you admit that it was wrong of you to claim to know what I meant better than I do even after I corrected you? I didn't see that person's post but it's difficult to even respond to such an idiotic statement. I assume Noam Chomsky is the CEO of US Bank. Does that poster really think he's directly responsible for all the bank's policies? I've also seen the bank employees being called Jews and faggots. The latter was from someone talking about her daughter being taken advantage of by the bank. This is from an adult? That's a great example for your kids. Using this kind of language completely discredits the user and the rest of post can be ignored.

Do you see the difference between a user who admits fault but posts a ripoff report anyways and a user who may not be aware of fund availability policies or the importance of keeping a ledger (among other things)?

Yes I see the difference, but if you don't think advice will help them, why post at all?

Once again, you admitted to not expressing yourself clearly and so this has been resolved. Are you merely trying to be obtuse?

No not at all. I was only pointing out that clearly can be interpreted in more than one way and you interpreted it in a different way than what I meant. If it's because I wasn't clear enough, that's my mistake. I thought I was being clear enough especially since I can't make that statement as fact because I don't live anywhere near him and couldn't know that. I thought people would assume I didn't mean it as fact, but fair enough.

But we cannot assume that the person is guilty and making statements about that without some kind of proof. My statement was correct.

You're right, but we can't know that the person is innocent without proof (not their statement). That was the mistake you made: to assume his statement was enough proof for it to be fact. I'm not trying to prove he's an employee and don't claim too, but that's irrelevant to the fact that you claimed to know he's not. That's impossible with the information you have.

Response: You admitted that you didn't express yourself very well and we've already been over it. 'Clearly being paid to post here' does not mean the same thing as 'in my opinion he is being paid to post here'. Did you see the Noam Chomsky thread? There is a user stating that Noam Chomsky is a pedophile. That user is making a defnitive statement as opposed to stating an opinion.

It is when I substitute a synonym: Seemingly being paid to post here. You could take it either way. If I didn't express myself clearly, then that's my mistake. It doesn't seem like I did (to me) but I guess I must have. I admit fault on that score, but do you admit that it was wrong of you to claim to know what I meant better than I do even after I corrected you? I didn't see that person's post but it's difficult to even respond to such an idiotic statement. I assume Noam Chomsky is the CEO of US Bank. Does that poster really think he's directly responsible for all the bank's policies? I've also seen the bank employees being called Jews and faggots. The latter was from someone talking about her daughter being taken advantage of by the bank. This is from an adult? That's a great example for your kids. Using this kind of language completely discredits the user and the rest of post can be ignored.

Do you see the difference between a user who admits fault but posts a ripoff report anyways and a user who may not be aware of fund availability policies or the importance of keeping a ledger (among other things)?

Yes I see the difference, but if you don't think advice will help them, why post at all?

Chris wrote: "So what if I'm picking 3 words out of several? It only takes one exception to prove my point, that clearly" could have been taken either way and you chose the wrong way. I'm continuing down this path because you proved when you gave the list of synonyms that you essentially backed ME up, not yourself. Quite a few of those words absolutely don't mean fact. Therefore, my statement of clearly" can be taken either way and since I was the one who made the statement, I get to decide how it was meant, not you."

Response: Chris, you are really getting carried away with this. You have already admitted that you didn't express yourself clearly enough and I was willing to drop it but you seem to want to continue arguing it. If you want to keep arguing it, we certainly can and we can pull out the dictionaries and refer to the grammarians but at the end of the day, we are stuck with this:

"Clearly being paid to post here" has a much different context than "in my opinion, he is being paid to post here". Once again, you admitted to not expressing yourself clearly and so this has been resolved. Are you merely trying to be obtuse?

Chris wrote: "Read my first sentence again: Lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of fact. This is a fallacy." You are correct, guilt must be proven. However, the person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, but it is not a fact until they go to trial and are acquitted (not always, e.g., OJ). When you stated that you knew he wasn't an employee you absolutely stated it as fact and you have no way of knowing for certain unless you knew him personally. How do you disagree with this? I can't prove he works for the bank, and don't claim to. You claim he has proved he doesn't by simply stating he doesn't. My legal system analogy was spot on. A person can't simply state they are innocent and be proven innocent. They are assumed to be innocent until evidence to the contrary convinces a jury of guilt, but assumption and fact are not even close to synonymous."

Report: But we cannot assume that the person is guilty and making statements about that without some kind of proof. My statement was correct.

"You're telling me that claiming I mean something other than what I really meant, even after I corrected you isn't a falsehood? Explain how."

Response: You admitted that you didn't express yourself very well and we've already been over it. "Clearly being paid to post here" does not mean the same thing as "in my opinion he is being paid to post here". Did you see the Noam Chomsky thread? There is a user stating that Noam Chomsky is a pedophile. That user is making a defnitive statement as opposed to stating an opinion.

And I will remind you (again) that you admitted fault in this instance.

"
It's not different at all. Even if the user admits fault you can still give them advice on how to avoid fees. If the user is clearly in the wrong, and I admit that is the case a lot of the time, they obviously aren't very good with money management and can be given advice. Explain to me that what you said was not essentially telling the person that they are wrong? That's all you did."

Response: Well, you're still going to have to provide me with the quotes so that I can see exactly what I wrote but even taking your word for it we can see that it is very different than your claim that I simply tell users that they are wrong and move on. By the way, you have yet to provide an instance of where I simply told a user that they are wrong and moved on after that.

Do you see the difference between a user who admits fault but posts a ripoff report anyways and a user who may not be aware of fund availability policies or the importance of keeping a ledger (among other things)? The latter two people could benefit from a pointer or two on how to avoid this in the future whereas the first person understands their error and has admitted to it.

Well, you are also picking and choosing three word sout of several that can be used in place of 'clearly'. You've already admitted that you didn't write that very clearly and I'm not quite clear on why you wish to continue down this path.

So what if I'm picking 3 words out of several? It only takes one exception to prove my point, that clearly could have been taken either way and you chose the wrong way. I'm continuing down this path because you proved when you gave the list of synonyms that you essentially backed ME up, not yourself. Quite a few of those words absolutely don't mean fact. Therefore, my statement of clearly can be taken either way and since I was the one who made the statement, I get to decide how it was meant, not you.

Chris, one cannot 'prove' a negative. To once again make a comparison to our legal system, one does not have to prove their innocence, guilt must be proven. Given the fact that there is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that he is a bank employee and his own statement, it is not a falsehood on my part. You do realize that by continuing down this course you are setting yourself up having to prove that a)'I Am The Law' is a bank employee and b) that I knew of this. If that's what you wish to do, by all means go for it but I don't see why you would want to.

Read my first sentence again: Lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of fact. This is a fallacy. You are correct, guilt must be proven. However, the person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, but it is not a fact until they go to trial and are acquitted (not always, e.g., OJ). When you stated that you knew he wasn't an employee you absolutely stated it as fact and you have no way of knowing for certain unless you knew him personally. How do you disagree with this? I can't prove he works for the bank, and don't claim to. You claim he has proved he doesn't by simply stating he doesn't. My legal system analogy was spot on. A person can't simply state they are innocent and be proven innocent. They are assumed to be innocent until evidence to the contrary convinces a jury of guilt, but assumption and fact are not even close to synonymous.

Actually no, I was not referring to you. And no, I did not make any falsehood.

You're telling me that claiming I mean something other than what I really meant, even after I corrected you isn't a falsehood? Explain how.

That is very different than simply telling a user that he/she is wrong and moving on. And when a user does admit fault, there isn't much else to do.

It's not different at all. Even if the user admits fault you can still give them advice on how to avoid fees. If the user is clearly in the wrong, and I admit that is the case a lot of the time, they obviously aren't very good with money management and can be given advice. Explain to me that what you said was not essentially telling the person that they are wrong? That's all you did.

Not to get too far back on topic, but in these posts we constantly see phrases like "continually run through charges largest to smallest regardless of what order they are presented in to the bank". I ask the poster this: pretend you are a bank. I hand you a tray with 20,000 checks in in. In that tray are six checks from John Doe. What order were those checks presented to the bank? Another example, I send you an electronic file with 50,000 transactions in it. Six of them belong to John. What order were THEY presented to the bank?

I think the misperception is that when a depositor writes a check, or uses a debit card, that the transaction makes it's way all by itself to the bank, and arrives all by itself. It doesn't. In both examples, there are middlemen who aggregate the work from multiple banks, (the Fed is the obvious example) and present it to the bank once a day in a great big batch.

Going a little further, John D has six checks in that batch, The entire batch has to be sorted to put the checks in order by account number, so they can be posted. Now, John's six checks are together. What order are they now? If we take it as a given that we can't post them in random order, what are the options? You can sort them high to low, low to high, or by check number. As a bank, I am required to pick one, and notify you what choice i have selected. You get this information when you open the account. If you don't like my method, you are encouraged to shop around and find one you like. You may find that more of a task than it sounds, but it is something you should do.

"What a bunch of hypocrites! Are you folks paid to apologize for US Bank?"

No. If we were being paid by the bank why would we have shown you how to avoid paying needless fees to the bank? And how does this make us hypocrites?


"Or just trying to show off you have enough money to avoid ovedrafts?"

You can avoid overdrafts with less than a dollar balance. How much money we do or do not have is irrelevant.


"I can't understand why all these ignorant people read all these reports and then comment with ridiculous advice repeatedly. Doesn't make sense."

Knowing how to avoid overdraft fees does not make one ignorant.

"What make sense is that someone here was sharing their own experience with a corrupt bank like US Bank trying to alert readers of deceptive schemes these impostors make use of. I am pretty sure this person already knew how to avoid overdrafts and did not need the useless advice 'balance your book' or 'keep funds in the account'."

I have no idea if this person knew how to avoid overdraft fees or not. Since the fees were assessed, it certainly wouldn't hurt to be reminded on how to avoid these fees in the future.

"I was a victim of such a rip-off scheme myself. US Bank is indeed a scam in itself."

Your report (#448959) suggests that you overdrafted your account.


"A group of well organized crooks that prey on innocent consumers and attack when least expected with forced overdraft fees. The worst part is the lame excuse you get.
And don't tell me every bank does the same, 'cause I'll spit right between your eyes."

How exactly did the bank force you to overdraft? Didn't you keep a record of your transactions? And I am not aware of any bank that does not charge some kind of overdraft fee. Even Electric Orange charges interest on the negative balance. Will you come to California and spit between my eyes now?


"Us Bank is the worst of them all, the most dishonest, the greediest, the least advanced and among all the worst customer support. To them money is the weapon. They treat you like an idiot. You are not important to them, you're a money making tool."

So have I. And I haven't had problems with any of them save for a mistake I made when I was younger and even that was my fault.


"Has anybody received a single free check book from US Booch? Anyone ever had a free wire transfer? Free money orders or cashiers checks? NSF waiver program? Anyone? No?
So, it's not a fine bank after all. Why make these stupid comments hailing the evil?"

No, but they did reverse four overdraft fees for me when a merchant accidentally double charged a $1,253 transaction.


"It's clear US Bank is the evil."

How so?


"One of my banks actually has all those benefits mentioned above and is still not the finest bank. But so much different. And the transactions post immediately to my account that same day. In strict order. One overdraft a year waived."

Only one? Even US Bank does that.


"Want to avoid forced overdrafts in the future at US Booch. Close your account and consider that a lesson. There are hundreds of other banks throught the US, some better than others. But none of them more corrupt, ignorant, crooked and fraudulent than US Booch. Any other bank is better. Trust my experience."

It depends. If one overdrafts their account they will be charged a fee at any bank. Simply changing banks doesn't solve the problem if they are not practicing sound financial management.

"By the way 'Booch' is translated as 'butttocks' from one foreign language."

Booch is also the last name of a software engineer who helped develop UML. I'm not certain what either point has to do with the topic but as long as we are sharing information...

What a bunch of hypocrites! Are you folks paid to apologize for US Bank? Or just trying to show off you have enough money to avoid ovedrafts?
I can't understand why all these ignorant people read all these reports and then comment with ridiculous advice repeatedly. Doesn't make sense.
What make sense is that someone here was sharing their own experience with a corrupt bank like US Bank trying to alert readers of deceptive schemes these impostors make use of. I am pretty sure this person already knew how to avoid overdrafts and did not need the useless advice "balance your book" or "keep funds in the account".
I was a victim of such a rip-off scheme myself. US Bank is indeed a scam in itself.
A group of well organized crooks that prey on innocent consumers and attack when least expected with forced overdraft fees. The worst part is the lame excuse you get.
And don't tell me every bank does the same, 'cause I'll spit right between your eyes.
I have accounts with other banks as well and over the years I studied their philosophy in action.
Us Bank is the worst of them all, the most dishonest, the greediest, the least advanced and among all the worst customer support. To them money is the weapon. They treat you like an idiot. You are not important to them, you're a money making tool.
Has anybody received a single free check book from US Booch? Anyone ever had a free wire transfer? Free money orders or cashiers checks? NSF waiver program? Anyone? No?
So, it's not a fine bank after all. Why make these stupid comments hailing the evil?
It's clear US Bank is the evil.
One of my banks actually has all those benefits mentioned above and is still not the finest bank. But so much different. And the transactions post immediately to my account that same day. In strict order. One overdraft a year waived.
And now it's my turn to give advice.
Want to avoid forced overdrafts in the future at US Booch. Close your account and consider that a lesson. There are hundreds of other banks throught the US, some better than others. But none of them more corrupt, ignorant, crooked and fraudulent than US Booch. Any other bank is better. Trust my experience.
By the way 'Booch' is translated as 'butttocks' from one foreign language.

Chris wrote: "My point was that there are several where you don't offer any advice and instead tell them they're wrong. I'll go find these if I have to, but I know I've seen them."

Response: Yes, I would like to see those quotes. Remember, according to your words it has to be an instance of simply telling the person filing the report that they are wrong and moving on.


Chris wrote:

"If that's indeed true, then my usage of clearly" can also be defined in multiple acceptable ways because they're synonyms. My statement was not made as fact and what you said just proved that."

Response: Well, you are also picking and choosing three word sout of several that can be used in place of "clearly". You've already admitted that you didn't write that very clearly and I'm not quite clear on why you wish to continue down this path.


Chris wrote: "Lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of fact. This is a fallacy. If I can't prove there aren't alien beings visiting us does that prove that there are? People claim to see them all the time but it doesn't prove anything because there has to be evidence. A person's statement is not evidence. If that were true, there would be no trials in the world. A person would be convicted or not convicted of a crime based on a confession alone (or lack of one). What you're not apparently getting is that you are certainly able to lie even though you aren't aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. When you make a statement of fact (i.e. I KNOW"), that explicitly states that you know it to be true. Since you don't have proof of this, it's a falsehood. Someone's statement is not proof. That's a pretty simple concept. You are basing your entire knowledge" of him not being an employee on his statement alone. That may be enough for you but I'm nowhere near that trusting and neither are most people."

Response: Chris, one cannot "prove" a negative. To once again make a comparison to our legal system, one does not have to prove their innocence, guilt must be proven. Given the fact that there is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that he is a bank employee and his own statement, it is not a falsehood on my part. You do realize that by continuing down this course you are setting yourself up having to prove that a)"I Am The Law" is a bank employee and b) that I knew of this. If that's what you wish to do, by all means go for it but I don't see why you would want to.


Chris wrote: "If you're referring to me (I assume you are), I didn't make definitive statements about him. Only you did that. You used the term I know" which implies factual data. You also never even tried to deny you know it for a fact or take back your statement. I clarified what I meant by what I said (again, I didn't say I KNOW") but you still claim that I meant something else. That is another falsehood."

Response: Actually no, I was not referring to you. And no, I did not make any falsehood.


Chris wrote: "I don't have exact quotes in front of me but there were several that I recall where you said something along the lines of You admitted fault. Not a rip off"."

Response: That is very different than simply telling a user that he/she is wrong and moving on. And when a user does admit fault, there isn't much else to do.

Chris, you know perfectly well that I never claimed slander applies to you in this case. I didn't even claim that libel applied to you in this case. I wrote that people have been sued for libel and slander for using imprecise language. You must know thatt I wrote this since you quoted it and have presumably wrote it. And you did make false statements unless you deny that you wrote that bit about me simply telling people that they are wrong and moving on?

My point was that there are several where you don't offer any advice and instead tell them they're wrong. I'll go find these if I have to, but I know I've seen them.

Would you like to see how 'evidently', 'apparently' and 'seemingly can be defined in multiple acceptable ways?

If that's indeed true, then my usage of clearly can also be defined in multiple acceptable ways because they're synonyms. My statement was not made as fact and what you said just proved that.

No, Chris. All of the available data does nothing to suggest that he is a bank employee. That fact and his written word are enough to judge that he is not a bank employee. In order for me to lie, I would have to be aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. I'm not certain why you're not getting this.

Lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of fact. This is a fallacy. If I can't prove there aren't alien beings visiting us does that prove that there are? People claim to see them all the time but it doesn't prove anything because there has to be evidence. A person's statement is not evidence. If that were true, there would be no trials in the world. A person would be convicted or not convicted of a crime based on a confession alone (or lack of one). What you're not apparently getting is that you are certainly able to lie even though you aren't aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. When you make a statement of fact (i.e. I KNOW), that explicitly states that you know it to be true. Since you don't have proof of this, it's a falsehood. Someone's statement is not proof. That's a pretty simple concept. You are basing your entire knowledge of him not being an employee on his statement alone. That may be enough for you but I'm nowhere near that trusting and neither are most people.

It could just be that you were being a little snippy in the first quote.

You are correct. However, some things should be on the side of the reader. I can't always come out and say explicitly that I'm being sarcastic or I'm joking. That defeats the purpose entirely. Sometimes those things have to be inferred from the context of the post.

And I'm sure that you have noticed that I am not the only user in this thread to believe that you made a definitive statement about 'I Am The Law'.

If you're referring to me (I assume you are), I didn't make definitive statements about him. Only you did that. You used the term I know which implies factual data. You also never even tried to deny you know it for a fact or take back your statement. I clarified what I meant by what I said (again, I didn't say I KNOW) but you still claim that I meant something else. That is another falsehood.

Back that up.

I don't have exact quotes in front of me but there were several that I recall where you said something along the lines of You admitted fault. Not a rip off. This is simply telling the user they are wrong but not offering any advice. If I'm wrong, I apologize. That means I mistook someone else's posts for yours (there are quite a few on here). I'm very certain that I'm not wrong though.

Chris, you know perfectly well that I never claimed slander applies to you in this case. I didn't even claim that libel applied to you in this case. I wrote that people have been sued for libel and slander for using imprecise language. You must know thatt I wrote this since you quoted it and have presumably wrote it. And you did make false statements unless you deny that you wrote that bit about me simply telling people that they are wrong and moving on?

My point was that there are several where you don't offer any advice and instead tell them they're wrong. I'll go find these if I have to, but I know I've seen them.

Would you like to see how 'evidently', 'apparently' and 'seemingly can be defined in multiple acceptable ways?

If that's indeed true, then my usage of clearly can also be defined in multiple acceptable ways because they're synonyms. My statement was not made as fact and what you said just proved that.

No, Chris. All of the available data does nothing to suggest that he is a bank employee. That fact and his written word are enough to judge that he is not a bank employee. In order for me to lie, I would have to be aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. I'm not certain why you're not getting this.

Lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of fact. This is a fallacy. If I can't prove there aren't alien beings visiting us does that prove that there are? People claim to see them all the time but it doesn't prove anything because there has to be evidence. A person's statement is not evidence. If that were true, there would be no trials in the world. A person would be convicted or not convicted of a crime based on a confession alone (or lack of one). What you're not apparently getting is that you are certainly able to lie even though you aren't aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. When you make a statement of fact (i.e. I KNOW), that explicitly states that you know it to be true. Since you don't have proof of this, it's a falsehood. Someone's statement is not proof. That's a pretty simple concept. You are basing your entire knowledge of him not being an employee on his statement alone. That may be enough for you but I'm nowhere near that trusting and neither are most people.

It could just be that you were being a little snippy in the first quote.

You are correct. However, some things should be on the side of the reader. I can't always come out and say explicitly that I'm being sarcastic or I'm joking. That defeats the purpose entirely. Sometimes those things have to be inferred from the context of the post.

And I'm sure that you have noticed that I am not the only user in this thread to believe that you made a definitive statement about 'I Am The Law'.

If you're referring to me (I assume you are), I didn't make definitive statements about him. Only you did that. You used the term I know which implies factual data. You also never even tried to deny you know it for a fact or take back your statement. I clarified what I meant by what I said (again, I didn't say I KNOW) but you still claim that I meant something else. That is another falsehood.

Back that up.

I don't have exact quotes in front of me but there were several that I recall where you said something along the lines of You admitted fault. Not a rip off. This is simply telling the user they are wrong but not offering any advice. If I'm wrong, I apologize. That means I mistook someone else's posts for yours (there are quite a few on here). I'm very certain that I'm not wrong though.

Chris, you know perfectly well that I never claimed slander applies to you in this case. I didn't even claim that libel applied to you in this case. I wrote that people have been sued for libel and slander for using imprecise language. You must know thatt I wrote this since you quoted it and have presumably wrote it. And you did make false statements unless you deny that you wrote that bit about me simply telling people that they are wrong and moving on?

My point was that there are several where you don't offer any advice and instead tell them they're wrong. I'll go find these if I have to, but I know I've seen them.

Would you like to see how 'evidently', 'apparently' and 'seemingly can be defined in multiple acceptable ways?

If that's indeed true, then my usage of clearly can also be defined in multiple acceptable ways because they're synonyms. My statement was not made as fact and what you said just proved that.

No, Chris. All of the available data does nothing to suggest that he is a bank employee. That fact and his written word are enough to judge that he is not a bank employee. In order for me to lie, I would have to be aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. I'm not certain why you're not getting this.

Lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of fact. This is a fallacy. If I can't prove there aren't alien beings visiting us does that prove that there are? People claim to see them all the time but it doesn't prove anything because there has to be evidence. A person's statement is not evidence. If that were true, there would be no trials in the world. A person would be convicted or not convicted of a crime based on a confession alone (or lack of one). What you're not apparently getting is that you are certainly able to lie even though you aren't aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. When you make a statement of fact (i.e. I KNOW), that explicitly states that you know it to be true. Since you don't have proof of this, it's a falsehood. Someone's statement is not proof. That's a pretty simple concept. You are basing your entire knowledge of him not being an employee on his statement alone. That may be enough for you but I'm nowhere near that trusting and neither are most people.

It could just be that you were being a little snippy in the first quote.

You are correct. However, some things should be on the side of the reader. I can't always come out and say explicitly that I'm being sarcastic or I'm joking. That defeats the purpose entirely. Sometimes those things have to be inferred from the context of the post.

And I'm sure that you have noticed that I am not the only user in this thread to believe that you made a definitive statement about 'I Am The Law'.

If you're referring to me (I assume you are), I didn't make definitive statements about him. Only you did that. You used the term I know which implies factual data. You also never even tried to deny you know it for a fact or take back your statement. I clarified what I meant by what I said (again, I didn't say I KNOW) but you still claim that I meant something else. That is another falsehood.

Back that up.

I don't have exact quotes in front of me but there were several that I recall where you said something along the lines of You admitted fault. Not a rip off. This is simply telling the user they are wrong but not offering any advice. If I'm wrong, I apologize. That means I mistook someone else's posts for yours (there are quite a few on here). I'm very certain that I'm not wrong though.

Chris, you know perfectly well that I never claimed slander applies to you in this case. I didn't even claim that libel applied to you in this case. I wrote that people have been sued for libel and slander for using imprecise language. You must know thatt I wrote this since you quoted it and have presumably wrote it. And you did make false statements unless you deny that you wrote that bit about me simply telling people that they are wrong and moving on?

My point was that there are several where you don't offer any advice and instead tell them they're wrong. I'll go find these if I have to, but I know I've seen them.

Would you like to see how 'evidently', 'apparently' and 'seemingly can be defined in multiple acceptable ways?

If that's indeed true, then my usage of clearly can also be defined in multiple acceptable ways because they're synonyms. My statement was not made as fact and what you said just proved that.

No, Chris. All of the available data does nothing to suggest that he is a bank employee. That fact and his written word are enough to judge that he is not a bank employee. In order for me to lie, I would have to be aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. I'm not certain why you're not getting this.

Lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of fact. This is a fallacy. If I can't prove there aren't alien beings visiting us does that prove that there are? People claim to see them all the time but it doesn't prove anything because there has to be evidence. A person's statement is not evidence. If that were true, there would be no trials in the world. A person would be convicted or not convicted of a crime based on a confession alone (or lack of one). What you're not apparently getting is that you are certainly able to lie even though you aren't aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. When you make a statement of fact (i.e. I KNOW), that explicitly states that you know it to be true. Since you don't have proof of this, it's a falsehood. Someone's statement is not proof. That's a pretty simple concept. You are basing your entire knowledge of him not being an employee on his statement alone. That may be enough for you but I'm nowhere near that trusting and neither are most people.

It could just be that you were being a little snippy in the first quote.

You are correct. However, some things should be on the side of the reader. I can't always come out and say explicitly that I'm being sarcastic or I'm joking. That defeats the purpose entirely. Sometimes those things have to be inferred from the context of the post.

And I'm sure that you have noticed that I am not the only user in this thread to believe that you made a definitive statement about 'I Am The Law'.

If you're referring to me (I assume you are), I didn't make definitive statements about him. Only you did that. You used the term I know which implies factual data. You also never even tried to deny you know it for a fact or take back your statement. I clarified what I meant by what I said (again, I didn't say I KNOW) but you still claim that I meant something else. That is another falsehood.

Back that up.

I don't have exact quotes in front of me but there were several that I recall where you said something along the lines of You admitted fault. Not a rip off. This is simply telling the user they are wrong but not offering any advice. If I'm wrong, I apologize. That means I mistook someone else's posts for yours (there are quite a few on here). I'm very certain that I'm not wrong though.

Chris, you know perfectly well that I never claimed slander applies to you in this case. I didn't even claim that libel applied to you in this case. I wrote that people have been sued for libel and slander for using imprecise language. You must know thatt I wrote this since you quoted it and have presumably wrote it. And you did make false statements unless you deny that you wrote that bit about me simply telling people that they are wrong and moving on?

My point was that there are several where you don't offer any advice and instead tell them they're wrong. I'll go find these if I have to, but I know I've seen them.

Would you like to see how 'evidently', 'apparently' and 'seemingly can be defined in multiple acceptable ways?

If that's indeed true, then my usage of clearly can also be defined in multiple acceptable ways because they're synonyms. My statement was not made as fact and what you said just proved that.

No, Chris. All of the available data does nothing to suggest that he is a bank employee. That fact and his written word are enough to judge that he is not a bank employee. In order for me to lie, I would have to be aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. I'm not certain why you're not getting this.

Lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of fact. This is a fallacy. If I can't prove there aren't alien beings visiting us does that prove that there are? People claim to see them all the time but it doesn't prove anything because there has to be evidence. A person's statement is not evidence. If that were true, there would be no trials in the world. A person would be convicted or not convicted of a crime based on a confession alone (or lack of one). What you're not apparently getting is that you are certainly able to lie even though you aren't aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. When you make a statement of fact (i.e. I KNOW), that explicitly states that you know it to be true. Since you don't have proof of this, it's a falsehood. Someone's statement is not proof. That's a pretty simple concept. You are basing your entire knowledge of him not being an employee on his statement alone. That may be enough for you but I'm nowhere near that trusting and neither are most people.

It could just be that you were being a little snippy in the first quote.

You are correct. However, some things should be on the side of the reader. I can't always come out and say explicitly that I'm being sarcastic or I'm joking. That defeats the purpose entirely. Sometimes those things have to be inferred from the context of the post.

And I'm sure that you have noticed that I am not the only user in this thread to believe that you made a definitive statement about 'I Am The Law'.

If you're referring to me (I assume you are), I didn't make definitive statements about him. Only you did that. You used the term I know which implies factual data. You also never even tried to deny you know it for a fact or take back your statement. I clarified what I meant by what I said (again, I didn't say I KNOW) but you still claim that I meant something else. That is another falsehood.

Back that up.

I don't have exact quotes in front of me but there were several that I recall where you said something along the lines of You admitted fault. Not a rip off. This is simply telling the user they are wrong but not offering any advice. If I'm wrong, I apologize. That means I mistook someone else's posts for yours (there are quite a few on here). I'm very certain that I'm not wrong though.

Chris wrote: "Slander is spoken, not written, so that doesn't apply to me. Libel doesn't apply to me either since I didn't make any false statements. Also, explain to me how evidently', apparently' and seemingly" imply fact."

Response: Chris, you know perfectly well that I never claimed slander applies to you in this case. I didn't even claim that libel applied to you in this case. I wrote that people have been sued for libel and slander for using imprecise language. You must know thatt I wrote this since you quoted it and have presumably wrote it. And you did make false statements unless you deny that you wrote that bit about me simply telling people that they are wrong and moving on?

Would you like to see how "evidently", "apparently" and "seemingly can be defined in multiple acceptable ways?


Chris wrote: "Again, you still don't know he's not an employee. You don't think he is. There's a big difference. Unless you are clairvoyant, you couldn't possibly know."

Response: No, Chris. All of the available data does nothing to suggest that he is a bank employee. That fact and his written word are enough to judge that he is not a bank employee. In order for me to lie, I would have to be aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. I'm not certain why you're not getting this.


Chris wrote: "While I don't know your information is incorrect, I do know that your statement is. Since you don't know for a fact that your statement is true, it is, in fact, incorrect. Your statement is a lie. You stated something as fact even though you don't know it to be true."

Response: See above. Your theory is incorrect.


Chris wrote: "What quote contradicted my claim?"

Response: 'The fact that you can't understand the meaning of what I write is not my problem.' and 'I already have. In an earlier post I stated that if you misunderstood what I meant, it may mean I didn't communicate myself well enough, but it certainly doesn't mean I'm lying, like you claim.'

One statement suggests that its not your problem if people don't understand your writing and one suggests that you may not have communicated well enough. It could just be that you were being a little snippy in the first quote. And I'm sure that you have noticed that I am not the only user in this thread to believe that you made a definitive statement about "I Am The Law".

And you didn't answer the question.


Chris wrote: "You accused me of attributing untrue quotes to you. Back up that statement.
I've never claimed you said something that you haven't."

Response: Yes, you have. Here it is:


'Besides, in many of the posts you just tell the person that they're wrong and move on.'"


Back that up.

Chris wrote: "Slander is spoken, not written, so that doesn't apply to me. Libel doesn't apply to me either since I didn't make any false statements. Also, explain to me how evidently', apparently' and seemingly" imply fact."

Response: Chris, you know perfectly well that I never claimed slander applies to you in this case. I didn't even claim that libel applied to you in this case. I wrote that people have been sued for libel and slander for using imprecise language. You must know thatt I wrote this since you quoted it and have presumably wrote it. And you did make false statements unless you deny that you wrote that bit about me simply telling people that they are wrong and moving on?

Would you like to see how "evidently", "apparently" and "seemingly can be defined in multiple acceptable ways?


Chris wrote: "Again, you still don't know he's not an employee. You don't think he is. There's a big difference. Unless you are clairvoyant, you couldn't possibly know."

Response: No, Chris. All of the available data does nothing to suggest that he is a bank employee. That fact and his written word are enough to judge that he is not a bank employee. In order for me to lie, I would have to be aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. I'm not certain why you're not getting this.


Chris wrote: "While I don't know your information is incorrect, I do know that your statement is. Since you don't know for a fact that your statement is true, it is, in fact, incorrect. Your statement is a lie. You stated something as fact even though you don't know it to be true."

Response: See above. Your theory is incorrect.


Chris wrote: "What quote contradicted my claim?"

Response: 'The fact that you can't understand the meaning of what I write is not my problem.' and 'I already have. In an earlier post I stated that if you misunderstood what I meant, it may mean I didn't communicate myself well enough, but it certainly doesn't mean I'm lying, like you claim.'

One statement suggests that its not your problem if people don't understand your writing and one suggests that you may not have communicated well enough. It could just be that you were being a little snippy in the first quote. And I'm sure that you have noticed that I am not the only user in this thread to believe that you made a definitive statement about "I Am The Law".

And you didn't answer the question.


Chris wrote: "You accused me of attributing untrue quotes to you. Back up that statement.
I've never claimed you said something that you haven't."

Response: Yes, you have. Here it is:


'Besides, in many of the posts you just tell the person that they're wrong and move on.'"


Back that up.

Chris wrote: "Slander is spoken, not written, so that doesn't apply to me. Libel doesn't apply to me either since I didn't make any false statements. Also, explain to me how evidently', apparently' and seemingly" imply fact."

Response: Chris, you know perfectly well that I never claimed slander applies to you in this case. I didn't even claim that libel applied to you in this case. I wrote that people have been sued for libel and slander for using imprecise language. You must know thatt I wrote this since you quoted it and have presumably wrote it. And you did make false statements unless you deny that you wrote that bit about me simply telling people that they are wrong and moving on?

Would you like to see how "evidently", "apparently" and "seemingly can be defined in multiple acceptable ways?


Chris wrote: "Again, you still don't know he's not an employee. You don't think he is. There's a big difference. Unless you are clairvoyant, you couldn't possibly know."

Response: No, Chris. All of the available data does nothing to suggest that he is a bank employee. That fact and his written word are enough to judge that he is not a bank employee. In order for me to lie, I would have to be aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. I'm not certain why you're not getting this.


Chris wrote: "While I don't know your information is incorrect, I do know that your statement is. Since you don't know for a fact that your statement is true, it is, in fact, incorrect. Your statement is a lie. You stated something as fact even though you don't know it to be true."

Response: See above. Your theory is incorrect.


Chris wrote: "What quote contradicted my claim?"

Response: 'The fact that you can't understand the meaning of what I write is not my problem.' and 'I already have. In an earlier post I stated that if you misunderstood what I meant, it may mean I didn't communicate myself well enough, but it certainly doesn't mean I'm lying, like you claim.'

One statement suggests that its not your problem if people don't understand your writing and one suggests that you may not have communicated well enough. It could just be that you were being a little snippy in the first quote. And I'm sure that you have noticed that I am not the only user in this thread to believe that you made a definitive statement about "I Am The Law".

And you didn't answer the question.


Chris wrote: "You accused me of attributing untrue quotes to you. Back up that statement.
I've never claimed you said something that you haven't."

Response: Yes, you have. Here it is:


'Besides, in many of the posts you just tell the person that they're wrong and move on.'"


Back that up.

Chris wrote: "Slander is spoken, not written, so that doesn't apply to me. Libel doesn't apply to me either since I didn't make any false statements. Also, explain to me how evidently', apparently' and seemingly" imply fact."

Response: Chris, you know perfectly well that I never claimed slander applies to you in this case. I didn't even claim that libel applied to you in this case. I wrote that people have been sued for libel and slander for using imprecise language. You must know thatt I wrote this since you quoted it and have presumably wrote it. And you did make false statements unless you deny that you wrote that bit about me simply telling people that they are wrong and moving on?

Would you like to see how "evidently", "apparently" and "seemingly can be defined in multiple acceptable ways?


Chris wrote: "Again, you still don't know he's not an employee. You don't think he is. There's a big difference. Unless you are clairvoyant, you couldn't possibly know."

Response: No, Chris. All of the available data does nothing to suggest that he is a bank employee. That fact and his written word are enough to judge that he is not a bank employee. In order for me to lie, I would have to be aware of evidence that suggests he is a bank employee. I'm not certain why you're not getting this.


Chris wrote: "While I don't know your information is incorrect, I do know that your statement is. Since you don't know for a fact that your statement is true, it is, in fact, incorrect. Your statement is a lie. You stated something as fact even though you don't know it to be true."

Response: See above. Your theory is incorrect.


Chris wrote: "What quote contradicted my claim?"

Response: 'The fact that you can't understand the meaning of what I write is not my problem.' and 'I already have. In an earlier post I stated that if you misunderstood what I meant, it may mean I didn't communicate myself well enough, but it certainly doesn't mean I'm lying, like you claim.'

One statement suggests that its not your problem if people don't understand your writing and one suggests that you may not have communicated well enough. It could just be that you were being a little snippy in the first quote. And I'm sure that you have noticed that I am not the only user in this thread to believe that you made a definitive statement about "I Am The Law".

And you didn't answer the question.


Chris wrote: "You accused me of attributing untrue quotes to you. Back up that statement.
I've never claimed you said something that you haven't."

Response: Yes, you have. Here it is:


'Besides, in many of the posts you just tell the person that they're wrong and move on.'"


Back that up.

If you want to go with the definitions in my dictionary, then yes, we can dispute your words. The thing is, you didn't claim that you were joking or that you meant in your opinion. You made a definitive statement. People get sued for libel and/or slander for using imprecise language like you did and they don't get to claim later on that they were joking, that they meant to write 'in their opinion' or that they don't remember writing it. You might keep this in mind, it will only help you to write precisely what you mean.

Slander is spoken, not written, so that doesn't apply to me. Libel doesn't apply to me either since I didn't make any false statements. Also, explain to me how evidently', apparently' and seemingly imply fact.

Once again, my statement was based on his words and the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe that he is a bank employee. That's not a lie.

Again, you still don't know he's not an employee. You don't think he is. There's a big difference. Unless you are clairvoyant, you couldn't possibly know.

Once again, for it to be a lie I would have to know that my information was incorrect. We have his words on the matter and there is nothing to suggest that he works for the bank. You know that. And I'll go with my dictionary on the definition. Lying is a present participle of lie, which means: A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

While I don't know your information is incorrect, I do know that your statement is. Since you don't know for a fact that your statement is true, it is, in fact, incorrect. Your statement is a lie. You stated something as fact even though you don't know it to be true.

Which contradicts one of your quotes above, but whatever. Are you willing to drop this matter then if I withdraw the lying charge? That way you'll only have to prove your claim that I supposedly lied.

What quote contradicted my claim?

You claim that this is what I 'told' people on many occasions. Back it up.

You accused me of attributing untrue quotes to you. Back up that statement.
I've never claimed you said something that you haven't.

Actually, without compelling evidence to the contrary that person would be found innocent or get an acquittal.

Right, but simply stating that they didn't commit the crime doesn't warrant an acquittal. There has to be evidence to convict someone, just as there has to evidence to acquit someone.

If you want to go with the definitions in my dictionary, then yes, we can dispute your words. The thing is, you didn't claim that you were joking or that you meant in your opinion. You made a definitive statement. People get sued for libel and/or slander for using imprecise language like you did and they don't get to claim later on that they were joking, that they meant to write 'in their opinion' or that they don't remember writing it. You might keep this in mind, it will only help you to write precisely what you mean.

Slander is spoken, not written, so that doesn't apply to me. Libel doesn't apply to me either since I didn't make any false statements. Also, explain to me how evidently', apparently' and seemingly imply fact.

Once again, my statement was based on his words and the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe that he is a bank employee. That's not a lie.

Again, you still don't know he's not an employee. You don't think he is. There's a big difference. Unless you are clairvoyant, you couldn't possibly know.

Once again, for it to be a lie I would have to know that my information was incorrect. We have his words on the matter and there is nothing to suggest that he works for the bank. You know that. And I'll go with my dictionary on the definition. Lying is a present participle of lie, which means: A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

While I don't know your information is incorrect, I do know that your statement is. Since you don't know for a fact that your statement is true, it is, in fact, incorrect. Your statement is a lie. You stated something as fact even though you don't know it to be true.

Which contradicts one of your quotes above, but whatever. Are you willing to drop this matter then if I withdraw the lying charge? That way you'll only have to prove your claim that I supposedly lied.

What quote contradicted my claim?

You claim that this is what I 'told' people on many occasions. Back it up.

You accused me of attributing untrue quotes to you. Back up that statement.
I've never claimed you said something that you haven't.

Actually, without compelling evidence to the contrary that person would be found innocent or get an acquittal.

Right, but simply stating that they didn't commit the crime doesn't warrant an acquittal. There has to be evidence to convict someone, just as there has to evidence to acquit someone.

If you want to go with the definitions in my dictionary, then yes, we can dispute your words. The thing is, you didn't claim that you were joking or that you meant in your opinion. You made a definitive statement. People get sued for libel and/or slander for using imprecise language like you did and they don't get to claim later on that they were joking, that they meant to write 'in their opinion' or that they don't remember writing it. You might keep this in mind, it will only help you to write precisely what you mean.

Slander is spoken, not written, so that doesn't apply to me. Libel doesn't apply to me either since I didn't make any false statements. Also, explain to me how evidently', apparently' and seemingly imply fact.

Once again, my statement was based on his words and the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe that he is a bank employee. That's not a lie.

Again, you still don't know he's not an employee. You don't think he is. There's a big difference. Unless you are clairvoyant, you couldn't possibly know.

Once again, for it to be a lie I would have to know that my information was incorrect. We have his words on the matter and there is nothing to suggest that he works for the bank. You know that. And I'll go with my dictionary on the definition. Lying is a present participle of lie, which means: A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

While I don't know your information is incorrect, I do know that your statement is. Since you don't know for a fact that your statement is true, it is, in fact, incorrect. Your statement is a lie. You stated something as fact even though you don't know it to be true.

Which contradicts one of your quotes above, but whatever. Are you willing to drop this matter then if I withdraw the lying charge? That way you'll only have to prove your claim that I supposedly lied.

What quote contradicted my claim?

You claim that this is what I 'told' people on many occasions. Back it up.

You accused me of attributing untrue quotes to you. Back up that statement.
I've never claimed you said something that you haven't.

Actually, without compelling evidence to the contrary that person would be found innocent or get an acquittal.

Right, but simply stating that they didn't commit the crime doesn't warrant an acquittal. There has to be evidence to convict someone, just as there has to evidence to acquit someone.

If you want to go with the definitions in my dictionary, then yes, we can dispute your words. The thing is, you didn't claim that you were joking or that you meant in your opinion. You made a definitive statement. People get sued for libel and/or slander for using imprecise language like you did and they don't get to claim later on that they were joking, that they meant to write 'in their opinion' or that they don't remember writing it. You might keep this in mind, it will only help you to write precisely what you mean.

Slander is spoken, not written, so that doesn't apply to me. Libel doesn't apply to me either since I didn't make any false statements. Also, explain to me how evidently', apparently' and seemingly imply fact.

Once again, my statement was based on his words and the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe that he is a bank employee. That's not a lie.

Again, you still don't know he's not an employee. You don't think he is. There's a big difference. Unless you are clairvoyant, you couldn't possibly know.

Once again, for it to be a lie I would have to know that my information was incorrect. We have his words on the matter and there is nothing to suggest that he works for the bank. You know that. And I'll go with my dictionary on the definition. Lying is a present participle of lie, which means: A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

While I don't know your information is incorrect, I do know that your statement is. Since you don't know for a fact that your statement is true, it is, in fact, incorrect. Your statement is a lie. You stated something as fact even though you don't know it to be true.

Which contradicts one of your quotes above, but whatever. Are you willing to drop this matter then if I withdraw the lying charge? That way you'll only have to prove your claim that I supposedly lied.

What quote contradicted my claim?

You claim that this is what I 'told' people on many occasions. Back it up.

You accused me of attributing untrue quotes to you. Back up that statement.
I've never claimed you said something that you haven't.

Actually, without compelling evidence to the contrary that person would be found innocent or get an acquittal.

Right, but simply stating that they didn't commit the crime doesn't warrant an acquittal. There has to be evidence to convict someone, just as there has to evidence to acquit someone.

Chris wrote: "Looking at these words, what I said could mean either one. While beyond doubt" implies fact, evidently", apparently" and seemingly" do not. Do you dispute this?"

Response: If you want to go with the definitions in my dictionary, then yes, we can dispute your words. The thing is, you didn't claim that you were joking or that you meant in your opinion. You made a definitive statement. People get sued for libel and/or slander for using imprecise language like you did and they don't get to claim later on that they were joking, that they meant to write 'in their opinion' or that they don't remember writing it. You might keep this in mind, it will only help you to write precisely what you mean.

Chris wrote: "I said you CLAIMED it as fact not that it was a fact. When you state something as fact (i.e. I know") when you couldn't possibly know it to be true, that's called a lie. My statements didn't conflict with each other."

Response: Once again, my statement was based on his words and the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe that he is a bank employee. That's not a lie.


Chris wrote: "If you state something as fact (saying you KNOW" something to be true, which you did), but don't have any way of knowing that, that is a lie, like it or not. Again, just because he says something, doesn't make it true. Just because there is no evidence (in your eyes) to the contrary doesn't prove it as fact. That is a classic fallacy (Begging the Question", I believe). If you have a different definition of lying, I'd like to hear it."

Response: Once again, for it to be a lie I would have to know that my information was incorrect. We have his words on the matter and there is nothing to suggest that he works for the bank. You know that. And I'll go with my dictionary on the definition. Lying is a present participle of lie, which means: A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

All of the available evidence indicates that he is not a bank employee, therefore I did not lie.

Chris wrote: "The fact that you can't understand the meaning of what I write is not my problem."

Response: The fact that you write things that you don't "really" mean is your problem. Again, why not type precisiely what you mean? I can't think of a good reason for you not to do so. If you meant to write that he is a bank employee in your opinion, why not write that instead of writing that he is "clearly" a bank employee?

Chris wrote: "I already have. In an earlier post I stated that if you misunderstood what I meant, it may mean I didn't communicate myself well enough, but it certainly doesn't mean I'm lying, like you claim."

Response: Which contradicts one of your quotes above, but whatever. Are you willing to drop this matter then if I withdraw the lying charge? That way you'll only have to prove your claim that I supposedly lied.

Chris: "That's not a quote of yours, that's a quote of mine. You're reaching again."

Response: You claim that this is what I "told" people on many occasions. Back it up.

Chris wrote: "Your basis for knowing", as you say, that he's not an employee is that he stated that he's not. You can't possibly think that's enough evidence to come to that conclusion. We don't live in a world where saying you didn't commit a crime is enough evidence to get an acquittal."

Response: Actually, without compelling evidence to the contrary that person would be found innocent or get an acquittal.

that my interpretation of you accusing 'I am the Law' are the same as edgeman's. I certainly don't see where you put down any gray line.

And why is an employee's or whoever you assume to be an employee's statements biased yet yours - with a grudge - are not?

acutely, apparently, audibly, beyond doubt, certainly, conspicuously, decidedly, definitely, discernibly, distinctly, evidently, incontestably, incontrovertibly, indubitably, lucidly, manifestly, markedly, noticeably, obviously, openly, overtly, patently, penetratingly, perceptibly, plainly, positively, precisely, prominently, purely, recognizably, seemingly, sharply, sonorously, surely, translucently, transparently, undeniably, undoubtedly, unmistakably

Looking at these words, what I said could mean either one. While beyond doubt implies fact, evidently, apparently and seemingly do not. Do you dispute this?

Wait a second, first you write that my claim WAS a statement of fact and then in the same sentence you claim that I lied? Make up your mind!

I said you CLAIMED it as fact not that it was a fact. When you state something as fact (i.e. I know) when you couldn't possibly know it to be true, that's called a lie. My statements didn't conflict with each other.

My claim was based on 'I Am The Law's' own words and the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary. If you can prove that he is in fact a US Bank employee then I'll have no choice but to admit that I'm wrong but that hasn't happened. Sorry, I didn't lie.

If you state something as fact (saying you KNOW something to be true, which you did), but don't have any way of knowing that, that is a lie, like it or not. Again, just because he says something, doesn't make it true. Just because there is no evidence (in your eyes) to the contrary doesn't prove it as fact. That is a classic fallacy (Begging the Question, I believe). If you have a different definition of lying, I'd like to hear it.

Then why didn't you write what you really meant?

The fact that you can't understand the meaning of what I write is not my problem.

No, I based my conclusion on the definitions of the words that you CHOSE to write. If you meant something else, then why not admit that you used a poor choice of words?

I already have. In an earlier post I stated that if you misunderstood what I meant, it may mean I didn't communicate myself well enough, but it certainly doesn't mean I'm lying, like you claim.

'Ok, but you are saying that I attributed quotes to you that aren't true. Tell me which ones.'

I did. Here's one example since you seemed to have missed it:

'Besides, in many of the posts you just tell the person that they're wrong and move on.'

That's not a quote of yours, that's a quote of mine. You're reaching again.

No, you haven't. You're the one who claimed that you meant something other than what you ultimately wrote. And I've already explained how I know that he isn't a bank employee in this post.

Your basis for knowing, as you say, that he's not an employee is that he stated that he's not. You can't possibly think that's enough evidence to come to that conclusion. We don't live in a world where saying you didn't commit a crime is enough evidence to get an acquittal.

Chris wrote: "Clearly" doesn't imply fact. It implies that with the evidence available, there is a very strong indication that it's true."

Response: Have you looked at what you're writing? Run "clearly" through the search engine at thesaurus.com and you get the following words:

acutely, apparently, audibly, beyond doubt, certainly, conspicuously, decidedly, definitely, discernibly, distinctly, evidently, incontestably, incontrovertibly, indubitably, lucidly, manifestly, markedly, noticeably, obviously, openly, overtly, patently, penetratingly, perceptibly, plainly, positively, precisely, prominently, purely, recognizably, seemingly, sharply, sonorously, surely, translucently, transparently, undeniably, undoubtedly, unmistakably

And the definition: without any doubt

You most definitely were implying fact, like it or not.



Chris wrote: "However, when you claimed to KNOW I am the law" wasn't being paid to post on here, it was a statement of fact, and since you have no way of knowing if that's true or not, you lied."

Response: Wait a second, first you write that my claim WAS a statement of fact and then in the same sentence you claim that I lied? Make up your mind!

My claim was based on "I Am The Law's" own words and the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary. If you can prove that he is in fact a US Bank employee then I'll have no choice but to admit that I'm wrong but that hasn't happened. Sorry, I didn't lie.


Chris wrote: "Just because there was nothing to indicate that I was joking or my statement was an opinion, it doesn't mean they weren't. I meant what I meant."

Response: Then why didn't you write what you really meant?


Chris wrote: "I did mean it as an opinion. The fact that you claim to know my intent is impossible. Therefore, you just lied again."

Response: No, I based my conclusion on the definitions of the words that you CHOSE to write. If you meant something else, then why not admit that you used a poor choice of words?


"Ok, but you are saying that I attributed quotes to you that aren't true. Tell me which ones."

I did. Here's one example since you seemed to have missed it:

"Besides, in many of the posts you just tell the person that they're wrong and move on."

Show me a single example where I did that, let alone the "many" cases that you mentioned.


"I have several times. Claiming to know what my intent was when I speak is wrong. How you chose to interpret my words was wrong. Stating that you KNOW I am the law" isn't being paid to post on here is wrong."

Response: No, you haven't. You're the one who claimed that you meant something other than what you ultimately wrote. And I've already explained how I know that he isn't a bank employee in this post.

You wrote that he was clearly being paid to post here and you called him a USSB spotter. Then you claimed that you didn't do that and when the quotes were produced you claimed that you were joking and/or you didn't mean it. All I did was take your statements as you wrote them. There was nothing to indicate that you were joking or that you didn't mean it at the time that you wrote those posts. In fact, you didn't even try that efense until your quotes were presented to you (after you claimed that you didn't make them).

Clearly doesn't imply fact. It implies that with the evidence available, there is a very strong indication that it's true. However, when you claimed to KNOW I am the law wasn't being paid to post on here, it was a statement of fact, and since you have no way of knowing if that's true or not, you lied. Just because there was nothing to indicate that I was joking or my statement was an opinion, it doesn't mean they weren't. I meant what I meant.

You did in fact write that 'I Am The Law' was clearly being paid to post here and you didn't write that as an opinion or as a joke. I just don't understand why you would write things that you don't really mean.

I did mean it as an opinion. The fact that you claim to know my intent is impossible. Therefore, you just lied again.

You left part of my statement out. I wrote that you attributed attitudes and quotes to me that I did not make.

Ok, but you are saying that I attributed quotes to you that aren't true. Tell me which ones.

Prove me wrong and we'll see.

I have several times. Claiming to know what my intent was when I speak is wrong. How you chose to interpret my words was wrong. Stating that you KNOW I am the law isn't being paid to post on here is wrong.

Chris wrote: "Did you provide proof of this: 'I know that your statements about 'I Am The Law' being paid to post here or being a USB Spotter are false', or that you somehow 'knew' what I meant by my previous statements better than I did?"

Response: You wrote that he was clearly being paid to post here and you called him a USSB spotter. Then you claimed that you didn't do that and when the quotes were produced you claimed that you were joking and/or you didn't mean it.

All I did was take your statements as you wrote them. There was nothing to indicate that you were joking or that you didn't mean it at the time that you wrote those posts. In fact, you didn't even try that efense until your quotes were presented to you (after you claimed that you didn't make them).


Chris wrote: "Actually, the difference is I admitted that I was wrong after you corrected me about the meaning of your statement and you continued to profess that I was 'lying' even after I corrected you. Also, I never said that I didn't make the statements, so please stop saying that. I said I didn't CLAIM them because I wasn't stating them as fact. There's a big difference. What quotes did I attribute to you that you never stated?"

Response: You did in fact write that "I Am The Law" was clearly being paid to post here and you didn't write that as an opinion or as a joke. I just don't understand why you would write things that you don't really mean.


Chris wrote: "What quotes did I attribute to you that you never stated?"

Response: You left part of my statement out. I wrote that you attributed attitudes and quotes to me that I did not make. A couple of examples:

"Your opinion is that all these complaints are unwarranted and the bank is without fault in all cases."

"Besides, in many of the posts you just tell the person that they're wrong and move on."

Note that both of those statements by you are completely false. Are you going to claim that you didn't write them, that you were joking or that you didn't mean it?

Chris wrote: "Well you could have fooled me because you can't seem to admit when you're wrong."

Response: Prove me wrong and we'll see.

Chris wrote: "Did you provide proof of this: 'I know that your statements about 'I Am The Law' being paid to post here or being a USB Spotter are false', or that you somehow 'knew' what I meant by my previous statements better than I did?"

Response: You wrote that he was clearly being paid to post here and you called him a USSB spotter. Then you claimed that you didn't do that and when the quotes were produced you claimed that you were joking and/or you didn't mean it.

All I did was take your statements as you wrote them. There was nothing to indicate that you were joking or that you didn't mean it at the time that you wrote those posts. In fact, you didn't even try that efense until your quotes were presented to you (after you claimed that you didn't make them).


Chris wrote: "Actually, the difference is I admitted that I was wrong after you corrected me about the meaning of your statement and you continued to profess that I was 'lying' even after I corrected you. Also, I never said that I didn't make the statements, so please stop saying that. I said I didn't CLAIM them because I wasn't stating them as fact. There's a big difference. What quotes did I attribute to you that you never stated?"

Response: You did in fact write that "I Am The Law" was clearly being paid to post here and you didn't write that as an opinion or as a joke. I just don't understand why you would write things that you don't really mean.


Chris wrote: "What quotes did I attribute to you that you never stated?"

Response: You left part of my statement out. I wrote that you attributed attitudes and quotes to me that I did not make. A couple of examples:

"Your opinion is that all these complaints are unwarranted and the bank is without fault in all cases."

"Besides, in many of the posts you just tell the person that they're wrong and move on."

Note that both of those statements by you are completely false. Are you going to claim that you didn't write them, that you were joking or that you didn't mean it?

Chris wrote: "Well you could have fooled me because you can't seem to admit when you're wrong."

Response: Prove me wrong and we'll see.

Chris wrote: "Did you provide proof of this: 'I know that your statements about 'I Am The Law' being paid to post here or being a USB Spotter are false', or that you somehow 'knew' what I meant by my previous statements better than I did?"

Response: You wrote that he was clearly being paid to post here and you called him a USSB spotter. Then you claimed that you didn't do that and when the quotes were produced you claimed that you were joking and/or you didn't mean it.

All I did was take your statements as you wrote them. There was nothing to indicate that you were joking or that you didn't mean it at the time that you wrote those posts. In fact, you didn't even try that efense until your quotes were presented to you (after you claimed that you didn't make them).


Chris wrote: "Actually, the difference is I admitted that I was wrong after you corrected me about the meaning of your statement and you continued to profess that I was 'lying' even after I corrected you. Also, I never said that I didn't make the statements, so please stop saying that. I said I didn't CLAIM them because I wasn't stating them as fact. There's a big difference. What quotes did I attribute to you that you never stated?"

Response: You did in fact write that "I Am The Law" was clearly being paid to post here and you didn't write that as an opinion or as a joke. I just don't understand why you would write things that you don't really mean.


Chris wrote: "What quotes did I attribute to you that you never stated?"

Response: You left part of my statement out. I wrote that you attributed attitudes and quotes to me that I did not make. A couple of examples:

"Your opinion is that all these complaints are unwarranted and the bank is without fault in all cases."

"Besides, in many of the posts you just tell the person that they're wrong and move on."

Note that both of those statements by you are completely false. Are you going to claim that you didn't write them, that you were joking or that you didn't mean it?

Chris wrote: "Well you could have fooled me because you can't seem to admit when you're wrong."

Response: Prove me wrong and we'll see.

Chris wrote: "Did you provide proof of this: 'I know that your statements about 'I Am The Law' being paid to post here or being a USB Spotter are false', or that you somehow 'knew' what I meant by my previous statements better than I did?"

Response: You wrote that he was clearly being paid to post here and you called him a USSB spotter. Then you claimed that you didn't do that and when the quotes were produced you claimed that you were joking and/or you didn't mean it.

All I did was take your statements as you wrote them. There was nothing to indicate that you were joking or that you didn't mean it at the time that you wrote those posts. In fact, you didn't even try that efense until your quotes were presented to you (after you claimed that you didn't make them).


Chris wrote: "Actually, the difference is I admitted that I was wrong after you corrected me about the meaning of your statement and you continued to profess that I was 'lying' even after I corrected you. Also, I never said that I didn't make the statements, so please stop saying that. I said I didn't CLAIM them because I wasn't stating them as fact. There's a big difference. What quotes did I attribute to you that you never stated?"

Response: You did in fact write that "I Am The Law" was clearly being paid to post here and you didn't write that as an opinion or as a joke. I just don't understand why you would write things that you don't really mean.


Chris wrote: "What quotes did I attribute to you that you never stated?"

Response: You left part of my statement out. I wrote that you attributed attitudes and quotes to me that I did not make. A couple of examples:

"Your opinion is that all these complaints are unwarranted and the bank is without fault in all cases."

"Besides, in many of the posts you just tell the person that they're wrong and move on."

Note that both of those statements by you are completely false. Are you going to claim that you didn't write them, that you were joking or that you didn't mean it?

Chris wrote: "Well you could have fooled me because you can't seem to admit when you're wrong."

Response: Prove me wrong and we'll see.

" Oh, did you provide proof in that other thread?"

Did you provide proof of this: "I know that your statements about 'I Am The Law' being paid to post here or being a USB Spotter are false", or that you somehow "knew" what I meant by my previous statements better than I did?

"The difference is that you claimed that you never made such statements and when the quotes were reproduced, you then claimed that you were joking and/or you didn't mean it. What you did in my case was attribute attitudes and even quotes to me that I had never stated."

Actually, the difference is I admitted that I was wrong after you corrected me about the meaning of your statement and you continued to profess that I was "lying" even after I corrected you. Also, I never said that I didn't make the statements, so please stop saying that. I said I didn't CLAIM them because I wasn't stating them as fact. There's a big difference. What quotes did I attribute to you that you never stated?

"No, I do not."

Well you could have fooled me because you can't seem to admit when you're wrong.

Chris wrote:

"I already responded to this exact same comment from you in another thread, so you can go respond to it there."

Response: Oh, did you provide proof in that other thread?


Chris wrote:

"By the way, 'Edgeman', I can at least admit when I'm wrong (see an earlier post where I apologized for misunderstanding your meaning). Why can't you do the same? Instead of admitting that, you apparently (again, look this up in the dictionary before you accuse me of lying again) claimed to know what I meant by what I said and called me a liar. I could have easily done the same but I chose not to. Why? Because it would idiotic of me to think I KNEW what you meant better than you did."

Response: The difference is that you claimed that you never made such statements and when the quotes were reproduced, you then claimed that you were joking and/or you didn't mean it. What you did in my case was attribute attitudes and even quotes to me that I had never stated.


Chris wrote:

"Do you honestly think you're right 100% of the time? If so, you are in for a rude awakening."

Response: No, I do not.

By the way, "Edgeman", I can at least admit when I'm wrong (see an earlier post where I apologized for misunderstanding your meaning). Why can't you do the same? Instead of admitting that, you apparently (again, look this up in the dictionary before you accuse me of lying again) claimed to know what I meant by what I said and called me a liar. I could have easily done the same but I chose not to. Why? Because it would idiotic of me to think I KNEW what you meant better than you did. Do you honestly think you're right 100% of the time? If so, you are in for a rude awakening.

By the way, "Edgeman", I can at least admit when I'm wrong (see an earlier post where I apologized for misunderstanding your meaning). Why can't you do the same? Instead of admitting that, you apparently (again, look this up in the dictionary before you accuse me of lying again) claimed to know what I meant by what I said and called me a liar. I could have easily done the same but I chose not to. Why? Because it would idiotic of me to think I KNEW what you meant better than you did. Do you honestly think you're right 100% of the time? If so, you are in for a rude awakening.

By the way, "Edgeman", I can at least admit when I'm wrong (see an earlier post where I apologized for misunderstanding your meaning). Why can't you do the same? Instead of admitting that, you apparently (again, look this up in the dictionary before you accuse me of lying again) claimed to know what I meant by what I said and called me a liar. I could have easily done the same but I chose not to. Why? Because it would idiotic of me to think I KNEW what you meant better than you did. Do you honestly think you're right 100% of the time? If so, you are in for a rude awakening.

By the way, "Edgeman", I can at least admit when I'm wrong (see an earlier post where I apologized for misunderstanding your meaning). Why can't you do the same? Instead of admitting that, you apparently (again, look this up in the dictionary before you accuse me of lying again) claimed to know what I meant by what I said and called me a liar. I could have easily done the same but I chose not to. Why? Because it would idiotic of me to think I KNEW what you meant better than you did. Do you honestly think you're right 100% of the time? If so, you are in for a rude awakening.

"Really? Has anybody ever claimed that you are lying because US Bank is never at fault? I'd like to see that thread. Or are you going to claim that you didn't mean to write this or that you were joking?"

I already responded to this exact same comment from you in another thread, so you can go respond to it there.

"Easy. Because when I opened up my account eight overdraft fee free years ago, that's what the bank representative told me. Seems to make sense to make sure higher checks go through first seeing as they are typically more important."

Of course! As we all know, a US Bank representative would have no motivation to be dishonest. Problem solved! Do you how many times the bank representative flat out lied to my face? Answer: Many.

"Easy. Because when I opened up my account eight overdraft fee free years ago, that's what the bank representative told me. Seems to make sense to make sure higher checks go through first seeing as they are typically more important."

Of course! As we all know, a US Bank representative would have no motivation to be dishonest. Problem solved! Do you how many times the bank representative flat out lied to my face? Answer: Many.

"Easy. Because when I opened up my account eight overdraft fee free years ago, that's what the bank representative told me. Seems to make sense to make sure higher checks go through first seeing as they are typically more important."

Of course! As we all know, a US Bank representative would have no motivation to be dishonest. Problem solved! Do you how many times the bank representative flat out lied to my face? Answer: Many.

"Easy. Because when I opened up my account eight overdraft fee free years ago, that's what the bank representative told me. Seems to make sense to make sure higher checks go through first seeing as they are typically more important."

Of course! As we all know, a US Bank representative would have no motivation to be dishonest. Problem solved! Do you how many times the bank representative flat out lied to my face? Answer: Many.

Chris wrote:

"I also get accused of lying because US Bank is never at fault for any reason so I must be fabricating it."

Really? Has anybody ever claimed that you are lying because US Bank is never at fault? I'd like to see that thread. Or are you going to claim that you didn't mean to write this or that you were joking?

Chris asked, "Trust you? Why should I trust you? How would possibly know that's the reason they do this?"

Easy. Because when I opened up my account eight overdraft fee free years ago, that's what the bank representative told me. Seems to make sense to make sure higher checks go through first seeing as they are typically more important.

"The reason banks do this is actually to protect the customer. Think about it, which transaction would you rather have bounce? Your $900.00 mortgage payment or the $20 check you wrote to your kid for his birthday? It's not to optimize the amount of fees, trust me."

Trust you? Why should I trust you? How would possibly know that's the reason they do this?

Misanthropy, I couldn't agree with you more. I see you are getting attacked by the usual crowd of US Bank apologists. Don't worry, it happens to me all the time. I also get accused of lying because US Bank is never at fault for any reason so I must be fabricating it. If people have never had an issue with overdrafts, it's very easy to pass judgment on others. By the way, this "advice" is arrogant beyond belief, just like you said. More often than not they use insults and condescension to discredit any complaint made against this bank. They are in no way, shape or form trying to help anyone. It just gives them some strange pleasure to make people feel low for having these problems because it makes them feel more intelligent. I guess it makes them very proud to know that they don't have issues with the bank and other people do. Congratulations everyone! They are clearly elite and much more intelligent than us lowly mortals. Let me ask you this, Misanthropy, have you had this level of grief with other banks? I know I haven't. It must just be a coincidence though. I see the usual rigmarole; keep track of your money, posting debits from highest to lowest is for the customer's benefit, etc. The problem is that this advice is patently obvious (except for posting debits from highest to lowest being a benefit to the customer; that's just an outright lie). Who knew that the way to avoid overdraft fees was to not overdraft? Like I always say, I'm not complaining about having to pay fees when I make a mistake. I agreed to that when I signed up. I'm complaining because the bank is unethical and takes advantage of a simple mistake and runs with it, and in many cases, no mistake at all. They have posted debits to my account (past tense, because I obviously got out of that bank ASAP) that have been made AFTER a deposit clears as being made before the fact in order to milk more money from me. That to me is absurdly unethical. How exactly is someone supposed to keep an accurate check register when they operate that way? It's impossible. Obviously most of these people disagree with me, but I really don't care. Again, just because it has never happened to you, doesn't mean it's never happened to anyone.

Misanthropy, I couldn't agree with you more. I see you are getting attacked by the usual crowd of US Bank apologists. Don't worry, it happens to me all the time. I also get accused of lying because US Bank is never at fault for any reason so I must be fabricating it. If people have never had an issue with overdrafts, it's very easy to pass judgment on others. By the way, this "advice" is arrogant beyond belief, just like you said. More often than not they use insults and condescension to discredit any complaint made against this bank. They are in no way, shape or form trying to help anyone. It just gives them some strange pleasure to make people feel low for having these problems because it makes them feel more intelligent. I guess it makes them very proud to know that they don't have issues with the bank and other people do. Congratulations everyone! They are clearly elite and much more intelligent than us lowly mortals. Let me ask you this, Misanthropy, have you had this level of grief with other banks? I know I haven't. It must just be a coincidence though. I see the usual rigmarole; keep track of your money, posting debits from highest to lowest is for the customer's benefit, etc. The problem is that this advice is patently obvious (except for posting debits from highest to lowest being a benefit to the customer; that's just an outright lie). Who knew that the way to avoid overdraft fees was to not overdraft? Like I always say, I'm not complaining about having to pay fees when I make a mistake. I agreed to that when I signed up. I'm complaining because the bank is unethical and takes advantage of a simple mistake and runs with it, and in many cases, no mistake at all. They have posted debits to my account (past tense, because I obviously got out of that bank ASAP) that have been made AFTER a deposit clears as being made before the fact in order to milk more money from me. That to me is absurdly unethical. How exactly is someone supposed to keep an accurate check register when they operate that way? It's impossible. Obviously most of these people disagree with me, but I really don't care. Again, just because it has never happened to you, doesn't mean it's never happened to anyone.

Misanthropy, I couldn't agree with you more. I see you are getting attacked by the usual crowd of US Bank apologists. Don't worry, it happens to me all the time. I also get accused of lying because US Bank is never at fault for any reason so I must be fabricating it. If people have never had an issue with overdrafts, it's very easy to pass judgment on others. By the way, this "advice" is arrogant beyond belief, just like you said. More often than not they use insults and condescension to discredit any complaint made against this bank. They are in no way, shape or form trying to help anyone. It just gives them some strange pleasure to make people feel low for having these problems because it makes them feel more intelligent. I guess it makes them very proud to know that they don't have issues with the bank and other people do. Congratulations everyone! They are clearly elite and much more intelligent than us lowly mortals. Let me ask you this, Misanthropy, have you had this level of grief with other banks? I know I haven't. It must just be a coincidence though. I see the usual rigmarole; keep track of your money, posting debits from highest to lowest is for the customer's benefit, etc. The problem is that this advice is patently obvious (except for posting debits from highest to lowest being a benefit to the customer; that's just an outright lie). Who knew that the way to avoid overdraft fees was to not overdraft? Like I always say, I'm not complaining about having to pay fees when I make a mistake. I agreed to that when I signed up. I'm complaining because the bank is unethical and takes advantage of a simple mistake and runs with it, and in many cases, no mistake at all. They have posted debits to my account (past tense, because I obviously got out of that bank ASAP) that have been made AFTER a deposit clears as being made before the fact in order to milk more money from me. That to me is absurdly unethical. How exactly is someone supposed to keep an accurate check register when they operate that way? It's impossible. Obviously most of these people disagree with me, but I really don't care. Again, just because it has never happened to you, doesn't mean it's never happened to anyone.

There are many unbelievably ignorant people who either cannot properly handle their money, or believe somehow that they can dictate terms to their bank. If you want to have an account at any bank, you have to play by their rules. What is fair is in the eyes of the bank, not in the account holder's eye. The bank does all of the account administration for you and if you don't like what it is they're doing, you can go somewhere else.

In the end, the courts have ruled in favor of the banks and Congress tends to agree with the courts in this manner. My suggestion would be to learn better ways of managing your account and your cash. It is your money, not the bank's money, and by not keeping a register, using a debit card when living paycheck to paycheck, and otherwise not exercising due care on your money, and not complying with the account agreement you signed with the bank, whose fault is it for letting the bank take your money? Banks don't overdraw accounts - people do. Living with that consequence is something people need to do.

The responses to this post are based on experience. If you've never had an OD fee, they seem fair. If you have had one (or more), whether it's your fault or not, the fees seem ridiculous. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is an opinion board so, no one is right, no one is wrong. Personally, I've nevered overdrafted, but that's just my two cents.

For your enlightenment, a check that is large enough to cause the account balance to go into the negative is large enough to be returned unpaid. The bank is not obligated to honor checks or automatic debits that put your balance into the negative. But by often doing so they are actually helping you avoid fees. If the check is returned unpaid you will still have the fee at the bank but you will also get a fee from the store you gave the check to. Also if that check was for rent, your landlord may require future payments in money orders or cashier's checks to ensure the payment.

When reading these reports you commonly hear the complaint about banks not posting the items in the order they came in. Here's the real deal: when merchants clear their debit items they go through a clearing house which sorts them out by bank and prepares one big file for each bank. Once a day they transmit the file to the bank. (the process is parallel for paper checks) So, the reality of the situation is that they all arrive AT THE SAME TIME. There is no correlation between when you swipe your card, and when it will hit the bank, except that all items that will hit on any given day, will hit the bank together.

Programatically, the bank has to sort the items into some order in order to post them to the account. Sort choices are low to high, or high to low. Each financial institution chooses a method, and they have to disclose the method when you open the account. That is their sole obligation in this matter. As the consumer, you are obliged to be aware of how items post, and to ensure that you can cover the items you are creating.

The financial institution gets to set the rules. When you choose to open an account with any given FI, you are agreeing to THEIR rules. There is a vast array of choices in financial institutions, so you can choose one that has rules that you can live with. In any case, once you choose, if you fail to follow the rules the FI is going to exercise its right to slam you over and over with fees.

The choice of whether you pay fees or not is really up to you.

Misanthropy is right and the bank apologists are wrong. The largest to smallest posting does not protect you. It is there so banks can make money off of its poorest customers through highly regressive overdraft fees. If I had $100 in the bank, a check for $103, several debit card charges for $11, $4, $21, all of the smaller charges ought to clear, leaving your account with $64, and your $103 check would come in and leave you with a negative balance plus ONE $35 NSF fee, instead of a much larger negative balance with THREE more $35 fees added to it. This is a reasonable policy, to clear what can be cleared first, and then add a fee to the item or two that pushes you negative.

Pushing through the largest item ONLY makes sense IF the item would be large enough to actually be returned. But in most cases, the item is not large enough to be returned - it would only give you a negative balance. The largest to smallest processing order makes the negative balance greater.

Another way US Bank rips off customers is denying low-interest overdraft protection to customers with mediocre to poor credit, and only making 120% APR "cash advance" payday loans available instead.

It's pretty ironic if you ask me, that taxpayers are paying for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry, yet the banks that get the liquidity injection can't even put in fair practices for customers. They would be SCREAMING if they were loaned money by the government or other institutions at a 120% rate, or if they were given the penalties for their errors that ordinary low-income customers get.

Jim gives very good advice. I do not have the time to respond to every NSF complaint on this board. In 99.9999% of the instances, it is the consumer who could have avoided any and all NSF charges. Keep an up-to-date check register, balance it every month against bank statement and never spend more than you have. If you are about to make a transaction that will put your account in the negative, then you should expect to pay an overdraft fee.

With the new check clearing regulations, you should also understand that a paper check you write can clear the same day it is written. The days of the 2 to 5 day float time are gone (unless mailing of course, but will likely clear the day it is received at destination).

If you are a debit card user, then go to your bank and have them set up your account to decline any transaction that will cause you to go negative. But remember, be prepared to get that "declined" notice from the cashier if you do not keep records of your transactions. And, if you get that "declined" notice for something like a gasoline purchase, you had better be prepared to use some other form of payment or face even more severe penalties than just an NSF charge.

This user's remarks are in quotation marks. My replies are underneath.

"It comes off as arrogant to me, do you assume that we are irresponsible people?"

I can only go by what information is presented in the report. If somebody was overdrawn through no fault of their own (say the bank processes a transaction twice), then no, I don't see them as irresponsible in that situation.

If someone wrote that they checked their balance online one day, went on a spending spree and their rent check went through at the same time and they now have seven overdraft fees, I'd consider that irresponsible. I take it on a case by case basis.


"I'm quite intelligent, but I'm young and I don't make a lot of money, I'm still learning how to save properly and I screw up sometimes."

Even people who don't make a lot of money can stay within their account balance. It just takes a little time managing your account.

Which brings us to human error. Yes, account owners can and do make mistakes. However, that does not mean the bank is at fault or ripping off the account owner.


"The people who are hardest hurt by these banking practices are the people who can least afford it."

All the more reason for them to carefully record their transactions and keep an accurate ledger.


"there is obviously a problem. Whether that be in a lack of education, communication or whatever."

Yes, paying unnecessary fees to the bank is a problem. Some of us are trying to tell these people how to avoid this problem in the future.


"If the punishment for stealing apples is to have your head cut off, and I complain that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, I think its hardly a rebuttal to tell me that I shouldn't steal apples and It wont be a problem"

An innaccurate comparison, but okay. People who open a bank account agree to the terms and conditions when they open their account. If they feel the potential fees are to high, they do not have to open the account. They also have the option to not authorize transactions that they don't have the money for.


"A lot of these practices are confusing to people, and even when fully understood some folks screw up. "

Then these people should learn their bank's policies and how it affects their transactions. If they make a mistake, they should learn from it. Claiming they were ripped off does not solve the problem.


"Should I get a 40$ charge for a .88 cent overdraft when Ive been bringing my paycheck in like clockwork every two weeks for years?"

Did you agree to that fee when you opened your account or continued to use it after an update to the terms?


"I find that comment insulting, baseless and extremely obtuse."

It does happen to be good advice. You may not like it, but the ugly truth is that the account owners are responsible for their accounts. If someone is being charged overdraft fees, they need to learn how it's happening and why. I'm not an accountant. I'm not even great at math. However, I do know not to spend money that isn't in my account.


"If I were standing next to you, based upon what you said, and one of us was really rather ignorant; I'd be inclined to think that the guilty party was not myself, regardless of your ability to balance a checkbook."

A very odd statement.

I sort of chucked at your conclusion. The truth of the matter is this:

1. People screw themselves out of their own money. Why? Because they don't know how to manage their money. That's the bottom line. For example, there are countless people using spending instruments like debit cards without the faintest knowledge of the consequences associated with their use. That's not the bank's problem - that's the consumer's problem.

2. We have fool after fool coming here complaining about something like this OP does about posting order - as if this is some SECRET? Friend, this is part of the account agreement every bank has and the customer signs the agreement with some level of giddyness - and then in some sort of ridiculous outrage complains about something - they agreed to? LOL indeed. The truth is this: if you have enough money in your account - it really doesn't matter what the posting order truly is. This person really had no idea what was in their account and this person overdrew their account.

3. Let me give you a little secret: The secret to good banking is don't overdraft your account. It really is that simple and if you think it's insulting to say it - consider this: It is something a child understands, but adults don't get. It takes the education of a child to keep a check register, yet here we are with the OP who clearly doesn't get it. The OP relies on an online statement and thinks that's the balance in the account. It isn't and sometimes - it isn't close. The balance in the account can be found...ta da...in the check register.

4. The penalty for an overdraft seems quite reasonable no matter the amount of the overdraft. You illogically try to assign as unreasonable a flat $35 NSF fee for a $0.88 overdraft. In this case, as in all similar NSF cases, the $35 fee serves as a deterrent for bad behavior and the account holder generally learns after one - not to do it again. The problem is when you have idiots coming here complaining that they've incurred hundreds - sometimes thousands - in NSF fees. This is akin to getting an electric shock eveytime bad behavior is practiced and these people don't get it. It really is that simple. It is insulting to believe it to be anything else but simple.


There are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people that are horrible with their money. The conclusion isn't that there's a problem with the banks. It's a problem with the comsumer and it has been for a long time. This is something I've not only known and seen for years, it's something the courts have determined as well, as they've sided with the bank, time after time after time. It is not the bank that is the problem in 99+% of the cases; it is the consumer. The only time I would ever defend the consumer in such a situation would be if a merchant pushed through a fraudulent transaction causing an OD. In that case, it still isn't the bank's fault since the bank has been presented with what appears to be a valid transaction and the recourse for the consumer is not the bank, but the merchant. Please don't defend the indefensible consumer. This OP doesn't get it, as evidenced by their own post thinking he/she has the goods on the bank. LOL.

I see a lot of posts responding to these complaints full of people who cant seem to understand why folks are having a hard time with this. It comes off as arrogant to me, do you assume that we are irresponsible people? I'm quite intelligent, but I'm young and I don't make a lot of money, I'm still learning how to save properly and I screw up sometimes. Maybe YOU are comfortable enough not to completely drain your account trying to pay bills, or maybe YOU can afford to wait for confirmation of a deposit before the bills need to be paid, but I usually cant. The people who are hardest hurt by these banking practices are the people who can least afford it. I think that seems pretty intuitive, but you seem confident that you are right, and since you clearly don't have any issues with overdrafts, you MUST be a more responsible, intelligent person right? That being the case, I'm sure that you are willing to concede that since these kinds of issues are affecting people all the time, that right, wrong or indifferent, there is obviously a problem. Whether that be in a lack of education, communication or whatever.

If the punishment for stealing apples is to have your head cut off, and I complain that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, I think its hardly a rebuttal to tell me that I shouldn't steal apples and It wont be a problem. That wasn't the point was it? In addition, I don't WANT to steal apples, but sometimes I cant help it and I make a mistake. The point is, if I can get away from apples for a minute..... A lot of these practices are confusing to people, and even when fully understood some folks screw up. The question is, especially considering a track record of paying for my misdeeds ASAP.... Should I get a 40$ charge for a .88 cent overdraft when Ive been bringing my paycheck in like clockwork every two weeks for years? Should I have to abase myself before rude customer service people and humbly request a reversal while being informed I have no right to it and wouldn't get it but for the goodwill of the CSR?

It must get lonely sitting up there on your tower stating blatantly obvious solutions to people who cannot make them work. Huzzah to you!

THERE IT IS FOLKS! THE SOLUTION TO ALL YOUR BANKING WOES! IF YOU THINK BANKS ARE SCALPING PEOPLE FOR THEIR OWN GREEDY ENDS, AND YOU KEEP GETTING SCREWED OUT OF YOUR MONEY AND YOU CANT FIGURE OUT WHY OR HOW ITS HAPPENING........... DON'T OVERDRAFT! I bet everyone who reads this will be sorry they didn't get your sage advice before now.

*This goes beyond third grade math, on a number of levels I don't think should need explaining. I find that comment insulting, baseless and extremely obtuse. If I were standing next to you, based upon what you said, and one of us was really rather ignorant; I'd be inclined to think that the guilty party was not myself, regardless of your ability to balance a checkbook.

Don't overdraft your account!!

Then the posting order becomes irrelevent, right?

Keep an accurate checkbook register.
After all, it's just 3rd grade math!

Just wanted to elaborate on my previous post. If you're short that month (or pay period or whatever), the big debits SHOULD be taken first as they are typically more important. Again, which would you rather have bounce, your mortgage payment or the $20 check to your child for his birthday? If you're short funds, you're going to get an overdraft obviously, but I'd rather have that then a returned check fee from the bank AND one from the creditor that I wrote the check to. USB is correct, they are doing you a favor.

The reason banks do this is actually to protect the customer. Think about it, which transaction would you rather have bounce? Your $900.00 mortgage payment or the $20 check you wrote to your kid for his birthday? It's not to optimize the amount of fees, trust me.

The Federal Reserve has lots of documentation where the banks were given permission to do this a very long time ago. It's legal.

Now they do have a rule change pending that would prohibit an NSF fee for a charge that never settles, or is for when a hold causes an overdraft, but the final settlement would have cleared the account at the time of the hold.

But for items returned? The credit card network doesn't submit returns the same way. Returns are batched only. So you swipe your card for the original purchase, a hold will be generated. Go straight to the return desk, and your purchase won't be backed out until the transaction settles. It's the way the credit card network works, and isn't caused by the bank.

Every bank that I can think of off the top of my head processes transactions from largest to smallest. It's not a ripoff.

Think about it, if you had enough available funds to cover your checks and transactions, then it wouldn't matter in which order the transactions are processed. It only becomes an "issue" when people overdraft their accounts.

I have solution for NSF fees. Don't let your balance get that low. I have had a checking account for about 18 years. I have never had a NSF fee.