US Bank Excessive Fees Highland Heights Kentucky

And you completely sidestepped my point. Being biased doesn't necessarily mean that you're less credible. A couple of examples.

I have submitted a number of comments in reports regarding Broadway Photo. I am familiar with their business model and when I see their name in the listings, my bias is that they are indeed attempting to rip off the customer. When I describe their tactics, my bias by itself does not make my post more or less credible. (Off topic, since I have never been a customer of Broadway Photo, am I being misleading when I post a consumer comment?) My posts regarding Broadway Photo are not based on personal experience, only my own research.

By the same token, when I see reports regarding scams that use Western Union or Moneygram, my bias is that there is a genuine scam at work. This bias does not make my posts less credible.

And by the way, I used to work for Electronic Data Systems and they were also very good to me. There is a report about them here and I haven't jumped in to defend the company, even though I have a personal reason to defend them.

Since you have never been a customer of that company, you have only read other's complaints, your statement is not credible. If you have experienced one of these Western Union scams, then you would have inside information regarding that and your opinion would be valuable to people that have the potential to fall for those scams. That may make you biased, but it also makes you credible. Bias is not always necessarily a bad thing. Defending a company based solely on the fact that you used to work there is a bias without credibility. I only mentioned L-3 Communications as an example. I didn't bother to look up any complaints about them because I don't care. Even if I did, just because my experience was favorable, it doesn't mean everyone's is. That's just common sense.

I have no idea if the bank was good to him or not. Here's the thing. If someone complains that the online banking system didn't give them the correct balance and he posts about the importance of keeping an accurate check register, his former employment or his potential bias does not make that information about the check register more or less credible. The information would be just as true if he had never worked at US Bank.

The bank had to have been good to him or he wouldn't defend them. If a company treated me like crap, I certainly wouldn't defend them. Many of the complaints on here are not valid, I agree with that, and I have never disagreed with that, but many are and he chooses to defend them anyway. Every complaint I've ever made against this bank has been valid. I have never blamed the bank when it has been my fault.

That's the theory, anyways. It doesn't protect people who make untrue, libelous or slanderous comments, it doesn't allow people to make bomb threats, it doesn't allow people to drop their pants and expose themselves to families on Main Street. In short, the First Amendment means that Congress can't stop you from making statements. It won't protect you from the potential legal consequences if you happen to make a statement that isn't true.

Correct, but this is not a lawsuit or anything, it is just an opinionated website. The First Amendment protects me because I have never stated anything as fact unless I knew it to be true. There's a difference between making statements that are negative against a company and endangering peoples' lives (your bomb threat analogy), not to mention the fact that making bomb threats and exposing yourself in public are both crimes. Posting on an internet site is not.

It does matter what type of interest you think overdraft fees are. If they are truly interest, then customers need to know what kind of interest it is and what kind of rate they have.

It's clearly a fixed rate as it never changes. I realize it's not a percentage but it still falls under the definition of interest.

You should check out a recent thread regarding T-Mobile. The author stated a belief that the two Roberts (From Irvine and Buffalo) are not only paid by the assorted banks, but are also being paid by at least one cellular phone company to post here.

That's not my problem. He can believe whatever he wants. It is illogical to think they are being paid by a multitude of companies to post on here.

Okay, fair enough but posting as a 'consumer' is just as accurate as posting as an 'ex-employee'.

Correct, but don't you think it's fair for the reader to be aware of both statuses, since both are accurate?

But the overzealous people consistently post whacked out beliefs as fact. How are we to tell if you are posting as fact without some kind of indication?

Because some common sense shows that I'm not. I'm not an overzealous crazy person that says things are there that aren't.

It's a layman's definition that provides the basics but does not go into detail about what interest actually is. If overdraft fees were truly interest, then they would have to be either simple rate or compounded. What else would it be? They would have to be either a fixed or floating rate, otherwise how could the interest be calculated?

According to the definition, interest qualifies. The definition doesn't say it has to be simple or compound, fixed or floating. There are obviously different types of interest or the definition would have mentioned that requirement.

Of course it counts. He's the only person on this site who can authoritatively post on the matter.

It's meaningless because anyone can lie at will. There's no indication that we should take his statement at face value.

Since you bring it up, this standard of yours seems to be applied somewhat inconsistently. You claim that you won't take anyone's statement at face value, but aren't you doing exactly that in other threads? There is a recent US Bank thread where you clearly take the side of the author. Aren't you taking that person's statement at face value?

Yes, but what is there incentive to lie about their experiences? It takes time and effort to make a post on there. Why bother making things up for no reason? If I am the law is an ex-employee, he has incentive.

I may respond if Chris posts something that should be addressed but barring that, he gets the last word.

Fair enough.

Chris wrote: "The difference is what my bias is based on. His bias is based on the fact that he worked there. I used to work for L-3 Communications and they were really good to me, so if someone attacked them I would naturally get defensive. I have a personal reason to defend them. That would make me biased. My bias toward US Bank is based on actual things that happened to me. In other words, it's based on facts."

Response: And you completely sidestepped my point. Being biased doesn't necessarily mean that you're less credible. A couple of examples.

I have submitted a number of comments in reports regarding Broadway Photo. I am familiar with their business model and when I see their name in the listings, my bias is that they are indeed attempting to rip off the customer. When I describe their tactics, my bias by itself does not make my post more or less credible. (Off topic, since I have never been a customer of Broadway Photo, am I being misleading when I post a consumer comment?) My posts regarding Broadway Photo are not based on personal experience, only my own research.

By the same token, when I see reports regarding scams that use Western Union or Moneygram, my bias is that there is a genuine scam at work. This bias does not make my posts less credible.

And by the way, I used to work for Electronic Data Systems and they were also very good to me. There is a report about them here and I haven't jumped in to defend the company, even though I have a personal reason to defend them.



Chris wrote: "Yes it does. If he worked for the bank and they were good to him, he is naturally going to defend them if someone attacks them. That is bias and hurts his credibility."

Response: I have no idea if the bank was good to him or not. Here's the thing. If someone complains that the online banking system didn't give them the correct balance and he posts about the importance of keeping an accurate check register, his former employment or his potential bias does not make that information about the check register more or less credible. The information would be just as true if he had never worked at US Bank.


Chris wrote: "Are you forgetting the first amendment?"

Response: The First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's the theory, anyways. It doesn't protect people who make untrue, libelous or slanderous comments, it doesn't allow people to make bomb threats, it doesn't allow people to drop their pants and expose themselves to families on Main Street. In short, the First Amendment means that Congress can't stop you from making statements. It won't protect you from the potential legal consequences if you happen to make a statement that isn't true.


Chris wrote: "It doesn't matter what kind it is. Interest is defined as money charged for use of another person or entity's money. An overdraft fee qualifies as it is money you are charged to use the bank's money."

Response: It does matter what type of interest you think overdraft fees are. If they are truly interest, then customers need to know what kind of interest it is and what kind of rate they have.


Chris wrote: "While I still do think it happens, I already stated, based on your assertion that I am the law" posts similarly on many other companies, I no longer think he is a current employee as that would be illogical to think he works for all those companies simultaneously."

Response: You should check out a recent thread regarding T-Mobile. The author stated a belief that the two Roberts (From Irvine and Buffalo) are not only paid by the assorted banks, but are also being paid by at least one cellular phone company to post here.


Chris wrote: "When he gives actual advice, it's not relevant. When he insults the customer because of their complaint or tries to debunk them even when the bank is clearly at fault, it's clearly relevant."

Response: Okay, fair enough but posting as a "consumer" is just as accurate as posting as an "ex-employee".


Chris wrote: "Because there's no way I can know those things. I don't know this person and I don't know anyone's thoughts on here so it's obvious that I'm not making factual claims."

Response: But the overzealous people consistently post whacked out beliefs as fact. How are we to tell if you are posting as fact without some kind of indication?


Chris wrote: "Interest: a sum paid or charged for the use of money or for borrowing money." I don't see anywhere in that definition that those things are required. You may think that's a 'simplistic' definition, but it's still the definition."

Response: It's a layman's definition that provides the basics but does not go into detail about what interest actually is. If overdraft fees were truly interest, then they would have to be either simple rate or compounded. What else would it be? They would have to be either a fixed or floating rate, otherwise how could the interest be calculated?


Chris wrote: "His statement doesn't count. It's meaningless."

Response: Of course it counts. He's the only person on this site who can authoritatively post on the matter.


Chris wrote: "
That's your opinion. I'm a little more cynical than you. I won't take anyone's statement (a stranger at least) at face value. I just think that's nave."

Response: Since you bring it up, this standard of yours seems to be applied somewhat inconsistently. You claim that you won't take anyone's statement at face value, but aren't you doing exactly that in other threads? There is a recent US Bank thread where you clearly take the side of the author. Aren't you taking that person's statement at face value?

By the way, I think that I'm done with this thread. Since a number of the key arguments have been dropped, there doesn't seem to be a reason to continue. The only substantial one remaining is whether or not overdraft fees are truly interest and Chris doesn't appear to be interested in explaining whether or not they are an example of simple or compounded interest, what type of rate they use and how they are impacted by inflation.

I may respond if Chris posts something that should be addressed but barring that, he gets the last word.

Bias and credibility are not exclusive from each other. One can be biased and still offer credible information. Look at it this way Does your bias against US Bank make you less credible?

The difference is what my bias is based on. His bias is based on the fact that he worked there. I used to work for L-3 Communications and they were really good to me, so if someone attacked them I would naturally get defensive. I have a personal reason to defend them. That would make me biased. My bias toward US Bank is based on actual things that happened to me. In other words, it's based on facts.

You wrote that you believe him to be a bank employee, so yes, you do have an opinion. And being a bank employee or an ex-employee does not make one less credible.

Yes it does. If he worked for the bank and they were good to him, he is naturally going to defend them if someone attacks them. That is bias and hurts his credibility.

Yes, but be careful how you express it.

Are you forgetting the first amendment?

How so? Do overdraft fees take the form of simple or compounded interest? Are overdraft fees an example of a fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?

It doesn't matter what kind it is. Interest is defined as money charged for use of another person or entity's money. An overdraft fee qualifies as it is money you are charged to use the bank's money.

Your logic supports my point. If so many people are unaware of this site, then why bother wasting money to pay people for posting here and defending banks and other companies in reports that the vast majority of people wouldn't read? Remember, the vast majority of account holders in this country do not pay overdraft fees.

While I still do think it happens, I already stated, based on your assertion that I am the law posts similarly on many other companies, I no longer think he is a current employee as that would be illogical to think he works for all those companies simultaneously.

How many reports do you think are relevant to his status? If someone were to post here about how they used online banking to check their account balance and spent more money than they had, what real difference does it make whether he posts as an ex-employee or as a consumer? Either one would be accurate but there isn't a substantive difference to the author of the report. Have you ever heard the phrase about making mountains out of molehills?

When he gives actual advice, it's not relevant. When he insults the customer because of their complaint or tries to debunk them even when the bank is clearly at fault, it's clearly relevant.

How exactly are statements such as clearly being paid to post here" you think that the bank is always right" clearly jokes? How does not seeing that as a joke make the observer something other than sane"?

Because there's no way I can know those things. I don't know this person and I don't know anyone's thoughts on here so it's obvious that I'm not making factual claims.

Actually, it is a requirement. If you are paying interest on an asset, then the rate must be either fixed or floating. The interest itself must be either simple or compounded. And how many times in our history has interest not been impacted by inflation?

Interest: a sum paid or charged for the use of money or for borrowing money. I don't see anywhere in that definition that those things are required. You may think that's a "simplistic" definition, but it's still the definition.

Your evidence (as you put it) is the fact that he currently posts as a consumer and the fact that he can be insulting. Do you feel that this is substantial evidence?

If what you're saying is true, that he behaves the same way regarding multiple companies, I no longer think he works for the bank so I guess I was wrong.

My mood is irrelevant. I have no emotional investment in his employment status. The question is Are you happy?

Well, I don't think anyone likes to admit they're wrong.

But my statement isn't merely based on the lack of contrary evidence.

His statement doesn't count. It's meaningless.

In regards to his employment, he is the most credible source on this site.

That's your opinion. I'm a little more cynical than you. I won't take anyone's statement (a stranger at least) at face value. I just think that's nave.

Bias and credibility are not exclusive from each other. One can be biased and still offer credible information. Look at it this way Does your bias against US Bank make you less credible?

The difference is what my bias is based on. His bias is based on the fact that he worked there. I used to work for L-3 Communications and they were really good to me, so if someone attacked them I would naturally get defensive. I have a personal reason to defend them. That would make me biased. My bias toward US Bank is based on actual things that happened to me. In other words, it's based on facts.

You wrote that you believe him to be a bank employee, so yes, you do have an opinion. And being a bank employee or an ex-employee does not make one less credible.

Yes it does. If he worked for the bank and they were good to him, he is naturally going to defend them if someone attacks them. That is bias and hurts his credibility.

Yes, but be careful how you express it.

Are you forgetting the first amendment?

How so? Do overdraft fees take the form of simple or compounded interest? Are overdraft fees an example of a fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?

It doesn't matter what kind it is. Interest is defined as money charged for use of another person or entity's money. An overdraft fee qualifies as it is money you are charged to use the bank's money.

Your logic supports my point. If so many people are unaware of this site, then why bother wasting money to pay people for posting here and defending banks and other companies in reports that the vast majority of people wouldn't read? Remember, the vast majority of account holders in this country do not pay overdraft fees.

While I still do think it happens, I already stated, based on your assertion that I am the law posts similarly on many other companies, I no longer think he is a current employee as that would be illogical to think he works for all those companies simultaneously.

How many reports do you think are relevant to his status? If someone were to post here about how they used online banking to check their account balance and spent more money than they had, what real difference does it make whether he posts as an ex-employee or as a consumer? Either one would be accurate but there isn't a substantive difference to the author of the report. Have you ever heard the phrase about making mountains out of molehills?

When he gives actual advice, it's not relevant. When he insults the customer because of their complaint or tries to debunk them even when the bank is clearly at fault, it's clearly relevant.

How exactly are statements such as clearly being paid to post here" you think that the bank is always right" clearly jokes? How does not seeing that as a joke make the observer something other than sane"?

Because there's no way I can know those things. I don't know this person and I don't know anyone's thoughts on here so it's obvious that I'm not making factual claims.

Actually, it is a requirement. If you are paying interest on an asset, then the rate must be either fixed or floating. The interest itself must be either simple or compounded. And how many times in our history has interest not been impacted by inflation?

Interest: a sum paid or charged for the use of money or for borrowing money. I don't see anywhere in that definition that those things are required. You may think that's a "simplistic" definition, but it's still the definition.

Your evidence (as you put it) is the fact that he currently posts as a consumer and the fact that he can be insulting. Do you feel that this is substantial evidence?

If what you're saying is true, that he behaves the same way regarding multiple companies, I no longer think he works for the bank so I guess I was wrong.

My mood is irrelevant. I have no emotional investment in his employment status. The question is Are you happy?

Well, I don't think anyone likes to admit they're wrong.

But my statement isn't merely based on the lack of contrary evidence.

His statement doesn't count. It's meaningless.

In regards to his employment, he is the most credible source on this site.

That's your opinion. I'm a little more cynical than you. I won't take anyone's statement (a stranger at least) at face value. I just think that's nave.

Bias and credibility are not exclusive from each other. One can be biased and still offer credible information. Look at it this way Does your bias against US Bank make you less credible?

The difference is what my bias is based on. His bias is based on the fact that he worked there. I used to work for L-3 Communications and they were really good to me, so if someone attacked them I would naturally get defensive. I have a personal reason to defend them. That would make me biased. My bias toward US Bank is based on actual things that happened to me. In other words, it's based on facts.

You wrote that you believe him to be a bank employee, so yes, you do have an opinion. And being a bank employee or an ex-employee does not make one less credible.

Yes it does. If he worked for the bank and they were good to him, he is naturally going to defend them if someone attacks them. That is bias and hurts his credibility.

Yes, but be careful how you express it.

Are you forgetting the first amendment?

How so? Do overdraft fees take the form of simple or compounded interest? Are overdraft fees an example of a fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?

It doesn't matter what kind it is. Interest is defined as money charged for use of another person or entity's money. An overdraft fee qualifies as it is money you are charged to use the bank's money.

Your logic supports my point. If so many people are unaware of this site, then why bother wasting money to pay people for posting here and defending banks and other companies in reports that the vast majority of people wouldn't read? Remember, the vast majority of account holders in this country do not pay overdraft fees.

While I still do think it happens, I already stated, based on your assertion that I am the law posts similarly on many other companies, I no longer think he is a current employee as that would be illogical to think he works for all those companies simultaneously.

How many reports do you think are relevant to his status? If someone were to post here about how they used online banking to check their account balance and spent more money than they had, what real difference does it make whether he posts as an ex-employee or as a consumer? Either one would be accurate but there isn't a substantive difference to the author of the report. Have you ever heard the phrase about making mountains out of molehills?

When he gives actual advice, it's not relevant. When he insults the customer because of their complaint or tries to debunk them even when the bank is clearly at fault, it's clearly relevant.

How exactly are statements such as clearly being paid to post here" you think that the bank is always right" clearly jokes? How does not seeing that as a joke make the observer something other than sane"?

Because there's no way I can know those things. I don't know this person and I don't know anyone's thoughts on here so it's obvious that I'm not making factual claims.

Actually, it is a requirement. If you are paying interest on an asset, then the rate must be either fixed or floating. The interest itself must be either simple or compounded. And how many times in our history has interest not been impacted by inflation?

Interest: a sum paid or charged for the use of money or for borrowing money. I don't see anywhere in that definition that those things are required. You may think that's a "simplistic" definition, but it's still the definition.

Your evidence (as you put it) is the fact that he currently posts as a consumer and the fact that he can be insulting. Do you feel that this is substantial evidence?

If what you're saying is true, that he behaves the same way regarding multiple companies, I no longer think he works for the bank so I guess I was wrong.

My mood is irrelevant. I have no emotional investment in his employment status. The question is Are you happy?

Well, I don't think anyone likes to admit they're wrong.

But my statement isn't merely based on the lack of contrary evidence.

His statement doesn't count. It's meaningless.

In regards to his employment, he is the most credible source on this site.

That's your opinion. I'm a little more cynical than you. I won't take anyone's statement (a stranger at least) at face value. I just think that's nave.

Bias and credibility are not exclusive from each other. One can be biased and still offer credible information. Look at it this way Does your bias against US Bank make you less credible?

The difference is what my bias is based on. His bias is based on the fact that he worked there. I used to work for L-3 Communications and they were really good to me, so if someone attacked them I would naturally get defensive. I have a personal reason to defend them. That would make me biased. My bias toward US Bank is based on actual things that happened to me. In other words, it's based on facts.

You wrote that you believe him to be a bank employee, so yes, you do have an opinion. And being a bank employee or an ex-employee does not make one less credible.

Yes it does. If he worked for the bank and they were good to him, he is naturally going to defend them if someone attacks them. That is bias and hurts his credibility.

Yes, but be careful how you express it.

Are you forgetting the first amendment?

How so? Do overdraft fees take the form of simple or compounded interest? Are overdraft fees an example of a fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?

It doesn't matter what kind it is. Interest is defined as money charged for use of another person or entity's money. An overdraft fee qualifies as it is money you are charged to use the bank's money.

Your logic supports my point. If so many people are unaware of this site, then why bother wasting money to pay people for posting here and defending banks and other companies in reports that the vast majority of people wouldn't read? Remember, the vast majority of account holders in this country do not pay overdraft fees.

While I still do think it happens, I already stated, based on your assertion that I am the law posts similarly on many other companies, I no longer think he is a current employee as that would be illogical to think he works for all those companies simultaneously.

How many reports do you think are relevant to his status? If someone were to post here about how they used online banking to check their account balance and spent more money than they had, what real difference does it make whether he posts as an ex-employee or as a consumer? Either one would be accurate but there isn't a substantive difference to the author of the report. Have you ever heard the phrase about making mountains out of molehills?

When he gives actual advice, it's not relevant. When he insults the customer because of their complaint or tries to debunk them even when the bank is clearly at fault, it's clearly relevant.

How exactly are statements such as clearly being paid to post here" you think that the bank is always right" clearly jokes? How does not seeing that as a joke make the observer something other than sane"?

Because there's no way I can know those things. I don't know this person and I don't know anyone's thoughts on here so it's obvious that I'm not making factual claims.

Actually, it is a requirement. If you are paying interest on an asset, then the rate must be either fixed or floating. The interest itself must be either simple or compounded. And how many times in our history has interest not been impacted by inflation?

Interest: a sum paid or charged for the use of money or for borrowing money. I don't see anywhere in that definition that those things are required. You may think that's a "simplistic" definition, but it's still the definition.

Your evidence (as you put it) is the fact that he currently posts as a consumer and the fact that he can be insulting. Do you feel that this is substantial evidence?

If what you're saying is true, that he behaves the same way regarding multiple companies, I no longer think he works for the bank so I guess I was wrong.

My mood is irrelevant. I have no emotional investment in his employment status. The question is Are you happy?

Well, I don't think anyone likes to admit they're wrong.

But my statement isn't merely based on the lack of contrary evidence.

His statement doesn't count. It's meaningless.

In regards to his employment, he is the most credible source on this site.

That's your opinion. I'm a little more cynical than you. I won't take anyone's statement (a stranger at least) at face value. I just think that's nave.

Chris wrote: It absolutely does. It makes the person biased.
Response: Bias and credibility are not exclusive from each other. One can be biased and still offer credible information. Look at it this way Does your bias against US Bank make you less credible?

Chris wrote: I don't have an opinion either way. The reason he is less likely to be lying about having once worked for the bank is that it makes him look less credible.
Response: You wrote that you believe him to be a bank employee, so yes, you do have an opinion. And being a bank employee or an ex-employee does not make one less credible.

Chris wrote: My opinion is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
Response: Yes, but be careful how you express it.

Chris wrote: Well why did you deny that earlier?
Response: I didn't. The simplistic definition fits within the complex ones.

Chris wrote: Even if they aren't impacted by inflation, as you suggest, they still fall under the definition of interest.
Response: How so? Do overdraft fees take the form of simple or compounded interest? Are overdraft fees an example of a fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?

Chris wrote: Your logic suggests that everyone who has had a problem with this bank posts on here. That is ludicrous. Most people probably either aren't even aware of this site or don't bother to post their complaints. To suggest that the relatively low percentage of reports on here in comparison to how many customers there are means there are a small amount of complaints is nave.
Response: Your logic supports my point. If so many people are unaware of this site, then why bother wasting money to pay people for posting here and defending banks and other companies in reports that the vast majority of people wouldn't read? Remember, the vast majority of account holders in this country do not pay overdraft fees.

Chris wrote: So it's not misleading to keep the fact that he was once an employee from the readers? People should know both things. Since the site only allows one post, he should post as one and let the readers know of his other status.
Response: How many reports do you think are relevant to his status? If someone were to post here about how they used online banking to check their account balance and spent more money than they had, what real difference does it make whether he posts as an ex-employee or as a consumer? Either one would be accurate but there isn't a substantive difference to the author of the report. Have you ever heard the phrase about making mountains out of molehills?

Chris wrote: Fair enough, but that statement was clearly a joke. Any sane person knows this. I shouldn't have to explain everything I say if it's obvious, just like my space alien comment from an earlier post. Either I'm kidding or I'm insane, but it's clear it's not meant as fact.
Response: How exactly are statements such as clearly being paid to post here you think that the bank is always right clearly jokes? How does not seeing that as a joke make the observer something other than sane?

Chris wrote: It is not a requirement that it be impacted by inflation. That's nowhere in the definition. Neither is the requirement that it be fixed or floating, simple or compound.
Response: Actually, it is a requirement. If you are paying interest on an asset, then the rate must be either fixed or floating. The interest itself must be either simple or compounded. And how many times in our history has interest not been impacted by inflation?

Chris wrote: In my opinion, I do have evidence, as I've stated.
Response: Your evidence (as you put it) is the fact that he currently posts as a consumer and the fact that he can be insulting. Do you feel that this is substantial evidence?

Chris wrote: If he really behaves the same way on many other posts regarding other companies, it is not logical to think he is an employee of all those companies and therefore, I change my mind about thinking he is a US Bank employee. Are we happy?
Response: My mood is irrelevant. I have no emotional investment in his employment status. The question is Are you happy?

Chris wrote: You're right, it doesn't mean he's lying, but you're meeting the requirements of that fallacy. You are stating a truth based on lack of evidence to the contrary. I believe he is lying, but I don't think it is a fact, therefore, I am not breaking the fallacy.
Response: But my statement isn't merely based on the lack of contrary evidence.

Chris wrote: We don't have any credible sources here. Any of us could be lying.
Response: In regards to his employment, he is the most credible source on this site.

Working for a bank doesn't automatically make a person less credible. Your argument doesn't make sense.

It absolutely does. It makes the person biased.

Great! So why would you believe that he once worked for US Bank but not believe that he no longer works there? What reason is there not to believe him when he states that he no longer works for them?

I don't have an opinion either way. The reason he is less likely to be lying about having once worked for the bank is that it makes him look less credible.

That's true. As I noted earlier, some people believe that Elvis is still alive and some people believe that our government was behind 9/11. You believe that he is still a bank employee. Obviously, your theory isn't quite as ridiculous as some, but the amount of hard evidence is about the same.

My opinion is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.

No, I am writing that unlawful taking of another person's life' does not describe the differences between Murder 1, Murder 2, Manslaughter, etc. However, unlawful taking of another person's life' does fall under every different variation of murder' within our legal system.

Well why did you deny that earlier?

But they have also gone up during periods of low inflation. That doesn't answer the question. If overdraft fees are truly interest, are they examples of simple or compounded interest, do they have a fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?

Even if they aren't impacted by inflation, as you suggest, they still fall under the definition of interest.

The number of people complaining are a very tiny percentage of the total number of accounts at US Bank (or any other bank). Most (not all) of the reports that I've seen indicate that the account holder is at fault and they would likely have overdrafted at any bank. It would be a waste of money to pay someone to post here in response to a relatively small number of reports , especially when so many of the complainers caused their own situation and the lack of any way to accurately measure any benefit.

Your logic suggests that everyone who has had a problem with this bank posts on here. That is ludicrous. Most people probably either aren't even aware of this site or don't bother to post their complaints. To suggest that the relatively low percentage of reports on here in comparison to how many customers there are means there are a small amount of complaints is nave.

Yes. He was once an employee but his current dealings with the bank are as a consumer.And once again, by your logic it would be misleading for him to post as an ex-employee" because the people wouldn't be aware of his status as a consumer. I mean, if you're going to go that far you may as well go all the way. If the bank is currently paying him interest on savings or a CD, if they gave him a decent credit card rate or they are his lender for auto/home loans, then shouldn't the people know that as well?

So it's not misleading to keep the fact that he was once an employee from the readers? People should know both things. Since the site only allows one post, he should post as one and let the readers know of his other status.

And once again, it's best to indicate that when you are making the statement, not after you have been called on it. For example:
Chris eats live babies. (The preceding statement is not a fact).

Fair enough, but that statement was clearly a joke. Any sane person knows this. I shouldn't have to explain everything I say if it's obvious, just like my space alien comment from an earlier post. Either I'm kidding or I'm insane, but it's clear it's not meant as fact.

It's a little more complicated than that, but overdraft fees are not interest because they do not conform to the principle of simple interest. They aren't compounded interest either. They are not a fixed rate, nor are they a floating rate and they are not impacted by inflation. In short, overdraft fees have none of the characteristics that identify interest.

It is not a requirement that it be impacted by inflation. That's nowhere in the definition. Neither is the requirement that it be fixed or floating, simple or compound.

No, I wrote nothing of the sort. I'm just wondering why you believe that he's lying about his employment. I don't see anything to indicate that he's lying about that. You've been arguing about this for a couple of months now and it's remarkable that anyone would cling to this belief without basing it on some substantial evidence.

In my opinion, I do have evidence, as I've stated.

Well, that's assuming that he is being deceptive in the first place. Bank employees can be credible sources. I mean, look at this scenario US Bank (and possibly several other companies) hire I Am The Law" to respond to reports written by individuals, many of whom caused their own problems. In an attempt to avoid detection, he visibly changes his status from ex-employee" to consumer" and in order to really make people think that he isn't working for the bank, he announces on a public forum that he currently works at a hospital. However, he cannot refrain from being insulting to others (which is apparently a tell-tale sign that he is currently a bank employee).
I suppose that it's all TECHNICALLY possible, but we'd have to jump through quite a few mental hoops to accept this without some actual evidence.

If he really behaves the same way on many other posts regarding other companies, it is not logical to think he is an employee of all those companies and therefore, I change my mind about thinking he is a US Bank employee. Are we happy?

Of course his statement applies. His statement is more substantial than either of ours and just because one is capable of lying doesn't mean that they are in fact lying. Humans are also capable of raping killing each other but I am not going to assume that you do these things just because humans are capable of it.
You believe that he is lying. I see no indication that he is lying. Since there is no evidence that he is lying, his statement is the most credible source on this entire website that we have. Basing my conclusion on the only credible source we have access to in addition to the fact that there is no contrary evidence does not meet the requirements of this fallacy. That's not to say that I've never used a logical fallacyfar from it. It just doesn't apply in this particular case with this particular fallacy.

You're right, it doesn't mean he's lying, but you're meeting the requirements of that fallacy. You are stating a truth based on lack of evidence to the contrary. I believe he is lying, but I don't think it is a fact, therefore, I am not breaking the fallacy.

No, I am basing it on the only credible source that we have access to and the lack of contrary evidence. No fallacy here.

We don't have any credible sources here. Any of us could be lying.

Chris wrote: I was trying to make a point that people can say anything but it doesn't make it true. His benefit is that if he doesn't reveal he works there, he maintains credibility. Otherwise, people would realize his obvious bias.
Response: Working for a bank doesn't automatically make a person less credible. Your argument doesn't make sense.

Chris wrote: He could be lying about anything. That's the point. He could easily be lying about the fact that he used to work there. That was never argued.
Response: Great! So why would you believe that he once worked for US Bank but not believe that he no longer works there? What reason is there not to believe him when he states that he no longer works for them?

Chris wrote: You can believe that if you want, and I can believe differently if I want.
Response: That's true. As I noted earlier, some people believe that Elvis is still alive and some people believe that our government was behind 9/11. You believe that he is still a bank employee. Obviously, your theory isn't quite as ridiculous as some, but the amount of hard evidence is about the same.

Chris wrote: You are saying the different types of murder you mentioned don't fall under unlawful taking of another person's life"?
Response: No, I am writing that unlawful taking of another person's life' does not describe the differences between Murder 1, Murder 2, Manslaughter, etc. However, unlawful taking of another person's life' does fall under every different variation of murder' within our legal system.

Chris wrote: Overdraft fees are clearly impacted by inflation since the rates go up as inflation rises.
Response: But they have also gone up during periods of low inflation. That doesn't answer the question. If overdraft fees are truly interest, are they examples of simple or compounded interest, do they have a fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?

Chris wrote: It's not at all goofy". The bank has a potential to lose a lot of money if people realize before they open an account how they operate.
Response: The number of people complaining are a very tiny percentage of the total number of accounts at US Bank (or any other bank). Most (not all) of the reports that I've seen indicate that the account holder is at fault and they would likely have overdrafted at any bank. It would be a waste of money to pay someone to post here in response to a relatively small number of reports , especially when so many of the complainers caused their own situation and the lack of any way to accurately measure any benefit.

Chris wrote: His current relationship with US Bank is also ex-employee". Do you disagree?
Response: Yes. He was once an employee but his current dealings with the bank are as a consumer.And once again, by your logic it would be misleading for him to post as an ex-employee because the people wouldn't be aware of his status as a consumer. I mean, if you're going to go that far you may as well go all the way. If the bank is currently paying him interest on savings or a CD, if they gave him a decent credit card rate or they are his lender for auto/home loans, then shouldn't the people know that as well?

Chris wrote: I never said I didn't write those things, but I did say I didn't mean them as fact. This has already been clarified.
Response: And once again, it's best to indicate that when you are making the statement, not after you have been called on it. For example:
Chris eats live babies. (The preceding statement is not a fact).

Chris wrote: Interest is money charged for the use of another entity's money. Explain to me how it's not interest.
Response: It's a little more complicated than that, but overdraft fees are not interest because they do not conform to the principle of simple interest. They aren't compounded interest either. They are not a fixed rate, nor are they a floating rate and they are not impacted by inflation. In short, overdraft fees have none of the characteristics that identify interest.

Chris wrote: Are you saying he's incapable of lying? He could easily be lying about having worked there. I don't have any clue if he's telling the truth about anything he says without evidence. I'm not psychic and neither are you, by the way.
Response: No, I wrote nothing of the sort. I'm just wondering why you believe that he's lying about his employment. I don't see anything to indicate that he's lying about that. You've been arguing about this for a couple of months now and it's remarkable that anyone would cling to this belief without basing it on some substantial evidence.

Chris wrote: The difference is he has incentive to be deceptive. We don't.
Response: Well, that's assuming that he is being deceptive in the first place. Bank employees can be credible sources. I mean, look at this scenario US Bank (and possibly several other companies) hire I Am The Law to respond to reports written by individuals, many of whom caused their own problems. In an attempt to avoid detection, he visibly changes his status from ex-employee to consumer and in order to really make people think that he isn't working for the bank, he announces on a public forum that he currently works at a hospital. However, he cannot refrain from being insulting to others (which is apparently a tell-tale sign that he is currently a bank employee).
I suppose that it's all TECHNICALLY possible, but we'd have to jump through quite a few mental hoops to accept this without some actual evidence.

Chris wrote: I would agree except as I've stated multiple times, his statement doesn't apply. Nobody's does, as humans are capable of lying, so you can't take their statements seriously ever, without evidence. Call me cynical, but that's a fact.
Response: Of course his statement applies. His statement is more substantial than either of ours and just because one is capable of lying doesn't mean that they are in fact lying. Humans are also capable of raping killing each other but I am not going to assume that you do these things just because humans are capable of it.
You believe that he is lying. I see no indication that he is lying. Since there is no evidence that he is lying, his statement is the most credible source on this entire website that we have. Basing my conclusion on the only credible source we have access to in addition to the fact that there is no contrary evidence does not meet the requirements of this fallacy. That's not to say that I've never used a logical fallacyfar from it. It just doesn't apply in this particular case with this particular fallacy.

Chris wrote: That still breaks the fallacy. You are basing your proof" on lack of evidence to the contrary. Fallacy broken.
Response: No, I am basing it on the only credible source that we have access to and the lack of contrary evidence. No fallacy here.

Well, the space alien bit is obviously ludicrous but really, what indication is there that he still works for the bank? What benefit is there for him to lie about it? It's not as if anyone is going to recognize him while walking down the street.

I was trying to make a point that people can say anything but it doesn't make it true. His benefit is that if he doesn't reveal he works there, he maintains credibility. Otherwise, people would realize his obvious bias.

And if you believe that he would lie about his current employment, then wouldn't you also question whether or not he ever did actually work for US Bank? I mean, why wouldn't he be lying about that? Believe that he is lying if you wish, I just don't see any indication that he is lying about his employment status.

He could be lying about anything. That's the point. He could easily be lying about the fact that he used to work there. That was never argued.

It's what you cited as your evidence. I personally don't see how posting as a consumer as opposed to an ex-employee and being insulting makes you believe that he works for the bank but hey, it's your little world.

You can believe that if you want, and I can believe differently if I want.

The simplistic dictionary definition does nothing to differentiate between the different categories of murder. However, the simplistic dictionary definition can be incorporated into the more complex, legal definitions. So you see, the legal definitions do not fall under the simplistic definition, it's the other way around.

You are saying the different types of murder you mentioned don't fall under unlawful taking of another person's life?

Generally speaking, it's the cost of borrowing an asset and will fall under either simple or compounded interest. It must also have either a fixed or a floating rate and there is an inflation factor to consider. If overdraft fees are truly interest, then you should have no problem explaining whether they are simple or compounded interest and use a fixed or floating rate as well as explain how overdraft fees are impacted by inflation.

Overdraft fees are clearly impacted by inflation since the rates go up as inflation rises.

No, forums have been filled with insulting people for years but believing that the banks are wasting money by paying people to type here is a bit goofy.

It's not at all goofy. The bank has a potential to lose a lot of money if people realize before they open an account how they operate.

Perhaps as far as checking up on his work history goes but his current relationship with US Bank is as a consumer. By your logic, it would be misleading for him to post as an ex-employee because people wouldn't be aware that he currently has accounts with US Bank.

His current relationship with US Bank is also ex-employee. Do you disagree?

Actually, you have misstated my position several times. If you can't even articulate my position, then you are certainly in no position to gauge whether it is right or wrong. And yes, typing that I believe that the bank is always right is misrepresenting my position and trying to claim that my conclusion about his employment was only based on the lack of evidence was also misrepresenting my position. I'm aware that you like to go back and claim that you didn't mean something as fact, that you were joking or that you didn't write it, but the time to make those declarations is when you write your position, not after you were called on it.

I never said I didn't write those things, but I did say I didn't mean them as fact. This has already been clarified.

And the type of interest is VERY relevant to your argument. You see, if overdraft fees were truly interest, then they must be either simple or compounded interest with a fixed or floating rate and they would be impacted by inflation. So, what type of interest are overdraft fees? What kind of rate do they use? How are they impacted by inflation?

Interest is money charged for the use of another entity's money. Explain to me how it's not interest.

His statement isn't meaningless at all. In fact, he is in the best position to know where he works. He can't work for all of the companies that he posts about, so why would it be US Bank that he works for and not the other companies? If you think that he is lying, then why wouldn't he be lying about having worked for US Bank? Let's see some actual evidence or else it's simply an extremely mundane forum equivalent of a conspiracy theory.

Are you saying he's incapable of lying? He could easily be lying about having worked there. I don't have any clue if he's telling the truth about anything he says without evidence. I'm not psychic and neither are you, by the way.

Hardly irrelevant. In fact, his statement about where he works is far more relevant than yours or mine.

The difference is he has incentive to be deceptive. We don't.

But the logical fallacy that you mentioned earlier would have required me to base my conclusion solely on the lack of evidence. That was never the case and so it simply doesn't apply here. However, you have engaged in several logical fallacies including the one that you accused me of.

I would agree except as I've stated multiple times, his statement doesn't apply. Nobody's does, as humans are capable of lying, so you can't take their statements seriously ever, without evidence. Call me cynical, but that's a fact.

His statement coupled with the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary is enough to base that conclusion on

That still breaks the fallacy. You are basing your proof on lack of evidence to the contrary. Fallacy broken.

Chris wrote: I see, so I can say whatever I want and you'll just assume it's correct? Fine. I'm an alien from a distant planet that's here to save the world. Do you believe me? I didn't think so. Anyone can say whatever they want but it doesn't make it true. Common sense suggests that someone's statement is irrelevant because people frequently lie. If that weren't true, someone's lack of a confession would be enough to proclaim innocence.
Response: Well, the space alien bit is obviously ludicrous but really, what indication is there that he still works for the bank? What benefit is there for him to lie about it? It's not as if anyone is going to recognize him while walking down the street.
And if you believe that he would lie about his current employment, then wouldn't you also question whether or not he ever did actually work for US Bank? I mean, why wouldn't he be lying about that? Believe that he is lying if you wish, I just don't see any indication that he is lying about his employment status.

Chris wrote: Actually, I never said it was a fact, just a belief. The difference is that you said you know", meaning fact.
Response: It's what you cited as your evidence. I personally don't see how posting as a consumer as opposed to an ex-employee and being insulting makes you believe that he works for the bank but hey, it's your little world.

Chris wrote: The definition of murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life. It seems to me that all your different types of murder fall under that one general definition.
Response: The simplistic dictionary definition does nothing to differentiate between the different categories of murder. However, the simplistic dictionary definition can be incorporated into the more complex, legal definitions. So you see, the legal definitions do not fall under the simplistic definition, it's the other way around.

Chris wrote: What is the official" definition then?
Response: Generally speaking, it's the cost of borrowing an asset and will fall under either simple or compounded interest. It must also have either a fixed or a floating rate and there is an inflation factor to consider. If overdraft fees are truly interest, then you should have no problem explaining whether they are simple or compounded interest and use a fixed or floating rate as well as explain how overdraft fees are impacted by inflation.

Chris wrote: It's less farfetched than someone posting because they get a kick" out of it. Besides, I've heard of companies (especially large ones that can afford it) engaging in this kind of activity. I realize it's just a rumor, but many rumors are based on some truth.
Response: No, forums have been filled with insulting people for years but believing that the banks are wasting money by paying people to type here is a bit goofy.

Chris wrote: I have no way of knowing that he posts on other companies because I have no reason to look at those other companies. I only post on US Bank because they are the only business that I've had a problem with.
Response: Well, he does post on other companies and I somehow doubt that he works for all of them.

Chris wrote: His current status is also ex-employee", is it not? There's no statute of limitations on being an ex" something.
Response: Perhaps as far as checking up on his work history goes but his current relationship with US Bank is as a consumer. By your logic, it would be misleading for him to post as an ex-employee because people wouldn't be aware that he currently has accounts with US Bank.

Chris wrote: Ex-employee" is also his current status. My point is, his status as an ex-employee suggests that he is biased. If someone was attacking Target and you were defending them, you probably wouldn't be doing it for personal reasons, but you can see how someone would think that. Therefore, they deserve to know that you have a potential bias, even if it's not the case.
Response: But his current relationship with the bank is as a consumer. Honestly, his past employment with US Bank would be relevant in how many reports on this site? If someone doesn't pay attention to their finances and racks up four overdraft fees and he responds by telling them to keep an accurate check register, then his prior employment has nothing to do with the customer's situation and posting as either an ex-employee or as a consumer would be accurate and appropriate.

Chris wrote: Correct, but I haven't misrepresented your position. I know your position. It just happens to be wrong. If I was stating those things as fact, you would have been correct, but I wasn't.
Response: Actually, you have misstated my position several times. If you can't even articulate my position, then you are certainly in no position to gauge whether it is right or wrong. And yes, typing that I believe that the bank is always right is misrepresenting my position and trying to claim that my conclusion about his employment was only based on the lack of evidence was also misrepresenting my position. I'm aware that you like to go back and claim that you didn't mean something as fact, that you were joking or that you didn't write it, but the time to make those declarations is when you write your position, not after you were called on it.

Chris wrote: What claim have I asked you to back up that you didn't make, that you know" he's not an employee? Did you, or did you not make that statement? The type of interest is irrelevant. The fact remains that an overdraft falls under the definition of a loan, and the fee falls under the definition of interest.
Response: You asked me to back up a claim on the legal system that I didn't make and you keep misrepresenting my statement regarding his employment. To be fair, I do think that you are simply not comprehending what's being written.
And the type of interest is VERY relevant to your argument. You see, if overdraft fees were truly interest, then they must be either simple or compounded interest with a fixed or floating rate and they would be impacted by inflation. So, what type of interest are overdraft fees? What kind of rate do they use? How are they impacted by inflation?

Chris wrote: His own statement is meaningless though. I can state that I'm not an employee at some competing bank (as you mentioned a while ago), but there's no way for you to know I'm telling the truth without evidence.
Response: His statement isn't meaningless at all. In fact, he is in the best position to know where he works. He can't work for all of the companies that he posts about, so why would it be US Bank that he works for and not the other companies? If you think that he is lying, then why wouldn't he be lying about having worked for US Bank? Let's see some actual evidence or else it's simply an extremely mundane forum equivalent of a conspiracy theory.

Chris wrote: His own statement is irrelevant, so we would, in fact, be basing this claim solely on the lack of evidence.
Response: Hardly irrelevant. In fact, his statement about where he works is far more relevant than yours or mine.

Chris wrote: Are you hitting on me? Just kidding. Anyway, my point was that you are coming to the conclusion that he isn't lying based on the lack of evidence that he is. That would be an example of the fallacy I mentioned earlier.
Response: But the logical fallacy that you mentioned earlier would have required me to base my conclusion solely on the lack of evidence. That was never the case and so it simply doesn't apply here. However, you have engaged in several logical fallacies including the one that you accused me of.

Chris response: The funny thing is I admit that you misunderstood me and that I must not have been being clear. You are standing by your statement of fact with no evidence to back it up (lack of evidence to contrary doesn't count, as is exhibited by the fallacy I mentioned).
Response: His statement coupled with the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary is enough to base that conclusion on.

Chris wrote: I see, so I can say whatever I want and you'll just assume it's correct? Fine. I'm an alien from a distant planet that's here to save the world. Do you believe me? I didn't think so. Anyone can say whatever they want but it doesn't make it true. Common sense suggests that someone's statement is irrelevant because people frequently lie. If that weren't true, someone's lack of a confession would be enough to proclaim innocence.
Response: Well, the space alien bit is obviously ludicrous but really, what indication is there that he still works for the bank? What benefit is there for him to lie about it? It's not as if anyone is going to recognize him while walking down the street.
And if you believe that he would lie about his current employment, then wouldn't you also question whether or not he ever did actually work for US Bank? I mean, why wouldn't he be lying about that? Believe that he is lying if you wish, I just don't see any indication that he is lying about his employment status.

Chris wrote: Actually, I never said it was a fact, just a belief. The difference is that you said you know", meaning fact.
Response: It's what you cited as your evidence. I personally don't see how posting as a consumer as opposed to an ex-employee and being insulting makes you believe that he works for the bank but hey, it's your little world.

Chris wrote: The definition of murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life. It seems to me that all your different types of murder fall under that one general definition.
Response: The simplistic dictionary definition does nothing to differentiate between the different categories of murder. However, the simplistic dictionary definition can be incorporated into the more complex, legal definitions. So you see, the legal definitions do not fall under the simplistic definition, it's the other way around.

Chris wrote: What is the official" definition then?
Response: Generally speaking, it's the cost of borrowing an asset and will fall under either simple or compounded interest. It must also have either a fixed or a floating rate and there is an inflation factor to consider. If overdraft fees are truly interest, then you should have no problem explaining whether they are simple or compounded interest and use a fixed or floating rate as well as explain how overdraft fees are impacted by inflation.

Chris wrote: It's less farfetched than someone posting because they get a kick" out of it. Besides, I've heard of companies (especially large ones that can afford it) engaging in this kind of activity. I realize it's just a rumor, but many rumors are based on some truth.
Response: No, forums have been filled with insulting people for years but believing that the banks are wasting money by paying people to type here is a bit goofy.

Chris wrote: I have no way of knowing that he posts on other companies because I have no reason to look at those other companies. I only post on US Bank because they are the only business that I've had a problem with.
Response: Well, he does post on other companies and I somehow doubt that he works for all of them.

Chris wrote: His current status is also ex-employee", is it not? There's no statute of limitations on being an ex" something.
Response: Perhaps as far as checking up on his work history goes but his current relationship with US Bank is as a consumer. By your logic, it would be misleading for him to post as an ex-employee because people wouldn't be aware that he currently has accounts with US Bank.

Chris wrote: Ex-employee" is also his current status. My point is, his status as an ex-employee suggests that he is biased. If someone was attacking Target and you were defending them, you probably wouldn't be doing it for personal reasons, but you can see how someone would think that. Therefore, they deserve to know that you have a potential bias, even if it's not the case.
Response: But his current relationship with the bank is as a consumer. Honestly, his past employment with US Bank would be relevant in how many reports on this site? If someone doesn't pay attention to their finances and racks up four overdraft fees and he responds by telling them to keep an accurate check register, then his prior employment has nothing to do with the customer's situation and posting as either an ex-employee or as a consumer would be accurate and appropriate.

Chris wrote: Correct, but I haven't misrepresented your position. I know your position. It just happens to be wrong. If I was stating those things as fact, you would have been correct, but I wasn't.
Response: Actually, you have misstated my position several times. If you can't even articulate my position, then you are certainly in no position to gauge whether it is right or wrong. And yes, typing that I believe that the bank is always right is misrepresenting my position and trying to claim that my conclusion about his employment was only based on the lack of evidence was also misrepresenting my position. I'm aware that you like to go back and claim that you didn't mean something as fact, that you were joking or that you didn't write it, but the time to make those declarations is when you write your position, not after you were called on it.

Chris wrote: What claim have I asked you to back up that you didn't make, that you know" he's not an employee? Did you, or did you not make that statement? The type of interest is irrelevant. The fact remains that an overdraft falls under the definition of a loan, and the fee falls under the definition of interest.
Response: You asked me to back up a claim on the legal system that I didn't make and you keep misrepresenting my statement regarding his employment. To be fair, I do think that you are simply not comprehending what's being written.
And the type of interest is VERY relevant to your argument. You see, if overdraft fees were truly interest, then they must be either simple or compounded interest with a fixed or floating rate and they would be impacted by inflation. So, what type of interest are overdraft fees? What kind of rate do they use? How are they impacted by inflation?

Chris wrote: His own statement is meaningless though. I can state that I'm not an employee at some competing bank (as you mentioned a while ago), but there's no way for you to know I'm telling the truth without evidence.
Response: His statement isn't meaningless at all. In fact, he is in the best position to know where he works. He can't work for all of the companies that he posts about, so why would it be US Bank that he works for and not the other companies? If you think that he is lying, then why wouldn't he be lying about having worked for US Bank? Let's see some actual evidence or else it's simply an extremely mundane forum equivalent of a conspiracy theory.

Chris wrote: His own statement is irrelevant, so we would, in fact, be basing this claim solely on the lack of evidence.
Response: Hardly irrelevant. In fact, his statement about where he works is far more relevant than yours or mine.

Chris wrote: Are you hitting on me? Just kidding. Anyway, my point was that you are coming to the conclusion that he isn't lying based on the lack of evidence that he is. That would be an example of the fallacy I mentioned earlier.
Response: But the logical fallacy that you mentioned earlier would have required me to base my conclusion solely on the lack of evidence. That was never the case and so it simply doesn't apply here. However, you have engaged in several logical fallacies including the one that you accused me of.

Chris response: The funny thing is I admit that you misunderstood me and that I must not have been being clear. You are standing by your statement of fact with no evidence to back it up (lack of evidence to contrary doesn't count, as is exhibited by the fallacy I mentioned).
Response: His statement coupled with the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary is enough to base that conclusion on.

Chris wrote: I see, so I can say whatever I want and you'll just assume it's correct? Fine. I'm an alien from a distant planet that's here to save the world. Do you believe me? I didn't think so. Anyone can say whatever they want but it doesn't make it true. Common sense suggests that someone's statement is irrelevant because people frequently lie. If that weren't true, someone's lack of a confession would be enough to proclaim innocence.
Response: Well, the space alien bit is obviously ludicrous but really, what indication is there that he still works for the bank? What benefit is there for him to lie about it? It's not as if anyone is going to recognize him while walking down the street.
And if you believe that he would lie about his current employment, then wouldn't you also question whether or not he ever did actually work for US Bank? I mean, why wouldn't he be lying about that? Believe that he is lying if you wish, I just don't see any indication that he is lying about his employment status.

Chris wrote: Actually, I never said it was a fact, just a belief. The difference is that you said you know", meaning fact.
Response: It's what you cited as your evidence. I personally don't see how posting as a consumer as opposed to an ex-employee and being insulting makes you believe that he works for the bank but hey, it's your little world.

Chris wrote: The definition of murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life. It seems to me that all your different types of murder fall under that one general definition.
Response: The simplistic dictionary definition does nothing to differentiate between the different categories of murder. However, the simplistic dictionary definition can be incorporated into the more complex, legal definitions. So you see, the legal definitions do not fall under the simplistic definition, it's the other way around.

Chris wrote: What is the official" definition then?
Response: Generally speaking, it's the cost of borrowing an asset and will fall under either simple or compounded interest. It must also have either a fixed or a floating rate and there is an inflation factor to consider. If overdraft fees are truly interest, then you should have no problem explaining whether they are simple or compounded interest and use a fixed or floating rate as well as explain how overdraft fees are impacted by inflation.

Chris wrote: It's less farfetched than someone posting because they get a kick" out of it. Besides, I've heard of companies (especially large ones that can afford it) engaging in this kind of activity. I realize it's just a rumor, but many rumors are based on some truth.
Response: No, forums have been filled with insulting people for years but believing that the banks are wasting money by paying people to type here is a bit goofy.

Chris wrote: I have no way of knowing that he posts on other companies because I have no reason to look at those other companies. I only post on US Bank because they are the only business that I've had a problem with.
Response: Well, he does post on other companies and I somehow doubt that he works for all of them.

Chris wrote: His current status is also ex-employee", is it not? There's no statute of limitations on being an ex" something.
Response: Perhaps as far as checking up on his work history goes but his current relationship with US Bank is as a consumer. By your logic, it would be misleading for him to post as an ex-employee because people wouldn't be aware that he currently has accounts with US Bank.

Chris wrote: Ex-employee" is also his current status. My point is, his status as an ex-employee suggests that he is biased. If someone was attacking Target and you were defending them, you probably wouldn't be doing it for personal reasons, but you can see how someone would think that. Therefore, they deserve to know that you have a potential bias, even if it's not the case.
Response: But his current relationship with the bank is as a consumer. Honestly, his past employment with US Bank would be relevant in how many reports on this site? If someone doesn't pay attention to their finances and racks up four overdraft fees and he responds by telling them to keep an accurate check register, then his prior employment has nothing to do with the customer's situation and posting as either an ex-employee or as a consumer would be accurate and appropriate.

Chris wrote: Correct, but I haven't misrepresented your position. I know your position. It just happens to be wrong. If I was stating those things as fact, you would have been correct, but I wasn't.
Response: Actually, you have misstated my position several times. If you can't even articulate my position, then you are certainly in no position to gauge whether it is right or wrong. And yes, typing that I believe that the bank is always right is misrepresenting my position and trying to claim that my conclusion about his employment was only based on the lack of evidence was also misrepresenting my position. I'm aware that you like to go back and claim that you didn't mean something as fact, that you were joking or that you didn't write it, but the time to make those declarations is when you write your position, not after you were called on it.

Chris wrote: What claim have I asked you to back up that you didn't make, that you know" he's not an employee? Did you, or did you not make that statement? The type of interest is irrelevant. The fact remains that an overdraft falls under the definition of a loan, and the fee falls under the definition of interest.
Response: You asked me to back up a claim on the legal system that I didn't make and you keep misrepresenting my statement regarding his employment. To be fair, I do think that you are simply not comprehending what's being written.
And the type of interest is VERY relevant to your argument. You see, if overdraft fees were truly interest, then they must be either simple or compounded interest with a fixed or floating rate and they would be impacted by inflation. So, what type of interest are overdraft fees? What kind of rate do they use? How are they impacted by inflation?

Chris wrote: His own statement is meaningless though. I can state that I'm not an employee at some competing bank (as you mentioned a while ago), but there's no way for you to know I'm telling the truth without evidence.
Response: His statement isn't meaningless at all. In fact, he is in the best position to know where he works. He can't work for all of the companies that he posts about, so why would it be US Bank that he works for and not the other companies? If you think that he is lying, then why wouldn't he be lying about having worked for US Bank? Let's see some actual evidence or else it's simply an extremely mundane forum equivalent of a conspiracy theory.

Chris wrote: His own statement is irrelevant, so we would, in fact, be basing this claim solely on the lack of evidence.
Response: Hardly irrelevant. In fact, his statement about where he works is far more relevant than yours or mine.

Chris wrote: Are you hitting on me? Just kidding. Anyway, my point was that you are coming to the conclusion that he isn't lying based on the lack of evidence that he is. That would be an example of the fallacy I mentioned earlier.
Response: But the logical fallacy that you mentioned earlier would have required me to base my conclusion solely on the lack of evidence. That was never the case and so it simply doesn't apply here. However, you have engaged in several logical fallacies including the one that you accused me of.

Chris response: The funny thing is I admit that you misunderstood me and that I must not have been being clear. You are standing by your statement of fact with no evidence to back it up (lack of evidence to contrary doesn't count, as is exhibited by the fallacy I mentioned).
Response: His statement coupled with the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary is enough to base that conclusion on.

Chris wrote: I see, so I can say whatever I want and you'll just assume it's correct? Fine. I'm an alien from a distant planet that's here to save the world. Do you believe me? I didn't think so. Anyone can say whatever they want but it doesn't make it true. Common sense suggests that someone's statement is irrelevant because people frequently lie. If that weren't true, someone's lack of a confession would be enough to proclaim innocence.
Response: Well, the space alien bit is obviously ludicrous but really, what indication is there that he still works for the bank? What benefit is there for him to lie about it? It's not as if anyone is going to recognize him while walking down the street.
And if you believe that he would lie about his current employment, then wouldn't you also question whether or not he ever did actually work for US Bank? I mean, why wouldn't he be lying about that? Believe that he is lying if you wish, I just don't see any indication that he is lying about his employment status.

Chris wrote: Actually, I never said it was a fact, just a belief. The difference is that you said you know", meaning fact.
Response: It's what you cited as your evidence. I personally don't see how posting as a consumer as opposed to an ex-employee and being insulting makes you believe that he works for the bank but hey, it's your little world.

Chris wrote: The definition of murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life. It seems to me that all your different types of murder fall under that one general definition.
Response: The simplistic dictionary definition does nothing to differentiate between the different categories of murder. However, the simplistic dictionary definition can be incorporated into the more complex, legal definitions. So you see, the legal definitions do not fall under the simplistic definition, it's the other way around.

Chris wrote: What is the official" definition then?
Response: Generally speaking, it's the cost of borrowing an asset and will fall under either simple or compounded interest. It must also have either a fixed or a floating rate and there is an inflation factor to consider. If overdraft fees are truly interest, then you should have no problem explaining whether they are simple or compounded interest and use a fixed or floating rate as well as explain how overdraft fees are impacted by inflation.

Chris wrote: It's less farfetched than someone posting because they get a kick" out of it. Besides, I've heard of companies (especially large ones that can afford it) engaging in this kind of activity. I realize it's just a rumor, but many rumors are based on some truth.
Response: No, forums have been filled with insulting people for years but believing that the banks are wasting money by paying people to type here is a bit goofy.

Chris wrote: I have no way of knowing that he posts on other companies because I have no reason to look at those other companies. I only post on US Bank because they are the only business that I've had a problem with.
Response: Well, he does post on other companies and I somehow doubt that he works for all of them.

Chris wrote: His current status is also ex-employee", is it not? There's no statute of limitations on being an ex" something.
Response: Perhaps as far as checking up on his work history goes but his current relationship with US Bank is as a consumer. By your logic, it would be misleading for him to post as an ex-employee because people wouldn't be aware that he currently has accounts with US Bank.

Chris wrote: Ex-employee" is also his current status. My point is, his status as an ex-employee suggests that he is biased. If someone was attacking Target and you were defending them, you probably wouldn't be doing it for personal reasons, but you can see how someone would think that. Therefore, they deserve to know that you have a potential bias, even if it's not the case.
Response: But his current relationship with the bank is as a consumer. Honestly, his past employment with US Bank would be relevant in how many reports on this site? If someone doesn't pay attention to their finances and racks up four overdraft fees and he responds by telling them to keep an accurate check register, then his prior employment has nothing to do with the customer's situation and posting as either an ex-employee or as a consumer would be accurate and appropriate.

Chris wrote: Correct, but I haven't misrepresented your position. I know your position. It just happens to be wrong. If I was stating those things as fact, you would have been correct, but I wasn't.
Response: Actually, you have misstated my position several times. If you can't even articulate my position, then you are certainly in no position to gauge whether it is right or wrong. And yes, typing that I believe that the bank is always right is misrepresenting my position and trying to claim that my conclusion about his employment was only based on the lack of evidence was also misrepresenting my position. I'm aware that you like to go back and claim that you didn't mean something as fact, that you were joking or that you didn't write it, but the time to make those declarations is when you write your position, not after you were called on it.

Chris wrote: What claim have I asked you to back up that you didn't make, that you know" he's not an employee? Did you, or did you not make that statement? The type of interest is irrelevant. The fact remains that an overdraft falls under the definition of a loan, and the fee falls under the definition of interest.
Response: You asked me to back up a claim on the legal system that I didn't make and you keep misrepresenting my statement regarding his employment. To be fair, I do think that you are simply not comprehending what's being written.
And the type of interest is VERY relevant to your argument. You see, if overdraft fees were truly interest, then they must be either simple or compounded interest with a fixed or floating rate and they would be impacted by inflation. So, what type of interest are overdraft fees? What kind of rate do they use? How are they impacted by inflation?

Chris wrote: His own statement is meaningless though. I can state that I'm not an employee at some competing bank (as you mentioned a while ago), but there's no way for you to know I'm telling the truth without evidence.
Response: His statement isn't meaningless at all. In fact, he is in the best position to know where he works. He can't work for all of the companies that he posts about, so why would it be US Bank that he works for and not the other companies? If you think that he is lying, then why wouldn't he be lying about having worked for US Bank? Let's see some actual evidence or else it's simply an extremely mundane forum equivalent of a conspiracy theory.

Chris wrote: His own statement is irrelevant, so we would, in fact, be basing this claim solely on the lack of evidence.
Response: Hardly irrelevant. In fact, his statement about where he works is far more relevant than yours or mine.

Chris wrote: Are you hitting on me? Just kidding. Anyway, my point was that you are coming to the conclusion that he isn't lying based on the lack of evidence that he is. That would be an example of the fallacy I mentioned earlier.
Response: But the logical fallacy that you mentioned earlier would have required me to base my conclusion solely on the lack of evidence. That was never the case and so it simply doesn't apply here. However, you have engaged in several logical fallacies including the one that you accused me of.

Chris response: The funny thing is I admit that you misunderstood me and that I must not have been being clear. You are standing by your statement of fact with no evidence to back it up (lack of evidence to contrary doesn't count, as is exhibited by the fallacy I mentioned).
Response: His statement coupled with the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary is enough to base that conclusion on.

What you are writing about me is completely false. I never based my conclusions solely on the lack of available evidence and you know this because you mentioned it often enough. It was also based on his statement paired with the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

I see, so I can say whatever I want and you'll just assume it's correct? Fine. I'm an alien from a distant planet that's here to save the world. Do you believe me? I didn't think so. Anyone can say whatever they want but it doesn't make it true. Common sense suggests that someone's statement is irrelevant because people frequently lie. If that weren't true, someone's lack of a confession would be enough to proclaim innocence.

As for you, well, you wrote that your evidence is the fact that he posts as a consumer instead of as an ex-employee and that he is insulting. That's hardly evidence, merely wishful thinking on your part.

Actually, I never said it was a fact, just a belief. The difference is that you said you know, meaning fact.

Other way around. The simplistic definition of murder falls under the more complex definitions.

The definition of murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life. It seems to me that all your different types of murder fall under that one general definition.

But the official definition is more complex than the simple definition that Webster's provides. Webster's is for obtaining a basic understanding of the definition of the wrod, not for providing a detailed analysis of what interest is for the industry.

What is the official definition then?

Okay, but the employee who is being paid to post here and hiding as a consumer is pretty far fetched to me.

It's less farfetched than someone posting because they get a kick out of it. Besides, I've heard of companies (especially large ones that can afford it) engaging in this kind of activity. I realize it's just a rumor, but many rumors are based on some truth.

Since you researched his prior posts so throughly, I'm surprised that you never looked beyond posts concerning US Bank.

I have no way of knowing that he posts on other companies because I have no reason to look at those other companies. I only post on US Bank because they are the only business that I've had a problem with.

Or perhaps because his current status is as a concumer?

His current status is also ex-employee, is it not? There's no statute of limitations on being an ex something.

Common sense suggests that current status is more relevant than whether or not one worked for a company many years ago. I'd guess that in most reports, his status is simply not an issue. In my example, if I were to comment on Target's return policy, my experience as a consumer is far more recent than my experience as an ex-employee and so I'd post as a consumer because that is the more relevant experience. If someone where to post at the store that I worked at or specific people that I worked with, then it would be appropriate to post as an ex-employee.

Ex-employee is also his current status. My point is, his status as an ex-employee suggests that he is biased. If someone was attacking Target and you were defending them, you probably wouldn't be doing it for personal reasons, but you can see how someone would think that. Therefore, they deserve to know that you have a potential bias, even if it's not the case.

Exagerrating or misstating the positions of others is in fact a Straw Man argument. When you claimed that I believe that the bank is right in all things, that was the very definition of a straw man argument. When you claimed that you were targeted because the bank is never wrong, that was a straw man argument too.

Correct, but I haven't misrepresented your position. I know your position. It just happens to be wrong. If I was stating those things as fact, you would have been correct, but I wasn't.

In this very thread you have asked me to back up a claim that I didn't make and yes, a Red Herring is an attempt to distract by diverting the argument (asking me to back up a claim that I didn't make) or by giving replies that do not address the question (are overdraft fees simple interest or compounded, fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?)

What claim have I asked you to back up that you didn't make, that you know he's not an employee? Did you, or did you not make that statement? The type of interest is irrelevant. The fact remains that an overdraft falls under the definition of a loan, and the fee falls under the definition of interest.

You're leaving out a detail that you used to frequently harp on. I based my conclusion on HIS OWN STATEMENT plus the lack of contradictory evidence. My conclusion was NEVER based merely on the lack of evidence and therefore your accusation simply does not stand.

His own statement is meaningless though. I can state that I'm not an employee at some competing bank (as you mentioned a while ago), but there's no way for you to know I'm telling the truth without evidence.

I can read the definition and see that it does not apply because my conclusion was never based solely on the lack of evidence. We have his own statement on his current employment plus the lack of any evidence to the contrary. If you don't understand the logistics of this particular fallacy, that is your issue but your misunderstanding doesn't mean that you get to pin this fallacy on others and expect to be right.

His own statement is irrelevant, so we would, in fact, be basing this claim solely on the lack of evidence.

No, my conclusion was never based solely on the lack of evidence. However, you claim that it isn't possible for me to know. You are truly engaging in the fallacy that you are trying to pin on to me. It's kind of cute, but in the end you're still wrong.

Are you hitting on me? Just kidding. Anyway, my point was that you are coming to the conclusion that he isn't lying based on the lack of evidence that he is. That would be an example of the fallacy I mentioned earlier.

Well, the funny thing is that you would backtrack and claim that you didn't mean something, that you were joking or that you didn't write it AFTER you were called on it.

The funny thing is I admit that you misunderstood me and that I must not have been being clear. You are standing by your statement of fact with no evidence to back it up (lack of evidence to contrary doesn't count, as is exhibited by the fallacy I mentioned).

Chris wrote: "I guess I'll throw this out there again since you apparently didn't catch it the first time:
'The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ('appeal to ignorance' [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.' You are saying you know something to be true just because there is no evidence to the contrary (in your opinion). I don't how much clearer this can get. Also, what you said was not the only evidence I have."

Response: What you are writing about me is completely false. I never based my conclusions solely on the lack of available evidence and you know this because you mentioned it often enough. It was also based on his statement paired with the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

As for you, well, you wrote that your evidence is the fact that he posts as a consumer instead of as an ex-employee and that he is insulting. That's hardly evidence, merely wishful thinking on your part.


Chris wrote: "Those are different types of murder, but they all fall under the 'simplistic' general definition of murder, do they not?"

Response: Other way around. The simplistic definition of murder falls under the more complex definitions.


Chris wrote: "You're joking, right? If an official definition isn't good enough for you, I don't know what to say. An overdraft falls under both the definition of a fee (that's your argument), and the definition of interest. Neither of us are wrong."

Response: But the official definition is more complex than the simple definition that Webster's provides. Webster's is for obtaining a basic understanding of the definition of the wrod, not for providing a detailed analysis of what interest is for the industry.


Chris wrote: "No I haven't ruled them out. I'm no psychiatrist but that motivation makes no sense to me and is pretty twisted in my opinion. It's possible but I'm just telling what I think is the simplest explanation."

Response: Okay, but the employee who is being paid to post here and hiding as a consumer is pretty far fetched to me.


Chris wrote: "I don't know what his other posts say, but if they are similar to these, then it wouldn't be logical to think he works for all those companies. I would then have to conclude he's just a strange person and probably needs help."

Response: Since you researched his prior posts so throughly, I'm surprised that you never looked beyond posts concerning US Bank.


Chris wrote: "I assume because he realized people wouldn't take him seriously if they knew he was an ex-employee so he changed his status. Most people wouldn't go back to those old posts to find that out."

Response: Or perhaps because his current status is as a concumer?


Chris wrote: "I'm basing on commence sense. If you are both a customer and an ex-employee, you have a clear bias, whether you like your old company, or you hate it. It is only fair to other readers that you state that. If you have a bias, people have a right to know."

Response: Common sense suggests that current status is more relevant than whether or not one worked for a company many years ago. I'd guess that in most reports, his status is simply not an issue. In my example, if I were to comment on Target's return policy, my experience as a consumer is far more recent than my experience as an ex-employee and so I'd post as a consumer because that is the more relevant experience. If someone where to post at the store that I worked at or specific people that I worked with, then it would be appropriate to post as an ex-employee.


Chris wrote: "Where do I begin? As usual, you are once again making incorrect statements as I have already clarified these. That first statement was an opinion and not a statement of fact, as I've already stated many times. I have not asked you to back up claims that you haven't made. Only you have done that. Plus, that's not a Red Herring fallacy."

Response: Exagerrating or misstating the positions of others is in fact a Straw Man argument. When you claimed that I believe that the bank is right in all things, that was the very definition of a straw man argument. When you claimed that you were targeted because the bank is never wrong, that was a straw man argument too.

In this very thread you have asked me to back up a claim that I didn't make and yes, a Red Herring is an attempt to distract by diverting the argument (asking me to back up a claim that I didn't make) or by giving replies that do not address the question (are overdraft fees simple interest or compounded, fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?)


Chris wrote: "Actually, go back and read the definition again. That's exactly what it means. You are claiming you know something to be false based on the lack of evidence of it being false. How are you not getting that?"

Response: You're leaving out a detail that you used to frequently harp on. I based my conclusion on HIS OWN STATEMENT plus the lack of contradictory evidence. My conclusion was NEVER based merely on the lack of evidence and therefore your accusation simply does not stand.


Chris wrote: "No, I'm not. You claimed to know he isn't an employee because of lack of evidence that he is. His claim that he isn't one is irrelevant. Anyone can say whatever they want. It doesn't mean it's true. I'm just dumbfounded that you can read that definition and not realize that's exactly what you're doing."

Response: I can read the definition and see that it does not apply because my conclusion was never based solely on the lack of evidence. We have his own statement on his current employment plus the lack of any evidence to the contrary. If you don't understand the logistics of this particular fallacy, that is your issue but your misunderstanding doesn't mean that you get to pin this fallacy on others and expect to be right.


Chris response: "Wrong. You just committed that same fallacy again. You are saying you know he isn't lying based on lack of evidence that he is."

Response: No, my conclusion was never based solely on the lack of evidence. However, you claim that it isn't possible for me to know. You are truly engaging in the fallacy that you are trying to pin on to me. It's kind of cute, but in the end you're still wrong.


Chris wrote: "The difference between us is I'm not claiming things as fact, only opinion."

Response: Well, the funny thing is that you would backtrack and claim that you didn't mean something, that you were joking or that you didn't write it AFTER you were called on it.

Chris wrote: "I guess I'll throw this out there again since you apparently didn't catch it the first time:
'The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ('appeal to ignorance' [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.' You are saying you know something to be true just because there is no evidence to the contrary (in your opinion). I don't how much clearer this can get. Also, what you said was not the only evidence I have."

Response: What you are writing about me is completely false. I never based my conclusions solely on the lack of available evidence and you know this because you mentioned it often enough. It was also based on his statement paired with the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

As for you, well, you wrote that your evidence is the fact that he posts as a consumer instead of as an ex-employee and that he is insulting. That's hardly evidence, merely wishful thinking on your part.


Chris wrote: "Those are different types of murder, but they all fall under the 'simplistic' general definition of murder, do they not?"

Response: Other way around. The simplistic definition of murder falls under the more complex definitions.


Chris wrote: "You're joking, right? If an official definition isn't good enough for you, I don't know what to say. An overdraft falls under both the definition of a fee (that's your argument), and the definition of interest. Neither of us are wrong."

Response: But the official definition is more complex than the simple definition that Webster's provides. Webster's is for obtaining a basic understanding of the definition of the wrod, not for providing a detailed analysis of what interest is for the industry.


Chris wrote: "No I haven't ruled them out. I'm no psychiatrist but that motivation makes no sense to me and is pretty twisted in my opinion. It's possible but I'm just telling what I think is the simplest explanation."

Response: Okay, but the employee who is being paid to post here and hiding as a consumer is pretty far fetched to me.


Chris wrote: "I don't know what his other posts say, but if they are similar to these, then it wouldn't be logical to think he works for all those companies. I would then have to conclude he's just a strange person and probably needs help."

Response: Since you researched his prior posts so throughly, I'm surprised that you never looked beyond posts concerning US Bank.


Chris wrote: "I assume because he realized people wouldn't take him seriously if they knew he was an ex-employee so he changed his status. Most people wouldn't go back to those old posts to find that out."

Response: Or perhaps because his current status is as a concumer?


Chris wrote: "I'm basing on commence sense. If you are both a customer and an ex-employee, you have a clear bias, whether you like your old company, or you hate it. It is only fair to other readers that you state that. If you have a bias, people have a right to know."

Response: Common sense suggests that current status is more relevant than whether or not one worked for a company many years ago. I'd guess that in most reports, his status is simply not an issue. In my example, if I were to comment on Target's return policy, my experience as a consumer is far more recent than my experience as an ex-employee and so I'd post as a consumer because that is the more relevant experience. If someone where to post at the store that I worked at or specific people that I worked with, then it would be appropriate to post as an ex-employee.


Chris wrote: "Where do I begin? As usual, you are once again making incorrect statements as I have already clarified these. That first statement was an opinion and not a statement of fact, as I've already stated many times. I have not asked you to back up claims that you haven't made. Only you have done that. Plus, that's not a Red Herring fallacy."

Response: Exagerrating or misstating the positions of others is in fact a Straw Man argument. When you claimed that I believe that the bank is right in all things, that was the very definition of a straw man argument. When you claimed that you were targeted because the bank is never wrong, that was a straw man argument too.

In this very thread you have asked me to back up a claim that I didn't make and yes, a Red Herring is an attempt to distract by diverting the argument (asking me to back up a claim that I didn't make) or by giving replies that do not address the question (are overdraft fees simple interest or compounded, fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?)


Chris wrote: "Actually, go back and read the definition again. That's exactly what it means. You are claiming you know something to be false based on the lack of evidence of it being false. How are you not getting that?"

Response: You're leaving out a detail that you used to frequently harp on. I based my conclusion on HIS OWN STATEMENT plus the lack of contradictory evidence. My conclusion was NEVER based merely on the lack of evidence and therefore your accusation simply does not stand.


Chris wrote: "No, I'm not. You claimed to know he isn't an employee because of lack of evidence that he is. His claim that he isn't one is irrelevant. Anyone can say whatever they want. It doesn't mean it's true. I'm just dumbfounded that you can read that definition and not realize that's exactly what you're doing."

Response: I can read the definition and see that it does not apply because my conclusion was never based solely on the lack of evidence. We have his own statement on his current employment plus the lack of any evidence to the contrary. If you don't understand the logistics of this particular fallacy, that is your issue but your misunderstanding doesn't mean that you get to pin this fallacy on others and expect to be right.


Chris response: "Wrong. You just committed that same fallacy again. You are saying you know he isn't lying based on lack of evidence that he is."

Response: No, my conclusion was never based solely on the lack of evidence. However, you claim that it isn't possible for me to know. You are truly engaging in the fallacy that you are trying to pin on to me. It's kind of cute, but in the end you're still wrong.


Chris wrote: "The difference between us is I'm not claiming things as fact, only opinion."

Response: Well, the funny thing is that you would backtrack and claim that you didn't mean something, that you were joking or that you didn't write it AFTER you were called on it.

Chris wrote: "I guess I'll throw this out there again since you apparently didn't catch it the first time:
'The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ('appeal to ignorance' [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.' You are saying you know something to be true just because there is no evidence to the contrary (in your opinion). I don't how much clearer this can get. Also, what you said was not the only evidence I have."

Response: What you are writing about me is completely false. I never based my conclusions solely on the lack of available evidence and you know this because you mentioned it often enough. It was also based on his statement paired with the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

As for you, well, you wrote that your evidence is the fact that he posts as a consumer instead of as an ex-employee and that he is insulting. That's hardly evidence, merely wishful thinking on your part.


Chris wrote: "Those are different types of murder, but they all fall under the 'simplistic' general definition of murder, do they not?"

Response: Other way around. The simplistic definition of murder falls under the more complex definitions.


Chris wrote: "You're joking, right? If an official definition isn't good enough for you, I don't know what to say. An overdraft falls under both the definition of a fee (that's your argument), and the definition of interest. Neither of us are wrong."

Response: But the official definition is more complex than the simple definition that Webster's provides. Webster's is for obtaining a basic understanding of the definition of the wrod, not for providing a detailed analysis of what interest is for the industry.


Chris wrote: "No I haven't ruled them out. I'm no psychiatrist but that motivation makes no sense to me and is pretty twisted in my opinion. It's possible but I'm just telling what I think is the simplest explanation."

Response: Okay, but the employee who is being paid to post here and hiding as a consumer is pretty far fetched to me.


Chris wrote: "I don't know what his other posts say, but if they are similar to these, then it wouldn't be logical to think he works for all those companies. I would then have to conclude he's just a strange person and probably needs help."

Response: Since you researched his prior posts so throughly, I'm surprised that you never looked beyond posts concerning US Bank.


Chris wrote: "I assume because he realized people wouldn't take him seriously if they knew he was an ex-employee so he changed his status. Most people wouldn't go back to those old posts to find that out."

Response: Or perhaps because his current status is as a concumer?


Chris wrote: "I'm basing on commence sense. If you are both a customer and an ex-employee, you have a clear bias, whether you like your old company, or you hate it. It is only fair to other readers that you state that. If you have a bias, people have a right to know."

Response: Common sense suggests that current status is more relevant than whether or not one worked for a company many years ago. I'd guess that in most reports, his status is simply not an issue. In my example, if I were to comment on Target's return policy, my experience as a consumer is far more recent than my experience as an ex-employee and so I'd post as a consumer because that is the more relevant experience. If someone where to post at the store that I worked at or specific people that I worked with, then it would be appropriate to post as an ex-employee.


Chris wrote: "Where do I begin? As usual, you are once again making incorrect statements as I have already clarified these. That first statement was an opinion and not a statement of fact, as I've already stated many times. I have not asked you to back up claims that you haven't made. Only you have done that. Plus, that's not a Red Herring fallacy."

Response: Exagerrating or misstating the positions of others is in fact a Straw Man argument. When you claimed that I believe that the bank is right in all things, that was the very definition of a straw man argument. When you claimed that you were targeted because the bank is never wrong, that was a straw man argument too.

In this very thread you have asked me to back up a claim that I didn't make and yes, a Red Herring is an attempt to distract by diverting the argument (asking me to back up a claim that I didn't make) or by giving replies that do not address the question (are overdraft fees simple interest or compounded, fixed or floating rate and how are they impacted by inflation?)


Chris wrote: "Actually, go back and read the definition again. That's exactly what it means. You are claiming you know something to be false based on the lack of evidence of it being false. How are you not getting that?"

Response: You're leaving out a detail that you used to frequently harp on. I based my conclusion on HIS OWN STATEMENT plus the lack of contradictory evidence. My conclusion was NEVER based merely on the lack of evidence and therefore your accusation simply does not stand.


Chris wrote: "No, I'm not. You claimed to know he isn't an employee because of lack of evidence that he is. His claim that he isn't one is irrelevant. Anyone can say whatever they want. It doesn't mean it's true. I'm just dumbfounded that you can read that definition and not realize that's exactly what you're doing."

Response: I can read the definition and see that it does not apply because my conclusion was never based solely on the lack of evidence. We have his own statement on his current employment plus the lack of any evidence to the contrary. If you don't understand the logistics of this particular fallacy, that is your issue but your misunderstanding doesn't mean that you get to pin this fallacy on others and expect to be right.


Chris response: "Wrong. You just committed that same fallacy again. You are saying you know he isn't lying based on lack of evidence that he is."

Response: No, my conclusion was never based solely on the lack of evidence. However, you claim that it isn't possible for me to know. You are truly engaging in the fallacy that you are trying to pin on to me. It's kind of cute, but in the end you're still wrong.


Chris wrote: "The difference between us is I'm not claiming things as fact, only opinion."

Response: Well, the funny thing is that you would backtrack and claim that you didn't mean something, that you were joking or that you didn't write it AFTER you were called on it.

"Well, as stated earlier, you can't prove a negative and there is a reasonable basis to assume that he isn't an employee. Your contention that the fact that he (accurately) posts as a consumer is evidence that he is a bank employee requires quite a few mental hoops to jump through. It isn't evidence at all, it's a minor detail that you're blowing out of proportion in order to support your belief that he works or spots for US Bank. You're not making your theory fit the facts."

I guess I'll throw this out there again since you apparently didn't catch it the first time:
"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ('appeal to ignorance' [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true." You are saying you know something to be true just because there is no evidence to the contrary (in your opinion). I don't how much clearer this can get. Also, what you said was not the only evidence I have.

"It's a bit complicated for a forum post, but there are generally four legal definitions of murder as opposed to Webster's simplistic unlawlful taking of a life with malice aforethought. Legally speaking, you have intentional murder, murder from depravity or recklessness, murder from intent to harm and murder by an accomplice during or fleeing from a felony act. Most states use California's definition of malice aforethought and murder charges are broken down between first degree, second degree and occasionally downgraded to manslaughter."

Those are different types of murder, but they all fall under the "simplistic" general definition of murder, do they not?

"You're still not getting it. Let's say that you were an interrogator and we were at war with another nation. I can't claim that you violated the Geneva Conventions and then try to use Webster's definition of torture. I'd have to use the definition provided by the Geneva Conventions."

I'm agreeing with you though. I used the Geneva Convention's definition.

"Likewise, if you're going to claim that overdraft fees are interest, you're going to have to provide something a little more substantial than Webster's definition."

You're joking, right? If an official definition isn't good enough for you, I don't know what to say. An overdraft falls under both the definition of a fee (that's your argument), and the definition of interest. Neither of us are wrong.

"What do you think that my definition of interest is?"

I meant to say "the" instead of "your".

"Have you ruled out other motivations such as he may simply get a kick out of it?"

No I haven't ruled them out. I'm no psychiatrist but that motivation makes no sense to me and is pretty twisted in my opinion. It's possible but I'm just telling what I think is the simplest explanation.

"The fact that he accurately posts as a consumer and the fact that he tends to be insulting in his posts is evidence to you? Here's something to consider, he posts about other companies as well. If he is insulting to others in those reports, does that mean that he works for the other companies as well?"

I don't know what his other posts say, but if they are similar to these, then it wouldn't be logical to think he works for all those companies. I would then have to conclude he's just a strange person and probably needs help.

"Changing his status isn't a 'problem'. He IS a current consumer. And as I wrote, if he were an employee and wanted to mislead people, why wouldn't he stay silent about his former employment?"

I assume because he realized people wouldn't take him seriously if they knew he was an ex-employee so he changed his status. Most people wouldn't go back to those old posts to find that out.

"I see nothing in this site's TOS that says that 'ex-employee' overrides 'consumer'. What are you basing this on?"

I'm basing on commence sense. If you are both a customer and an ex-employee, you have a clear bias, whether you like your old company, or you hate it. It is only fair to other readers that you state that. If you have a bias, people have a right to know.

" Many things, but to provide one example for the total of five that I mentioned... Straw Man: You have claimed that I and other users believe that the bank is always right or that you are targeted because the bank is never wrong. Red Herring: You have asked me to back up claims that I didn't make or claimed that I have made statements that I haven't made."

Where do I begin? As usual, you are once again making incorrect statements as I have already clarified these. That first statement was an opinion and not a statement of fact, as I've already stated many times. I have not asked you to back up claims that you haven't made. Only you have done that. Plus, that's not a Red Herring fallacy.

"Your earlier attempt to get me to 'prove' that he isn't a bank employee and by your own logic you are engaging in an argument from ignorance when you claim that it is impossible for me to know that he isn't a bank employee based on his statement and the lack of contradictory evidence."

Actually, go back and read the definition again. That's exactly what it means. You are claiming you know something to be false based on the lack of evidence of it being false. How are you not getting that?

"Actually, you're wrong. If I had claimed that I know he isn't a bank employee because nothing proves that my theory is false, you'd be absolutely correct. However, my claim isn't merely based on a lack of evidence, is it?"

No, I'm not. You claimed to know he isn't an employee because of lack of evidence that he is. His claim that he isn't one is irrelevant. Anyone can say whatever they want. It doesn't mean it's true. I'm just dumbfounded that you can read that definition and not realize that's exactly what you're doing.

"While you may not believe him, there is nothing to suggest that he is lying about that or that he has contradicted himself. It was a nice try on your part, but it falls flat in the real world."

Wrong. You just committed that same fallacy again. You are saying you know he isn't lying based on lack of evidence that he is.

"No, it's merely you throwing claims around and seeing if one of them will stick."

The difference between us is I'm not claiming things as fact, only opinion.

Come on guys...seriously? Arguing about what is ethical and reiterating what you've said over and over again? Let's try to just cut all of this crap down and cut to the chase.

- It's illogical to think EVERYONE is going to use a paper register to keep track of purchases made in today's world. Maybe 15 years ago it would've worked before ATM machines, but since ATM and Debit cards, it's nearly impossible to track UNLESS you do online banking. The fact is, it can take 3-5 days for deposits to go into your checking account if you do an overnight deposit or an ATM deposit. And it can take even longer for debit or ATM card transactions to go through. The online banking environment is SUPPOSED to be fool proof and the most effective way to manage your money and transactions. However, just as an ATM Machine and your paper register, it can be VERY deceiving.

- ATM's will give the wrong information. Many ATM's still out there give account balances that are incorrect. For example, you may see online that you have an Available and Account balance. On the ATM, you just have Account Balance, which is deceiving. It's very easy for a person to go out and spend money on deceiving information such as this because they are led on to believe they have more money "Available" then they already do.

- Charges disappear. There are MANY times that a charge will disappear from an online banking environment for days before finally showing up as a Debit or ATM transaction in your online register and even on the ATM Machine.

- Charging a $40 fee for going minuscule amounts over your account balance is illogical. For example, my brother over drafted $2.00 one time, and was charged $80.00. How is it logical to charge 4000% charge to someone that did not see a transaction go through, or was misinformed by an ATM and Online Banking with an "Available" or "Account Balance?" How is it logical to charge overdraft fees for withdrawing money from your accounts because the bank decides they want to charge $2.00-$5.00 for different ATM machines than their own? So if you withdraw from a National City ATM, US Bank will charge you $2.50 along with National City's charges of $1.50. So just because you wanted to withdraw some money from your account, and you HAVE THE MONEY, it's logical to charge $5 for doing that? No, it's not!!

Look, just because a bank has policies, it doesn't mean their right. IT DOES NOT mean they are not built to rape the consumer. The banks make a KILLING on this kind of stuff because they aren't making money by you just having normal amounts of money in your "Free Checking" accounts. The banks don't care about the little guy that is keeping their places afloat. They care about the millionaires that are keeping their institutions afloat with investing options, CDs, and savings. Just because they are "policies" doesn't make them right. They are built to bring in money for the institution, whether it hurts anyone or not. And usually the people that can't afford the hurt are hurt the most.

Fact is, over drafts are FAKE money the banks put up. It's not real. Do yourself a favor, and go to a bank that is consumer driven. Get a checking account that is FREE with FREE ATM Withdraws from ANY ATM. They have them out there! PNC and National City are currently 2 that offer them. I quit US Bank a long time ago because they don't have anything like that and probably never will because they quite frankly don't give a crap about the little person just trying to pay the bills, put food on the table, and live day-to-day. And for some of you, you should be ashamed with your responses, because you sound like a bunch of agitated Bank Representatives.

Chris worte: "You have no original research either, so that's hardly a valid argument."

Response: Well, as stated earlier, you can't prove a negative and there is a reasonable basis to assume that he isn't an employee. Your contention that the fact that he (accurately) posts as a consumer is evidence that he is a bank employee requires quite a few mental hoops to jump through. It isn't evidence at all, it's a minor detail that you're blowing out of proportion in order to support your belief that he works or spots for US Bank. You're not making your theory fit the facts.


Chris wrote: "Yes, I mean in legal terms."

Response: It's a bit complicated for a forum post, but there are generally four legal definitions of murder as opposed to Webster's simplistic unlawlful taking of a life with malice aforethought. Legally speaking, you have intentional murder, murder from depravity or recklessness, murder from intent to harm and murder by an accomplice during or fleeing from a felony act. Most states use California's definition of malice aforethought and murder charges are broken down between first degree, second degree and occasionally downgraded to manslaughter.


Chris wrote: "I was referring to the Geneva Convention's definition."

Response: You're still not getting it. Let's say that you were an interrogator and we were at war with another nation. I can't claim that you violated the Geneva Conventions and then try to use Webster's definition of torture. I'd have to use the definition provided by the Geneva Conventions.

Likewise, if you're going to claim that overdraft fees are interest, you're going to have to provide something a little more substantial than Webster's definition.


Chris wrote: "By your definition of interest, and your definition of a fee, an overdraft fee can be defined as both, so I guess we're both correct."

Response: What do you think that my definition of interest is?


Chris wrote: "Well, they certainly are affected by inflation. When I was a child, overdraft fees were around $10. Now they are $37.50. I'm sure that's in large part due to inflation."

Response: But the fee was $37.50 even with low inflation. And that doesn't explain how overdraft fees are affected by inflation if they were truly interest. It also doesn't explain whether they are simple or compounded interest and whether overdraftfees are an example of fixed or floating rates.


Chris wrote: "That's hardly the only reason I believe it. I also believe it because he very frequently doesn't offer advice, here merely insults the user. I find this behavior indicative of someone who has a personal reason to defend the bank. This leads me to believe that he works there. I have a personal reason to attack the bank, because they have wronged me many times in the past, and I've never denied that."

Response: Have you ruled out other motivations such as he may simply get a kick out of it?


Chris wrote: "We are talking about opinions here. Neither of us can be wrong or right. You think there is no evidence and I think there is."

Response: The fact that he accurately posts as a consumer and the fact that he tends to be insulting in his posts is evidence to you? Here's something to consider, he posts about other companies as well. If he is insulting to others in those reports, does that mean that he works for the other companies as well?


Chris wrote: "The problem is he changed his status, leading me to believe that for some reason (most likely, people weren't taking him seriously), he felt the need to mislead people with the fact that he used to work there. Unless people actually went back and read the old posts, they wouldn't know otherwise."

Response: Changing his status isn't a "problem". He IS a current consumer. And as I wrote, if he were an employee and wanted to mislead people, why wouldn't he stay silent about his former employment?


Chris wrote: "It's pertinent information because of what this site is about. You may not know Target's current policies but it's fair to let people know you used to work there (even if it was brief) if you are going to defend them. I honestly see your point, that I am the law" may not know their current policies if he isn't an employee, but he can still post as an ex-employee, because that's what he is. He's also a consumer, but for the purposes of this site, ex-employee" status overrides customer" status."

Response: I see nothing in this site's TOS that says that "ex-employee" overrides "consumer". What are you basing this on?


Chris wrote: "What have I said that constitutes a logical fallacy?"

Response: Many things, but to provide one example for the total of five that I mentioned... Straw Man: You have claimed that I and other users believe that the bank is always right or that you are targeted because the bank is never wrong. Red Herring: You have asked me to back up claims that I didn't make or claimed that I have made statements that I haven't made. In fact, you have also used a Red Herring in your response to my question about whether overdraft fees are simple or compound interest, fixed or floating rate and how they are affected by inflation. Two wrongs making a right: Your defense of your behavior when you insulted other users while criticizing this behavior in others. Misplacing the burden of proof: Your earlier attempt to get me to "prove" that he isn't a bank employee and by your own logic you are engaging in an argument from ignorance when you claim that it is impossible for me to know that he isn't a bank employee based on his statement and the lack of contradictory evidence.

Chris wrote: "What you've said (I KNOW he's not a US Bank employee because there is no contrary evidence) is absolutely a logical fallacy"

Response: Actually, you're wrong. If I had claimed that I know he isn't a bank employee because nothing proves that my theory is false, you'd be absolutely correct. However, my claim isn't merely based on a lack of evidence, is it?

We also have his his own words on the matter. While you may not believe him, there is nothing to suggest that he is lying about that or that he has contradicted himself. It was a nice try on your part, but it falls flat in the real world.


Chris wrote: "and my quote above proves that."

Response: No, you only made yourself look worse.


Chris wrote: "I believe that's what they call check and mate."

Response: No, it's merely you throwing claims around and seeing if one of them will stick.

You have no facts and no original research. The only thing you have to base your belief on is the fact that he posts as a consumer and not an ex-employee (and he is a consumer!) You have nothing.

You have no original research either, so that's hardly a valid argument. The reason this site offers the option of posting as an ex-employee if you are one is that people will realize the bias involved if they know the person used to work at a particular business. If a person is an ex-employee, they are obligated to post as such. It's only fair to the other readers.

Do you mean in legal terms? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Yes, I mean in legal terms.

No, it doesn't 'illustrate' your point. And this isn't about waterboarding per se. My point is that you can't use Webster's definition of torture if you want to say that someone broke the Geneva Conventions, you go with the legal definition that the Geneva Conventions use.

I was referring to the Geneva Convention's definition.

No, overdraft fees are not interest. They are a flat service fee. And while it is silly to claim that overdraft fees are interest because Webster's Dictionary said so, I'll point out that Webster's defnition of 'fee' is:

2 a: a fixed charge b: a sum paid or charged for a service

That is closer to what an overdraft fee is.

By your definition of interest, and your definition of a fee, an overdraft fee can be defined as both, so I guess we're both correct.

Webster's definition is simplistic and as noted above, their definition of 'fee' is a better match for overdraft fees. And can you explain if there is a law that says that overdraft fees are interest, if they are simple or compounded interest, fixed or floating rate and how they are affected by inflation?

Well, they certainly are affected by inflation. When I was a child, overdraft fees were around $10. Now they are $37.50. I'm sure that's in large part due to inflation.

I know that he is not an employee based on all of the available evidence. You believe that he is an employee because he posts as a consumer.

That's hardly the only reason I believe it. I also believe it because he very frequently doesn't offer advice, here merely insults the user. I find this behavior indicative of someone who has a personal reason to defend the bank. This leads me to believe that he works there. I have a personal reason to attack the bank, because they have wronged me many times in the past, and I've never denied that.

No, there is no evidence. You think that he is an employee because he posts as a consumer and not an ex-employee. That's not evidence. That's strained logic. And it is possible for me to know that he isn't an employee by looking at all of the available evidence.

We are talking about opinions here. Neither of us can be wrong or right. You think there is no evidence and I think there is.

But his current status is a consumer. And the fact that he wrote more than once that he once worked for them contradicts your theory. If he wanted to mislead people, why not stay silent about having once worked for them?

The problem is he changed his status, leading me to believe that for some reason (most likely, people weren't taking him seriously), he felt the need to mislead people with the fact that he used to work there. Unless people actually went back and read the old posts, they wouldn't know otherwise.

How is it pertinent information? I worked for them several years ago for a little over a month. My current relationship with them is as a consumer. If someone posts on Target's policy of returning video games (which is now different than it was back then) and I comment on the return policy printed on my Target receipt, how is my former employment pertinent information?

It's pertinent information because of what this site is about. You may not know Target's current policies but it's fair to let people know you used to work there (even if it was brief) if you are going to defend them. I honestly see your point, that I am the law may not know their current policies if he isn't an employee, but he can still post as an ex-employee, because that's what he is. He's also a consumer, but for the purposes of this site, ex-employee status overrides customer status.

Oh, isn't that ironic? Do you really want to get into a discussion on logical fallacies? Would you like to see what you have engaged in? (Hint: Straw Man, Red Herring, Two wrongs making a right and Misplacing the burden of prrof would be four). Do you not realize that you are engaging in the same logical fallacy that you suggest that I am?

What have I said that constitutes a logical fallacy? What you've said (I KNOW he's not a US Bank employee because there is no contrary evidence) is absolutely a logical fallacy and my quote above proves that. I believe that's what they call check and mate.

Chris wrote: "In your opinion, it's not based on anything in particular. In my opinion, it is (not the 9/11 thing, the other thing)."

Response: You have no facts and no original research. The only thing you have to base your belief on is the fact that he posts as a consumer and not an ex-employee (and he is a consumer!) You have nothing.


Chris wrote: "What are the differences between their definition of murder and what it is in reality?"

Response: Do you mean in legal terms? I'm not quite sure what you mean.


Chris wrote: "I am intimately familiar with this discussion of torture as I work for an intelligence agency (not CIA), but the problem with your analogy is that it can be argued that it is an opinion that waterboarding is torture as the Geneva Convention defines it as inflicting severe pain and suffering on someone". Since both sides can be argued, that it could fall under that definition or it can't, as no permanent damage is done, it only illustrates my point."

Response: No, it doesn't "illustrate" your point. And this isn't about waterboarding per se. My point is that you can't use Webster's definition of torture if you want to say that someone broke the Geneva Conventions, you go with the legal definition that the Geneva Conventions use.


Chris wrote: "You did claim that overdrafts don't constitute interest on a loan but by the definition given by Webster's, however simplistic, clearly demonstrates that it does."

Response: No, overdraft fees are not interest. They are a flat service fee. And while it is silly to claim that overdraft fees are interest because Webster's Dictionary said so, I'll point out that Webster's defnition of "fee" is:

2 a: a fixed charge b: a sum paid or charged for a service

That is closer to what an overdraft fee is.


Chris wrote: "Since it falls under the definition of interest, it should be subject to usury laws, like any other loan. Interest doesn't have to be a certain percentage to still be considered interest. The definition never states that. You may think the Webster's definition is simplistic, but it's the definition."

Response: Webster's definition is simplistic and as noted above, their definition of "fee" is a better match for overdraft fees. And can you explain if there is a law that says that overdraft fees are interest, if they are simple or compounded interest, fixed or floating rate and how they are affected by inflation?


Chris wrote: "People can believe anything they want if they feel the evidence suggests it. I don't claim to know he's an employee, only that I believe it. The difference is you claim to know he's not, which can only mean one of two things: You know him personally and therefore know who he is employed by, or that you're psychic. From the evidence I have, neither is likely."

Response: I know that he is not an employee based on all of the available evidence. You believe that he is an employee because he posts as a consumer.


Chris wrote: "Actually, you're leaving out two small details. There IS evidence to suggest that and it's impossible for you to know he isn't."

Response: No, there is no evidence. You think that he is an employee because he posts as a consumer and not an ex-employee. That's not evidence. That's strained logic. And it is possible for me to know that he isn't an employee by looking at all of the available evidence.


Chris wrote: "It's very misleading and I suspect he switched because he knows people are going to realize his bias if he posts as an ex-employee. If he's willing to use this tactic, perhaps he is still an employee and just doesn't want us to know. The reason they provide the option to post that way is people will either realize the bias if the post is positive or the incite they have into the inner-workings of a business if the post is negative. It's only fair that someone post as ex-employee if they are one."

Response: But his current status is a consumer. And the fact that he wrote more than once that he once worked for them contradicts your theory. If he wanted to mislead people, why not stay silent about having once worked for them?


Chris wrote: "You are misleading people, yes, because you are, in fact, an ex-employee, but are choosing not to tell people that. Withholding pertinent information is misleading."

Response: How is it pertinent information? I worked for them several years ago for a little over a month. My current relationship with them is as a consumer. If someone posts on Target's policy of returning video games (which is now different than it was back then) and I comment on the return policy printed on my Target receipt, how is my former employment pertinent information?


Chris wrote: "They are not guaranteed to be false that was never argued, but they are not guaranteed to be true either. If you can provide proof that you know he's not an employee, I'll admit I'm wrong. Lack of evidence to the contrary does equal fact (saying I know"). Look:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ('appeal to ignorance' [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true." Are you going to try and argue that this isn't what you're trying to do?"

Response: Oh, isn't that ironic? Do you really want to get into a discussion on logical fallacies? Would you like to see what you have engaged in? (Hint: Straw Man, Red Herring, Two wrongs making a right and Misplacing the burden of prrof would be four). Do you not realize that you are engaging in the same logical fallacy that you suggest that I am?

Actually, you have a belief that is not based on anything in particular (more below). As to the circumstantial evidence regarding 9/11, ask the conspiracy theorists. I am certainly no troofer.

In your opinion, it's not based on anything in particular. In my opinion, it is (not the 9/11 thing, the other thing).

Because Webster's doesn't provide a complete summary as to what a word truly means. For example, it doesn't explain the complexities behind the legal definition of murder, just a basic definition of the word. By the same token, Webster's definition of 'interest' does not take into account the various complexities that the financial industry uses to define interest.

What are the differences between their definition of murder and what it is in reality?

Let's look at it another way. I'm certain that you've heard of the ongoing discussion regarding torture during interrogations. The dictionary may provide a very basic definition of torture but the Geneva Conventions provide a much more detailed definition as to what is considered torture.

I am intimately familiar with this discussion of torture as I work for an intelligence agency (not CIA), but the problem with your analogy is that it can be argued that it is an opinion that waterboarding is torture as the Geneva Convention defines it as inflicting severe pain and suffering on someone. Since both sides can be argued, that it could fall under that definition or it can't, as no permanent damage is done, it only illustrates my point.

And you made another error. I never claimed that your definition was incorrect. Only that it was simplistic and not entirely accurate.

You did claim that overdrafts don't constitute interest on a loan but by the definition given by Webster's, however simplistic, clearly demonstrates that it does.

Really? Is there a law that says that overdraft fees are interest? And can you explain if overdraft fees are simple interest or compound interest? Are they fixed or floating rate? How are they affected by inflation? If overdraft fees are indeed interest, you should have no problem explaining that.

Since it falls under the definition of interest, it should be subject to usury laws, like any other loan. Interest doesn't have to be a certain percentage to still be considered interest. The definition never states that. You may think the Webster's definition is simplistic, but it's the definition.

This goes back to what I wrote about basing conclusions on all available evidence. There is nothing to indicate that he is a bank employee and no reason to believe that he is unless you WISH to believe it. Make your theory fit the facts.

People can believe anything they want if they feel the evidence suggests it. I don't claim to know he's an employee, only that I believe it. The difference is you claim to know he's not, which can only mean one of two things: You know him personally and therefore know who he is employed by, or that you're psychic. From the evidence I have, neither is likely.

You're leaving out one small detail. It is appropriate to claim that I know he isn't an employee based on ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (i.e. none).

Actually, you're leaving out two small details. There IS evidence to suggest that and it's impossible for you to know he isn't.

That's your evidence? That he once worked for US Bank and he switched from posting as an ex-employee to consumer? Are you aware that he is currently a consumer of US Bank? That's hardly misleading since he has at least one account there. He's also been quite oepn about having worked for them at one time.

It's very misleading and I suspect he switched because he knows people are going to realize his bias if he posts as an ex-employee. If he's willing to use this tactic, perhaps he is still an employee and just doesn't want us to know. The reason they provide the option to post that way is people will either realize the bias if the post is positive or the incite they have into the inner-workings of a business if the post is negative. It's only fair that someone post as ex-employee if they are one.

By the way, I worked a Christmas season as a temp at Target once. I have participated in threads about Target but I have never identified myself as an ex-employee. Does that mean that I am mileading people and is it circumstantial evidence that I currently work for Target?

You are misleading people, yes, because you are, in fact, an ex-employee, but are choosing not to tell people that. Withholding pertinent information is misleading.

My statements are also based on all available evidence and they are only false if he turns out to be a bank employee and that I knew of this when I posted. In other words, not a false statement at all.

They are not guaranteed to be false that was never argued, but they are not guaranteed to be true either. If you can provide proof that you know he's not an employee, I'll admit I'm wrong. Lack of evidence to the contrary does equal fact (saying I know). Look:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. Are you going to try and argue that this isn't what you're trying to do?

Actually, you have a belief that is not based on anything in particular (more below). As to the circumstantial evidence regarding 9/11, ask the conspiracy theorists. I am certainly no troofer.

In your opinion, it's not based on anything in particular. In my opinion, it is (not the 9/11 thing, the other thing).

Because Webster's doesn't provide a complete summary as to what a word truly means. For example, it doesn't explain the complexities behind the legal definition of murder, just a basic definition of the word. By the same token, Webster's definition of 'interest' does not take into account the various complexities that the financial industry uses to define interest.

What are the differences between their definition of murder and what it is in reality?

Let's look at it another way. I'm certain that you've heard of the ongoing discussion regarding torture during interrogations. The dictionary may provide a very basic definition of torture but the Geneva Conventions provide a much more detailed definition as to what is considered torture.

I am intimately familiar with this discussion of torture as I work for an intelligence agency (not CIA), but the problem with your analogy is that it can be argued that it is an opinion that waterboarding is torture as the Geneva Convention defines it as inflicting severe pain and suffering on someone. Since both sides can be argued, that it could fall under that definition or it can't, as no permanent damage is done, it only illustrates my point.

And you made another error. I never claimed that your definition was incorrect. Only that it was simplistic and not entirely accurate.

You did claim that overdrafts don't constitute interest on a loan but by the definition given by Webster's, however simplistic, clearly demonstrates that it does.

Really? Is there a law that says that overdraft fees are interest? And can you explain if overdraft fees are simple interest or compound interest? Are they fixed or floating rate? How are they affected by inflation? If overdraft fees are indeed interest, you should have no problem explaining that.

Since it falls under the definition of interest, it should be subject to usury laws, like any other loan. Interest doesn't have to be a certain percentage to still be considered interest. The definition never states that. You may think the Webster's definition is simplistic, but it's the definition.

This goes back to what I wrote about basing conclusions on all available evidence. There is nothing to indicate that he is a bank employee and no reason to believe that he is unless you WISH to believe it. Make your theory fit the facts.

People can believe anything they want if they feel the evidence suggests it. I don't claim to know he's an employee, only that I believe it. The difference is you claim to know he's not, which can only mean one of two things: You know him personally and therefore know who he is employed by, or that you're psychic. From the evidence I have, neither is likely.

You're leaving out one small detail. It is appropriate to claim that I know he isn't an employee based on ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (i.e. none).

Actually, you're leaving out two small details. There IS evidence to suggest that and it's impossible for you to know he isn't.

That's your evidence? That he once worked for US Bank and he switched from posting as an ex-employee to consumer? Are you aware that he is currently a consumer of US Bank? That's hardly misleading since he has at least one account there. He's also been quite oepn about having worked for them at one time.

It's very misleading and I suspect he switched because he knows people are going to realize his bias if he posts as an ex-employee. If he's willing to use this tactic, perhaps he is still an employee and just doesn't want us to know. The reason they provide the option to post that way is people will either realize the bias if the post is positive or the incite they have into the inner-workings of a business if the post is negative. It's only fair that someone post as ex-employee if they are one.

By the way, I worked a Christmas season as a temp at Target once. I have participated in threads about Target but I have never identified myself as an ex-employee. Does that mean that I am mileading people and is it circumstantial evidence that I currently work for Target?

You are misleading people, yes, because you are, in fact, an ex-employee, but are choosing not to tell people that. Withholding pertinent information is misleading.

My statements are also based on all available evidence and they are only false if he turns out to be a bank employee and that I knew of this when I posted. In other words, not a false statement at all.

They are not guaranteed to be false that was never argued, but they are not guaranteed to be true either. If you can provide proof that you know he's not an employee, I'll admit I'm wrong. Lack of evidence to the contrary does equal fact (saying I know). Look:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. Are you going to try and argue that this isn't what you're trying to do?

Actually, you have a belief that is not based on anything in particular (more below). As to the circumstantial evidence regarding 9/11, ask the conspiracy theorists. I am certainly no troofer.

In your opinion, it's not based on anything in particular. In my opinion, it is (not the 9/11 thing, the other thing).

Because Webster's doesn't provide a complete summary as to what a word truly means. For example, it doesn't explain the complexities behind the legal definition of murder, just a basic definition of the word. By the same token, Webster's definition of 'interest' does not take into account the various complexities that the financial industry uses to define interest.

What are the differences between their definition of murder and what it is in reality?

Let's look at it another way. I'm certain that you've heard of the ongoing discussion regarding torture during interrogations. The dictionary may provide a very basic definition of torture but the Geneva Conventions provide a much more detailed definition as to what is considered torture.

I am intimately familiar with this discussion of torture as I work for an intelligence agency (not CIA), but the problem with your analogy is that it can be argued that it is an opinion that waterboarding is torture as the Geneva Convention defines it as inflicting severe pain and suffering on someone. Since both sides can be argued, that it could fall under that definition or it can't, as no permanent damage is done, it only illustrates my point.

And you made another error. I never claimed that your definition was incorrect. Only that it was simplistic and not entirely accurate.

You did claim that overdrafts don't constitute interest on a loan but by the definition given by Webster's, however simplistic, clearly demonstrates that it does.

Really? Is there a law that says that overdraft fees are interest? And can you explain if overdraft fees are simple interest or compound interest? Are they fixed or floating rate? How are they affected by inflation? If overdraft fees are indeed interest, you should have no problem explaining that.

Since it falls under the definition of interest, it should be subject to usury laws, like any other loan. Interest doesn't have to be a certain percentage to still be considered interest. The definition never states that. You may think the Webster's definition is simplistic, but it's the definition.

This goes back to what I wrote about basing conclusions on all available evidence. There is nothing to indicate that he is a bank employee and no reason to believe that he is unless you WISH to believe it. Make your theory fit the facts.

People can believe anything they want if they feel the evidence suggests it. I don't claim to know he's an employee, only that I believe it. The difference is you claim to know he's not, which can only mean one of two things: You know him personally and therefore know who he is employed by, or that you're psychic. From the evidence I have, neither is likely.

You're leaving out one small detail. It is appropriate to claim that I know he isn't an employee based on ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (i.e. none).

Actually, you're leaving out two small details. There IS evidence to suggest that and it's impossible for you to know he isn't.

That's your evidence? That he once worked for US Bank and he switched from posting as an ex-employee to consumer? Are you aware that he is currently a consumer of US Bank? That's hardly misleading since he has at least one account there. He's also been quite oepn about having worked for them at one time.

It's very misleading and I suspect he switched because he knows people are going to realize his bias if he posts as an ex-employee. If he's willing to use this tactic, perhaps he is still an employee and just doesn't want us to know. The reason they provide the option to post that way is people will either realize the bias if the post is positive or the incite they have into the inner-workings of a business if the post is negative. It's only fair that someone post as ex-employee if they are one.

By the way, I worked a Christmas season as a temp at Target once. I have participated in threads about Target but I have never identified myself as an ex-employee. Does that mean that I am mileading people and is it circumstantial evidence that I currently work for Target?

You are misleading people, yes, because you are, in fact, an ex-employee, but are choosing not to tell people that. Withholding pertinent information is misleading.

My statements are also based on all available evidence and they are only false if he turns out to be a bank employee and that I knew of this when I posted. In other words, not a false statement at all.

They are not guaranteed to be false that was never argued, but they are not guaranteed to be true either. If you can provide proof that you know he's not an employee, I'll admit I'm wrong. Lack of evidence to the contrary does equal fact (saying I know). Look:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. Are you going to try and argue that this isn't what you're trying to do?

Actually, you have a belief that is not based on anything in particular (more below). As to the circumstantial evidence regarding 9/11, ask the conspiracy theorists. I am certainly no troofer.

In your opinion, it's not based on anything in particular. In my opinion, it is (not the 9/11 thing, the other thing).

Because Webster's doesn't provide a complete summary as to what a word truly means. For example, it doesn't explain the complexities behind the legal definition of murder, just a basic definition of the word. By the same token, Webster's definition of 'interest' does not take into account the various complexities that the financial industry uses to define interest.

What are the differences between their definition of murder and what it is in reality?

Let's look at it another way. I'm certain that you've heard of the ongoing discussion regarding torture during interrogations. The dictionary may provide a very basic definition of torture but the Geneva Conventions provide a much more detailed definition as to what is considered torture.

I am intimately familiar with this discussion of torture as I work for an intelligence agency (not CIA), but the problem with your analogy is that it can be argued that it is an opinion that waterboarding is torture as the Geneva Convention defines it as inflicting severe pain and suffering on someone. Since both sides can be argued, that it could fall under that definition or it can't, as no permanent damage is done, it only illustrates my point.

And you made another error. I never claimed that your definition was incorrect. Only that it was simplistic and not entirely accurate.

You did claim that overdrafts don't constitute interest on a loan but by the definition given by Webster's, however simplistic, clearly demonstrates that it does.

Really? Is there a law that says that overdraft fees are interest? And can you explain if overdraft fees are simple interest or compound interest? Are they fixed or floating rate? How are they affected by inflation? If overdraft fees are indeed interest, you should have no problem explaining that.

Since it falls under the definition of interest, it should be subject to usury laws, like any other loan. Interest doesn't have to be a certain percentage to still be considered interest. The definition never states that. You may think the Webster's definition is simplistic, but it's the definition.

This goes back to what I wrote about basing conclusions on all available evidence. There is nothing to indicate that he is a bank employee and no reason to believe that he is unless you WISH to believe it. Make your theory fit the facts.

People can believe anything they want if they feel the evidence suggests it. I don't claim to know he's an employee, only that I believe it. The difference is you claim to know he's not, which can only mean one of two things: You know him personally and therefore know who he is employed by, or that you're psychic. From the evidence I have, neither is likely.

You're leaving out one small detail. It is appropriate to claim that I know he isn't an employee based on ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (i.e. none).

Actually, you're leaving out two small details. There IS evidence to suggest that and it's impossible for you to know he isn't.

That's your evidence? That he once worked for US Bank and he switched from posting as an ex-employee to consumer? Are you aware that he is currently a consumer of US Bank? That's hardly misleading since he has at least one account there. He's also been quite oepn about having worked for them at one time.

It's very misleading and I suspect he switched because he knows people are going to realize his bias if he posts as an ex-employee. If he's willing to use this tactic, perhaps he is still an employee and just doesn't want us to know. The reason they provide the option to post that way is people will either realize the bias if the post is positive or the incite they have into the inner-workings of a business if the post is negative. It's only fair that someone post as ex-employee if they are one.

By the way, I worked a Christmas season as a temp at Target once. I have participated in threads about Target but I have never identified myself as an ex-employee. Does that mean that I am mileading people and is it circumstantial evidence that I currently work for Target?

You are misleading people, yes, because you are, in fact, an ex-employee, but are choosing not to tell people that. Withholding pertinent information is misleading.

My statements are also based on all available evidence and they are only false if he turns out to be a bank employee and that I knew of this when I posted. In other words, not a false statement at all.

They are not guaranteed to be false that was never argued, but they are not guaranteed to be true either. If you can provide proof that you know he's not an employee, I'll admit I'm wrong. Lack of evidence to the contrary does equal fact (saying I know). Look:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. Are you going to try and argue that this isn't what you're trying to do?

Well, they shot down Proposition 8 out there is California and I live in Missouri so I guess that won't be happening anytime soon. Oh, and it doesn't help that I'm already married.

A well written post.

I too think that overdraft fees are outrageous and nobody should be paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars per month. I'm not even going to attempt to match your eloquence but I do support your conclusion.

I have mostly been reading reports with great amusement rather than commenting. The truth is, I find myself somewhat torn on an issue like this.

On one hand, the economics of the overdraft issue are extremely simple. Subtract all checks from your register balance the moment you write them. Stop using the debit card for ANYTHING except big-ticket items like computers and auto repairs - and when you do, subtract them in your register immediately. Withdraw cash from the ATM and use that to pay for gas (pay at the pump = nightmare for those living paycheck to paycheck...), everyday items, etc. Most of all, keep a fixed amount in your account ($500 seems to be a nice, safe number) and never, ever spend below that balance unless a world-shattering crisis befalls you.

On the other hand, it is difficult to defend a bank when it rearranges items and smacks working-class individuals and families for all the loot it can grab. Legally, they have every right to do it so long as the practices are outlined in the terms and conditions. But ethically, I'm not sure ordering places a business in a very select class.

Ultimately, it seems to me the solution to this conundrum is much like the storyline in the movie 'Trading Places'. For those of you too young to remember that movie, Two billionaires make a one-dollar (that's $1) bet that they can swap the lives of their boy genius business manager (Dan Akroyd) and a homeless vagrant (Eddie Murphy) with no deleterious impact to the brokerage firm they were running. Both Akroyd and Murphy eventually uncover the plot and look for a way to even the score with the two old men who set them up. Eddie Murphy remarks that it seems to him that the best way to get even with rich people is to turn them into poor people. Therefore, both Akroyd and Murphy plot to steal an insider report on the future of the Orange Juice market and concoct a scheme to bankrupt the rich men while becoming billionaires themselves. The plan works to perfection, and Murphy and Akroyd are seen basking in the Caribbean while the Dukes (the formerly rich old men) go bankrupt when the movie ends.

People, the only way to stop what you deem to be insane greed and exploitation on the part of these banks is to stop feeding them. Pissing and moaning does SQUAT to alleviate the problem. STOP giving them your hard-earned money and exercise some vigilance with your finances - then watch them be forced to earn their profits without your assistance. This result will be far more rewarding than a whine-fest on ROR...

Chris wrote: "I don't have anything factual to back it up but I do have circumstantial evidence. Where is the circumstantial evidence for saying our government flew planes into our buildings?"

Response: Actually, you have a belief that is not based on anything in particular (more below). As to the circumstantial evidence regarding 9/11, ask the conspiracy theorists. I am certainly no troofer.


Chris wrote: "Since you're playing games, regardless of the incentive, I'll assume that you're making things up. Fair enough."

Response: And as I've written before, some people believe that the government was behind 9/11. You are free to believe what you wish. Just make certain to be very careful how you express what you believe. You do tend to write imprecisely and I'd hate to see you open yourself up to serious liability.


Chris wrote: "This simplistic definition" is from Webster's so I'm not sure why you think it's incorrect."

Response: Because Webster's doesn't provide a complete summary as to what a word truly means. For example, it doesn't explain the complexities behind the legal definition of murder, just a basic definition of the word. By the same token, Webster's definition of "interest" does not take into account the various complexities that the financial industry uses to define interest.

Let's look at it another way. I'm certain that you've heard of the ongoing discussion regarding torture during interrogations. The dictionary may provide a very basic definition of torture but the Geneva Conventions provide a much more detailed definition as to what is considered torture. As another example, the CIA and the IIPA have very different ideas as to what a covert agent is. The CIA's definition is far more simplistic, but if you want to charge someone under the IIPA, you can't use the CIA's definition of "covert", you use the definition provided by the IIPA.

By the same token, Webster's provides a very basic definition for "interest" but it doesn't take into account all of the requirements for a given amount of money to be considered interest.

And you made another error. I never claimed that your definition was incorrect. Only that it was simplistic and not entirely accurate.


Chris wrote: "Constant or not, it is money charged for use of another entity's money, which is interest on a loan. The law says so and the bank is using a loophole to override that law."

Response: Really? Is there a law that says that overdraft fees are interest? And can you explain if overdraft fees are simple interest or compound interest? Are they fixed or floating rate? How are they affected by inflation? If overdraft fees are indeed interest, you should have no problem explaining that.


Chris wrote: "Let's see if I can explain this. He says he's not employee (i.e. innocent) and I say he probably is (i.e. guilty). The only evidence to support his claim is his own statement (i.e. I'm didn't do it"). You say that's enough to conclude that he's not an employee (i.e. acquittal based on his statement). You said you KNOW he's not an employee (i.e. the subject is known to be innocent because there is lack of evidence to the contrary). I think the analogy is far from flawed."

Response: This goes back to what I wrote about basing conclusions on all available evidence. There is nothing to indicate that he is a bank employee and no reason to believe that he is unless you WISH to believe it. Make your theory fit the facts.


Chris wrote: "I honestly understand where you're coming from. We are barely in disagreement here. It IS reasonable to ASSUME he's not an employee (based on how you think about the evidence), but it is impossible for you to KNOW. However, it is not appropriate for you to say you KNOW. That would be impossible. Are you honestly making a bet with someone about this? If so, who, and why?"


Response: You're leaving out one small detail. It is appropriate to claim that I know he isn't an employee based on ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (i.e. none).

And yes, you are the subject of a bet I have with a friend from a recent critical thinking class. Given your tendency to fall for various bait such as the recent meth addict post, it's an irrestible bet to take.


Chris wrote: "It is reasonable to say it's false when you are believing something that's impossible."

Response: But my position is based on all available evidence. Hardly impossible.


Chris wrote: "I already provided this, but ok. He used to post as an ex-employee", but now posts as a customer". Why is this? What reason is there to mislead people? Next, he regularly provides, not advice, but insults. This leads me to believe that his intention is to attempt to discredit people even if their complaint makes sense. I seen complaints that were clearly the bank's fault that he struck down. If their complaint is ludicrous, explain why, don't just insult them. If he doesn't have a personal reason to defend the bank, why bother? I mean, why go to such lengths to defend an institution for no good reason?"

Response: That's your evidence? That he once worked for US Bank and he switched from posting as an ex-employee to consumer? Are you aware that he is currently a consumer of US Bank? That's hardly misleading since he has at least one account there. He's also been quite oepn about having worked for them at one time.

By the way, I worked a Christmas season as a temp at Target once. I have participated in threads about Target but I have never identified myself as an ex-employee. Does that mean that I am mileading people and is it circumstantial evidence that I currently work for Target?


Chris wrote: "You wrote that you know he's not USB spotter and you know he's not a US Bank employee. That's plural and also, false. You don't know. You assume."

Response: My statements are also based on all available evidence and they are only false if he turns out to be a bank employee and that I knew of this when I posted. In other words, not a false statement at all.

Chris wrote: "I don't have anything factual to back it up but I do have circumstantial evidence. Where is the circumstantial evidence for saying our government flew planes into our buildings?"

Response: Actually, you have a belief that is not based on anything in particular (more below). As to the circumstantial evidence regarding 9/11, ask the conspiracy theorists. I am certainly no troofer.


Chris wrote: "Since you're playing games, regardless of the incentive, I'll assume that you're making things up. Fair enough."

Response: And as I've written before, some people believe that the government was behind 9/11. You are free to believe what you wish. Just make certain to be very careful how you express what you believe. You do tend to write imprecisely and I'd hate to see you open yourself up to serious liability.


Chris wrote: "This simplistic definition" is from Webster's so I'm not sure why you think it's incorrect."

Response: Because Webster's doesn't provide a complete summary as to what a word truly means. For example, it doesn't explain the complexities behind the legal definition of murder, just a basic definition of the word. By the same token, Webster's definition of "interest" does not take into account the various complexities that the financial industry uses to define interest.

Let's look at it another way. I'm certain that you've heard of the ongoing discussion regarding torture during interrogations. The dictionary may provide a very basic definition of torture but the Geneva Conventions provide a much more detailed definition as to what is considered torture. As another example, the CIA and the IIPA have very different ideas as to what a covert agent is. The CIA's definition is far more simplistic, but if you want to charge someone under the IIPA, you can't use the CIA's definition of "covert", you use the definition provided by the IIPA.

By the same token, Webster's provides a very basic definition for "interest" but it doesn't take into account all of the requirements for a given amount of money to be considered interest.

And you made another error. I never claimed that your definition was incorrect. Only that it was simplistic and not entirely accurate.


Chris wrote: "Constant or not, it is money charged for use of another entity's money, which is interest on a loan. The law says so and the bank is using a loophole to override that law."

Response: Really? Is there a law that says that overdraft fees are interest? And can you explain if overdraft fees are simple interest or compound interest? Are they fixed or floating rate? How are they affected by inflation? If overdraft fees are indeed interest, you should have no problem explaining that.


Chris wrote: "Let's see if I can explain this. He says he's not employee (i.e. innocent) and I say he probably is (i.e. guilty). The only evidence to support his claim is his own statement (i.e. I'm didn't do it"). You say that's enough to conclude that he's not an employee (i.e. acquittal based on his statement). You said you KNOW he's not an employee (i.e. the subject is known to be innocent because there is lack of evidence to the contrary). I think the analogy is far from flawed."

Response: This goes back to what I wrote about basing conclusions on all available evidence. There is nothing to indicate that he is a bank employee and no reason to believe that he is unless you WISH to believe it. Make your theory fit the facts.


Chris wrote: "I honestly understand where you're coming from. We are barely in disagreement here. It IS reasonable to ASSUME he's not an employee (based on how you think about the evidence), but it is impossible for you to KNOW. However, it is not appropriate for you to say you KNOW. That would be impossible. Are you honestly making a bet with someone about this? If so, who, and why?"


Response: You're leaving out one small detail. It is appropriate to claim that I know he isn't an employee based on ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (i.e. none).

And yes, you are the subject of a bet I have with a friend from a recent critical thinking class. Given your tendency to fall for various bait such as the recent meth addict post, it's an irrestible bet to take.


Chris wrote: "It is reasonable to say it's false when you are believing something that's impossible."

Response: But my position is based on all available evidence. Hardly impossible.


Chris wrote: "I already provided this, but ok. He used to post as an ex-employee", but now posts as a customer". Why is this? What reason is there to mislead people? Next, he regularly provides, not advice, but insults. This leads me to believe that his intention is to attempt to discredit people even if their complaint makes sense. I seen complaints that were clearly the bank's fault that he struck down. If their complaint is ludicrous, explain why, don't just insult them. If he doesn't have a personal reason to defend the bank, why bother? I mean, why go to such lengths to defend an institution for no good reason?"

Response: That's your evidence? That he once worked for US Bank and he switched from posting as an ex-employee to consumer? Are you aware that he is currently a consumer of US Bank? That's hardly misleading since he has at least one account there. He's also been quite oepn about having worked for them at one time.

By the way, I worked a Christmas season as a temp at Target once. I have participated in threads about Target but I have never identified myself as an ex-employee. Does that mean that I am mileading people and is it circumstantial evidence that I currently work for Target?


Chris wrote: "You wrote that you know he's not USB spotter and you know he's not a US Bank employee. That's plural and also, false. You don't know. You assume."

Response: My statements are also based on all available evidence and they are only false if he turns out to be a bank employee and that I knew of this when I posted. In other words, not a false statement at all.

Chris wrote: "I don't have anything factual to back it up but I do have circumstantial evidence. Where is the circumstantial evidence for saying our government flew planes into our buildings?"

Response: Actually, you have a belief that is not based on anything in particular (more below). As to the circumstantial evidence regarding 9/11, ask the conspiracy theorists. I am certainly no troofer.


Chris wrote: "Since you're playing games, regardless of the incentive, I'll assume that you're making things up. Fair enough."

Response: And as I've written before, some people believe that the government was behind 9/11. You are free to believe what you wish. Just make certain to be very careful how you express what you believe. You do tend to write imprecisely and I'd hate to see you open yourself up to serious liability.


Chris wrote: "This simplistic definition" is from Webster's so I'm not sure why you think it's incorrect."

Response: Because Webster's doesn't provide a complete summary as to what a word truly means. For example, it doesn't explain the complexities behind the legal definition of murder, just a basic definition of the word. By the same token, Webster's definition of "interest" does not take into account the various complexities that the financial industry uses to define interest.

Let's look at it another way. I'm certain that you've heard of the ongoing discussion regarding torture during interrogations. The dictionary may provide a very basic definition of torture but the Geneva Conventions provide a much more detailed definition as to what is considered torture. As another example, the CIA and the IIPA have very different ideas as to what a covert agent is. The CIA's definition is far more simplistic, but if you want to charge someone under the IIPA, you can't use the CIA's definition of "covert", you use the definition provided by the IIPA.

By the same token, Webster's provides a very basic definition for "interest" but it doesn't take into account all of the requirements for a given amount of money to be considered interest.

And you made another error. I never claimed that your definition was incorrect. Only that it was simplistic and not entirely accurate.


Chris wrote: "Constant or not, it is money charged for use of another entity's money, which is interest on a loan. The law says so and the bank is using a loophole to override that law."

Response: Really? Is there a law that says that overdraft fees are interest? And can you explain if overdraft fees are simple interest or compound interest? Are they fixed or floating rate? How are they affected by inflation? If overdraft fees are indeed interest, you should have no problem explaining that.


Chris wrote: "Let's see if I can explain this. He says he's not employee (i.e. innocent) and I say he probably is (i.e. guilty). The only evidence to support his claim is his own statement (i.e. I'm didn't do it"). You say that's enough to conclude that he's not an employee (i.e. acquittal based on his statement). You said you KNOW he's not an employee (i.e. the subject is known to be innocent because there is lack of evidence to the contrary). I think the analogy is far from flawed."

Response: This goes back to what I wrote about basing conclusions on all available evidence. There is nothing to indicate that he is a bank employee and no reason to believe that he is unless you WISH to believe it. Make your theory fit the facts.


Chris wrote: "I honestly understand where you're coming from. We are barely in disagreement here. It IS reasonable to ASSUME he's not an employee (based on how you think about the evidence), but it is impossible for you to KNOW. However, it is not appropriate for you to say you KNOW. That would be impossible. Are you honestly making a bet with someone about this? If so, who, and why?"


Response: You're leaving out one small detail. It is appropriate to claim that I know he isn't an employee based on ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (i.e. none).

And yes, you are the subject of a bet I have with a friend from a recent critical thinking class. Given your tendency to fall for various bait such as the recent meth addict post, it's an irrestible bet to take.


Chris wrote: "It is reasonable to say it's false when you are believing something that's impossible."

Response: But my position is based on all available evidence. Hardly impossible.


Chris wrote: "I already provided this, but ok. He used to post as an ex-employee", but now posts as a customer". Why is this? What reason is there to mislead people? Next, he regularly provides, not advice, but insults. This leads me to believe that his intention is to attempt to discredit people even if their complaint makes sense. I seen complaints that were clearly the bank's fault that he struck down. If their complaint is ludicrous, explain why, don't just insult them. If he doesn't have a personal reason to defend the bank, why bother? I mean, why go to such lengths to defend an institution for no good reason?"

Response: That's your evidence? That he once worked for US Bank and he switched from posting as an ex-employee to consumer? Are you aware that he is currently a consumer of US Bank? That's hardly misleading since he has at least one account there. He's also been quite oepn about having worked for them at one time.

By the way, I worked a Christmas season as a temp at Target once. I have participated in threads about Target but I have never identified myself as an ex-employee. Does that mean that I am mileading people and is it circumstantial evidence that I currently work for Target?


Chris wrote: "You wrote that you know he's not USB spotter and you know he's not a US Bank employee. That's plural and also, false. You don't know. You assume."

Response: My statements are also based on all available evidence and they are only false if he turns out to be a bank employee and that I knew of this when I posted. In other words, not a false statement at all.

Chris wrote: "I don't have anything factual to back it up but I do have circumstantial evidence. Where is the circumstantial evidence for saying our government flew planes into our buildings?"

Response: Actually, you have a belief that is not based on anything in particular (more below). As to the circumstantial evidence regarding 9/11, ask the conspiracy theorists. I am certainly no troofer.


Chris wrote: "Since you're playing games, regardless of the incentive, I'll assume that you're making things up. Fair enough."

Response: And as I've written before, some people believe that the government was behind 9/11. You are free to believe what you wish. Just make certain to be very careful how you express what you believe. You do tend to write imprecisely and I'd hate to see you open yourself up to serious liability.


Chris wrote: "This simplistic definition" is from Webster's so I'm not sure why you think it's incorrect."

Response: Because Webster's doesn't provide a complete summary as to what a word truly means. For example, it doesn't explain the complexities behind the legal definition of murder, just a basic definition of the word. By the same token, Webster's definition of "interest" does not take into account the various complexities that the financial industry uses to define interest.

Let's look at it another way. I'm certain that you've heard of the ongoing discussion regarding torture during interrogations. The dictionary may provide a very basic definition of torture but the Geneva Conventions provide a much more detailed definition as to what is considered torture. As another example, the CIA and the IIPA have very different ideas as to what a covert agent is. The CIA's definition is far more simplistic, but if you want to charge someone under the IIPA, you can't use the CIA's definition of "covert", you use the definition provided by the IIPA.

By the same token, Webster's provides a very basic definition for "interest" but it doesn't take into account all of the requirements for a given amount of money to be considered interest.

And you made another error. I never claimed that your definition was incorrect. Only that it was simplistic and not entirely accurate.


Chris wrote: "Constant or not, it is money charged for use of another entity's money, which is interest on a loan. The law says so and the bank is using a loophole to override that law."

Response: Really? Is there a law that says that overdraft fees are interest? And can you explain if overdraft fees are simple interest or compound interest? Are they fixed or floating rate? How are they affected by inflation? If overdraft fees are indeed interest, you should have no problem explaining that.


Chris wrote: "Let's see if I can explain this. He says he's not employee (i.e. innocent) and I say he probably is (i.e. guilty). The only evidence to support his claim is his own statement (i.e. I'm didn't do it"). You say that's enough to conclude that he's not an employee (i.e. acquittal based on his statement). You said you KNOW he's not an employee (i.e. the subject is known to be innocent because there is lack of evidence to the contrary). I think the analogy is far from flawed."

Response: This goes back to what I wrote about basing conclusions on all available evidence. There is nothing to indicate that he is a bank employee and no reason to believe that he is unless you WISH to believe it. Make your theory fit the facts.


Chris wrote: "I honestly understand where you're coming from. We are barely in disagreement here. It IS reasonable to ASSUME he's not an employee (based on how you think about the evidence), but it is impossible for you to KNOW. However, it is not appropriate for you to say you KNOW. That would be impossible. Are you honestly making a bet with someone about this? If so, who, and why?"


Response: You're leaving out one small detail. It is appropriate to claim that I know he isn't an employee based on ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (i.e. none).

And yes, you are the subject of a bet I have with a friend from a recent critical thinking class. Given your tendency to fall for various bait such as the recent meth addict post, it's an irrestible bet to take.


Chris wrote: "It is reasonable to say it's false when you are believing something that's impossible."

Response: But my position is based on all available evidence. Hardly impossible.


Chris wrote: "I already provided this, but ok. He used to post as an ex-employee", but now posts as a customer". Why is this? What reason is there to mislead people? Next, he regularly provides, not advice, but insults. This leads me to believe that his intention is to attempt to discredit people even if their complaint makes sense. I seen complaints that were clearly the bank's fault that he struck down. If their complaint is ludicrous, explain why, don't just insult them. If he doesn't have a personal reason to defend the bank, why bother? I mean, why go to such lengths to defend an institution for no good reason?"

Response: That's your evidence? That he once worked for US Bank and he switched from posting as an ex-employee to consumer? Are you aware that he is currently a consumer of US Bank? That's hardly misleading since he has at least one account there. He's also been quite oepn about having worked for them at one time.

By the way, I worked a Christmas season as a temp at Target once. I have participated in threads about Target but I have never identified myself as an ex-employee. Does that mean that I am mileading people and is it circumstantial evidence that I currently work for Target?


Chris wrote: "You wrote that you know he's not USB spotter and you know he's not a US Bank employee. That's plural and also, false. You don't know. You assume."

Response: My statements are also based on all available evidence and they are only false if he turns out to be a bank employee and that I knew of this when I posted. In other words, not a false statement at all.

You never proposed to me so I had to go to someone else...

Seriously though, how's it going? I haven't seen you posting here in a while.

For God's sakes, could the two of you please kiss and make up? I don't think Archie and the Meathead argued this much during a billion episodes of 'All in the Family'...

Well, you don't have any factual back up for your beliefs and neither do the conspiracy theorists..

I don't have anything factual to back it up but I do have circumstantial evidence. Where is the circumstantial evidence for saying our government flew planes into our buildings?

It's not so much that I'm refusing, I just have a greater incentive to keep you posting for the time being. You could always come to Chico...

Since you're playing games, regardless of the incentive, I'll assume that you're making things up. Fair enough.

You're operating from a simplistic definition of 'interest' that is not entirely accurate. When you're dealing with interest, the rate is dependent on the risk of the borrower, the value of the money and the inflation rate. Interest is also generally expressed as a percantage of the amount borrowed.

This simplistic definition is from Webster's so I'm not sure why you think it's incorrect.

Overdraft fees are a constant amount regardless of the amount of the negative balance, the credit worthiness of the account holder and regardless of the rate of inflation. Overdraft fees are simply service fees that are charged per occurence just as wire transfer fees or any other fee that is charged by incident.

Constant or not, it is money charged for use of another entity's money, which is interest on a loan. The law says so and the bank is using a loophole to override that law.

A flawed analogy, to be sure. Regardless, the fact remains that his employment status has nothing to do with criminal law, guilt or innocence, no matter how much you 'feel it'.

Let's see if I can explain this. He says he's not employee (i.e. innocent) and I say he probably is (i.e. guilty). The only evidence to support his claim is his own statement (i.e. I'm didn't do it). You say that's enough to conclude that he's not an employee (i.e. acquittal based on his statement). You said you KNOW he's not an employee (i.e. the subject is known to be innocent because there is lack of evidence to the contrary). I think the analogy is far from flawed.

It's simply amazing that a programmer misses so many details. Based on his statement, the fact that there is no reason to assume that he is lying and the fact that there is absolutely no cotradictory evidence, it is appropriate to say that I know that he isn't a bank employee. I truly am sorry that you don't understand this simple theory and refuse to accept it. However, your lack of understanding is very much your issue, not mine. Since you cannot understand this and can't seem to find the information on your own, we will continue to post back and forth on this for as long as it takes to win the bet.

I honestly understand where you're coming from. We are barely in disagreement here. It IS reasonable to ASSUME he's not an employee (based on how you think about the evidence), but it is impossible for you to KNOW. However, it is not appropriate for you to say you KNOW. That would be impossible. Are you honestly making a bet with someone about this? If so, who, and why?

This would be a good time for you to start writing with precision. Are you stating that my 'belief' is false? A yes or no answer will do.

It is reasonable to say it's false when you are believing something that's impossible.

Really? What is this evidence that he is a bank employee? By all means, share it and prove me wrong. In fact, if you can provide evidence that he is a bank employee, I will leave RipOffReport.com forever.

I already provided this, but ok. He used to post as an ex-employee, but now posts as a customer. Why is this? What reason is there to mislead people? Next, he regularly provides, not advice, but insults. This leads me to believe that his intention is to attempt to discredit people even if their complaint makes sense. I seen complaints that were clearly the bank's fault that he struck down. If their complaint is ludicrous, explain why, don't just insult them. If he doesn't have a personal reason to defend the bank, why bother? I mean, why go to such lengths to defend an institution for no good reason?

Umm... you wrote 'statements'. Plural. You gave one statement that wasn't false because it was based on all of the available evidence.

So let's see these multiple 'false statements' that I supposedly made.

You wrote that you know he's not USB spotter and you know he's not a US Bank employee. That's plural and also, false. You don't know. You assume.

Chris wrote: "I hardly think my belief that he is an employee is comparable to some insane conspiracy theory."

Response: Well, you don't have any factual back up for your beliefs and neither do the conspiracy theorists.


Chris wrote: "It's appropriate to assume (notice I didn't say know") you are making it up when you refuse to provide proof."

Response: It's not so much that I'm refusing, I just have a greater incentive to keep you posting for the time being. You could always come to Chico...


Chris wrote: "You can go on believing that if it makes you feel good."

Response: Thanks for granting me permission though I do have a stronger position than you do.


Chris wrote: "If you read the definition for interest, you'll see that it is. "

Response: No, it isn't. It's a flat fee charged per occurence.


Chris wrote: "You are being charged to use the bank's money. How is this not interest on a loan? Are you saying that you are not being loaned money?"

Response: You're operating from a simplistic definition of "interest" that is not entirely accurate. When you're dealing with interest, the rate is dependent on the risk of the borrower, the value of the money and the inflation rate. Interest is also generally expressed as a percantage of the amount borrowed.

Overdraft fees are a constant amount regardless of the amount of the negative balance, the credit worthiness of the account holder and regardless of the rate of inflation. Overdraft fees are simply service fees that are charged per occurence just as wire transfer fees or any other fee that is charged by incident.


Chris wrote: "It is an analogy. I didn't say they were exactly the same."

Response: A flawed analogy, to be sure. Regardless, the fact remains that his employment status has nothing to do with criminal law, guilt or innocence, no matter how much you "feel it".


Chris wrote: "Fine, they changed their minds, so they didn't know then and they don't know now either. If you are stating that you know he's not an employee, you would be lying as the definition is: Know: to apprehend clearly and with certainty: 'I know the situation fully.' You don't know with certainty. You are making an assumption based on the evidence you have. So either you're lying or you are just grossly misunderstanding the definition of know"."

Response: It's simply amazing that a programmer misses so many details. Based on his statement, the fact that there is no reason to assume that he is lying and the fact that there is absolutely no cotradictory evidence, it is appropriate to say that I know that he isn't a bank employee. I truly am sorry that you don't understand this simple theory and refuse to accept it. However, your lack of understanding is very much your issue, not mine. Since you cannot understand this and can't seem to find the information on your own, we will continue to post back and forth on this for as long as it takes to win the bet.


Chris wrote: "As I said earlier, you are entitled to believe whatever you want, even if it's false."

Response: This would be a good time for you to start writing with precision. Are you stating that my "belief" is false? A yes or no answer will do.


Chris wrote: "Wrong. It would be idiotic because it's impossible to know either way. There is in fact evidence to suggest he is and none to contrary (other than his assertion that he's not, which means nothing)."

Response: Really? What is this evidence that he is a bank employee? By all means, share it and prove me wrong. In fact, if you can provide evidence that he is a bank employee, I will leave RipOffReport.com forever.

Or will you claim that you didn't mean it, you were joking or that you didn't write this?


Chris wrote: "That was the false statement. You don't know."

Response: Umm... you wrote "statements". Plural. You gave one statement that wasn't false because it was based on all of the available evidence.

So let's see these multiple "false statements" that I supposedly made.

That's fine too. Some people belive that Elvis Presley is still alive. Some people believe that the U.S. Government was behind 9/11. You believe that 'I Am The Law' is a bank employee. If you believe that I'm making it up, that is of no consequence to me.

I hardly think my belief that he is an employee is comparable to some insane conspiracy theory. It's appropriate to assume (notice I didn't say know) you are making it up when you refuse to provide proof.

No, my statement was appropriate.

You can go on believing that if it makes you feel good.

Yes, one generally pays interest on a line of credit. An overdraft fee is not interest though.

If you read the definition for interest, you'll see that it is.

Thank you for admitting that overdraft fees are in fact a service fee. Overdraft fees are charged every time an account holder overdrafts his or her own account. They are not interest.

You are being charged to use the bank's money. How is this not interest on a loan? Are you saying that you are not being loaned money?

You can 'feel' it all you like. That doesn't change the fact that his employment status isn't about criminal law, guilt or innocence.

It is an analogy. I didn't say they were exactly the same.

Actually, they weren't 'proven' wrong. They changed their minds. And you did suggest that I was lying earlier.

Fine, they changed their minds, so they didn't know then and they don't know now either. If you are stating that you know he's not an employee, you would be lying as the definition is: Know: to apprehend clearly and with certainty: "I know the situation fully." You don't know with certainty. You are making an assumption based on the evidence you have. So either you're lying or you are just grossly misunderstanding the definition of know.

And yes, my statement was and still is appropriate. I'm sorry that you can't accept it.

As I said earlier, you are entitled to believe whatever you want, even if it's false.

Yes, it would be idiotic to say that you know he isn't a bank employee since all of the available evidence points the other way.

Wrong. It would be idiotic because it's impossible to know either way. There is in fact evidence to suggest he is and none to contrary (other than his assertion that he's not, which means nothing).

Such as? It was appropriate to make my statement about his employment.

That was the false statement. You don't know.

Chris wrote: "If you want to play this game", you are free to do so, but if you are unwilling to post your proof on here for me to see, I'll have to assume you're making it up."

Response: That's fine too. Some people belive that Elvis Presley is still alive. Some people believe that the U.S. Government was behind 9/11. You believe that "I Am The Law" is a bank employee. If you believe that I'm making it up, that is of no consequence to me.


Chris wrote: "It is appropriate to say you can safely assume he's not an employee, not that you know."

Response: No, my statement was appropriate.


Chris wrote: "A line of credit is still a loan and you have to pay interest on a line of credit so that falls in the same category."

Response: Yes, one generally pays interest on a line of credit. An overdraft fee is not interest though.


Chris wrote: "I understand that they are a service fee", but charging money for allowing the use of the bank's money is, by definition, interest."

Response: Thank you for admitting that overdraft fees are in fact a service fee. Overdraft fees are charged every time an account holder overdrafts his or her own account. They are not interest.


Chris wrote: "It's a fair analogy though. You are claiming to know something based on his statement alone. I feel that's very close to knowing someone's innocence based on their denial of guilt."

Response: You can "feel" it all you like. That doesn't change the fact that his employment status isn't about criminal law, guilt or innocence.


Chris wrote: "This only reinforces my point. I'm not suggesting that you're lying, just that you're using the wrong terminology. The scientific community assumed, based on the available evidence, that Pluto was a planet, but they clearly didn't know, otherwise they wouldn't have been proved wrong later."

Response: Actually, they weren't "proven" wrong. They changed their minds. And you did suggest that I was lying earlier.


Chris wrote: "As I've already stated, that was not stated as fact, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It IS appropriate to assume that he's not an employee in your eyes because in your eyes there is no evidence to suggest that he is one. However, that would mean it was appropriate to assume he's not one, because, like your Pluto analogy, if it was shown later that he actually was one, you clearly didn't know."

Response: Read my sentences again. I wrote that your claim was not based on fact. That's all. You apparently agree with that and yet you get defensive.

And yes, my statement was and still is appropriate. I'm sorry that you can't accept it.


Chris wrote: "I feel that based on my observations, it is appropriate to assume that, yes, but I don't claim to know" he is. That would idiotic since I don't have any proof."

Response: Yes, it would be idiotic to say that you know he isn't a bank employee since all of the available evidence points the other way.


Chris wrote: "I guess we're both in the same boat then because you've made false statements as well."

Response: Such as? It was appropriate to make my statement about his employment. I also claimed that you wrote he is an employee as a fact because I don't know how else you would have expected such statements as "he is clearly being paid to post here" and referring to him as a USB spotter to be interpreted. I dropped the argument and admitted I was wrong because it was going nowhere. Now what other false statements do you believe that I have made?

As noted before, I have a greater incentive to keep you posting for the time being. If you can't find it yourself and you're not willing to come see it, then I'm afraid you'll have to keep playing my game.

If you want to play this game, you are free to do so, but if you are unwilling to post your proof on here for me to see, I'll have to assume you're making it up.

And I've written multiple times that based on his statement (no reason not to believe him) and the lack of any contradictory evidence, it is appropriate to say that I know he isn't a bank employee. If you can't accept that, it's not my problem.

It is appropriate to say you can safely assume he's not an employee, not that you know.

Wrong. In many cases overdraft protection takes the form of a line of credit. In those cases, the account holder is paying interest on the credited amount PLUS the transfer fee. There are also some accounts such as Electric Orange which truly do charge you interest on the negative amount.

A line of credit is still a loan and you have to pay interest on a line of credit so that falls in the same category.

Overdraft fees are a service fee and the same amount is charged regardless of the amount of the overdraft. They are also charged per occurence. That's not interest, that is very much a fee.

I understand that they are a service fee, but charging money for allowing the use of the bank's money is, by definition, interest.

I'm afraid that you are still not quite getitng it. This isn't about criminal law or guilt and innocence.

It's a fair analogy though. You are claiming to know something based on his statement alone. I feel that's very close to knowing someone's innocence based on their denial of guilt.

For over seventy years, Pluto was considered a planet and that was what people were taught. At the time it was appropriate to say that they knew Pluto was a planet and that's the position that all available evidence supported.

A few years ago it was decided that Pluto is not a planet after all, merely the largest member of the Kuiper Belt. This change doesn't mean that the people who said that it was a planet were wrong or lying.

This only reinforces my point. I'm not suggesting that you're lying, just that you're using the wrong terminology. The scientific community assumed, based on the available evidence, that Pluto was a planet, but they clearly didn't know, otherwise they wouldn't have been proved wrong later.

To take it back to a legal standpoint, conclusions are based upon all available facts. When you declared that he was clearly being paid to post here, you did not base that conclusion on any facts at all. When I declared that I know he isn't a bank employee, that was based upon his own statement and the lack of any contradictory facts. It was and still is appropriate to make that claim.

As I've already stated, that was not stated as fact, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It IS appropriate to assume that he's not an employee in your eyes because in your eyes there is no evidence to suggest that he is one. However, that would mean it was appropriate to assume he's not one, because, like your Pluto analogy, if it was shown later that he actually was one, you clearly didn't know.

ou believe that he is a bank employee (your words) and it's fine for you to believe that even though there is no evidence for you to base that belief upon. My belief is based upon all of the available evidence and while you can't seem to accept that, my position is the appropriate one to take.

I feel that based on my observations, it is appropriate to assume that, yes, but I don't claim to know he is. That would idiotic since I don't have any proof.

It really is ironic when someone like you who has made false statements such as 'I also get accused of lying because US Bank is never at fault for any reason so I must be fabricating it.' (nobody claimed that US Bank is never at fault for any reason) harps so much on this non-issue.

I guess we're both in the same boat then because you've made false statements as well.

Chris wrote: "I shouldn't need to physically be there for you to show me. You can post it on here."

Response: As noted before, I have a greater incentive to keep you posting for the time being. If you can't find it yourself and you're not willing to come see it, then I'm afraid you'll have to keep playing my game.


Chris wrote: "I'm doing neither. Your original statement was that you know he's not a bank employee. I'd just like to see the proof, that's all."

Response: And I've written multiple times that based on his statement (no reason not to believe him) and the lack of any contradictory evidence, it is appropriate to say that I know he isn't a bank employee. If you can't accept that, it's not my problem.


Chris wrote: "I never claimed that there were a lot of people who overdraft through no fault of their own."

Response: You made a statement and I aksed you a question based on that staement. Though it took you a while, you did eventually answer it and I simply thanked you for doing so. No need tomake it more complicated than it really is.


Chris wrote: "No, in that case you are using your own money. In the case of overdrafts, the bank is paying for something that you don't have money for. That is a loan. Since the bank charges you money on said loan, it would be interest."

Response: Wrong. In many cases overdraft protection takes the form of a line of credit. In those cases, the account holder is paying interest on the credited amount PLUS the transfer fee. There are also some accounts such as Electric Orange which truly do charge you interest on the negative amount.

Overdraft fees are a service fee and the same amount is charged regardless of the amount of the overdraft. They are also charged per occurence. That's not interest, that is very much a fee.


Chris wrote: "That's an odd thing to bet on, but fair enough. I hope you win."

Response: I've seen odder bets, but thanks!


Chris wrote: "I was using the analogy that if a person is found not guilty", legal theory does not state that the person is known" to be innocent. I think that's a pretty fair analogy."

Response: I had a feeling that was the case but you wrote it in such a way that it could be interpreted that his simply being a bank employee (or not) was a legal theory.

I'm afraid that you are still not quite getitng it. This isn't about criminal law or guilt and innocence.

When basing a conclusion based on all available evidence, it is appropriate to say that I know he isn't a bank employee. Let's try this another way.

For over seventy years, Pluto was considered a planet and that was what people were taught. At the time it was appropriate to say that they knew Pluto was a planet and that's the position that all available evidence supported.

A few years ago it was decided that Pluto is not a planet after all, merely the largest member of the Kuiper Belt. This change doesn't mean that the people who said that it was a planet were wrong or lying.

To take it back to a legal standpoint, conclusions are based upon all available facts. When you declared that he was clearly being paid to post here, you did not base that conclusion on any facts at all. When I declared that I know he isn't a bank employee, that was based upon his own statement and the lack of any contradictory facts. It was and still is appropriate to make that claim.

You believe that he is a bank employee (your words) and it's fine for you to believe that even though there is no evidence for you to base that belief upon. My belief is based upon all of the available evidence and while you can't seem to accept that, my position is the appropriate one to take.


Chris wrote: "All I asked was to see where it was written down that someone is known" to be innocent when they are acquitted. I don't see how I was twisting your words."

Response: It is twisting my words because my statement was that based upon all of the available evidence, I knew he wasn't a bank employee and that this was simple legal theory. While we dabbled in the area of guilt, innocence and criminal law, I didn't write that it was a simple legal theory that one was known to be innocent when acquitted (though I did write that his legal status was innocent or not guilty).

It really is ironic when someone like you who has made false statements such as "I also get accused of lying because US Bank is never at fault for any reason so I must be fabricating it." (nobody claimed that US Bank is never at fault for any reason) harps so much on this non-issue.

You would be correct to assume that and I invited you here to show you. However, you are twisting my position again. The theory is that one should base conclusions on available evidence. To put it another way, make your position fit the facts. Based on his statement and the fact that there is no contradictory evidence, it is appropriate for me to say that I know he isn't a bank employee.

I shouldn't need to physically be there for you to show me. You can post it on here.

That's because you're conducting the wrong searches. You are either twisting my words or you are simply not comprehending them.

I'm doing neither. Your original statement was that you know he's not a bank employee. I'd just like to see the proof, that's all.

Thank you for finally answering that.

I never claimed that there were a lot of people who overdraft through no fault of their own.

Overdraft charges are flat fees per occurence. They are not interest. If one were to overdraft and the balance was transferred from one's overdraft protection, do you think that transfer fee is also interest?

No, in that case you are using your own money. In the case of overdrafts, the bank is paying for something that you don't have money for. That is a loan. Since the bank charges you money on said loan, it would be interest.

Okay, but you wrote in the present tense. You might consider using the past tense when writing of past events. And I've been an account holder at US Bank since February of 2007 and I see this happen regularly.

It's quite possible they have changed since I was an account holder, but it wasn't that long ago.

I have a bet going as to how long I can keep you chewing on this topic. Money is important.

That's an odd thing to bet on, but fair enough. I hope you win.

Actually, you may have. Perhaps you didn't mean to but this careless writing style of yours caused a rather vague sentence to pop up again.

I was using the analogy that if a person is found not guilty, legal theory does not state that the person is known to be innocent. I think that's a pretty fair analogy.

No, you didn't. You may have wanted to write that but you wound up posting something very vague. And your twisting my statement again.

All I asked was to see where it was written down that someone is known to be innocent when they are acquitted. I don't see how I was twisting your words.

Chris wrote: "No you haven't. You haven't provided proof. The fact that there is no contradictory evidence is not proof. If simple legal theory states a person is KNOWN to be innocent based on a lack of contradictory evidence, just give me the quote from the law journal you must have seen that it. You must have seen it somewhere or you wouldn't be saying. I assume you aren't making up facts."

Response: You would be correct to assume that and I invited you here to show you. However, you are twisting my position again. The theory is that one should base conclusions on available evidence. To put it another way, make your position fit the facts. Based on his statement and the fact that there is no contradictory evidence, it is appropriate for me to say that I know he isn't a bank employee.


Chris wrote: "I have looked myself and I can't find anything that states someone is known" to be innocent if found not guilty". It's an assumption based on the evidence available. If someone is found guilty", it is still not known" they are guilty unless there is certain evidence such as a videotape. Even a confession can be false."

Response: That's because you're conducting the wrong searches. You are either twisting my words or you are simply not comprehending them.


Chris wrote: "I don't have an answer for that. My guess is very few and that was never argued."

Response: Thank you for finally answering that.


Chris wrote: "You are telling me that it's in the terms and conditions that the bank can credit back 3 or 4 days worth of transactions, wait for the overdraft (when they see it coming; it has to be large, of course), and then debit all those transactions again to maximize profit? I must have missed that part when I was reading it."

Response: Holds expire. That's what they were designed to do. And they don't just expire when the account holder overdrafts his or her account. My holds frequently expire before the transaction is hard posted.


Chris wrote: "Interest is money charged for the use of a loan. That's exactly what's happening here. The bank may use some legal loophole to get out usury laws, but that doesn't make it any less true."

Response: Overdraft charges are flat fees per occurence. They are not interest. If one were to overdraft and the balance was transferred from one's overdraft protection, do you think that transfer fee is also interest?


Chris wrote: "I'm speaking based on when I was an account holder. Maybe after having to be bailed out they've changed their ways."

Response: Okay, but you wrote in the present tense. You might consider using the past tense when writing of past events. And I've been an account holder at US Bank since February of 2007 and I see this happen regularly.


Chris wrote: "If you think it's a non-issue", why do you keep arguing it? Just ignore me if it's not important."

Response: I have a bet going as to how long I can keep you chewing on this topic. Money is important.


Chris wrote: "I didn't say there was legal theory that states whether or not he's a bank employee."

Response: Actually, you may have. Perhaps you didn't mean to but this careless writing style of yours caused a rather vague sentence to pop up again.

Chris wrote: " I said there must be legal theory written down somewhere that states a suspect is KNOWN to be innocent when there is lack of evidence to the contrary."

Response: No, you didn't. You may have wanted to write that but you wound up posting something very vague. And your twisting my statement again.

Chris wrote: "That's not a whole lot to ask. All I can find in my research is it is 'assumed' the person is innocent if their is no evidence to prosecute."

Response: That's because you're conducting the wrong searches. My being able to say that I know he isn't a bank employee because of his statement and lack of contradictory evidence isn't based in criminal law.

First of all Chris, can you please tell us which bank you currently use that processes transactions in the order that they are made?

It's a small credit union called Arsenal Credit Union, but I was also part of a bank a few years ago called Superior National Bank that processed transactions in order.

Response: I have backed that up. Many times. Based on his statement and the fact that there is NO contradictory evidence, I know that he is not a bank employee. This is a simple legal theory.

No you haven't. You haven't provided proof. The fact that there is no contradictory evidence is not proof. If simple legal theory states a person is KNOWN to be innocent based on a lack of contradictory evidence, just give me the quote from the law journal you must have seen that it. You must have seen it somewhere or you wouldn't be saying. I assume you aren't making up facts.

Response: Now you're on the right track. Earlier you were attempting to get me to back up something else entirely. If you wish to come to Chico, California, I'll be happy to show you. If you're not willing to come to Chico California, I am certain that you can find the theory that discusses basing conclusions on all available evidence.

I have looked myself and I can't find anything that states someone is known to be innocent if found not guilty. It's an assumption based on the evidence available. If someone is found guilty, it is still not known they are guilty unless there is certain evidence such as a videotape. Even a confession can be false.

Response: The question remains unanswered. In response to one of your statements, I asked you how many people you estimate overdraft through no fault of their own. Please answer.

I don't have an answer for that. My guess is very few and that was never argued.

Response: This is very much about the terms and conditions. You claim that you don't like what the bank does when people overdraft. The bank's policies are disclosed in the terms and conditions. Therefore the bank is acting according to the policies that the account holder agreed to when he or she opened the account.

You are telling me that it's in the terms and conditions that the bank can credit back 3 or 4 days worth of transactions, wait for the overdraft (when they see it coming; it has to be large, of course), and then debit all those transactions again to maximize profit? I must have missed that part when I was reading it.

Response: The money isn't lent at interest. The account holder pays the amount that he or she overdrafted plus a fee for every an overdraft occurred. The fee is the same regardless of the overdrafted amount. If it were interest, then the fee would rise or lower according to the amount in question.

Interest is money charged for the use of a loan. That's exactly what's happening here. The bank may use some legal loophole to get out usury laws, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Response: How can you do this when you are not currently an account holder at US Bank? Be that as it may, it is very noticeable late at night.

I'm speaking based on when I was an account holder. Maybe after having to be bailed out they've changed their ways.

Response: Here you go again with that careless writing style
First of all, there is no legal theory that states whether or not he is a bank employee. Secondly, this is not what you were attempting to get me to back up earlier. You are quite adept at moving goal posts, aren't you?
I again invite you to read up on basing one's conclusions on evidence. Given his statement and the lack of contradictory evidence, it is quite appropriate to say that I know he is not a bank employee based on the evidence.
You seem to get some kind of charge from this non-issue and it does appear that we will be at this for the next several years but this really is very simple.

If you think it's a non-issue, why do you keep arguing it? Just ignore me if it's not important. I didn't say there was legal theory that states whether or not he's a bank employee. I said there must be legal theory written down somewhere that states a suspect is KNOWN to be innocent when there is lack of evidence to the contrary. That's not a whole lot to ask. All I can find in my research is it is "assumed" the person is innocent if their is no evidence to prosecute.

Touch. No worries.

First of all Chris, can you please tell us which bank you currently use that processes transactions in the order that they are made?

Chris wrote: You claimed to know" he was not an employee. Back up that claim. If you want me to go find the quote I will.
Response: I have backed that up. Many times. Based on his statement and the fact that there is NO contradictory evidence, I know that he is not a bank employee. This is a simple legal theory.

Chris wrote: You also claimed that it was simple legal theory. Show me in a law journal that substantiates that claim.
Response: Now you're on the right track. Earlier you were attempting to get me to back up something else entirely. If you wish to come to Chico, California, I'll be happy to show you. If you're not willing to come to Chico California, I am certain that you can find the theory that discusses basing conclusions on all available evidence.

Chris wrote: I wasn't referring to people that overdraft through no fault of their own. I was referring to everyone who overdrafts. My beef is not with the bank forcing people to overdraft", it's with the bank's behavior if the person does overdraft. I've already said this many times.
Response: The question remains unanswered. In response to one of your statements, I asked you how many people you estimate overdraft through no fault of their own. Please answer.

Chris wrote: I guess I'll repeat myself. The things that bother me are NOT in the terms and conditions so your comment doesn't make sense.
Response: This is very much about the terms and conditions. You claim that you don't like what the bank does when people overdraft. The bank's policies are disclosed in the terms and conditions. Therefore the bank is acting according to the policies that the account holder agreed to when he or she opened the account.

Chris wrote: Loan: something lent or furnished on condition of being returned, esp. a sum of money lent at interest. An overdraft fee sure sounds like interest on a loan to me. Your example of the fee for the movie tickets isn't applicable because they are not paying for something with their money on the promise that you'll return it to them. An overdraft charge is not the loan, it's the interest on that loan. The loan is when they pay for something when you don't have the money in your account."
Response: The money isn't lent at interest. The account holder pays the amount that he or she overdrafted plus a fee for every an overdraft occurred. The fee is the same regardless of the overdrafted amount. If it were interest, then the fee would rise or lower according to the amount in question.

Chris wrote: I always check my online balance (several times a day). I never saw that happen unless I overdrafted.
Response: How can you do this when you are not currently an account holder at US Bank? Be that as it may, it is very noticeable late at night.

Chris wrote: You stated that you know" he's not a bank employee. If that's simple legal theory, show me where it's written down and I'll let it go and admit I'm wrong. I'm not an expert in law, but I'm fairly certain it states somewhere that it is assumed, not known"
Response: Here you go again with that careless writing style
First of all, there is no legal theory that states whether or not he is a bank employee. Secondly, this is not what you were attempting to get me to back up earlier. You are quite adept at moving goal posts, aren't you?
I again invite you to read up on basing one's conclusions on evidence. Given his statement and the lack of contradictory evidence, it is quite appropriate to say that I know he is not a bank employee based on the evidence.
You seem to get some kind of charge from this non-issue and it does appear that we will be at this for the next several years but this really is very simple.

Chris,

Come on, I'm only playing around with you. I don't think that you use meth or take advantage of welfare. I was just trying to get a rise out of you. Just a joke, man.

See, you're doing this strange thing again where we are discussing one topic and then for some reason you change what we are talking about. Would you like me to back up the claim that I actually made or the claim that you are trying to suggest that I made?

You claimed to know he was not an employee. Back up that claim. If you want me to go find the quote I will. You also claimed that it was simple legal theory. Show me in a law journal that substantiates that claim.

Not necessarily. Remember that the question was how many account holders overdraft through no fault of their own. The revenue that this bank (or any bank) makes from overdraft fees includes the account holders who overdrafted from their own actions. The question remains unanswered.

I wasn't referring to people that overdraft through no fault of their own. I was referring to everyone who overdrafts. My beef is not with the bank forcing people to overdraft, it's with the bank's behavior if the person does overdraft. I've already said this many times.

I'm asking about the people who sign up for checking accounts. Why agree to the terms and conditions if they are so unethical? I have certainly passed on unfavorable financial deals because I didn't like the details.

I guess I'll repeat myself. The things that bother me are NOT in the terms and conditions so your comment doesn't make sense.

It isn't a loan and it is silly to claim that it is. First of all, that fee is the same regardless of whether the account holder overdraws by fifty cents or five hundred dollars. The bank is not loaning you money, it is charging you a flat service fee per occurence. It's the exact same concept as the movie theater charging me extra for ordering my movie tickets online.

Loan: something lent or furnished on condition of being returned, esp. a sum of money lent at interest.

An overdraft fee sure sounds like interest on a loan to me. Your example of the fee for the movie tickets isn't applicable because they are not paying for something with their money on the promise that you'll return it to them. An overdraft charge is not the loan, it's the interest on that loan. The loan is when they pay for something when you don't have the money in your account.

Try checking late at night on a weekday before the transactions are hard posted.

I always check my online balance (several times a day). I never saw that happen unless I overdrafted.

Yes, you are altering my claims. I made a specific claim that it is appropriate to say that I know he is not an employee based upon his statement and the lack of contradictory evidence. I also noted that this is a simple legal theory. You then asked me to back up something else entirely.

You stated that you know he's not a bank employee. If that's simple legal theory, show me where it's written down and I'll let it go and admit I'm wrong. I'm not an expert in law, but I'm fairly certain it states somewhere that it is assumed, not known.

"Chris,

You sound like a nice person, but I can't make an exception for you. You admit that you overdrew your account in the past. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to put you in the 'meth-addicted welfare case' classification. Nothing personal.

All I'm saying is that if overdrafting was a crime, this would cause people to be more vigilant about their accounts. 99.99% of people that overdraw their accounts do so for the simple fact that they don't check their balance before they go on a reckless orgy of spending."

I'm sure you'll agree that people make mistakes and I will agree that people need to be more careful about their spending. However, as you know, there are exceptions to every rule. I will accept responsibility for when I overdrafted, but I won't accept responsibility for how the bank behaves when such a thing happened. They engineered the transactions in such a way as to turn one overdraft into many. I find this unconscionable. I don't mean the bank arranging their transactions from highest to lowest. While I find that to be illogical given that transactions will go through regardless of what order they are posted in, I realize that many banks do it. What I have a problem with is making transactions disappear and then reappear after the customer overdrafts, sometimes into the dozens (of transactions). There is no other possible reason for this other than it benefits the bank. I realize the bank needs the money (since they gave out a ridiculous amount of bad loans), but it's unethical to take advantage of someone that is clearly struggling. These practices ARE legal, regardless of what some people claim on this site, but they are not ethical.

Chris,

You sound like a nice person, but I can't make an exception for you. You admit that you overdrew your account in the past. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to put you in the "meth-addicted welfare case" classification. Nothing personal.

All I'm saying is that if overdrafting was a crime, this would cause people to be more vigilant about their accounts. 99.99% of people that overdraw their accounts do so for the simple fact that they don't check their balance before they go on a reckless orgy of spending.

"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."

If it's such a criminal act, why don't banks just stop offering overdraft protection?

"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."

I'm confused where you're getting your information from. I've overdrafted before (only at this bank) and I've never used Methamphetamine and I'm certainly not on welfare.

"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."

That's a very well-informed statement. "Edgeman", why don't you criticize him for making claims that are unsubstantiated? Oh, that's right, because he agrees with you.

Chris wrote: "There has to be some statement in some law journal somewhere that describes what happens when a person is acquitted. Namely, if they are known" to be innocent as you described."

Response: See, you're doing this strange thing again where we are discussing one topic and then for some reason you change what we are talking about. Would you like me to back up the claim that I actually made or the claim that you are trying to suggest that I made?


Chris wrote: "I don't know how many but judging by the revenue this bank makes every year because of these fees, it must be quite a few."

Response: Not necessarily. Remember that the question was how many account holders overdraft through no fault of their own. The revenue that this bank (or any bank) makes from overdraft fees includes the account holders who overdrafted from their own actions. The question remains unanswered.


Chris wrote: "Because the things that bother me aren't in the terms and conditions."

Response: I'm asking about the people who sign up for checking accounts. Why agree to the terms and conditions if they are so unethical? I have certainly passed on unfavorable financial deals because I didn't like the details.


Chris wrote: "Loan Sharking: the practice of lending money at excessive rates of interest."
You're telling me $37.50 for a $.50 overdraft isn't excessive? Don't tell me it's not a loan because that's exactly what it is. The bank is loaning me money."

Response: It isn't a loan and it is silly to claim that it is. First of all, that fee is the same regardless of whether the account holder overdraws by fifty cents or five hundred dollars. The bank is not loaning you money, it is charging you a flat service fee per occurence. It's the exact same concept as the movie theater charging me extra for ordering my movie tickets online.


Chris wrote: "Well I've only ever seen it happen when I someone overdrafts."

Response: Try checking late at night on a weekday before the transactions are hard posted.


Chris wrote: "I'm not altering anything. You stated that it's simple legal theory". If that's true, it must be written down somewhere. If you show it to me, I'll shut up."

Response: Yes, you are altering my claims. I made a specific claim that it is appropriate to say that I know he is not an employee based upon his statement and the lack of contradictory evidence. I also noted that this is a simple legal theory. You then asked me to back up something else entirely.

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.

Actually, this line of thinking is incorrect. There is no 'law' that covers what you describe because that is not what laws are for. Would you care to try again with the correct terminology?

There has to be some statement in some law journal somewhere that describes what happens when a person is acquitted. Namely, if they are known to be innocent as you described.

Oy, where to begin?! First of all, you never answered the question. Let me write it again and give you another opportunity to answer it - How many people do you estimate receive overdraft fees through no fault of their own?

I don't know how many but judging by the revenue this bank makes every year because of these fees, it must be quite a few. Why don't you respond to my point about how the banks operate when a person unfortunately overdrafts?

Here's a thought - If any bank's terms and conditions are so unethical, why agree to them? Every bank that I have opened accounts with has given me a copy of their terms and conditions. I can pull out those terms and conditions for both banks that I currently do business with and tell you what they say about processing transactions.

Because the things that bother me aren't in the terms and conditions.

"And loan sharking is entirely different from what you describe."

Loan Sharking: the practice of lending money at excessive rates of interest.
You're telling me $37.50 for a $.50 overdraft isn't excessive? Don't tell me it's not a loan because that's exactly what it is. The bank is loaning me money.

Guess what? It just happened to me last night. Fortunately, my ledger balance is accurate and I knew exactly how much money I had in my account.

Well I've only ever seen it happen when I someone overdrafts.

Once again, you are attempting to alter my words. I wrote that based on the available evidence (none) and his own words on the matter, my statement about knowing that he is not a bank employee is appropriate. That's the simple legal theory at work here. For some reason you are trying to get me to back up something else.

I'm not altering anything. You stated that it's simple legal theory. If that's true, it must be written down somewhere. If you show it to me, I'll shut up.

Chris wrote: "I'd like to see the actual wording of the law that states that the person is known" to be innocent if they are exonerated. If you can show me that law, I will leave it alone. Otherwise, I am correct."

Response: Actually, this line of thinking is incorrect. There is no "law" that covers what you describe because that is not what laws are for. Would you care to try again with the correct terminology?


Chris wrote: "I never denied the person has to overdraft, but it's the bank's absurd lack of ethics when someone does that bothers me. Legality is irrelevant when comes to ripping someone off. They can turn a simple mistake into a full-blown catastrophe. If you never overdraft, as you say, you wouldn't know that. If someone is struggling so much that they have to overdraft (yes, there are instances where there's no option, regardless of what you think, or people make a simple math error or even forget about a recurring payment perhaps), the bank nailing the person to wall because of it's own greed is unethical, plain and simple. It's called loan sharking."

Response: Oy, where to begin?! First of all, you never answered the question. Let me write it again and give you another opportunity to answer it - How many people do you estimate receive overdraft fees through no fault of their own?

I did not claim that I never overdraft. I have. Twice. I just don't see any benefit or reason why people should pay overdraft fees when they are very easy to avoid.

Here's a thought - If any bank's terms and conditions are so unethical, why agree to them? Every bank that I have opened accounts with has given me a copy of their terms and conditions. I can pull out those terms and conditions for both banks that I currently do business with and tell you what they say about processing transactions.

If a new customer does not like the terms and conditions, he or she can choose not to open an account at that bank. If they do open that account and sign the paper that says that they agree with the terms and conditions, then they must abide by those terms and conditions.

I'd say that most of your scenarios are avoidable. There are ways to remember recurring payments and there are ways to avoid math errors. Given the fact that most people do not pay overdraft fees, I'd say that it is easily done. I'm not quite certain how struggling financially equates to having to overdraft. When your account balance is down to a couple of dollars, it's time to stop spending. If someone chooses to overdraft their account and they agreed to the bank's terms and conditions, then they willingly accept the consequences of overdrafting the account.

Somone who must come up with cash right away can get a loan from family and friends, use a credit card, request an advance from their bank, get a payday advance, pawn something or even sell something. If they have nowhere to borrow money from, no credit cards and do not qualify for a payday loan, then I'd say that a checking account is not their best bet. They would be better off with a prepaid credit card or something like Electric Orange.

And loan sharking is entirely different from what you describe.


Chris wrote: "I've never seen it happen unless I overdrafted (past tense; I obviously don't bank at an institution anymore which has ethics comparable to Rob Blagojevich), and every time I overdrafted."

Response: Guess what? It just happened to me last night. Fortunately, my ledger balance is accurate and I knew exactly how much money I had in my account.


Chris wrote: "Show me the text from a law journal or some such that states the person is known" to be innocent when acquitted and I'll apologize and drop it. Saying it's 'reasonable' to state someone's innocence is very different than saying you 'know'."

Response: Once again, you are attempting to alter my words. I wrote that based on the available evidence (none) and his own words on the matter, my statement about knowing that he is not a bank employee is appropriate. That's the simple legal theory at work here. For some reason you are trying to get me to back up something else.

I understand the difference just fine. And my statement is appropriate.

I'd like to see the actual wording of the law that states that the person is known to be innocent if they are exonerated. If you can show me that law, I will leave it alone. Otherwise, I am correct.

How many people do you estimate receive overdraft fees through no fault of their own?

I never denied the person has to overdraft, but it's the bank's absurd lack of ethics when someone does that bothers me. Legality is irrelevant when comes to ripping someone off. They can turn a simple mistake into a full-blown catastrophe. If you never overdraft, as you say, you wouldn't know that. If someone is struggling so much that they have to overdraft (yes, there are instances where there's no option, regardless of what you think, or people make a simple math error or even forget about a recurring payment perhaps), the bank nailing the person to wall because of it's own greed is unethical, plain and simple. It's called loan sharking.

It doesn't just happen when account balances go negative. I have occasionally noticed this occuring on my own account.

I've never seen it happen unless I overdrafted (past tense; I obviously don't bank at an institution anymore which has ethics comparable to Rob Blagojevich), and every time I overdrafted.

Yes, it is very simple legal theory. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is appropriate to say that I know that he is not a bank employee. You have a problem with that and that's fine but your problem does not make this very simple legal theory go away. And your earlier assertion that anyone who is not a lawyer not being able to make that claim does not hold up.

Show me the text from a law journal or some such that states the person is known to be innocent when acquitted and I'll apologize and drop it. Saying it's "reasonable" to state someone's innocence is very different than saying you "know".

Chris wrote: "Since you apparently don't understand the belief of something being true and the knowledge of something being true, you can go on thinking that."

Response: I understand the difference just fine. And my statement is appropriate.


Chris wrote: "Fair enough, but it also doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to people."

Response: How many people do you estimate receive overdraft fees through no fault of their own?


Chris wrote: "Well, if these are truly just holds then someone needs to explain to me why they ONLY happen when the customer goes negative in order to collect more fees. I've never seen it happen otherwise. That must just be a coincidence though."

Response: It doesn't just happen when account balances go negative. I have occasionally noticed this occuring on my own account.



Chris wrote: "That's fine, but your statement about this being simple legal theory" is incorrect. Lack of proof of guilt does not PROVE innocence, it merely assumes it. The person could easily still be guilty even though there was not enough evidence to convict. It could be for any number of reasons. Maybe the police or prosecutor didn't do their job or maybe the person just covered their crime extremely well. The point is, only the person in question and any witnesses to the crime know with 100% certainty."

Response: Yes, it is very simple legal theory. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is appropriate to say that I know that he is not a bank employee. You have a problem with that and that's fine but your problem does not make this very simple legal theory go away. And your earlier assertion that anyone who is not a lawyer not being able to make that claim does not hold up.

Actually, based on all of the available evidence my statement is true.

Since you apparently don't understand the belief of something being true and the knowledge of something being true, you can go on thinking that.

True, but I doubt that what happened to me was unique. Remember, the FDIC concluded that the majority of checking account holders do not pay overdraft fees. That means most people with checking accounts go about their business and never see these fees.

Fair enough, but it also doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to people.

I did. It was in the part of the response that you redacted.

Well, if these are truly just holds then someone needs to explain to me why they ONLY happen when the customer goes negative in order to collect more fees. I've never seen it happen otherwise. That must just be a coincidence though.

I'd be very careful about making slippery statements like that. You are dangerously close to discrediting any arguments that you may make about legalities.

That's fine, but your statement about this being simple legal theory is incorrect. Lack of proof of guilt does not PROVE innocence, it merely assumes it. The person could easily still be guilty even though there was not enough evidence to convict. It could be for any number of reasons. Maybe the police or prosecutor didn't do their job or maybe the person just covered their crime extremely well. The point is, only the person in question and any witnesses to the crime know with 100% certainty.

Both are in the compliance book they gave you. Reg D covers deposits and funds availability. Each bank defines their own within the guidelines of Reg D. They are posted and available at every office. Also, each bank has different cut off times and a different business day definition. Out of state, non-local, over a certain dollar amount, foriegn ATM transactions, all will take longer. Again, defined differently by each bank and each situation. Reg CC goes into the check cashing, etc...it's all in the book they gave you.

Again, each bank sets their own guidelines. Community banks and CU's offer lower fees and looser restrictions. Nationals have to set everything to satisfy all markets. Regional fee structures can't happen. There is no more float. Checks are scanned electronically and never leave the place of deposit. Essentially, they are virtually the same as a debit purchase. Deposits usually take 2 business days if local and under a certain dollar amount for most large banks. Small banks may be same day. However, a check written at most Wal-Marts will memo post out of your account before you get to your car.

Both are in the compliance book they gave you. Reg D covers deposits and funds availability. Each bank defines their own within the guidelines of Reg D. They are posted and available at every office. Also, each bank has different cut off times and a different business day definition. Out of state, non-local, over a certain dollar amount, foriegn ATM transactions, all will take longer. Again, defined differently by each bank and each situation. Reg CC goes into the check cashing, etc...it's all in the book they gave you.

Again, each bank sets their own guidelines. Community banks and CU's offer lower fees and looser restrictions. Nationals have to set everything to satisfy all markets. Regional fee structures can't happen. There is no more float. Checks are scanned electronically and never leave the place of deposit. Essentially, they are virtually the same as a debit purchase. Deposits usually take 2 business days if local and under a certain dollar amount for most large banks. Small banks may be same day. However, a check written at most Wal-Marts will memo post out of your account before you get to your car.

Both are in the compliance book they gave you. Reg D covers deposits and funds availability. Each bank defines their own within the guidelines of Reg D. They are posted and available at every office. Also, each bank has different cut off times and a different business day definition. Out of state, non-local, over a certain dollar amount, foriegn ATM transactions, all will take longer. Again, defined differently by each bank and each situation. Reg CC goes into the check cashing, etc...it's all in the book they gave you.

Again, each bank sets their own guidelines. Community banks and CU's offer lower fees and looser restrictions. Nationals have to set everything to satisfy all markets. Regional fee structures can't happen. There is no more float. Checks are scanned electronically and never leave the place of deposit. Essentially, they are virtually the same as a debit purchase. Deposits usually take 2 business days if local and under a certain dollar amount for most large banks. Small banks may be same day. However, a check written at most Wal-Marts will memo post out of your account before you get to your car.

Both are in the compliance book they gave you. Reg D covers deposits and funds availability. Each bank defines their own within the guidelines of Reg D. They are posted and available at every office. Also, each bank has different cut off times and a different business day definition. Out of state, non-local, over a certain dollar amount, foriegn ATM transactions, all will take longer. Again, defined differently by each bank and each situation. Reg CC goes into the check cashing, etc...it's all in the book they gave you.

Again, each bank sets their own guidelines. Community banks and CU's offer lower fees and looser restrictions. Nationals have to set everything to satisfy all markets. Regional fee structures can't happen. There is no more float. Checks are scanned electronically and never leave the place of deposit. Essentially, they are virtually the same as a debit purchase. Deposits usually take 2 business days if local and under a certain dollar amount for most large banks. Small banks may be same day. However, a check written at most Wal-Marts will memo post out of your account before you get to your car.

A lot of various coments or solutions. However, the major mistake was to go in while the account was overdrawn and state you wanted to close the account. You lost your argument before presenting it. A better option, especially in a college town, is to go in and state that your son misunderstood, you misunderstood, etc., and you would like them to consider helping him out. The bank cannot close the account while it is overdrawn without charging it off. They don't want to do that to a kid. However, if they (or every bank, credit card, etc) know you are going to close it, why would they reverse anything? You've stated they've lost a customer, why should they reverse anything? A better solution would have been to appeal to the branch manager. At least, they would have met you half way. More likely than not, they would have cross-sold overdraft protection (it would help your son establish credit...not positive pay that allows you to overdraw, incur fees, etc.), refunded everything but one OD per occurence (one for each day vs one for each item), and your son would be in better shape. Also, at US and every major bank, it makes no difference which office you go to. Everyone can do everything unless you happened to be at recently merged branch location. They simply didn't want the OD reversal to go against their cost center. As for "Usury" comments...it hasn't been an issue since biblical times. Although banks do profit from OD fees, it's only an issue if you do it. It is avoidable, and it is self-inflicted. Leave more of a cushion, use online banking, bank by phone, establish ODH, and actually watch your money. Also, not charging an OD fee becomes a bigger compliance issue for banks and they cannot refund openly. 1st time, yes, special circumstance, yes, bank error, always...but repeat OD's, or any OD's are technically an interest free loan...we've been there before with the S&L's...do we want to do that again?

Chris wrote: "You can repeat it all you want, but it doesn't make it true."

Response: Actually, based on all of the available evidence my statement is true.


Chris wrote: "That doesn't mean it doesn't happen to anyone."

Response: True, but I doubt that what happened to me was unique. Remember, the FDIC concluded that the majority of checking account holders do not pay overdraft fees. That means most people with checking accounts go about their business and never see these fees.


Chris wrote: "No kidding. So, explain to me what's happening when something is debited, credited back and then debited again."

Response: I did. It was in the part of the response that you redacted.


Chris wrote: "Are you a lawyer? If not, you then you can't say so."

Response: I'd be very careful about making slippery statements like that. You are dangerously close to discrediting any arguments that you may make about legalities.

For the record, one doesn't need to be a lawyer to make statements about legal theory. Judges do it. Scholars do it. Journalists do it. Students do it. Activisits do it. I've even seen you make a comment about legality before. Put simply, you are quite incorrect to suggest that anyone who is not a lawyer cannot comment on legal theory.

And I work in Compliance, which means that I have to make certain that everyone in my facility is aware of and follows the law.

Response: Based on all of the available evidence (none), I know that he is not a US Bank employee. I'll continue to repeat this every time you bring it up or he decides to go work for them.

You can repeat it all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Well, they certainly did in my case. That means something to me at least.
That doesn't mean it doesn't happen to anyone.

o, that isn't what I wrote and you know it. A hold and a charge are two entities. When you authorize something, let's say for $12, a hold for that amount is placed against your account. That hold is set to automatically expire after a few days. The charge is completely different and is submitted by the merchant.

No kidding. So, explain to me what's happening when something is debited, credited back and then debited again.

I knowbased on the available evidence. Very simple legal theory.

Are you a lawyer? If not, you then you can't say so.

Chris wrote: "Then just admit you don't know (that's impossible) and I'll let it go. Simple legal theory, as you say, only assumes innocence, it doesn't prove it."

Response: Based on all of the available evidence (none), I know that he is not a US Bank employee. I'll continue to repeat this every time you bring it up or he decides to go work for them.


Chris wrote: "According to quite a few of the posts on here, they don't reverse the charges many times in the case of fraud, so your experiences" don't prove anything."

Response: Well, they certainly did in my case. That means something to me at least.


Chris wrote: "Ok, so let me get this straight, something gets debited, then credited back, then debited again (only when it's going to accrue overdrafts fees) and that's a hold? I have to disagree with you there."

Response: No, that isn't what I wrote and you know it. A hold and a charge are two entities. When you authorize something, let's say for $12, a hold for that amount is placed against your account. That hold is set to automatically expire after a few days. The charge is completely different and is submitted by the merchant.

So you authorize that $12 transaction and write it down in your check register and let's say that your balance is now $136. If the merchant is a little late sending that charge, the $12 hold will probably expire before the transaction is processed and hard posted. Your online account balance may temporarily reflect a $148 balance but we all know not to use online banking to learn your account balance.

Fortunately, your check register reminds you that your balance is $136 and when that $12 transaction is posted, your balance is still $136. If you keep an accurate check register then having the hold expire won't be an issue at all.



Chris wrote: "That seems like a claim to me. In fact, you don't know either way. I, however, have actually witnessed their unethical practices so I know."

Response: Then you don't know what a claim is. If I have witnessed ethical behavior on their part does that mean that I know?


Chris wrote: "Fair enough, the IRS knows, but you don't, so don't say I know". I don't have any reason to stalk him because I don't care if I know if he works at the bank or not. I don't know, or care. However, you don't know either."

Response: I knowbased on the available evidence. Very simple legal theory.

This is not a ripoff. It is a big inconvenience when this mistake occurs, and the fees are high, but still not a ripoff. I am not attempting to be insulting or degrading in this post so please do not interpret it that way. When someone does not abide by the rules then there are consequences. I am going to give an analogy to help myself express my thoughts. If I am driving at 60 miles per hour in a 55 mile an hour zone and get a ticket, then I am responsible for paying the ticket. Granted, in my opinion that is a little "ticky-tacky", but in fairness I was not obeying the posted limit. I of course would be upset, but no one was at fault but me. It makes no sense to post a ripoff report on the Arizona Highway Patrol because I got a speeding ticket barely over the limit. The bottom line is, I made the mistake. I do agree with Robert, Edgeman and many others that state, "Keep a check register". I must admit, it works. In my younger days I did not do this and had to deal with the fees. I have learned a lesson. Fortunately I have not had to pay any of these fees in a couple of decades. All banks are the same. They will charge you a fee to use THEIR MONEY. That is what occurs when you overdraft the account.

I will admit it is bad that the banks post from highest to lowest, and they will make the argument that it is for your own good. In my opinion, it is for their own good. However we can all avoid these mistakes. Only use cash if that is what it takes. Please avoid paying unnecessary fees. Keep the money for yourself.

"You can't even get the name right"

It's difficult to keep track when I have so many people attacking me for daring to defy this mighty bank.

Whether something is unethical is irrelevant. If you want to delve into ethical arguments, go back to college and enroll in a philosophy class. If you want to discuss this issue - stick to what is legal, because on this issue - that is all that is relevant here. Don't even bother with determining what is ethical - neither you or I are determinants as to what is ethical.

Actually, it's very relevant. Legality is irrelevant here. We are talking about rip offs here, which, incidentally, can easily be legal, so I think that makes my argument more than relevant.

Banks either abide by Federal Reg's or by industry standards also considered to be legal in a court. That's not opinion - that's fact. All banks post debits before they'll post any credits - I invite you to look into any complaint on ROR for any other bank out there. They all have people like you who don't know a d**n thing about anything ignorantly complaining about this exact issue. Try BofA,Wells, Chase... you'll find they're all the same. The banks you used to bank at now process transactions from highest to lowest and debits before credits - of that I assure you. The only entities that don't (as far as I'm aware of) are credit unions, but I suspect they will switch over soon if they are to remain relevant and liquid.

It seems that that you US Bank cheerleaders can't even agree with each other. You are claiming that the bank always posts debits before credits and I am the law claims the opposite, so which is it? If you can't even agree with each other it's difficult to take you seriously. By the way, you're wrong. I have a new bank and they don't process transactions that way.

In the end, if all your arguments are going to be based on ethics, then you have nothing to stand on. Ethics and morals vary from person to person and entity to entity and will be subjective no matter the situation. It's the reason WHY we deal in legalities - so that there are hard and fast rules to abide by without dealing in subjectives.

That's BS. I have everything to stand on. If people understand this bank's behavior (as I do), they certainly wouldn't open an account. Ethics may be subjective, and you may not agree with me on what's ethical and what isn't, but if I'm shopping around for banks and I have a choice between this one and pretty much any other one, what do you think I'm going to choose?

I know based on all of the available evidence. I can see that we are probably going to go back and forth over this for the next few years but this is truly a simple legal theory at work here.

Then just admit you don't know (that's impossible) and I'll let it go. Simple legal theory, as you say, only assumes innocence, it doesn't prove it.

The account holder did overdraft her account. The overdraft fees were appropriate because of her actions. And in my experience, US Bank did reverse overdraft charges resulting from fraud.

According to quite a few of the posts on here, they don't reverse the charges many times in the case of fraud, so your experiences don't prove anything.

You're right... the hold didn't get debited again. The hold expired and the transaction was posted.

Ok, so let me get this straight, something gets debited, then credited back, then debited again (only when it's going to accrue overdrafts fees) and that's a hold? I have to disagree with you there.

Chris, I don't know how many times I have to write this. I did not state any such conclusion. I have written multiple times that US Bank has given me no reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activity. You have been attemtping to suggest that I made a very different claim and it simply does not work.

That seems like a claim to me. In fact, you don't know either way. I, however, have actually witnessed their unethical practices so I know.

Actually, you're wrong again. Other people besides close associates know where he works. For example, the IRS knows where he works. The fact is, my statement was appropriate given all of the available evidence. You still continue to bark up this tree and frankly it would have taken less time for you to simply stalk him and see where he works.

Fair enough, the IRS knows, but you don't, so don't say I know. I don't have any reason to stalk him because I don't care if I know if he works at the bank or not. I don't know, or care. However, you don't know either.

Chris wrote: "If you can't prove a negative, why would you say I know"? That would require proof. You should have said I believe" instead. Maybe you shouldn't lecture others about being clear and concise with their wording when you're no better."

Response: I know based on all of the available evidence. I can see that we are probably going to go back and forth over this for the next few years but this is truly a simple legal theory at work here.


Chris wrote: "I never said the fact that they spent it was a bank error. I expect the bank to take the money back but charging overdraft fees for their (or another person's) mistake is ridiculous, as in the cases where fraudulent charges cause overdrafts and the bank refuses to do anything about it."

Response: The account holder did overdraft her account. The overdraft fees were appropriate because of her actions. And in my experience, US Bank did reverse overdraft charges resulting from fraud.


Chris wrote: "Show me in the policy where the bank can credit debits back just before a large transaction goes through and then debit them again to accrue more overdraft fees. Don't bother saying that's a hold because a hold doesn't get debited again."

Response: That does not accrue more overdraft fees. Think about it. If I have $700 in my account and authorize a $500 transaction, I write that down in my check register and see that I have $200 left. Now let's say that the hold expires and my online balance shows the $500 is back in my account. I look in my check register and see that the $500 transactions hasn't cleared yet so I make certain not to spend more than $200 and I won't pay a single overdraft fee. Then the transaction is hard posted and that $500 is debited.

You're right... the hold didn't get debited again. The hold expired and the transaction was posted.


Chris wrote: "I get it but just because they have not given YOU any reason to think they are unethical is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that they aren't. You base your knowledge" solely on your own experiences. It's your opinion, not fact."

Response: Chris, I don't know how many times I have to write this. I did not state any such conclusion. I have written multiple times that US Bank has given me no reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activity. You have been attemtping to suggest that I made a very different claim and it simply does not work.


Chris wrote: "Since you don't seem to think you are ever wrong, I suppose I am indeed barking up the wrong tree. Legal theory says that if there is no evidence to suggest he is an employee (in your opinion), then it is reasonable to assume he isn't, but that doesn't make it a fact. Only he and close associates KNOW. Do you understand the difference?"

Response: Actually, you're wrong again. Other people besides close associates know where he works. For example, the IRS knows where he works. The fact is, my statement was appropriate given all of the available evidence. You still continue to bark up this tree and frankly it would have taken less time for you to simply stalk him and see where he works.

Welcome, Dirk. I assume that you are new here.

Dirk wrote: "When you post checks in your register, you post them in the order they occur. Any deposits are posted in your register in the order they occur. However, when the debits hit the bank, the bank posts them in order of amount, & deposits are always delayed, sometimes by three or more days."

Response: If you stay within your available balance, then the transactions can be processed in any order and the account will not overdraft. For example, let's say that I have $975 in available funds and I write checks and authorize debits for the following amounts - $84, $67.34, $109.45, $334.94, $128, $62.76 and $177.45. I invite you to take those transactions and run them in any order that you wish and see if they can possibly cause that account to reach a negative balance.

Now, if I were to authorize another trasaction, I would more than likely cause my account to reach a negative balance and be charged an overdraft fee for each of those pending transactions. Knowing this, I will stop spending money from that account until I make a deposit and those new funds are available.

You see, your example still requires the account holder to actually overdraft.

Dirk wrote: "If you're like the young person above (don't remember the name) that said they had to drain their bank account every month to pay the bills, sooner or later you will be hit by OD fees, even though your check register shows you had enough to cover each check every time you wrote one. The only way to avoid this is to never let your account go below $100 in your check register at any time. Unfortunately, like the young person above, many can't do that. I used to be able to do that, but I can't anymore. If you pull your account down to $25 or less each month, the OD fees will kick in at some point due to the banks' shuffling of expenditures."

Response: Untrue. I have brought my account balance below $1.50 may times and I don't pay overdraft fees. It just takes a little time to accurately maintain a check register and one has to remember to account for things like bill pay and auto payments. I'm not rich nor am I particularly good at math.

""One other thing - there is no Federal regulation concerning a time limit on posting deposits. All banks that I know of delay posting of deposits, and they can legally delay them as long as they like.""

You are mistaken Chris. There ARE federal regulations that address deposit funds availability at financial institutions (banks.)

The Federal Reserve and the Federal Depositors Insurance Corp (FDIC) monitor compliance with these federal regulations.

The Federal Reserve has a consumer handbook which explains these regulations in detail. You can download this consumer compliance handbook at the Fed reserve website:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/200711/cch200711.pdf

More information about these policies can be found at the FDIC website:

www.fdic.gov

Perhaps you should visit these websites and become educated on what is permissible by banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions that conduct business in the U.S.

""One other thing - there is no Federal regulation concerning a time limit on posting deposits. All banks that I know of delay posting of deposits, and they can legally delay them as long as they like.""

You are mistaken Chris. There ARE federal regulations that address deposit funds availability at financial institutions (banks.)

The Federal Reserve and the Federal Depositors Insurance Corp (FDIC) monitor compliance with these federal regulations.

The Federal Reserve has a consumer handbook which explains these regulations in detail. You can download this consumer compliance handbook at the Fed reserve website:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/200711/cch200711.pdf

More information about these policies can be found at the FDIC website:

www.fdic.gov

Perhaps you should visit these websites and become educated on what is permissible by banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions that conduct business in the U.S.

Chris, you just keep going from bad to worse. To answer some of your more ridiculous points:

1. Whether something is unethical is irrelevant. If you want to delve into ethical arguments, go back to college and enroll in a philosophy class. If you want to discuss this issue - stick to what is legal, because on this issue - that is all that is relevant here. Don't even bother with determining what is ethical - neither you or I are determinants as to what is ethical.

2. Banks either abide by Federal Reg's or by industry standards also considered to be legal in a court. That's not opinion - that's fact. All banks post debits before they'll post any credits - I invite you to look into any complaint on ROR for any other bank out there. They all have people like you who don't know a d**n thing about anything ignorantly complaining about this exact issue. Try BofA,Wells, Chase... you'll find they're all the same. The banks you used to bank at now process transactions from highest to lowest and debits before credits - of that I assure you. The only entities that don't (as far as I'm aware of) are credit unions, but I suspect they will switch over soon if they are to remain relevant and liquid.

3. No, I can't claim the bank isn't at fault all of the time. I would assess fault for the bank based on previous reviews of Rip-off Report complaints at less than 10%. They're all pretty much the same - people don't keep a check register, they use debit cards without understanding the consequences of their usage, and so on.


In the end, if all your arguments are going to be based on ethics, then you have nothing to stand on. Ethics and morals vary from person to person and entity to entity and will be subjective no matter the situation. It's the reason WHY we deal in legalities - so that there are hard and fast rules to abide by without dealing in subjectives.

Chris, you just keep going from bad to worse. To answer some of your more ridiculous points:

1. Whether something is unethical is irrelevant. If you want to delve into ethical arguments, go back to college and enroll in a philosophy class. If you want to discuss this issue - stick to what is legal, because on this issue - that is all that is relevant here. Don't even bother with determining what is ethical - neither you or I are determinants as to what is ethical.

2. Banks either abide by Federal Reg's or by industry standards also considered to be legal in a court. That's not opinion - that's fact. All banks post debits before they'll post any credits - I invite you to look into any complaint on ROR for any other bank out there. They all have people like you who don't know a d**n thing about anything ignorantly complaining about this exact issue. Try BofA,Wells, Chase... you'll find they're all the same. The banks you used to bank at now process transactions from highest to lowest and debits before credits - of that I assure you. The only entities that don't (as far as I'm aware of) are credit unions, but I suspect they will switch over soon if they are to remain relevant and liquid.

3. No, I can't claim the bank isn't at fault all of the time. I would assess fault for the bank based on previous reviews of Rip-off Report complaints at less than 10%. They're all pretty much the same - people don't keep a check register, they use debit cards without understanding the consequences of their usage, and so on.


In the end, if all your arguments are going to be based on ethics, then you have nothing to stand on. Ethics and morals vary from person to person and entity to entity and will be subjective no matter the situation. It's the reason WHY we deal in legalities - so that there are hard and fast rules to abide by without dealing in subjectives.

Chris, you just keep going from bad to worse. To answer some of your more ridiculous points:

1. Whether something is unethical is irrelevant. If you want to delve into ethical arguments, go back to college and enroll in a philosophy class. If you want to discuss this issue - stick to what is legal, because on this issue - that is all that is relevant here. Don't even bother with determining what is ethical - neither you or I are determinants as to what is ethical.

2. Banks either abide by Federal Reg's or by industry standards also considered to be legal in a court. That's not opinion - that's fact. All banks post debits before they'll post any credits - I invite you to look into any complaint on ROR for any other bank out there. They all have people like you who don't know a d**n thing about anything ignorantly complaining about this exact issue. Try BofA,Wells, Chase... you'll find they're all the same. The banks you used to bank at now process transactions from highest to lowest and debits before credits - of that I assure you. The only entities that don't (as far as I'm aware of) are credit unions, but I suspect they will switch over soon if they are to remain relevant and liquid.

3. No, I can't claim the bank isn't at fault all of the time. I would assess fault for the bank based on previous reviews of Rip-off Report complaints at less than 10%. They're all pretty much the same - people don't keep a check register, they use debit cards without understanding the consequences of their usage, and so on.


In the end, if all your arguments are going to be based on ethics, then you have nothing to stand on. Ethics and morals vary from person to person and entity to entity and will be subjective no matter the situation. It's the reason WHY we deal in legalities - so that there are hard and fast rules to abide by without dealing in subjectives.

Chris, you just keep going from bad to worse. To answer some of your more ridiculous points:

1. Whether something is unethical is irrelevant. If you want to delve into ethical arguments, go back to college and enroll in a philosophy class. If you want to discuss this issue - stick to what is legal, because on this issue - that is all that is relevant here. Don't even bother with determining what is ethical - neither you or I are determinants as to what is ethical.

2. Banks either abide by Federal Reg's or by industry standards also considered to be legal in a court. That's not opinion - that's fact. All banks post debits before they'll post any credits - I invite you to look into any complaint on ROR for any other bank out there. They all have people like you who don't know a d**n thing about anything ignorantly complaining about this exact issue. Try BofA,Wells, Chase... you'll find they're all the same. The banks you used to bank at now process transactions from highest to lowest and debits before credits - of that I assure you. The only entities that don't (as far as I'm aware of) are credit unions, but I suspect they will switch over soon if they are to remain relevant and liquid.

3. No, I can't claim the bank isn't at fault all of the time. I would assess fault for the bank based on previous reviews of Rip-off Report complaints at less than 10%. They're all pretty much the same - people don't keep a check register, they use debit cards without understanding the consequences of their usage, and so on.


In the end, if all your arguments are going to be based on ethics, then you have nothing to stand on. Ethics and morals vary from person to person and entity to entity and will be subjective no matter the situation. It's the reason WHY we deal in legalities - so that there are hard and fast rules to abide by without dealing in subjectives.

I agree with Jim, what happened to the OP would have happened at any bank. However, one thing I do take issue with is the stance I see over & over, that using a check register & balancing your checkbook every month will solve the overdraft problem. It won't. The reason is simple. When you post checks in your register, you post them in the order they occur. Any deposits are posted in your register in the order they occur. However, when the debits hit the bank, the bank posts them in order of amount, & deposits are always delayed, sometimes by three or more days.

If you're like the young person above (don't remember the name) that said they had to drain their bank account every month to pay the bills, sooner or later you will be hit by OD fees, even though your check register shows you had enough to cover each check every time you wrote one. The only way to avoid this is to never let your account go below $100 in your check register at any time. Unfortunately, like the young person above, many can't do that. I used to be able to do that, but I can't anymore. If you pull your account down to $25 or less each month, the OD fees will kick in at some point due to the banks' shuffling of expenditures.

One other thing - there is no Federal regulation concerning a time limit on posting deposits. All banks that I know of delay posting of deposits, and they can legally delay them as long as they like. Seems strange to me that deposits are delayed, but debits are always instant.

Without evidence he is innocent. No contradictions. And if you truly believe that you can prove a negtaive, I know some professors who would love for you to teach them how to do it.

If you can't prove a negative, why would you say I know? That would require proof. You should have said I believe instead. Maybe you shouldn't lecture others about being clear and concise with their wording when you're no better.

Spending money the account holder didn't have was not bank error. We still don't know if it was the bank's fault or the depositor's fault for the money winding up in that account, but the bank DID correct the error by removing the money and depositing it elsewhere.

I never said the fact that they spent it was a bank error. I expect the bank to take the money back but charging overdraft fees for their (or another person's) mistake is ridiculous, as in the cases where fraudulent charges cause overdrafts and the bank refuses to do anything about it.

The account holder spent money that didn't belong to her. It is not the bank's fault that she CHOSE to spend that money.

That wasn't the mistake I was referring to.

That policy is still the same as it was last year. Transactions are posted from largest to smallest and overdraft fees are assessed for every transaction that results in a negative available balance.

Show me in the policy where the bank can credit debits back just before a large transaction goes through and then debit them again to accrue more overdraft fees. Don't bother saying that's a hold because a hold doesn't get debited again.

Your reading comprehension is somewhat off. I did not claim in the second sentence that they do not engage in unethical activities. I wrote that the bank has given me no reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activities. Do you understand the difference?

I get it but just because they have not given YOU any reason to think they are unethical is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that they aren't. You base your knowledge solely on your own experiences. It's your opinion, not fact.

I know that you love this issue, but you are truly barking up the wrong tree here. Without any evidence to indicate that he is a US Bank employee, there is no reason to assume that he works for them. Based on all of the available evidence, it is appopriate to say that I know he isn't an employee. This is a very simple legal theory.

Since you don't seem to think you are ever wrong, I suppose I am indeed barking up the wrong tree. Legal theory says that if there is no evidence to suggest he is an employee (in your opinion), then it is reasonable to assume he isn't, but that doesn't make it a fact. Only he and close associates KNOW. Do you understand the difference?

Chris, you haven't been close to being right on anything related to the topic of overdraft fees, identifying who is who here, etc... Most people who pay attention to their bank accounts learned a long time ago how banks process transactions - some the hard way.

What have I been wrong about? I never claimed that the bank forces you to overdraft, I never claimed that not spending money you don't have avoids overdrafts and I never claimed that not keeping a check register was a bad idea, so please, explain to me where I was wrong. All I've claimed is that the bank is very unethical in the unfortunate situation where the customer overdrafts. If you don't think they act unethically, that's your opinion but I have news for you, that doesn't constitute fact.

Those of us who do respond also don't defend banks - the truth is that the bank isn't at fault - and that's a bit different than defending a bank.

So in no instance is the bank at fault? Don't you think that's just tad narrow-minded?

All banks are the same and process transactions the same way, partly due to the fact that they follow Federal Regulations.

Wrong. I've been a member of seven banks and only a few of them processed transactions for largest to smallest, and only US Bank credits back debits before a large transaction goes through (only when said transaction would put the customer in the negative), then debits said transactions again to accrue a barrage of overdrafts. I'm sorry, but that's unethical beyond comprehension.

It's harder to accept the fact that more than 90% of the complaints for bank fees are self-inflicted.

Where's your proof of this?

Chris wrote: "Actually, you said the words 'I know 'I am the law' isn't a bank employee and I know he's not a US Bank spotter'. You just contradicted yourself yet again. You are proclaiming innocence with no proof. If you can't prove a negative (even though I know you can), then you can't know. That would be impossible if we are going by your words (can't prove a negative)."

Response: Without evidence he is innocent. No contradictions. And if you truly believe that you can prove a negtaive, I know some professors who would love for you to teach them how to do it.


Chris wrote: "Such as the case where the person had an extra $80 put in her account because of the bank. They easily may not have known it wasn't there's and spent it, causing overdraft fees that the bank wouldn't reverse. Since the bank made the error, they need to reverse those fees. Even if you make the argument that the customer should have been watching their account more closely, the bottom line is the bank made the mistake, not the customer."

Response: Spending money the account holder didn't have was not bank error. We still don't know if it was the bank's fault or the depositor's fault for the money winding up in that account, but the bank DID correct the error by removing the money and depositing it elsewhere.

The account holder spent money that didn't belong to her. It is not the bank's fault that she CHOSE to spend that money.


Chris wrote: "So have they given you policy notifications that dictate how they operate when someone overdrafts, because they never gave me any."

Response: That policy is still the same as it was last year. Transactions are posted from largest to smallest and overdraft fees are assessed for every transaction that results in a negative available balance.


Chris wrote: "This is what you previously wrote: 'I don't recall specifically claiming that the bank is ethical or not unethical. You may have to provide the quotes. What I did write was that you haven't proven that the bank is unethical and my 2+ years with US Bank and my friends and associates with accounts there hasn't given me any reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activities.'

In the first sentence you say you don't recall claiming that the bank is ethical or unethical but in the last sentence you say they don't engage in unethical activities. Isn't that a claim?"

Response: Your reading comprehension is somewhat off. I did not claim in the second sentence that they do not engage in unethical activities. I wrote that the bank has given me no reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activities. Do you understand the difference?


Chris wrote: "If you can't prove a negative, then no, you don't know. You are essentially stating that you although you can't prove a negative, you did. A toddler could see that what you just said is impossible."

Response: I know that you love this issue, but you are truly barking up the wrong tree here. Without any evidence to indicate that he is a US Bank employee, there is no reason to assume that he works for them. Based on all of the available evidence, it is appopriate to say that I know he isn't an employee. This is a very simple legal theory.

Chris wrote: "Actually, you said the words 'I know 'I am the law' isn't a bank employee and I know he's not a US Bank spotter'. You just contradicted yourself yet again. You are proclaiming innocence with no proof. If you can't prove a negative (even though I know you can), then you can't know. That would be impossible if we are going by your words (can't prove a negative)."

Response: Without evidence he is innocent. No contradictions. And if you truly believe that you can prove a negtaive, I know some professors who would love for you to teach them how to do it.


Chris wrote: "Such as the case where the person had an extra $80 put in her account because of the bank. They easily may not have known it wasn't there's and spent it, causing overdraft fees that the bank wouldn't reverse. Since the bank made the error, they need to reverse those fees. Even if you make the argument that the customer should have been watching their account more closely, the bottom line is the bank made the mistake, not the customer."

Response: Spending money the account holder didn't have was not bank error. We still don't know if it was the bank's fault or the depositor's fault for the money winding up in that account, but the bank DID correct the error by removing the money and depositing it elsewhere.

The account holder spent money that didn't belong to her. It is not the bank's fault that she CHOSE to spend that money.


Chris wrote: "So have they given you policy notifications that dictate how they operate when someone overdrafts, because they never gave me any."

Response: That policy is still the same as it was last year. Transactions are posted from largest to smallest and overdraft fees are assessed for every transaction that results in a negative available balance.


Chris wrote: "This is what you previously wrote: 'I don't recall specifically claiming that the bank is ethical or not unethical. You may have to provide the quotes. What I did write was that you haven't proven that the bank is unethical and my 2+ years with US Bank and my friends and associates with accounts there hasn't given me any reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activities.'

In the first sentence you say you don't recall claiming that the bank is ethical or unethical but in the last sentence you say they don't engage in unethical activities. Isn't that a claim?"

Response: Your reading comprehension is somewhat off. I did not claim in the second sentence that they do not engage in unethical activities. I wrote that the bank has given me no reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activities. Do you understand the difference?


Chris wrote: "If you can't prove a negative, then no, you don't know. You are essentially stating that you although you can't prove a negative, you did. A toddler could see that what you just said is impossible."

Response: I know that you love this issue, but you are truly barking up the wrong tree here. Without any evidence to indicate that he is a US Bank employee, there is no reason to assume that he works for them. Based on all of the available evidence, it is appopriate to say that I know he isn't an employee. This is a very simple legal theory.

Chris wrote: "Actually, you said the words 'I know 'I am the law' isn't a bank employee and I know he's not a US Bank spotter'. You just contradicted yourself yet again. You are proclaiming innocence with no proof. If you can't prove a negative (even though I know you can), then you can't know. That would be impossible if we are going by your words (can't prove a negative)."

Response: Without evidence he is innocent. No contradictions. And if you truly believe that you can prove a negtaive, I know some professors who would love for you to teach them how to do it.


Chris wrote: "Such as the case where the person had an extra $80 put in her account because of the bank. They easily may not have known it wasn't there's and spent it, causing overdraft fees that the bank wouldn't reverse. Since the bank made the error, they need to reverse those fees. Even if you make the argument that the customer should have been watching their account more closely, the bottom line is the bank made the mistake, not the customer."

Response: Spending money the account holder didn't have was not bank error. We still don't know if it was the bank's fault or the depositor's fault for the money winding up in that account, but the bank DID correct the error by removing the money and depositing it elsewhere.

The account holder spent money that didn't belong to her. It is not the bank's fault that she CHOSE to spend that money.


Chris wrote: "So have they given you policy notifications that dictate how they operate when someone overdrafts, because they never gave me any."

Response: That policy is still the same as it was last year. Transactions are posted from largest to smallest and overdraft fees are assessed for every transaction that results in a negative available balance.


Chris wrote: "This is what you previously wrote: 'I don't recall specifically claiming that the bank is ethical or not unethical. You may have to provide the quotes. What I did write was that you haven't proven that the bank is unethical and my 2+ years with US Bank and my friends and associates with accounts there hasn't given me any reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activities.'

In the first sentence you say you don't recall claiming that the bank is ethical or unethical but in the last sentence you say they don't engage in unethical activities. Isn't that a claim?"

Response: Your reading comprehension is somewhat off. I did not claim in the second sentence that they do not engage in unethical activities. I wrote that the bank has given me no reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activities. Do you understand the difference?


Chris wrote: "If you can't prove a negative, then no, you don't know. You are essentially stating that you although you can't prove a negative, you did. A toddler could see that what you just said is impossible."

Response: I know that you love this issue, but you are truly barking up the wrong tree here. Without any evidence to indicate that he is a US Bank employee, there is no reason to assume that he works for them. Based on all of the available evidence, it is appopriate to say that I know he isn't an employee. This is a very simple legal theory.

This is a pointless argument and anyone wanting to determine if this bank is any better than any other bank out there won't get that from this idiotic string. Here is all anyone reading this should know:

1. Chris, you haven't been close to being right on anything related to the topic of overdraft fees, identifying who is who here, etc... Most people who pay attention to their bank accounts learned a long time ago how banks process transactions - some the hard way.

In addition, there are few if any bank employees who respond here to defend a bank; many of the people who respond here can be found on complaints for BofA, Wells, Wachovia, Compass, Chase, etc.... we've never been employees there are we aren't here. Those of us who do respond also don't defend banks - the truth is that the bank isn't at fault - and that's a bit different than defending a bank. All banks are the same and process transactions the same way, partly due to the fact that they follow Federal Regulations. Those processes that aren't guided by Federal Regulations are guided by industry norms - hence their similarity. In the case of the OP, what happened at this bank would have happened at any bank. It's easy to paint the big bad bank as the bad guy. It's harder to accept the fact that more than 90% of the complaints for bank fees are self-inflicted.

2. Edgeman - arguing facts is pointless to someone who refuses to get it. This is the case where the OP got into trouble thinking a debit card is like a credit card. It isn't - it's cash and using it requires an understanding as to its consequences when it isn't used with any sort of due care. The student doesn't know because the parents don't know - that's obvious from the posting.

3. US Bank is no different than any other bank - bottom line. That means good and bad. Competent management of your finances (using a register and not using a debit card without due care) will keep an individual from overdrafting. A bank is nothing more than an administrator and transaction processor on your account and the transactions are in your control.

"No, I never told you that and you know it. As I've written multiple times, you are only guilty when there is evidence to prove it. "

Actually, you said the words "I know 'I am the law' isn't a bank employee and I know he's not a US Bank spotter". You just contradicted yourself yet again. You are proclaiming innocence with no proof. If you can't prove a negative (even though I know you can), then you can't know. That would be impossible if we are going by your words (can't prove a negative).

"Such as?"

Such as the case where the person had an extra $80 put in her account because of the bank. They easily may not have known it wasn't there's and spent it, causing overdraft fees that the bank wouldn't reverse. Since the bank made the error, they need to reverse those fees. Even if you make the argument that the customer should have been watching their account more closely, the bottom line is the bank made the mistake, not the customer.

"And I've received notifications when there has been a change in policy. I am up to date on how the bank processes transactions and I do not overdraft as a result."

So have they given you policy notifications that dictate how they operate when someone overdrafts, because they never gave me any.

"I can tell that you're confused from your misinterpretations of prior posts. No, I still did not make any claim as to whether or not US Bank is ethical or unethical. Only that in my experience they have not given me reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical practices. If you're a computer programmer, you must be able to pay attention to details and I'm certain that you can see the difference between my remarks and what you claim that I wrote. "

This is what you previously wrote: "I don't recall specifically claiming that the bank is ethical or not unethical. You may have to provide the quotes. What I did write was that you haven't proven that the bank is unethical and my 2+ years with US Bank and my friends and associates with accounts there hasn't given me any reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activities."

In the first sentence you say you don't recall claiming that the bank is ethical or unethical but in the last sentence you say they don't engage in unethical activities. Isn't that a claim?

"You can't prove a negative, Chris. Therefore I know based on all of the available evidence (none)."

If you can't prove a negative, then no, you don't know. You are essentially stating that you although you can't prove a negative, you did. A toddler could see that what you just said is impossible.

Chris wrote: "I see, so you're telling me that no one has ever been guilty of a crime that has been found not guilty"? You can't possibly believe that. Justice may have been served in most cases (giving the benefit of the doubt here), but unless the jury has a videotape of someone else committing the crime, they don't know anything for sure; they only believe it based on the available evidence."

Response: No, I never told you that and you know it. As I've written multiple times, you are only guilty when there is evidence to prove it.


Chris wrote: "When have I stated that I expect something to come of it? Are you apparently reading my mind again"

Response: Dude, read the thread. I simply advised you not to expect anything to come of it. You asked what would you expect to come of it and I replied that I had no idea. I never claimed that you stated that you expect anyhting to come of it, I only suggested that you shouldn't. You must know this.


Chris wrote: "Because there are cases where the bank is wrong and you still find the user at fault."

Response: Such as?


Chris wrote: "Right, but as I said before, you did so a while ago and policies easily could have changed in that time. Banks operate very differently than they did years ago. Advancements in software (I'm a computer programmer so I know) have allowed banks to manipulate accounts much more deviously than in the past."

Response: And I've received notifications when there has been a change in policy. I am up to date on how the bank processes transactions and I do not overdraft as a result.


Chris wrote: "I'm confused. Didn't you deny claiming it and then go on to claim it in the same paragraph?"

Response: I can tell that you're confused from your misinterpretations of prior posts. No, I still did not make any claim as to whether or not US Bank is ethical or unethical. Only that in my experience they have not given me reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical practices. If you're a computer programmer, you must be able to pay attention to details and I'm certain that you can see the difference between my remarks and what you claim that I wrote.

Chris wrote: "You're right, it is simple. You don't have any proof, therefore you don't know."

Response: You can't prove a negative, Chris. Therefore I know based on all of the available evidence (none).

Chris wrote: "I see, so you're telling me that no one has ever been guilty of a crime that has been found not guilty"? You can't possibly believe that. Justice may have been served in most cases (giving the benefit of the doubt here), but unless the jury has a videotape of someone else committing the crime, they don't know anything for sure; they only believe it based on the available evidence."

Response: No, I never told you that and you know it. As I've written multiple times, you are only guilty when there is evidence to prove it.


Chris wrote: "When have I stated that I expect something to come of it? Are you apparently reading my mind again"

Response: Dude, read the thread. I simply advised you not to expect anything to come of it. You asked what would you expect to come of it and I replied that I had no idea. I never claimed that you stated that you expect anyhting to come of it, I only suggested that you shouldn't. You must know this.


Chris wrote: "Because there are cases where the bank is wrong and you still find the user at fault."

Response: Such as?


Chris wrote: "Right, but as I said before, you did so a while ago and policies easily could have changed in that time. Banks operate very differently than they did years ago. Advancements in software (I'm a computer programmer so I know) have allowed banks to manipulate accounts much more deviously than in the past."

Response: And I've received notifications when there has been a change in policy. I am up to date on how the bank processes transactions and I do not overdraft as a result.


Chris wrote: "I'm confused. Didn't you deny claiming it and then go on to claim it in the same paragraph?"

Response: I can tell that you're confused from your misinterpretations of prior posts. No, I still did not make any claim as to whether or not US Bank is ethical or unethical. Only that in my experience they have not given me reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical practices. If you're a computer programmer, you must be able to pay attention to details and I'm certain that you can see the difference between my remarks and what you claim that I wrote.

Chris wrote: "You're right, it is simple. You don't have any proof, therefore you don't know."

Response: You can't prove a negative, Chris. Therefore I know based on all of the available evidence (none).

Chris wrote: "I see, so you're telling me that no one has ever been guilty of a crime that has been found not guilty"? You can't possibly believe that. Justice may have been served in most cases (giving the benefit of the doubt here), but unless the jury has a videotape of someone else committing the crime, they don't know anything for sure; they only believe it based on the available evidence."

Response: No, I never told you that and you know it. As I've written multiple times, you are only guilty when there is evidence to prove it.


Chris wrote: "When have I stated that I expect something to come of it? Are you apparently reading my mind again"

Response: Dude, read the thread. I simply advised you not to expect anything to come of it. You asked what would you expect to come of it and I replied that I had no idea. I never claimed that you stated that you expect anyhting to come of it, I only suggested that you shouldn't. You must know this.


Chris wrote: "Because there are cases where the bank is wrong and you still find the user at fault."

Response: Such as?


Chris wrote: "Right, but as I said before, you did so a while ago and policies easily could have changed in that time. Banks operate very differently than they did years ago. Advancements in software (I'm a computer programmer so I know) have allowed banks to manipulate accounts much more deviously than in the past."

Response: And I've received notifications when there has been a change in policy. I am up to date on how the bank processes transactions and I do not overdraft as a result.


Chris wrote: "I'm confused. Didn't you deny claiming it and then go on to claim it in the same paragraph?"

Response: I can tell that you're confused from your misinterpretations of prior posts. No, I still did not make any claim as to whether or not US Bank is ethical or unethical. Only that in my experience they have not given me reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical practices. If you're a computer programmer, you must be able to pay attention to details and I'm certain that you can see the difference between my remarks and what you claim that I wrote.

Chris wrote: "You're right, it is simple. You don't have any proof, therefore you don't know."

Response: You can't prove a negative, Chris. Therefore I know based on all of the available evidence (none).

You are innocent. Fin.

I see, so you're telling me that no one has ever been guilty of a crime that has been found not guilty? You can't possibly believe that. Justice may have been served in most cases (giving the benefit of the doubt here), but unless the jury has a videotape of someone else committing the crime, they don't know anything for sure; they only believe it based on the available evidence.

I have no idea. You're the one who embraces this type of thinking.

When have I stated that I expect something to come of it? Are you apparently reading my mind again

Then why did you list me as someone that you defend others from?

Because there are cases where the bank is wrong and you still find the user at fault.

I have overdrafted. Twice. And the simple concept at work here is simply to avoid overdrafting your account. That means maintaining accurate ledgers, understanding funds availability and reading and understanding new account policies when the bank sends them to you. For example, a few weeks ago I received a notice from Bank of America regarding their new overdraft policies. I read it, understood it and saved it along with my other materials from that bank.

Right, but as I said before, you did so a while ago and policies easily could have changed in that time. Banks operate very differently than they did years ago. Advancements in software (I'm a computer programmer so I know) have allowed banks to manipulate accounts much more deviously than in the past.

I don't recall specifically claiming that the bank is ethical or not unethical. You may have to provide the quotes. What I did write was that you haven't proven that the bank is unethical and my 2+ years with US Bank and my friends and associates with accounts there hasn't given me any reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activities.

I'm confused. Didn't you deny claiming it and then go on to claim it in the same paragraph?

I know it based on all of the available evidence. This is pretty simple stuff here.

You're right, it is simple. You don't have any proof, therefore you don't know.

Chris wrote: "You are proclaimed innocent, but only you and any witnesses know for sure, hence the misuse of the work know"."

Response: You are innocent. Fin.


Chris wrote: "What would I expect to come of it?"

Response: I have no idea. You're the one who embraces this type of thinking.


Chris wrote: "Ok, but why are my actions bizarre", but yours aren't? Nothing requires" me to do anything. I choose to defend people because even when the bank is clearly at fault, like in the case where fraudulent charges caused overdrafts and the bank did nothing, and people somehow argue that the victim is at fault (not necessarily you, but others)."

Response: Then why did you list me as someone that you defend others from?


Chris wrote: "So, do you believe that every one of those minority" checking account holders doesn't know how to manage their checking account? Do you think the bank is ever at fault?"

Response: Sure. And their are options open to account holders when theyr eceive overdraft fees due to bank error.


Chris wrote: "If you don't overdraft, you don't know how the bank operates if you do. This is a very simple concept."

Response: I have overdrafted. Twice. And the simple concept at work here is simply to avoid overdrafting your account. That means maintaining accurate ledgers, understanding funds availability and reading and understanding new account policies when the bank sends them to you. For example, a few weeks ago I received a notice from Bank of America regarding their new overdraft policies. I read it, understood it and saved it along with my other materials from that bank.


Chris wrote: "Believe what? You've already stated that you think I'm a liar. I don't have to believe" anything. You've said it."

Response: I was responding to the last sentence in your prior post.


Chris wrote: "When you claim that the bank isn't unethical, that's claiming a negative. I'm not denying you never overdraft. I believe you. However, that doesn't even come close to proving that the bank is ethical."

Response: I don't recall specifically claiming that the bank is ethical or not unethical. You may have to provide the quotes. What I did write was that you haven't proven that the bank is unethical and my 2+ years with US Bank and my friends and associates with accounts there hasn't given me any reason to conclude that they are engaged in unethical activities.


Chris wrote: "That doesn't mean you know it. It means you believe it to be true. Why is so difficult?"

Response: I know it based on all of the available evidence. This is pretty simple stuff here.


Chris wrote: "It's not appropriate because you don't have proof. I KNOW my wife isn't a bank employee because I live with her and know what she does for a living. I don't KNOW I am the law" isn't however, or is for that matter. I don't know either way and neither do you."

Response: See above.

I apologize for the glaring grammer mistakes in my post; I hadn't gotten much sleep the night before.

Without evidence of any kind, you are simply innocent.

You are proclaimed innocent, but only you and any witnesses know for sure, hence the misuse of the work know.

That's pretty flimsy evidence. Believe it if you wish but don't expect much to come from it.

What would I expect to come of it?

You may want to read my post again. I listed three specific actions of yours that I found to be bizarre. I didn't write what you are claiming here. And what exactly do I do that requires you to 'defend' people from me?

Ok, but why are my actions bizarre, but yours aren't? Nothing requires me to do anything. I choose to defend people because even when the bank is clearly at fault, like in the case where fraudulent charges caused overdrafts and the bank did nothing, and people somehow argue that the victim is at fault (not necessarily you, but others).

Do you have any idea how many checking accounts are held by United States residents and how many transactions are processed everyday? That minority percentage does pay literally billions of dollars every year. This is one reason why I think more people should learn how to manage a checking account.

So, do you believe that every one of those minority checking account holders doesn't know how to manage their checking account? Do you think the bank is ever at fault?

I know how the bank operates today because I use banks and the services that the provide. If you keep digging you are bound to find an incident that happened around Memorial Day of 2008. A merchant double charged me on a $1,253 transaction and four overdraft fees were assessed. The bank reversed all four of them. I have in fact had recent experience with how US Bank operates.

If you don't overdraft, you don't know how the bank operates if you do. This is a very simple concept.

Chris wrote: 'Do I honestly have to say this again? I don't have any evidence anymore because it was a while ago. I really don't care if you believe me or not and I've already said this. You can think I'm lying if you want. That's apparently the only conclusion the defenders can come to anyway when they can't make an effective counter-argument.'

Response: Believe that if you wish.

Believe what? You've already stated that you think I'm a liar. I don't have to believe anything. You've said it.

I have my statements and can back up claims that I have made about my account. And no, I never claimed to have proved a negative.

When you claim that the bank isn't unethical, that's claiming a negative. I'm not denying you never overdraft. I believe you. However, that doesn't even come close to proving that the bank is ethical.

We've been over this over and over. I know that he isn't a bank employee because we not only have his statement but also the fact that there is NO evidence to the contrary.

That doesn't mean you know it. It means you believe it to be true. Why is so difficult?

An evaluation of all the available evidence (none) along with his statement is enough to conclude that he is not a bank employee. It's appropriate to state that I know he isn't an employee in this situation. You don't and that's fine.

It's not appropriate because you don't have proof. I KNOW my wife isn't a bank employee because I live with her and know what she does for a living. I don't KNOW I am the law isn't however, or is for that matter. I don't know either way and neither do you.

Chris wrote: "You are completely missing my point. Ok, if there is no evidence to prove that I committed a crime, I go free. However, it is BELIEVED that I'm innocent, it's not KNOWN. Only I can know that (or people that witnessed the actual crime)."

Response: Without evidence of any kind, you are simply innocent.


Chris wrote: " In my eyes, there is evidence to suggest he is an employee. When someone posts a rebuttal that is only an insult plus his admission early on that he was an employee makes him highly suspect. He used to post as an ex-employee" and now he posts as a consumer". He is still an ex-employee, so why did he switch? Is it because people won't take him seriously if they know he's an ex-employee, making him obviously biased? If he's willing to mislead people about that, why not other things? That to me is evidence."

Response: That's pretty flimsy evidence. Believe it if you wish but don't expect much to come from it.


Chris wrote: "Right, but you were suggesting that I was strange for trying to defend people against you and the others but turn around and suggest that it's ok for you to help people avoid overdraft fees". Why is what I do not ok but what you do is?"

Response: You may want to read my post again. I listed three specific actions of yours that I found to be bizarre. I didn't write what you are claiming here. And what exactly do I do that requires you to "defend" people from me?


Chris wrote: "Ok, so where does all that revenue come from then (from overdraft fees)? The people who overdraft don't tend to be millionaires. The bank makes literally billions per year in overdrafts. How is this possible if most people don't overdraft?"

Response: Do you have any idea how many checking accounts are held by United States residents and how many transactions are processed everyday? That minority percentage does pay literally billions of dollars every year. This is one reason why I think more people should learn how to manage a checking account.


Chris wrote: "Ok, and by your own admission that was quite a while ago. Is that correct? How could you possibly know how the bank operates today? In fact, the banks operate very differently now than when I was a child (and I'm not very old). Policies change all the time."

Response: I know how the bank operates today because I use banks and the services that the provide. If you keep digging you are bound to find an incident that happened around Memorial Day of 2008. A merchant double charged me on a $1,253 transaction and four overdraft fees were assessed. The bank reversed all four of them. I have in fact had recent experience with how US Bank operates.


Chris wrote: "Do I honestly have to say this again? I don't have any evidence anymore because it was a while ago. I really don't care if you believe me or not and I've already said this. You can think I'm lying if you want. That's apparently the only conclusion the defenders can come to anyway when they can't make an effective counter-argument."

Response: Believe that if you wish.


Chris wrote: "Very well, but so are you. You (seemingly) claim that the bank doesn't act unethically but you have nothing to back it up except your experience, which is exactly the evidence I have, so I guess we're both in the same boat. In this case, YOU are the one claiming to have proved a negative."

Response: I have my statements and can back up claims that I have made about my account. And no, I never claimed to have proved a negative.


Chris wrote: "No, I don't, because this bank has caused me a lot of problems in the past and I want people to be warned. That's not bizarre in my opinion. How about backing up your claims that you know" he's not an employee? You don't know"; you are simply taking his word for it. That's absolutely a double standard."

Response: We've been over this over and over. I know that he isn't a bank employee because we not only have his statement but also the fact that there is NO evidence to the contrary.


Chris wrote: "Wrong. If you had stated that you BELIEVE that he isn't an employee, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. However, you stated you KNOW it. That is where the problem lies. It doesn't matter if there is no contrary evidence (in your opinion; I think there's plenty), you still don't know it for sure. Why can't you admit you're wrong? You honestly think you KNOW? What world are you living in? Do I KNOW you aren't a serial killer? Of course not. I obviously believe you aren't but that's the extent of it. I can't know it because I don't know you."

Response: An evaluation of all the available evidence (none) along with his statement is enough to conclude that he is not a bank employee. It's appropriate to state that I know he isn't an employee in this situation. You don't and that's fine.

No, a negative cannot be proven. And your theory doesn't work. In order for someone to be found guilty, there would have to be proof of his guilt. What we have here is a statement and NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. And if I were a judge and there was proof that you commited a crime, then I'd go with the jury if they found you guilty.

You are completely missing my point. Ok, if there is no evidence to prove that I committed a crime, I go free. However, it is BELIEVED that I'm innocent, it's not KNOWN. Only I can know that (or people that witnessed the actual crime). In my eyes, there is evidence to suggest he is an employee. When someone posts a rebuttal that is only an insult plus his admission early on that he was an employee makes him highly suspect. He used to post as an ex-employee and now he posts as a consumer. He is still an ex-employee, so why did he switch? Is it because people won't take him seriously if they know he's an ex-employee, making him obviously biased? If he's willing to mislead people about that, why not other things? That to me is evidence.

Yes, but that is not what I was addressing. I was responding specifically to your comment (and I think you know it). Let me refresh your memory: ''Why is it ok for you to help' people but not for me to?''

I never wrote that.

Right, but you were suggesting that I was strange for trying to defend people against you and the others but turn around and suggest that it's ok for you to help people avoid overdraft fees. Why is what I do not ok but what you do is?

The FDIC study that was released a few months ago.

Ok, so where does all that revenue come from then (from overdraft fees)? The people who overdraft don't tend to be millionaires. The bank makes literally billions per year in overdrafts. How is this possible if most people don't overdraft?

I have overdrafted. Twice.

Ok, and by your own admission that was quite a while ago. Is that correct? How could you possibly know how the bank operates today? In fact, the banks operate very differently now than when I was a child (and I'm not very old). Policies change all the time.

Okay, show your evidence and if it truly shows that the bank is engaged in unethical behavior, I'll say so.

Do I honestly have to say this again? I don't have any evidence anymore because it was a while ago. I really don't care if you believe me or not and I've already said this. You can think I'm lying if you want. That's apparently the only conclusion the defenders can come to anyway when they can't make an effective counter-argument.

Well, be sure to post any evidence that you do eventually come across. Until then, you are only making unsubstantiated allegations.

Very well, but so are you. You (seemingly) claim that the bank doesn't act unethically but you have nothing to back it up except your experience, which is exactly the evidence I have, so I guess we're both in the same boat. In this case, YOU are the one claiming to have proved a negative.

And you don't find how much time and effort that you spend here isn't bizarre? And no, I don't only take peoples' word for it when they agree with me and no, there is no double standard between you and 'I Am The Law'. I have asked you to back up your statements about him and I have asked you to back up your statements about the bank. I have been consistent on that.

No, I don't, because this bank has caused me a lot of problems in the past and I want people to be warned. That's not bizarre in my opinion. How about backing up your claims that you know he's not an employee? You don't know; you are simply taking his word for it. That's absolutely a double standard.

If you had been able to provide evidence on either one, I would have come to the conclusion supported by the evidence.

I didn't base my conclusions about 'I Am The Law' solely on his statement. It's also based on the fact that there is absolutely no contrary evidence.

Wrong. If you had stated that you BELIEVE that he isn't an employee, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. However, you stated you KNOW it. That is where the problem lies. It doesn't matter if there is no contrary evidence (in your opinion; I think there's plenty), you still don't know it for sure. Why can't you admit you're wrong? You honestly think you KNOW? What world are you living in? Do I KNOW you aren't a serial killer? Of course not. I obviously believe you aren't but that's the extent of it. I can't know it because I don't know you.

Chris wrote: "You CAN prove a negative. If you knew him personally and therefore, knew for a fact he wasn't employee, it would be proof. You don't have any proof. All you have is his statement. Legal theory also states that a person's lack of admission of guilt doesn't constitute innocence. If I ever commit a crime I really hope you're the judge."

Response: No, a negative cannot be proven. And your theory doesn't work. In order for someone to be found guilty, there would have to be proof of his guilt. What we have here is a statement and NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. And if I were a judge and there was proof that you commited a crime, then I'd go with the jury if they found you guilty.

Chris wrote: "Actually, you did state that you were trying to help people avoid overdraft fees several times."

Response: Yes, but that is not what I was addressing. I was responding specifically to your comment (and I think you know it). Let me refresh your memory: "'Why is it ok for you to help' people but not for me to?'"

I never wrote that.

Chris wrote: "Where's your proof that most people don't pay overdraft fees?"

Response: The FDIC study that was released a few months ago.

Chris wrote: "Are you telling me that a large percentage of bank revenue comes from NSF fees per year is from only a few people?"

Response: I am saying that the majority of account holders do not pay NSF or overdraft fees, so all income from those fees come from a minority of account holders.

Chris wrote: "If you've never overdrafted", as you say, how could you possibly know how the bank behaves if you ever do? Oh, that's right, you couldn't."

Response: I have overdrafted. Twice.

Chris wrote: "I can't stop people from doing it. How could I? Do you think I'm going to go to where they live and take their internet access away? All I can do is defend people and make others aware of the unethical practices of this bank, and mount an effective counter-argument against people like you that seemingly" don't feel the bank does anything unethical which is of course, laughable."

Response: Okay, show your evidence and if it truly shows that the bank is engaged in unethical behavior, I'll say so.

Chris wrote: "As I've said several times before, I don't have the proof anymore because it was a while ago, but that doesn't make it any less real."

Response: Well, be sure to post any evidence that you do eventually come across. Until then, you are only making unsubstantiated allegations.

Chris wrote: "I said how much time and effort you put into it is bizarre. If you want to think I'm bizarre, go right ahead. People are entitled to their opinions. At least I feel that way anyway. I don't have to prove" it for it to have happened to me. No one who posts on this site can prove" what happened to them. Apparently, you only take peoples' word for it when they agree with your agenda (e.g. I am the law"). When he states he isn't a bank employee, you assume he's telling the truth, but when I give my experiences with the bank there has to be proof. Isn't that a double standard?"

Response: And you don't find how much time and effort that you spend here isn't bizarre? And no, I don't only take peoples' word for it when they agree with me and no, there is no double standard between you and "I Am The Law". I have asked you to back up your statements about him and I have asked you to back up your statements about the bank. I have been consistent on that.

If you had been able to provide evidence on either one, I would have come to the conclusion supported by the evidence.

I didn't base my conclusions about "I Am The Law" solely on his statement. It's also based on the fact that there is absolutely no contrary evidence.

Incorrect. One cannot prove a negative and he isn't obligated to try. There is no reason not to believe him and there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it is not a lie to say that I knew he wasn't a bank employee. Pretty simple legal theory there.

You CAN prove a negative. If you knew him personally and therefore, knew for a fact he wasn't employee, it would be proof. You don't have any proof. All you have is his statement. Legal theory also states that a person's lack of admission of guilt doesn't constitute innocence. If I ever commit a crime I really hope you're the judge.

I never wrote that (or are you going to claim that you didn't write this, that you were joking or that you didn't mean it?)

Actually, you did state that you were trying to help people avoid overdraft fees several times.

How so? Given the fact that the majority of people do not pay overdraft fees, what exactly are you protecting them from?

Where's your proof that most people don't pay overdraft fees? Are you telling me that a large percentage of bank revenue comes from NSF fees per year is from only a few people? I have first-hand experience with how this bank takes advantage of people and exploits them for maximum profit. If you've never overdrafted, as you say, how could you possibly know how the bank behaves if you ever do? Oh, that's right, you couldn't.

Since they are still being insulted and degraded I'd say that your protection isn't very effective.

I can't stop people from doing it. How could I? Do you think I'm going to go to where they live and take their internet access away? All I can do is defend people and make others aware of the unethical practices of this bank, and mount an effective counter-argument against people like you that seemingly don't feel the bank does anything unethical which is of course, laughable.

Oh, do you have some proof of unethical practices?

As I've said several times before, I don't have the proof anymore because it was a while ago, but that doesn't make it any less real.

Well, you wrote that my explaining how to avoid overdraft fees was bizarre, so it stands to reason that you would think that your behavior is also bizarre. To answer your question, yes, I find spending time and energy to warn others of unethical behavior that you have yet to prove a bit bizarre. I find criticizing others for insulting people when you engage in the same behavior bizarre. I find that automatically defending a person who spent money that wasn't hers bizarre.

I said how much time and effort you put into it is bizarre. If you want to think I'm bizarre, go right ahead. People are entitled to their opinions. At least I feel that way anyway. I don't have to prove it for it to have happened to me. No one who posts on this site can prove what happened to them. Apparently, you only take peoples' word for it when they agree with your agenda (e.g. I am the law). When he states he isn't a bank employee, you assume he's telling the truth, but when I give my experiences with the bank there has to be proof. Isn't that a double standard?

Chris wrote: "You couldn't be more wrong. You have no proof that he's not an employee. His assertion that he isn't one is NOT PROOF. Therefore stating that you KNOW it as fact would be a lie as you couldn't know that."

Response: Incorrect. One cannot prove a negative and he isn't obligated to try. There is no reason not to believe him and there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it is not a lie to say that I knew he wasn't a bank employee. Pretty simple legal theory there.


Chris wrote: "Why is it ok for you to help" people but not for me to?"

Response: I never wrote that (or are you going to claim that you didn't write this, that you were joking or that you didn't mean it?)

Chris wrote: "I'm not trying to protect them from the bank."

Response: How so? Given the fact that the majority of people do not pay overdraft fees, what exactly are you protecting them from?


Chris wrote: "I'm trying to protect them from the defenders that insult and degrade them for daring to cross US Bank because no one else seems to be doing so."

Response: Since they are still being insulted and degraded I'd say that your protection isn't very effective.


Chris wrote: "I'm also trying to make people aware of the unethical practices of the bank so they don't go through the same crap that I (and others) did."

Response: Oh, do you have some proof of unethical practices?


Chris wrote: "This is bizarre?"

Response: Well, you wrote that my explaining how to avoid overdraft fees was bizarre, so it stands to reason that you would think that your behavior is also bizarre. To answer your question, yes, I find spending time and energy to warn others of unethical behavior that you have yet to prove a bit bizarre. I find criticizing others for insulting people when you engage in the same behavior bizarre. I find that automatically defending a person who spent money that wasn't hers bizarre.

Once again, Chris, it is not a lie. Given that there is no evidence to suggest that he is an employee and given that we have his own statement, it is not a lie to say that he is not a bank employee.

You couldn't be more wrong. You have no proof that he's not an employee. His assertion that he isn't one is NOT PROOF. Therefore stating that you KNOW it as fact would be a lie as you couldn't know that.

Be clear. Are you saying that most of my responses do not contain any advice or are you talking about responses from all users in general? (See, this is where precise language is a good thing).

I meant all users in general.

So you're kind of a knightly figure to help protect people from unethical practices that the vast majority of people never encounter and you argue with people who argue with others on a message board? And you say that I have a bizarre hobby?

Why is it ok for you to help people but not for me to? I'm not trying to protect them from the bank. I'm trying to protect them from the defenders that insult and degrade them for daring to cross US Bank because no one else seems to be doing so. I'm also trying to make people aware of the unethical practices of the bank so they don't go through the same crap that I (and others) did. This is bizarre?

Once again, Chris, it is not a lie. Given that there is no evidence to suggest that he is an employee and given that we have his own statement, it is not a lie to say that he is not a bank employee.

You couldn't be more wrong. You have no proof that he's not an employee. His assertion that he isn't one is NOT PROOF. Therefore stating that you KNOW it as fact would be a lie as you couldn't know that.

Be clear. Are you saying that most of my responses do not contain any advice or are you talking about responses from all users in general? (See, this is where precise language is a good thing).

I meant all users in general.

So you're kind of a knightly figure to help protect people from unethical practices that the vast majority of people never encounter and you argue with people who argue with others on a message board? And you say that I have a bizarre hobby?

Why is it ok for you to help people but not for me to? I'm not trying to protect them from the bank. I'm trying to protect them from the defenders that insult and degrade them for daring to cross US Bank because no one else seems to be doing so. I'm also trying to make people aware of the unethical practices of the bank so they don't go through the same crap that I (and others) did. This is bizarre?

Once again, Chris, it is not a lie. Given that there is no evidence to suggest that he is an employee and given that we have his own statement, it is not a lie to say that he is not a bank employee.

You couldn't be more wrong. You have no proof that he's not an employee. His assertion that he isn't one is NOT PROOF. Therefore stating that you KNOW it as fact would be a lie as you couldn't know that.

Be clear. Are you saying that most of my responses do not contain any advice or are you talking about responses from all users in general? (See, this is where precise language is a good thing).

I meant all users in general.

So you're kind of a knightly figure to help protect people from unethical practices that the vast majority of people never encounter and you argue with people who argue with others on a message board? And you say that I have a bizarre hobby?

Why is it ok for you to help people but not for me to? I'm not trying to protect them from the bank. I'm trying to protect them from the defenders that insult and degrade them for daring to cross US Bank because no one else seems to be doing so. I'm also trying to make people aware of the unethical practices of the bank so they don't go through the same crap that I (and others) did. This is bizarre?

Once again, Chris, it is not a lie. Given that there is no evidence to suggest that he is an employee and given that we have his own statement, it is not a lie to say that he is not a bank employee.

You couldn't be more wrong. You have no proof that he's not an employee. His assertion that he isn't one is NOT PROOF. Therefore stating that you KNOW it as fact would be a lie as you couldn't know that.

Be clear. Are you saying that most of my responses do not contain any advice or are you talking about responses from all users in general? (See, this is where precise language is a good thing).

I meant all users in general.

So you're kind of a knightly figure to help protect people from unethical practices that the vast majority of people never encounter and you argue with people who argue with others on a message board? And you say that I have a bizarre hobby?

Why is it ok for you to help people but not for me to? I'm not trying to protect them from the bank. I'm trying to protect them from the defenders that insult and degrade them for daring to cross US Bank because no one else seems to be doing so. I'm also trying to make people aware of the unethical practices of the bank so they don't go through the same crap that I (and others) did. This is bizarre?

Chris wrote: "Really? What's your proof that I lied? You, on the other hand, did lie. You stated that you KNOW 'I am the law' wasn't a bank employee and you couldn't know that. Therefore, that's a lie."

Response: Once again, Chris, it is not a lie. Given that there is no evidence to suggest that he is an employee and given that we have his own statement, it is not a lie to say that he is not a bank employee.


Chris wrote: "Wrong. Most responses are not even remotely helpful. They are accusations of irresponsibility and are insulting. This is not helpful."

Response: Be clear. Are you saying that most of my responses do not contain any advice or are you talking about responses from all users in general? (See, this is where precise language is a good thing).


Chris wrote: "I'm not trying to help people except in one regard. I want them to be aware of the unethical practices of US Bank and to not be intimidated by the barrage of attacks by the defenders on this site. I'm also trying to defend them against the US Bank defenders when they are relentlessly attacked for just voicing their complaint. This is my motivation."

Response: So you're kind of a knightly figure to help protect people from unethical practices that the vast majority of people never encounter and you argue with people who argue with others on a message board? And you say that I have a bizarre hobby?

"I accused you of lying when you lied. And I can make arguments against you."

Really? What's your proof that I lied? You, on the other hand, did lie. You stated that you KNOW "I am the law" wasn't a bank employee and you couldn't know that. Therefore, that's a lie.

"Really? My count shows that most responses instruct the user on the importance of keeping an accurate record of transactions, how banks process transactions, etc. That is helpful."

Wrong. Most responses are not even remotely helpful. They are accusations of irresponsibility and are insulting. This is not helpful.

"Now if you don't mind, please explain how your resulting to insults and posting false information about other users is helpful."

I'm not trying to help people except in one regard. I want them to be aware of the unethical practices of US Bank and to not be intimidated by the barrage of attacks by the defenders on this site. I'm also trying to defend them against the US Bank defenders when they are relentlessly attacked for just voicing their complaint. This is my motivation.

The reality is that using an account register and reconciling that register with a monthly account statement from the bank will prevent any account holder from causing any NSF/OD fees.

The majority (if not all) of the reports I've read about NSF/OD fees have common behaviors of the account holders:

using atm cards for everyday purchases.
using more than ONE card attached to the account (husband and wife)
using atm cards for online purchases.
using atm cards for 'auto-bill pay' (autodebits)
relying upon telephone or online account balances to determine what money is available for that shopping trip to Walmart.
*NOT using an account register.
*not reconciling an account register with the scheduled account monthly statement generated by the bank.

Ways to avoid these NSF/OD fees:

1. Use an account register and reconcile the account register with a monthly written statement generated by the bank. If the bank is not mailing statements, contact customer service to have monthly statements MAILED to you.

1a. Be aware of ATM fees, such as the 'non-bank ATM fee' that most banks charge when you use an ATM that is not owned by your bank to make a withdrawal and post that fee in your account register immediately.

1b. Also be aware of any monthly 'account service fee' charged by your bank and post that to your register on the appropriate date.

2. Do NOT GIVE bank account information (or ATM card info) to any merchant, service provider, utility, online service to pay for services and goods. Use a REAL credit card for this purpose (either secured cc or unsecured cc.) Do not setup any automatic deposit to an account that is attached to said cc-NO auto payments to CC company-mail a check each month. If the entity demanding payment makes a mistake, you're gonna have a host of problems and risk OD/NSF fees.

3. Do NOT use an ATM card for everyday expenses-USE CASH. Establish a monthly budget and withdrawal a weekly 'allowance' for every day expenses such as 'milk and bread' from the corner store, Burger King, etc. This will reduce the amount of transactions on the bank accout which in turn makes RECONCILING the account and detecting ERRORS easier to accomplish. Again, if the entity demanding payment makes a mistake, you're gonna risk NSF/OD fees.

4. Do not shop with the ATM card-use a real credit card. A real credit card offers protections that you don't have with an ATM card. If the merchant/service makes a mistake, you can dispute it with the CC company WITHOUT getting any OD/NSF. Not true if you use an ATM card-if the merchant makes a mistake, your money is gone until you can convince your bank to give it back, as well as OD/NSF fees.

5. ONLY ONE ATM CARD to one account. Do NOT have 2 or more atm cards for one bank account. Having 'his and hers' ATM cards attached to the same account is the same as in the old days when some folks would have 2 checkbooks for writing checks. It was an invitation to disaster then, and it is today.

6. Verify that deposits to the account have actually cleared. Deposits can take anywhere between 1 and 5 BUSINESS days to clear depending on the type and/or source of the deposit.

Follow ALL of these suggestions and you will NEVER pay an OD/NSF fee again unless it is a LEGITIMATE bank error, and then the bank will gladly and quickly rectify the situation and credit any fees generated as well as contact payees and cover any fees the payees assess to you.

This is a tried and true method to avoid these fees. It works EVERY TIME it's tried.

Once again, you wrote:

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

Can you provide an example of anyone claiming that the bank is never at fault for any reason so you must be fabricating it? Or will you claim that you didn't write this, you didn't mean it or that you were joking?

As to your other comments:


Chris wrote:

"I've been accused of lying when the defenders can't make an argument against mine. I've also been accused of lying by you if you recall."

Response: I accused you of lying when you lied. And I can make arguments against you.


Chris wrote:

"Most of the time, yes. Most responses are either the user being told over and over again about how irresponsible they are or they just get insulted. Explain to me how this is helpful."

Response: Really? My count shows that most responses instruct the user on the importance of keeping an accurate record of transactions, how banks process transactions, etc. That is helpful.

Now if you don't mind, please explain how your resulting to insults and posting false information about other users is helpful.

"Can you link to the thread where anyone claimed that the bank is never at fault so you must be fabricating 'it'? Or will this be a situation where you claim that you didn't mean what you just wrote, that you're being taken out of context, you were joking or that you didn't make this claim?"

I've been accused of lying when the defenders can't make an argument against mine. I've also been accused of lying by you if you recall.

"Do you truly believe this? "

Most of the time, yes. Most responses are either the user being told over and over again about how irresponsible they are or they just get insulted. Explain to me how this is helpful.

"You are welcome to think that if you wish but nobody made that claim."

Apparently you aren't aware of the concept of sarcasm. When someone makes a complaint only to be ridiculed and essentially scolded in a condescending manner, it sure seems to me that the poster is getting some twisted enjoyment out of making the user feel low, and certainly not trying to helpful. (I don't mean you but a lot of others).

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

Response: Can you link to the thread where anyone claimed that the bank is never at fault so you must be fabricating "it"? Or will this be a situation where you claim that you didn't mean what you just wrote, that you're being taken out of context, you were joking or that you didn't make this claim?


"They are in no way, shape or form trying to help anyone. It just gives them some strange pleasure to make people feel low because they don't have problems with the bank. I guess it makes them very proud to know that they don't have issues with the bank and other people do. "

Response: Do you truly believe this?


"You are clearly elite and much more intelligent than us lowly mortals"

Response: You are welcome to think that if you wish but nobody made that claim.


Your other claims are addressed in other threads.

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

Response: Can you link to the thread where anyone claimed that the bank is never at fault so you must be fabricating "it"? Or will this be a situation where you claim that you didn't mean what you just wrote, that you're being taken out of context, you were joking or that you didn't make this claim?


"They are in no way, shape or form trying to help anyone. It just gives them some strange pleasure to make people feel low because they don't have problems with the bank. I guess it makes them very proud to know that they don't have issues with the bank and other people do. "

Response: Do you truly believe this?


"You are clearly elite and much more intelligent than us lowly mortals"

Response: You are welcome to think that if you wish but nobody made that claim.


Your other claims are addressed in other threads.

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 because they don't have problems with the bank. I guess it makes them very proud to know that they don't have issues with the bank and other people do. Congratulations everyone! You 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. 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.

"Since I am a consumer expert on what is a rip off and what isn't - this is not a rip off."

Is that so, well... I wasn't aware I was in the presence of an authority; I'm curious on what basis you make that claim.


Poor Advocacy, well lets rectify that with something useful rather than telling him he should teach his children better.

Go to the bank (USBANK in my case), tell them you want to waive your complementary overdraft protection. When your bank manager doesn't know what you are talking about, tell him you want your card to decline rather than pay charges that will overdraft. Assure him that it can be done, because I did it today, AND tested it... And it works.

If you write paper checks that bounce, still beware of return check charges that might add up to more than the 40 bucks USBank charges for overdrafts. Other than that, I challenge anyone to find a fault with this method.


Jim,
We are complaining about the insane charges, your solution is "dont overdraft", you are missing the point entirely.

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.

Overdraft fees are not interest. They are a flat fee (per transaction).

If someone does not understand the terms and conditions, they should ask questions or otherwise learn what it is that they are signing. Under no circumstances should they sign something that they do not understand.

I've been there. I've overdrafted in the past. I've run credit cards over my limits. I did not enjoy the fees.

However, I did not play victim. I did not claim that the bank ripped me off.

What did I do? I learned why I received those fees. I changed the way I manage finances and I haven't been charged a fee since. However, this isn't about me.

Believe it or not, I do not like reading or hearing about people paying hundreds or thousands of dollars in OD fees. What I do is try to help them see why they are being charged these fees.

Since I am a consumer expert on what is a rip off and what isn't - this is not a rip off. This is a wonderful example of what happens when a parent fails to educate their child on finances. For this "child", this was a learning experience the parents failed to convey to their child - not a bank taking advantage of anyone, as evidenced by the following statement by the OP:

"Our son did not understand he had to wait for his deposits to clear before using his check card for purchases." Indeed, imagine US Bank educating our children? I think not. It would hardly be the fault of ANY bank that the parents failed to educate their child. In fact, this poor child still has yet to be properly educated on his finances, since the parents said nothing here about the ills of using a debit card. Odds are, this will happen again and again, until the child finally learns to stop using debit cards.

Further, you need to get off the usury and predatory lending practices. There is no such concept as usury in most of the United States (and never to be seen again) and there is nothing in this case having to do with predatory lending. If you want to talk about predatory lending, or the now ancient concept of usury, go bother someone on one of the Cash Call postings. Your beef with this bank is something that happens in every bank out there. All of us would be better served by providing basic advice that is uniform to all consumers at all institutions. US Bank is no better than any other bank and they certainly aren't worse than any bank out there.

"In total over the six weeks the account was open, the deposits (none of which were ever returned) were $909.38, our son's withdrawals: $633.20 and US Bank got $428.00 in fees."

Edgeman - "There is no ripoff here"

Dear Jean,

You are no doubt aware that edgeman is not the authority on what is a ripoff and what isnt, happily. Don't take it too much to heart because I've been reading these bank complaints for a while now and he seems to frequent them too and he always says that, its like his catchphrase or something.

Edgeman, under your logic, I suppose you disagree with laws that combat usury, since after all, a company should be able to charge an insane interest rate of whatever they want, as long as people are informed of it beforehand right? Doesn't matter if its not universally understood or rolls around in the fine print... It was there, It COULD have been known, it SHOULD have been known.... Yes in a perfect world nobody would spend more than their income. I agree completely that those having a hard time doing so SHOULD be charged fees that reflect an insane percentage of their debt, works along the same principal as electroshock therapy... *rolls eyes*

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the development of problems like these are in part the responsibility of the institution, or we wouldn't have laws that address usury and predatory lending practices

Otherwise this experience will follow him from bank to bank.

There is no ripoff here.