News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:00 am

http://www.kesq.com/Global/category.asp?C=162474

I laughed. Oh Tommy, you say such hilarious lies. And by hilarious I mean sad. But Anonymous *is* slowly winning...

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:15 am

Anonymous still cares about the scientology fight?

I thought they stopped caring about that?

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:03 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world ... ?ref=world
(More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass-mud_horse )

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:42 am

You'd be surprised how dedicated us moralfags can be. Most of Anonymous moved on, but there's still thousands of us around the world continuing the fight.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:38 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world ... ?ref=world
(More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass-mud_horse )

Beat you to that one already.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:17 am

Draco_Argentum wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world ... ?ref=world
(More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass-mud_horse )
Beat you to that one already.

Oops

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:05 pm

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budget ... QJ_GYazJV4

So now, Credit Card companies can cut your limits below your balance. So you'll owe them hundreds in fees. And they don't have to notify you beforehand.

Figures that the credit companies would figure out a way to make things worse.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:58 pm

The motivation among issuers to make such deep cuts that they plunge below a cardholder's balance amount isn't very clear.

Not clear? They get to start charging overdraft fees and they didn't have to lend out any money to get the ball rolling. They spend zero dollars, and you owe them some non-zero dollar amount. What's not to understand? It's like lending money at interest except that while you receive interest payments you don't actually have to lend any money.

Now, you'll presumably permanently alienate that customer. But your money in vs. money out right now is frickin awesome.

-Username17

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:52 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
The motivation among issuers to make such deep cuts that they plunge below a cardholder's balance amount isn't very clear.
Not clear? They get to start charging overdraft fees and they didn't have to lend out any money to get the ball rolling. They spend zero dollars, and you owe them some non-zero dollar amount. What's not to understand? It's like lending money at interest except that while you receive interest payments you don't actually have to lend any money.

Now, you'll presumably permanently alienate that customer. But your money in vs. money out right now is frickin awesome.

-Username17

Yeah, I'm pretty stupid, but I got that real quick. I honestly am scared that the reporter on that story is even stupider than I am.

Tshern · Post by **Tshern** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:15 pm

I have been waiting for that. Personally I think people use their credit cards too much anyway.

violence in the media · Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:40 pm

Tshern wrote:I have been waiting for that. Personally I think people use their credit cards too much anyway.

I think people misuse their credit cards too much. There's a big difference. I prefer using credit cards to track my spending and to give me an added layer of protection on large transactions. Then again, I pay mine off every month.

Tshern · Post by **Tshern** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:14 pm

violence in the media wrote:
Tshern wrote:I have been waiting for that. Personally I think people use their credit cards too much anyway.
I think people misuse their credit cards too much. There's a big difference. I prefer using credit cards to track my spending and to give me an added layer of protection on large transactions. Then again, I pay mine off every month.

I'd say the use it too much too, I really have better things to do and stand in the line waiting for some misift getting accepted so he can get his precious chocolate bar.

violence in the media · Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:20 pm

Are you talking about buying a chocolate bar or filling out an card application to get one as a gift?

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:44 pm

Meikle641 wrote:http://www.kesq.com/Global/category.asp?C=162474

I laughed. Oh Tommy, you say such hilarious lies. And by hilarious I mean sad. But Anonymous *is* slowly winning...

A differnt Tommy, but we all know how stupid he still is.

http://www.buzzbishop.com/blog/2008/01/ ... l-saviour/

I guess people really are as chumpy as Heinlen described them in Stranger in a Strange land. They won't take redemption unless they have to pay for it in cash money.

Here's something for fun, I actually watched this first:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3f716f ... y-oconnell

And.. didn't watch all of the tommy video. I really can't stand to watch dead air broken up with stupidity.

As for Anonymous. Over at Rant Radio, many of the listeners actively identified themselves as rabid Wogs. I'm not sure if Anonymous is a newish group or what, but I remember first hearing about Scientology from outside sources (like Rant Radio, and also Clambake.org? .net?) in the early 00's.

Tshern · Post by **Tshern** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:07 pm

violence in the media wrote:Are you talking about buying a chocolate bar or filling out an card application to get one as a gift?

Buying.

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:50 pm

Yeah, I'm in recovery for my credit. I'm doing alright, but if they made a richard maneuver like lowering my credit below my balance, I'd be in trouble.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:10 am

Count's Article wrote:Luckily for Carol Gressett of Decatur, Miss., she noticed the reduction in her Discover-branded Sam's Club card limit just days after it happened. The limit was cut to within $100 of her $3,000 balance. The official letter notifying her of the reduction arrived three weeks later. "We could easily have gone over if I hadn't been paying attention," she says.

Wait, the limit isn't a limit? Thats retarded.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:24 am

If I understand correctly, the limit is the limit - you can't exceed it. However the company can exceed it for you by adding fees, or by lowering your limit suddenly so that you're past it. They are then free to add huge "You broke the limit" fees.

Which would make it pretty similar to what the CBA has been doing for years with regular bank accounts: they issue fees (sometimes when they know you're not supposed to get the fees), the fees overdraw your account, then they slap you with a huge overdraw fee. In the case of incorrect fees, then after some argument they will refund that first fee, but not the overdraw fee that it caused.

...you know, I can see why so many people are opting to keep all their money as cash in a sock under the bed.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:09 pm

Koumei wrote: ...you know, I can see why so many people are opting to keep all their money as cash in a sock under the bed.

Yes, my sock only eats one quarter-dollar every month as its fee. Early on, I tried to convince it to eat a nickel or even a dime, but it apparently is only interested in the size of the coin involved.

Considering that it's a very groady-looking sock (I wore ratty shoes and walked around stuff for a few days to suitably groad it up) and anyone rifling through my possessions will surely think twice before touching it, I consider my money safe. Especially considering my sock's temperament; the first time it and its sibling were washed, it used the darkness as a chance to cannabalize the twin.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:34 am

Australian Government adds Wikileaks to banned website list

Time to start gearing up for overthrowing the government. Theres censorship and then theres censorship. This is way over the line into repressive dictatorship.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:01 am

Draco_Argentum wrote:Australian Government adds Wikileaks to banned website list

Time to start gearing up for overthrowing the government. Theres censorship and then theres censorship. This is way over the line into repressive dictatorship.

But really, it's no laughing matter. That's terrible.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:49 am

I agree. If I wanted extreme right wing censorship I'd vote for crazy right wing parties. This is bullshit big enough that I might have to actually vote for the anti-gay marriage wankers to send a message to these filthy fuckbags.

And this is just the current law. They're actually trying to set up an even more oppressive filter on everything coming into Australia via the net. Fortunately pretty much everyone in the senate other than the supposedly left-wing ruling party is against it. I don't like having to rely on people from the Family First Party* for anything. Probably have to vote Greens 1 Liberal 2 next election, thats an odd combo.

*Just like the name suggests these are far right douche-nozzles who think gays are evil.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:38 pm

What the hell? What's going on here? What's the deal with Australia deciding to block Wikileaks of all friggin' places?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:43 pm

That might be going a bit far. I'm not actually up on the intricacies of Australian government and industry regulation, but who actually calls the shots at the ACMA?

Their own site says that:

AMCA wrote:ACMA consults extensively with representatives of industry, consumers, government and academia, often through a range of committees.

What the fuck guys? Do you seriously have committees with industry representatives and lay consumers of internet on them deciding what is and is not censorable?

That can't be right.

-Username17

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:46 pm

I dunno. Sometimes that stuff works, and sometimes you get a different committee doing each review and everything goes to hell. I remember, but can't find a link to, two casino simulations that came out in the same year, one rated M for simulated gambling, one rated E for simulated gambling.