Ruphus -> RE: Maybe better watch out for your internet profile (Mar. 14 2011 21:04:32)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Florian wow Ruphus i am sorry for your troubles mate...sounds like terrible treatment...and the justification even worst !! would make me furious as hell...especially with the extra inconvenience to you cause u would have to travel... But how certain are you that it has to do with posts you have made on the internet ? I could be wrong and please don't be offended...just trying to figure this out ..because if you are right we are all f***ed .. what made you arrive to this conclusion ? and what could you have said on the internet to make a bank take such drastic action ? if it wasn't the internet what other scenario could it be ? you must have considered a few when trying to figure this thing out.. Dont get me wrong you might be right and if you are you would be the first case like this that i heard off...dosent mean it cant be true but how positive are you that thats what it is and cant be anything else ? Hello Florian, Guess I would had asked the same questions. I am not aware of anything else. There are no debts that I owe to the bank or anything thelike. What I have done is that I once critiszed their portal / webmastering, pointing out to them that they senselessly overloaded their sites with all the same banners, making it impossible to access with slow throughput like of dial-up conncetions. Saying that it could be customer friendly to reserve those banners for the main page and leave sub-sites like those of watchlist or depot relatively free of banners, disregarded by the customer at that stage anyway. After all, I mentioned this to them after having been unable to access my holdings for over two years for exactly reason of banner cluttering ( and me having been on a dial-up connex ). - And me wasn´t rude / offensive, trying to be constructive whilst mentioning these practical points. That was the only occasion that one could regard as "negative" if backwarded enough. Yet, that critique on their webmastering must be a year or so back. What could I have said on the internet to trigger drastic action? I have repeatedly mentioned that banks have long since made servants of governments, who lend money to banks at nominal ( = practically zero ) interests, only so that the banks can lend people´s tax money back to the people at usury rates. I have mentioned how artificially instigated states depth come about, which works the same way, with banks lending states money back to the state at market conditions. I have tried to bring focus to regular depressions like to the latest. With embezzled 52 trillion USD being compensated for once again by tax money, instead of a very logical action of pursuing bankers, retrieving the money and arresting looters. Surplus value, price gauging, parliaments drawn by lobbyism; weapon, drugs and pharmacy dealings that don´t differ from each other in respect of business model, ethics and community damage. Major corruption, criminal networks, nepotism, states looting, money laundry ... All conducts no common banks like to see mentioned anywhere. Have you seen how Swiss spokesmen made Germans shut up immediately early last year, threatening to unveal bribe accounts of German top parliamentarians? Have you seen headlines of past days about why worlds dictators like to transfer their stolen billions to London, as washing money there would be so comfortable? Just as the traditional depositing in Luxemburg, Liechtenstein, Caymans ... you name it. What would you think if about 60% of national gross products vanished through corruption ... Ending up in private bank accounts? Can you imagine what it meant to little people´s economical situation if such obscene drain wasn´t in place? These are routines, eventhough totally self-evident, commonly little known, and there definitly exists no interest in changing anything about it. Certainly not through mosquitos buzzing around elephant butts. The internet is a unique means of direct communication ( as international press currently states, Arabic despotes didn´t anticipate its effects when they allowed internet in their countries, and the US establishment has experienced certain surprise and somewhat rising awareness of their citizens too ), from there no wonder if beneficiaries of established wangle make use of the internet to the opposite as well. It should be just paradox if they wouldn´t take opportunity of tracking and adminsitering the "troublemakers". ( Have you heard of Echolon?) And these days you wouldn´t even have the tolerance of individual official in charge who potentially could have granted you the right to name truth / let you slip through; for now it is all machines who preselect, collect and deliver the report on you. Regardless. Ruphus
|
|
|
|