Irreputable people regularly use the banking system. Does that mean that the
banking system is some how at fault?
Jess
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Haynie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: e-gold Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, 14 October, 2000 12:04 AM
Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: Warning on scam using e-gold
> Whether or not I am involved is irrelevant, the question is whether or
> not a payment service should become a policeman. If a payment service
> starts "policing" the account holders, where do you draw the line and by
> whose word is something a "scam" or just undesirable? If you wish to
> become the world's policeman and save all the people from themselves,
> you are welcome to that role. I, for one, do not want to become like
> our socialist leaning government who is, "just here to help you".
Perhaps some form of legitimacy should be ascertained. Paypal now requires
all of their verified users to have verified bank accounts, else they face
both small spending ($250) and small receiving ($500) limits. With the
assumption that people in good standing with other financial institutions
does help eliminate most of the scam artists, then they can lower their
incidence of fraud. While it is not in E-Gold's best interest, (or even
within their ability), to be the police, the judge, and the jury, on charges
of fraud, it certainly is in their best interest to try to prevent as many
people as possible from using their system in a fraudulent fashion. Their
reputation will ultimately be at stake if people start to believe that
irreputable people regularly use their payment system.
Craig
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
