[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Get this through your thick skulls; e-gold ltd. & Omnipay are SEPARATE
companies with DISTINCT user agreements
"Welcome to the Hotel California".....you can check in, but you can never
leave."
One of the tenants of international contract law is that in addition to the
"written word," there be a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING between the parties as to the
"intent" of the agreement.
Omnipay and E-Gold may be "separate entities" with "separate and distinct
operating agreements," but they go out of their way to obfuscate this
situation in the way they represent themselves to the public.
Now I ask you, what is the efficacy of a system that represents to it's
potential clients the "privacy" factor of it's operation, only to have it's
premier MarketMaker act in a way totally contrary to that understanding?
What about the principle of reciprocity? If a password is all that is
necessary to affect an Outexchange from E-Gold, why should the entity that is
processing that valid request question it?
And, finally, IF the Marketmaker has doubts about the Outexchange, why not
simply refuse it and refer it back to E-Gold? Why all the "demands" for
"additional information" and "disclosure" AFTER "seizing" the money? (And,
please, spare me the argument that Omnipay didn't seize the money, e-gold
did, for if that were the case, Omnipay wouldn't be leading the effort to get
disclosure of the info, e-gold would.)
Michael
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
