Metanet Forums

Quick fact: you're less likely to get a virus while using a Mac but you're more likely to be targeted by an international crime syndicate if you're gullible enough to believe that.

I was kidding, Tanner. Don't worry.

I realize that heatwave is only joking, but
Mac users prefer to pay those unreasonably high fees with every Apple purchase.

I'm somewhat disappointed in society if that's considered fraud. If anything, being that goddamn gullible and stupid should be the crime.

People shouldn't need the legal system to mother them that much. If you're foolish enough to fall for that kind of ploy, frankly, you deserve to.

squibbles wrote:I'm somewhat disappointed in society if that's considered fraud. If anything, being that goddamn gullible and stupid should be the crime.

People shouldn't need the legal system to mother them that much. If you're foolish enough to fall for that kind of ploy, frankly, you deserve to.

This is an ignorant point of view because if this guy was your grandpa you'd be super pissed. This isn't some 20-something ComSci major. This is an old man who knows dick about computers. He's trying to learn: he has one, he can check his email, whatnot. He clicked a link he shouldn't have because the common sense that we computer-savvy take for granted doesn't exist in him because he grew up around farm equipment instead of CPUs. He took his computer in to be serviced and the people there took advantage of the fear-mongering and misunderstanding in the mainstream media concerning what a virus infection actually means. Old people can be annoying sometimes and can't seem to grasp some concepts that come easily to use but that certainly doesn't give us the right to steal from them.

hairscapades wrote:

squibbles wrote:I'm somewhat disappointed in society if that's considered fraud. If anything, being that goddamn gullible and stupid should be the crime.

People shouldn't need the legal system to mother them that much. If you're foolish enough to fall for that kind of ploy, frankly, you deserve to.

This is an ignorant point of view because if this guy was your grandpa you'd be super pissed. This isn't some 20-something ComSci major. This is an old man who knows dick about computers. He's trying to learn: he has one, he can check his email, whatnot. He clicked a link he shouldn't have because the common sense that we computer-savvy take for granted doesn't exist in him because he grew up around farm equipment instead of CPUs. He took his computer in to be serviced and the people there took advantage of the fear-mongering and misunderstanding in the mainstream media concerning what a virus infection actually means. Old people can be annoying sometimes and can't seem to grasp some concepts that come easily to use but that certainly doesn't give us the right to steal from them.

The thing is, I wouldn't be angry. I would be dissapointed. Dissapointed that my grandfather could possibly be so unbelievably ignorant. You speak of fear-mongering in the media, but this is something that I personally have never seen, and cannot truly be that prominant, given that this is such an isolated incident. But all that aside, that wasn't really my point.

I certainly agree that it was wrong, however I think that there should be a distinction between morally wrong and illegal. I think it's disapointing that the law is so willing to help us out of a situation that honestly, should never have occurred. It makes us dependant on the system, and ultimately lessens the amount of thought that is actually occuring, as we don't need to think, any more. That's what the law is for, right? To help us out when we don't think and fall for something stupid?

No, I'd rather have the law be less inclined to assist us, and just have people not be so stupid.

squibbles wrote:I'm somewhat disappointed in society if that's considered fraud. If anything, being that goddamn gullible and stupid should be the crime.

It wasn't considered fraud. It was considered grand larceny.

squibbles wrote:No, I'd rather have the law be less inclined to assist us, and just have people not be so stupid.

I agree with this. Fucking bitches getting lured into alleys and getting raped. Wasting all the tax-payers money. People should just be less stupid.
I really didn't feel like this needed a sarcasm tag, but [/sarcasm]

Again, you're confusing stupidity with being old. They're really, really not the same thing.

It seems criminal to me that someone with so little sense could possibly have had $20 million in the first place. It's a clear example of how insensibly the wealth in this world is distributed.

Tanner, under no circumstances should a reasonable person believe that giving $20 million to an entry-level employee behind a counter could possibly be a good idea. Age and technical incompetence are no excuses. If the man has as much wealth to begin with, it ought to be assumed that he knows how the world works in so far as to realize that anyone being paid to sit behind a counter and talk to people who wander in about common problems could never be justified in asking for $20 million.
As a dangerously metrosexual man once told me, a fool and his money are soon parted.

squibbles wrote:I'm somewhat disappointed in society if that's considered fraud. If anything, being that goddamn gullible and stupid should be the crime.

People shouldn't need the legal system to mother them that much. If you're foolish enough to fall for that kind of ploy, frankly, you deserve to.

squibbles and Tsukatu expose themselves as grifters.

Heartattack wrote:

squibbles wrote:No, I'd rather have the law be less inclined to assist us, and just have people not be so stupid.

I agree with this. Fucking bitches getting lured into alleys and getting raped. Wasting all the tax-payers money. People should just be less stupid.

Uh, there would be a reason as to why I mentioned a specific branch of the law, and how quite clearly I was not referring to lews that are clearly neccesary for the safety of the general public. I just don't understand how a man agreeing to give away significant amounts of money for something clearly fictional could be considered larsony. I mean, the terms of the agreement were even met. Despite the fact that no action, other than actively not causing some kind of issue, was all that needed to be done to fulfill this protection, it is undeniable that after the agreement, he had no trouble with Opus Dei at all.

So pretty much, a man enters a private contract, the contract, despite being absurd and overpriced, is fulfilled, and the contractor is charged with larsony.

I mean, it's really not much different from this, other than certainly being more extreme, and yet one is supposedly illegal while the other isn't. Both are supplying services that are unneccesary, using consumer ignorance to their advantage.

As for the Larceny/Fraud thing, well, my bad, but the point still is stands.

squibbles wrote:You speak of fear-mongering in the media, but this is something that I personally have never seen, and cannot truly be that prominant

Wait, what? That is practically all the news is. Your identity is being stolen! Your baby is being molested in the night! Strange gnomes will come to your house and ruin your credit!

Also, Grand Larceny is officially the coolest sounding crime you could ever commit.

T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư wrote:It seems criminal to me that someone with so little sense could possibly have had $20 million in the first place. It's a clear example of how insensibly the wealth in this world is distributed.

Tanner, under no circumstances should a reasonable person believe that giving $20 million to an entry-level employee behind a counter could possibly be a good idea. Age and technical incompetence are no excuses. If the man has as much wealth to begin with, it ought to be assumed that he knows how the world works in so far as to realize that anyone being paid to sit behind a counter and talk to people who wander in about common problems could never be justified in asking for $20 million.
As a dangerously metrosexual man once told me, a fool and his money are soon parted.

I dunno. It can be so easy to lose control of a situation like this especially when you're in unfamiliar territory and dealing with, apparently, fairly accomplished scam artists. Admittedly, 20mil seems a little high on the spectrum but I don't know anything about this guy. He could be a loto winner for all we know.

smartalco wrote:

squibbles wrote:You speak of fear-mongering in the media, but this is something that I personally have never seen, and cannot truly be that prominant

Wait, what? That is practically all the news is. Your identity is being stolen! Your baby is being molested in the night! Strange gnomes will come to your house and ruin your credit!

Oh, I assumed it was Opus Dei fear-mongering, which is pretty much...well, The Da-Vinci Code. My bad.

Heartattack wrote:

squibbles wrote:No, I'd rather have the law be less inclined to assist us, and just have people not be so stupid.

I agree with this. Fucking bitches getting lured into alleys and getting raped. Wasting all the tax-payers money. People should just be less stupid.
I really didn't feel like this needed a sarcasm tag, but [/sarcasm]

Did you see what she was wearing?? She was totally asking for it.

A few other news articles (New York Times, for example) on this same story seem to suggest a more conservative amount, closer to $6 million. Although still a hefty sum, it's one I'd be more likely to accept as true.

I'd agree with Tanner on this one; his vocation and advanced age doesn't necessarily mean he's overly stupid or gullible, just that he's dealing with a matter beyond his realm of experience.

Suki wrote:Tanner, under no circumstances should a reasonable person believe that giving $20 million to an entry-level employee behind a counter could possibly be a good idea. Age and technical incompetence are no excuses. If the man has as much wealth to begin with, it ought to be assumed that he knows how the world works in so far as to realize that anyone being paid to sit behind a counter and talk to people who wander in about common problems could never be justified in asking for $20 million.

From what I've read, the money wasn't simply handed to the employee, but rather he was charged large sums over time for alleged protection. Although the difference is fairly minor, it's not quite as extreme as you make it out to be. Also, since he is the heir to an oil tycoon, it's likely where much of his fortune came from. Thus, he needn't have been experienced in the world of commerce to obtain it.

I mean, if a particle physicist started explaining some new danger that gravitons posed to my well-being, I'd be much more inclined to buy into a graviton protection plan than if the same information came from a door-to-door salesman. In general, people tend to trust that specialists (or supposed specialists) know far more about their field of (supposed) expertise than they do, and thus are more inclined to believe otherwise far-fetched stories. It's just more difficult to see in this case because most of the people who frequent these forums are relatively young, computer-savvy people.

Mute Monk wrote:harged large sums over time for alleged protection. Although the difference is fairly minor, it's not quite as extreme as you make it out to be. Also, since he is the heir to an oil tycoon, it's likely where much of his fortune came from. Thus, he needn't have been experienced in the world of commerce to obtain it.

I mean, if a particle physicist started explaining some new danger that gravitons posed to my well-being, I'd be much more inclined to buy into a graviton protection plan than if the same information came from a door-to-door salesman. In general, people tend to trust that specialists (or supposed specialists) know far more about their field of (supposed) expertise than they do, and thus are more inclined to believe otherwise far-fetched stories. It's just more difficult to see in this case because most of the people who frequent these forums are relatively young, computer-savvy people.

The thing is, it was an IT person. Giving protection not from viruses, but from a controvercial sect of christianity (which has never actually been linked to any kind of criminal activity, as far as I know).

Would you act the same were it a fry cook telling you of this danger posed by gravitons? Because that's what this is tantamount to.

squibbles wrote:The thing is, it was an IT person. Giving protection not from viruses, but from a controvercial sect of christianity (which has never actually been linked to any kind of criminal activity, as far as I know).

Would you act the same were it a fry cook telling you of this danger posed by gravitons? Because that's what this is tantamount to.

You're making it sound like computer viruses had nothing to do with this at all. Computers and things computer-related are the core of this news story.

squibbles wrote:

Mute Monk wrote:harged large sums over time for alleged protection. Although the difference is fairly minor, it's not quite as extreme as you make it out to be. Also, since he is the heir to an oil tycoon, it's likely where much of his fortune came from. Thus, he needn't have been experienced in the world of commerce to obtain it.

I mean, if a particle physicist started explaining some new danger that gravitons posed to my well-being, I'd be much more inclined to buy into a graviton protection plan than if the same information came from a door-to-door salesman. In general, people tend to trust that specialists (or supposed specialists) know far more about their field of (supposed) expertise than they do, and thus are more inclined to believe otherwise far-fetched stories. It's just more difficult to see in this case because most of the people who frequent these forums are relatively young, computer-savvy people.

The thing is, it was an IT person. Giving protection not from viruses, but from a controvercial sect of christianity (which has never actually been linked to any kind of criminal activity, as far as I know).

Would you act the same were it a fry cook telling you of this danger posed by gravitons? Because that's what this is tantamount to.

If you found a rat's head in your hamburger that you purchased at the grocer, and you went to the head food scientist of your town, not knowing much about food yourself, to find out why and how this could happen, and he told you that it was a conspiracy by the McDonalds corporation to discourage the purchase of non-McDonalds beef, and that the only place to find fresh beef was through this (presumably) respectable food scientist, wouldn't you buy some fresh beef?

=w= wrote:If you found a rat's head in your hamburger that you purchased at the grocer, and you went to the head food scientist of your town, not knowing much about food yourself, to find out why and how this could happen, and he told you that it was a conspiracy by the McDonalds corporation to discourage the purchase of non-McDonalds beef, and that the only place to find fresh beef was through this (presumably) respectable food scientist, wouldn't you buy some fresh beef?

If I was the type to actually believe such a line of BS, I would probably then go out and eat the cattle on my family's farm. If I didn't have said cattle, I would turn to chicken and pork, because they are both also delicious.

smartalco wrote:

=w= wrote:If you found a rat's head in your hamburger that you purchased at the grocer, and you went to the head food scientist of your town, not knowing much about food yourself, to find out why and how this could happen, and he told you that it was a conspiracy by the McDonalds corporation to discourage the purchase of non-McDonalds beef, and that the only place to find fresh beef was through this (presumably) respectable food scientist, wouldn't you buy some fresh beef?

If I was the type to actually believe such a line of BS, I would probably then go out and eat the cattle on my family's farm. If I didn't have said cattle, I would turn to chicken and pork, because they are both also delicious.

you are so stupid

you are a farmer

and a regular internet user

make the fucking connection

I was just joking in that post.

However, following your hypothetical again, I would probably buy the fresh meat, until they told me it cost a few million thousand hundred more than 20 bucks. At which point I would turn to other meats. Or to directly tie this in to the story, ask another fucking computer service center.

I still think the jackass who got the money from this guy should be punished, but there are certain levels of stupid that I stop having sympathy for. This guy falls in that category.

=w= wrote:

squibbles wrote:

Mute Monk wrote:harged large sums over time for alleged protection. Although the difference is fairly minor, it's not quite as extreme as you make it out to be. Also, since he is the heir to an oil tycoon, it's likely where much of his fortune came from. Thus, he needn't have been experienced in the world of commerce to obtain it.

I mean, if a particle physicist started explaining some new danger that gravitons posed to my well-being, I'd be much more inclined to buy into a graviton protection plan than if the same information came from a door-to-door salesman. In general, people tend to trust that specialists (or supposed specialists) know far more about their field of (supposed) expertise than they do, and thus are more inclined to believe otherwise far-fetched stories. It's just more difficult to see in this case because most of the people who frequent these forums are relatively young, computer-savvy people.

The thing is, it was an IT person. Giving protection not from viruses, but from a controvercial sect of christianity (which has never actually been linked to any kind of criminal activity, as far as I know).

Would you act the same were it a fry cook telling you of this danger posed by gravitons? Because that's what this is tantamount to.

If you found a rat's head in your hamburger that you purchased at the grocer, and you went to the head food scientist of your town, not knowing much about food yourself, to find out why and how this could happen, and he told you that it was a conspiracy by the McDonalds corporation to discourage the purchase of non-McDonalds beef, and that the only place to find fresh beef was through this (presumably) respectable food scientist, wouldn't you buy some fresh beef?

No, I would get a second opinion, because to be blunt, I'm not retarded. What sane person could possibly come to the conclusion that McDonalds was responsible for you finding a rat's head in a third parties burger?

"Oh, guys, I just saw a shooting star!"
"HOLY SHIT IT'S THE FUCKING RUSSIANS SHOOTING NUKES AND SHIT FUUUUUUUUUUCK!"
"Oh yeah, you must be right. Because that is the only logical conclusion that one could come to. Please, take my money to keep me safe from the Russians."

Yeah, no.