Dodgy money used for purchases and the LL response

"Elitest"? I like that neologism and I may use it myself.

Pep (The original post was not much more of an uninformative whinge, and my contributions in this thread have been practical, to the point, and have developed the discussion in a positive fashion. What have *you* contributed, Mr Head?)

You're surprised?

I would be very interested to know under what auspices these investigations are conducted.

Presumably the relevant US legislation says something to the effect that if LL have any suspicions (or if the transaction falls into particular legislative categories), LL should notify the proper authorities and let them investigate the matter. And I'd be surprised if the proper procedure for freezing the suspicious account doesn't involve asking a judge to issue relevant orders, ex parte if necessary, and giving the account holder an early opportunity to say, if he wants to, why this should not happen.

I am willing to be corrected, but I'd be very surprised if the US legislation, "draconian" though it may well be, says that the way to deal with suspicious transactions is for the institution that suspects something is amiss unilaterally to freeze an account while it pursues its own internal investigations and then decides, as a result of this, whether to notify the proper authorities or to drop the matter.

Do US banks work on this basis? If in doubt, freeze the account for a bit while you conduct an internal investigation to decide whether to tell the Treasury Department (or whoever it is) that you're worried about something? And then, if as a result of your internal investigation, you decide there's nothing to worry about, unfreeze the account and let the matter drop, without sharing either the grounds of your initial concern. or the reasons why you eventually persuaded yourself your concerns were groundless, with any external body?

uniformative whinge? are you naturally stupid and rude or do you have to work at it?

You are bringing the best out in me.

Pep (Why don't *you* try rereading your original post - perhaps when you are sober and less tired?)

That's just Pep. He's from Wales.

(And yes, I have watched Fawlty Towers on DVD)

Perhaps something is lost in the transatlantic translation, but I can't parse this sensibly. If "than" were substituted for "of", I'd understand it. If "of" really means "of", then there must be an implied "than" to go with the "more" comparative, but to what is it comparing? The "elitest" post would seem the most logical referent, but then what does the whole utterance mean? Something like: "This here 'elitest' post of yours is almost as much of an uninformative whinge as the original post, but not quite." I suppose that's possible, but it sure seems the long way 'round the barn to damn the 'elitest' poster with the faintest possible praise: an assertion that something else is not much worse.

It's much simpler. Pep made a grammatical error.

Dick's post was an uninformative whinge. The OP's was not much more of one. Two birds with one stone.

Pep (Simple, really.)

...and will never, ever own up to it.

Oh, but I will . . .

Pep (when [if?] I make one.)

Your usage is correct, when push comes to shove... but beyond grammar is the vague sense that you sound like a US national. Which may be a graver sin in your part of the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will

I'd better borrow a few of Scylla's Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwws.

Pep (You have to remember I am Welsh, not English; for us, "will" emphasises the certainty of something happening, rather than simply indicating future intent in a namby pamby way.)

Hah! I knew I'd get a reaction from that!


And I can hardly wait to see the next tabloid headline about SL:

"Online Virtual World shown to be a hive of unapologetic practitioners of Pedantry!"


Doubtless more than a few would read that wrong...

Corn doctors?

Pep (Ah, no, that's podiatry; maybe pedagogy?)

Yeah, I'd planned to milk that clumsy "not much more of" construction in a long series of ever more insufferably tiresome disputations, to test whether its author is even capable of boredom. But I grew bored after the first post.

If it makes you even a little happier I will agree that it is a very clumsy construction and I won't use it again.

Pep (I am, of course, subject to ennui; why else would I be posting here?)