Thank You SL

If you're claiming you've never given your details out to someone ever then I'm sorry, I simply don't believe you.

You do not understand how tracking of people works. Businesses use data collection companies where they also pass their information about you to. This allows them to know who you really are. For example, you may give a phone number here, and email address there, even your RL address somewhere else. Well its all collected and combined by these data collection companies and all passed on to their clients or member companies when requested. The authorities also use these companies to by pass privacy laws in their countries that restrict them from collecting that data. Now you may want the whole world to know every detail about you, but I don't.

No, I don't care, and I'm not going to let paranoia rule my life.

I have never said that. I just pick and choose what I wish to do. I also do not like being put into a position where at one time I could access everything, and then be told that I can't unless I give them some information about myself.

You are from the west midlands. You know that 18 year olds now have to produce an ID, something that is not required to be carried around in the UK, when they want to buy a drink. You also know that at first it was for anyone that looked 21 or younger. Then about six months after that the supermarket chain Morrisons asked the government to make it so that anyone that looks 25 or younger had to show ID. What is this garbage. Since when to corporations decide what we have to do. You also now have the DVLA selling private information from their database to businesses which was illegal 10 years ago. You could go to prison for just trying to get that info. Has everyone gone insane.

Debra, I share your concerns about data mining. However, unless PayPal are lying about what they do and don't do about data-sharing and comprehensively flouting European data protection laws in most (if not all)EU member states to an extent that they'd probably end up out of business if they were caught, I don't really see what they're telling Linden Labs that Linden Labs don't already know, unless you signed up with false details in the first place.

Also, from my day job, I can tell you that getting information out of eBay and/or PayPal, even with a court order because it's needed for a criminal trial in the UK, is no mean feat.

Did I ask you to let it?

Ok this is a far more sensible position. Look, I objected to Aristotle asking for my passport number, I contacted the UK passport office to ask what the hell was going on that a company like Aristotle could verify my information and the UK passport office told me, no they can't verify your information. So, I'm suspicious of Aristotle and what they ask for. I'm not giving them my passport number.



Having to provide id to get a drink isn't new, but supermarkets have got the look 25 thing going on you're quite correct. The DVLA issue is a disgrace, I agree.

Thank you for a most entertaining thread.

Stop right there. Some businesses do that but most don't. I.e. most are honorable.

You're not descended from *the* McCarthy, are you? You do display a 'reds under the bed' mentality.

I think the passport number thing is just window-dressing. I am sure what they do is just check your name and postcode with one of the UK credit reference agencies, like Experian, who would be able to tell them if you're on the public electoral role or if you've got a credit history (either of which, in the UK, would make you 18 or over).

Though Lord Sullivan said he verified by giving them a passport number issued to him at an address where he'd not been on the electoral role and nor did he have any credit/banking history related to it, so maybe they just check it's a possible UK passport number and leave it at that.

Remember, these people will apparently verify you if you give them Elvis Presley's details. I don't know what LL pay them, but they don't do much to earn it, to my mind, other than keep up appearances.

Debra - I understand you not wanting to give up the information. I won't get one of my alts verified because I don't want her tied to me in any way, shape or form. Different reason than what you are giving. It does take away a huge amount of fun in SL.....I certainly can't go and do the things she did, as Mickey.

But....I'm not going to blame LL for that. My paranoia is not their problem. It's mine.

As far as Aristotle....if you do some checking on the fellow who runs that....you will find that he was into data mining when he was a young man in college, and it appears that is where his fascination lies, and where his priorities are....if you read a bio on him. Must say that it was very clever for him to come up with the age verification thing as a tie-in for the data mining. Very clever.

Oh I don't disagree with you, I verified in concierge beta when the passport number was actually optional, and they verified me without it, but I still wonder why they're asking for it as it's no use to them other than they can tell it's in the correct format for a person holding a passport of that country.

Believe me, I know how to make money in SL
Whining about LL not letting you into adult without some verification, while you use their service completely for free... rofl.


QFT

'Cos it makes it look as if they're actually doing something? To be fair, I guess if they just verified you on the basis of your name and postcode, we'd all be saying, "they're just looking it up in a post-code directory". And I guess, too, since you have to put in a passport number, a teenager's probably a bit less likely to put in his granddad's name and postcode.

Though, having said that, I knew where the family passports where kept when I was 11 or 12.

I've always been more of a fan of credit card verification, yes I know there are ways for minors to get details but it still seems that simple financial transaction for a small fee would be better as it shows on the bill and minors generally don't get their own bills.

In my case, as a paying customer already, all they should have asked was whether I minded sharing my info with Aristotle and if Aristotle matched the info LL already had on me to the electoral register, bingo.

But I do not find it acceptable that a supermarket chain has the power to dictate that anyone that looks younger than 25 and wishes to buy alcohol must show ID whether in their shops, or anyone else's. So I'll say it again, why do corporations now have the power to dictate what people can and cannot do.

The model that SL uses to finance itself is the land taxation model. I've hardly had a free ride having been a land owner or renting it.

Because you *don't* have the right to purchase an age-regulated product without said proof, and the retailer *does* have the right to refuse sale to anyone. They're covering their asses. One retailer can't decide the policies of other stores, but they can have their policies copied by others, and you can expect that if those policies are fair and they work. Where I live the usual is everyone who looks 30 and under gets carded, and a few stores have 40 as their cutoff. I also live in arguably the most alcoholic state in the US, that's got a pretty big problem with underage drinking and alcohol-related traffic fatalities. I don't blame them one bit.. my rights aren't compromized at all. It's a mere inconvenience at best.

Are you completely insane. How much fluoride do they have in the water where you live?

They don't.
But they DO have the power to dictate what people can and cannot do on their premises. Come to a club and they can refuse you because you wear sneakers. When I go to a lesbian venue they probably refuse me for being a man. It is their premises, they make the rules.
Don't find it acceptable? Don't go there. Period.


How much money did you say you had paid to Linden Lab? The people you are bitching about? Zero dollars, wasn't it? If you pay them nothing, you have nothing to bitch about, period.
If you paid rent to a landlord, bitch to them. Linden Lab provides you a free service, how hard is it to grasp that?


Trying to make friends huh? Did you even read Dana's post? She is a lot more reasonable then you are, and if insane applies to anyone in this thread... well it is not Dana
Your replies in this thread seem to form a trend though: do not answer any reasonable arguments. You know you have no case, don't you?
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Yes they do, and I explained it in detail. Maybe you should have a look at how much is spent by corporations to bribe politicians.




What a nice way to twist things around. I paid, not the SIM owner. Try reading all my posts and you'll see how I managed to pay.



No it’s all paid for by the land owners and those that rent land. How hard is it to grasp that?




Have you ever considered that maybe I didn’t reply because I might not have disagreed? But let’s say I did reply to every post, all that you would end up doing is calling me a troll because you are not interested in solving a problem, just to show your dislike of me and what I stand for which is to get back to a point where privacy was king, not the need for corporations and government to know everything.

LOL and that proves what?
We are, if I am not mistaken, still talking about having to offer some information to prove (yeah right..) that you are adult, to access adult content. And the right of LL to ask for it.


How can you ever have payed LL if you did not provide information to LL? To become premium you need payment info if I am not mistaken, and without being premium you cannot own land (except if you have a whole region I think). So no matter how much money you made in SL, you did not pay LL for the service you get from them, did you?


Very hard. People renting land are NOT paying Linden Lab. They pay a landlord. The landlord pays Linden Lab. If you have problems with your phone, do you call the people that put the cables in the ground, or your phone provider? The estate owner is your provider, LL provides YOU a free service (access to SL), your landlord a pays service (land).


Bullshit. Why the **** would I show my dislike of you, if I do not know you at all? dozens of people including me provided solutions, that you simply ignored. WHO is not interested in solving the "problem" you say????

What I simply say is that if you want to use a service that some company provides, THEY set the rules. They own the platform. Feel free to decide not to use it if you do not like the rules.

Marcel, I have better things to do then waste my time with this baiting of yours. I don't give a toss whether you agree with me or not or how you think it is. Bringing out technicalities about who pays SL is so absurd. At the end of the day, it came out of the money I made within SL. And if you don't like that its your problem not mine.

The vaccine made no difference in mortality

• Lisa Jackson was not deterred. She and three other researchers began to study the widely-quoted vaccine statistics in an attempt to identify this "healthy user effect," if any. They looked through eight years of medical data covering 72,000 people aged 65 or older and recorded who received flu shots and who didn't. Then they compared the death rates for all causes outside the flu season.

• What she found blows a hole right through the vaccination industry: She found that even outside the flu season, the death rate was 60 percent higher among those who did not get vaccines than among those who do. [In other words, even when you take the flu season completely out of the equation, elderly people who don't get vaccines have other lifestyle factors that makes them far more likely to die from lots of other causes.]

• She also found that this so-called "healthy user effect" explains the entire apparent benefit that continues to be attributed to vaccines. This finding demonstrates that the flu vaccine may not have any beneficial effect whatsoever in reducing mortality.

• How well done were these particular studies? Quoted from the story: Jackson's papers "are beautiful," says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. "They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done."

• Many pro-vaccine experts simply refused to believe the results of this study [because it conflicts with their existing belief in vaccine mythology]. The Journal of the American Medical Association refused to publish her research, even stating, "To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!" [Which just goes to show you how deeply ingrained the current vaccine mythology is in the minds of conventional medical practitioners. They simply cannot imagine that vaccines don't work, so they dismiss any evidence -- even GOOD evidence -- demonstrating that fact. This is what makes the vaccine industry a CULT rather than a science.]

• Jackson's papers were finally published in 2006, in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

[And here's the really, really juicy part you can't miss...]

Vaccine shortage proves it never worked in the first place

• The history of the flu vaccine reveals some huge gaps in current vaccination mythology, essentially proving they don't work:

• For example: In 2004, vaccine production was low and there was a shortage in vaccines (a 40 percent reduction in vaccinations). And yet mortality rates did not rise during the flu season. [Clearly, if vaccines actually worked, then a year when the vaccine wasn't even administered to 40% of the people who normally get it should have resulted in a huge and statistically significant increase in mortality. It should have spiked the death rates and filled the morgues... but it didn't. You know why? Because flu vaccines don't work in the first place.]

• In the history of flu vaccines, there were two years in which the formulated flu vaccine was a total mismatch to the widely-circulating influenza that made people sick. These years were 1968 and 1997. In both of these years, the vaccine was a completely mismatch for the circulating virus. In effect, nobody was vaccinated! [Knowing this, if the vaccine itself was effective at reducing death rates, then we should have once again seen a huge spike in the death rates during these two years, right? Seriously, if the vaccine reduces death rates by 50% as is claimed by vaccine manufacturers, then these two years in which the vaccine completely missed the mark should have seen huge spikes in the winter death rates, right? But what really happened was... nothing. Not a blip. Not a spike. Nothing. The death rates didn't rise at all.]

• If vaccines really worked to save lives, then the more people you vaccinate, the lower death rates you should see, right? But that's not the case. Back in 1989, only 15 percent of over-65 people got vaccinated against the flu. But today, thanks to the big vaccine push, over 65 percent are vaccinated. And yet, amazingly, death rates among the elderly have not gone down during the flu season. In fact, they've gone up!

• When vaccine promoters (and CDC officials) are challenged about the "50 percent mortality reduction" myth, they invoke dogmatic language and attack the messenger. They are simply not willing to consider the possibility that flu vaccines simply don't work.

• Scientists who question the vaccine mythology are routinely shunned by the medical establishment. Tom Jefferson from the Cochrane Collaboration is an epidemiologist who questions the claimed benefits of flu vaccines. "The reaction [against Jefferson] has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you'd think he was advocating stealing babies" said a colleague (Majumdar).

• Jefferson is one of the world's best-informed researchers on the flu vaccine. He leads a team of researchers who have examined hundreds of vaccine studies. To quote directly from the article: The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. "Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it's the term that applies [to these studies]."

Full story here:

http://www.naturalnews.com/z027239_vaccines_flu_vaccine_.html

Quite a lot of words to say you're out of arguments