Posts by briskjackal5

I honestly think your best bet is to just hit them with a reply and ask them to actually cite the specific sections of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act. You know, ask for the exact articles and references that prove they actually have the legal authority to demand that specific info.
Make them do a little digging, I guess! It should really only be one or two specific paragraphs, right? This isn't some vague stuff buried deep inside forty-three different articles and subsections; it’s information that's explicitly mentioned within the law itself, probably sitting right there in just one or two spots.

And, well, based on what I've seen from everyone talking about this topic, it seems like you're totally right—they really don't have any legal standing or even a decent reason to be asking for half the things you mentioned.

-Steve

Susan James said:I don't even have an account with JPMorgan Chase, yet I still got one of those letters.😕

I haven't been a customer there in ages—honestly, if you count the two years I had a Mastercard linked to my dad's account back in the late nineties.

Are they actually for real?

They keep saying "We have to," or "It's because of the law"... 😁

-Steve

Laura Chavez93 said:Can we just acknowledge the sheer absurdity of this? A major bank can see every single one of my transactions with two clicks of a mouse... yet they feel the need to interview the client about it.?!? 🙂
And the second question isn't any more logical—who on earth can predict future needs? One might start a business and buy a truck, or pick up some commercial real estate... perhaps sell a house to move into something larger and clear out the account entirely...

Well, it's probably because they aren't legally allowed to mess around with your data unless you give them the green light.
They aren't supposed to just peek at your numbers whenever they feel like it, you know? I mean, in principle, they're just there to process the transaction you ordered and that's pretty much it—they shouldn't even be looking.
Until they ask you, and until you say otherwise, they're stuck.

Harold Evans4 said:

says:
How exactly are they digging for this info? Are they handing you a form to fill out for your next visit to the branch, emailing it over, or just grilling you right at the teller window while the whole damn lobby listens in?

I can't dodge it—gotta hit the branch next week because one of my cards expires at the end of the month, so I'm curious what kind of headache I'm in for.

If they're insisting on doing this face-to-face right then and there, how much longer does that actually drag out the line for everyone else?

(And what the hell is wrong with this forum today? Every single page takes over five minutes to load 🙂)

Not sure, man. I've been with JPMorgan Chase for 7 or 8 years now and they’ve never made me fill out any weird forms or surveys. Besides, I don't think anyone on here has actually shared specific details yet.

That's just because everyone here is being too cautious...
The people who actually provided their data aren't part of this specific thread. 😁

-Stipe

Laura Chavez93 said:Has anyone else experienced this?
To be clear—the questionnaire itself isn't actually the issue... It’s more about the fact that they require you to sign off on it at the end—or essentially validate it, assuming we're talking about a corporate account... 🙂
And then there's the additional detail stating that... Personal data within this Questionnaire is collected and processed solely based on your explicit consent... Without my consent to even collect this data—let alone process it—in the first place... 🤮

I just can't believe it.
I mean, they don't have any real reason or incentive to do that during a transaction unless the law specifically forces their hand—and we're talking about anything over 10,000 $0.00.

Honestly, if anything, it's the clients who end up telling them to cut the crap, or they'll just grab their stuff, shut down the account, and move to a different bank entirely.

edit: even the questionnaire itself isn't the issue, it's more that they want you to sign off on it at the end, basically forcing you to comply (if it's a corporate account) 🙂
and then it goes on to say that personal data in this Questionnaire is being collected and processed based on your consent without me ever actually consenting to it being collected, let alone processed!?! 🤮

You should really look at how much extra stuff was tucked into that Hub's questionnaire that got linked a few times as "voluntary" additions to the basic form you have to sign.

George Barrett35 said:Banks can shut down business relationships whenever they feel like it without offering a single shred of justification, because at the end of the day, they have total discretion over who they choose to do business with. Their only real legal obligation is to give the client a heads-up, so I honestly don't see any basis for trying to drag them into court over it.

In this particular situation, there isn't some teller behind the counter who has been instructed to start canceling contracts over this kind of thing.
First off, it’s a direct hit to their profits automatically (fewer clients), and there's zero upside for them; second, if they were the ones to start doing this, they'd be the first to get a bad reputation, and people would just pack up and leave anyway; and third, even the employees themselves probably don't fully grasp what they're supposed to be asking for or why.

They have no interest in it, they aren't even totally sure what they're doing or why, and they have no motivation. So, I guess the chances of that happening are basically zero.

It's the customers who decide where to go; most would just wave it off and say "just close it," and those who aren't already planning to leave would likely be the first to speak up during an inquiry before the banks even have a chance to react.

-Stipe

That’s exactly my point about needing more clarity, because those surveys always throw in a question like "are you part of public administration" right under the main two or three sections. Whether someone holds a public office or not totally matters, and I really think it should matter here too.
And honestly, that specific question isn't even mentioned in that one law everyone keeps bringing up.

It’s a bit frustrating, really—even though we had a branch manager join the discussion on this, we still don't actually know what the legal requirements are or which specific regulations are driving this all. 😁

I personally wouldn't have any issue sharing information at all, provided I could just get confirmation that there's an actual legal basis for requesting it. If that's the case, then we know the law is truly written that way, and we can just take it up with Congress. At that point, the banks themselves are basically stuck and can't do anything about it either.
But until that actually happens and gets proven, it just feels like these banks are asking whatever pops into their heads rather than following what they're legally obligated to do.

-Steve

Krkimire, if things really start heating up, go ahead and quote this—just pull the specific data points required by the law

All of that info is available on the official government website, though it’s a pain because you can't actually print anything from there. I'm pretty sure it's hosted somewhere else online too, maybe.

I am seriously curious to see how people react to this.

Actually, I've got a feeling David Garcia21 might have missed a detail or two—some key source for this whole thing—because those disclosure forms always include questions about "ties to the USA" and whether someone holds a "political or public office," and I didn't see him mention that part at all.

-Joe

You can actually hold a bunch of different currencies in your JPMorgan Chase foreign currency account too, if that's what you're looking for!

-Joe

I don't really have anything against banks themselves, even our local ones here in the States. To me, they’re just a service, you know? And like any service, you've gotta watch them like a hawk—point by point. Like, okay, you can do this, but you can't do that. This part is fine, but that part is definitely not.

At the end of the day, I mean, there's nothing stopping Americans from pooling their own capital together to start their own domestic bank. They could set up their own business procedures and run things exactly how they see fit, right? And then, eventually, they could take all those customers away from the big foreign banks.
I think that would be a much more constructive way to handle the whole situation.

But, on the flip side, what I really, really care about is having clear and fair rules of the game. Let's just sit down, agree on the terms, and then we'll stick to them, simple as that.
Basically, I just can't stand it when people try to pull a fast one on me—you know, those attempts to get you to sign something "on the side," or someone telling you how something "has" to be done while they're actually trying to mislead you. That kind of stuff really bugs me.

-briskjackal5

Take a look at this specific addition in the STIB document, for instance -

"Appendix 2 – Consent for Processing Personal Data from Due Diligence Questionnaires for Individual Clients for Marketing Purposes

By signing this appendix, I grant consent to the Bank and all other members of the _______ Group (insert group name) to which the Bank belongs within the United States, to process my personal data for marketing purposes.
Consent for the processing of personal data for marketing purposes may be revoked in the following manner: ________ (specify method, e.g., in writing or via telephone, etc.). Members of the _______ Group to which the Bank belongs can be verified at www.__________ and/or are available upon request at any Bank branch. "

It’s honestly exactly what I was talking about—that way they can just sneak in whatever pops into their heads while you're busy signing things.
Legally speaking, without this consent, under Article 77 (which defines how data is used), they are only allowed to use it strictly for purposes like uncovering terrorism financing and money laundering. Sadly, I can't just copy-paste directly from the federal government website here.

But if you go ahead and sign that appendix...

And I mean, I really just skimmed through it just to find a super obvious example.
Journalists should probably dig into this stuff.
They need to look at what is actually being requested versus what the law says they are permitted to ask for, and all that kind of thing.

-Joe Biden

Sarah Ruiz42 said:Oh, really?? That’s a total lie. There isn't some magic law forcing this, and if there is—laws aren't top secret, they're public and free—then why don't you just drop a link to the specific regulation? I’m a stickler for the rules myself, so it’s not like reading them is hard for me... I’m dying to know exactly where the government tells banks they absolutely *must* know a mountain of my private business that has zero to do with them.

The law explicitly lists EXACTLY WHICH DATA and FOR WHAT PURPOSE anyone can collect—that applies to the police, so why wouldn't it apply to banks??

That much is obvious. Those people are just low-level drones trying to make a living (especially the ones at the front handling quick transactions). It's clear to me that the actual criminal policies are cooked up by some special squad sitting on various boards of directors.

I would never touch that miserable, degrading job. Working in a coerced position where you have to force through criminal mandates designed by some gang in the bank's executive suite just so you don't "fail performance reviews"... under that kind of stress and the pure fascism banks show toward their frontline workers? No thanks, I'll pass. And I'm talking from experience here—I have plenty of great friends in a few big banks whom I used to work with very closely on a daily basis (especially over at JPMorgan Chase), so I know plenty of those "lovely little secrets"... people describe it while practically on the verge of tears, shaking as they try to talk about how "wonderful" it is to work in that environment... and if you happen to have an absolute jerk for a boss or manager—which is usually the case—it's even better.

Sure, we will—once you all start modeling your business practices after those foreign banks and adopting their mentality. Or at least when those banks operating here actually behave the same way they do back in their home countries.

Believe it.

Why on earth would I move? I built this country for my own people, not to cater to some arrogant, criminal foreign bankers. If the bank can't handle business or doesn't know how to operate properly within its own home country, then they need to get lost. Period.

You couldn't have possibly come up with a stupider or more arrogant statement if you tried. Honestly, it just proves exactly how much pressure you're under to protect those thugs you work for.

This is crossing the line into that violent, naive, pseudo-intellectual manipulation bullshit. It’s exactly the kind of psycho-analysis crap those banking criminals used to pull when they were intentionally driving people straight into a death trap by pushing those predatory Swiss loans on them. I remember reading about actual bank employees who went on record to the media—people who were visibly shaking because they were terrified themselves. They knew they were being ordered to protect pure crime. They were told, plain and simple, to cheat people, to talk them into absolute garbage, and to bury the truth. They were forced to sell products that could literally ruin someone's life and wipe out everything they worked for, all just to feed the greed of these bottomless, unscrupulous thugs.

Maybe when you start acting with even an ounce of basic decency and fairness, then you can expect us to play along. But let’s get one thing straight: the bank doesn't own my life, no matter how much those thugs love to pretend they do.

Listen, you aren't paying for everything. Honestly, you’re barely paying anything at all when it comes to the bank's day-to-day operations. I still have my UBS card in my wallet, and since my cousin lives over there, believe me when I say he knows way more than you brainwashed folks who think this place is some kind of humanitarian paradise.

Don't even try to convince me that the bank is doing us some kind of massive favor by charging us all this junk! As if we aren't already paying enough!

If overdraft fees are illegal, then just scrap them already! The European Union directives practically demand it, but banks are playing deaf on purpose. They’re making a killing off those monthly interest charges on checking accounts—enough to cover every single bank employee's salary and then some. When there's that much cash flying around, who gives a damn about the law? It’s the same old shady playbook these banks have been using here in America forever..

Just shut up and keep swimming, right? Just keep doing whatever you're told as long as the big banks are making a killing. Screw the laws! But the second a bank’s bottom line is even slightly threatened—or if a client dares to push back—suddenly they've got a PhD in legalities. They start lecturing you about regulations, compliance, contracts, and court rulings like they own the damn justice system. It’s always the same story. They'll weaponize every rule in the book against you, but the very millisecond it suits them, they "forget" those same laws exist just so they can squeeze more money out of you through every loophole imaginable. Unbelievable.

I can't believe I'm even seeing this. Honestly, it’s ridiculous.

You seriously think we’re all just a bunch of idiots who haven't stepped foot outside our tiny hometowns? You really think you can just lecture us on how the "big world" works and expect us little guys to sit here with our mouths wide open, swallowing every word you say like mindless sheep? Give me a break.

My buddy decided to stay abroad and make a life for himself. Unlike me, he actually had the sense to grab his US citizenship. He’s been living over there for about 30 years now, and whenever he comes back to visit, we always end up deep in conversation about how different things are—especially when it comes to banking (because let's be honest, everything eventually boils down to money). So, please, don't think some local bank clerk stuck in her ways is going to try and lecture me on how international banks operate or how they actually treat their customers. I’ve got years of firsthand experience, and my buddy keeps me updated on all the latest shifts, even though he isn't some high-rolling VIP client at his bank in Geneva. Still, he knows what's up.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: you people are nothing more than a straight-up criminal extortion racket. You actually sit there with a straight face thinking I exist because of your banks, when the reality is that those banks only exist because of me. It’s pathetic.

Just your typical, delusional bank teller spinning fairy tales because she’s too scared to actually call out her own employer. Honestly, this reminds me so much of that late acquaintance of mine, Inge, who used to work at JPMorgan Chase over by the Plaza in NYC. She was peddling the exact same nonsense to me twenty years ago. Some things never change.

Believe me, lady, that kind of treatment isn't just reserved for VIPs over here—in America, that's actually how they treat EVERYONE.

Look, next time, feel free to shut us down by dropping links to interest rates at foreign banks or their actual lending requirements. Seriously. Banks are straight-up mobsters—especially here in the States. They act like they basically invented banking themselves, demanding all this nonsense and made-up bullshit that you wouldn't even dream of seeing in other countries. It's ridiculous.

Why don't the banks here in the States operate like they do in Germany or Italy? I mean, seriously, our currency is way more stable than the Euro! It makes zero sense.

Why the hell is this currency clause still hanging around? It’s illegal, the courts have banned it, yet here we are. When are these banks in America finally going to start actually following the law??

One of the main jobs you Rockefeller lackeys have to do is cleaning up and cataloging everyone else's assets. It’s all about making sure the people who eventually snatch everything away from their clients have organized paperwork and a clear list of what they're seizing. Honestly, look at how much money the European Union dumped into fixing up land registries and property records way before we even joined the club—it's incredibly telling. That’s exactly why banks obsess over every little detail that doesn't even concern them! The new bosses want pristine files ready to go when they decide to liquidate the entire country. Bank executives exist just to serve them; they're on the payroll. And you? You're just the low-level grunt at the branch office doing the dirty work for some billionaire sitting in a penthouse somewhere. This isn't some wild conspiracy theory—it's just how business is done.

Here is the law. Honestly, I'm also dying to hear the Hostess tell us exactly which specific things they are required to ask for.

http://www.congress.gov/legislation/anti-terrorism-act

-Joe Biden

placidmaker6 said:If you want to know why and when banks started hoarding all this data, look here:

And here’s what a typical questionnaire for individuals actually looks like:

But honestly, this is just for opening an account.
Like, this is stuff from all the way back in 2008! (!)
And if you look closely, it seems like everything listed there is specifically for that one single account being opened. It’s not even about your personal life or anything.

I guess it would be pretty interesting to see which parts of this are actually required by law.

Plus, looking at the questionnaire in the link, it doesn't even include half of those random questions people have been mentioning on here...
I always thought banks absolutely hated having to ask any questions at all, haha. 😁

-Joe Biden

wiredlynx28 said:Look, you all need to realize that banks don't just make these rules up because they feel like it—they’re mandated by the government and federal law. If they didn't have to follow these regulations, they wouldn't even be calling you in the first place, whether you trust them or not.
The teller or the banker isn't the villain here; they’re just doing their job, so please keep that in mind—especially those of you suggesting people should go in there and lose their cool.
Just act with some decency. If you have an issue with a staff member, ask for the branch manager or file a formal complaint. There are plenty of ways to handle this, but blowing things out of proportion isn't one of them. Since we’re all so eager to emulate other developed nations, maybe we should start by adopting the civil mindset of their citizens too.

If you’re so unhappy with how banking works in America, feel free to move to another country if you think it'll be better. Spoilers: it won't.
Interest rates are often multiples higher elsewhere, and don't even get me started on the fees. You pay for absolutely everything over there, whereas America is still practically a novice compared to foreign institutions.
Think about mortgage structures, or the fact that overdraft protection is a concept most European banks haven't even heard of.
Go ahead and check the official websites of international banks to compare their fees and terms against American banks—or better yet, experience it firsthand.

I have to address what someone said regarding the relationship between banks and clients in Switzerland being top-tier—offering coffee, letting clients do whatever they want. That level of service exists right here in America and abroad too, but only for VIP clients. 😉

Well, if that's the case, why don't you just list out exactly which pieces of data the law is forcing them to ask for?

I mean, if it’s actually mandated by law, then there has to be a specific list of what they can request, right? You should definitely be able to see that somewhere. There’s gotta be an official document that says, "okay, they can ask for X, Y, and Z," and it can't just go on forever.

Because right now, it feels like one person is asking about this and someone else is worried about that, so it's all a bit confusing, I guess.

The law doesn't just say, "hey, feel free to ask whatever comes to mind." It's supposed to be precisely defined.
And if you're going to keep insisting, "we have to, because the law says so," then maybe just tell us exactly what the law says? That way we'll actually know if the law is the issue here or not, based on what's actually written down.

-briskjackal5

Angela Wilson82 said:So, did anyone actually run into trouble for refusing to take that survey? I really don't feel like doing it, but they just keep calling and being a total nuisance...

Maybe just tell them you know they love to ask questions, but then ask them exactly what they are legally required to ask.
I guess you can judge by their reaction whether they're telling the truth or even if they actually know what they're talking about (and honestly, most of the time, the person asking doesn't even know; that goes for the "branch managers" too).

And just let them know that's the only question you'll answer, and insisting on anything else is totally off the table. You don't owe them an explanation.

My wife once had someone—who clearly wasn't fully briefed—trying to convince her for a while that she "had" to answer all sorts of random questions, but it turned out she didn't have to at all.

Legally speaking, there are certain obligations for open accounts only when transactions go over $0.00 or something like that. Everything else is just the banks being extra.

Laura Chavez93 said:Does anyone happen to know how things work abroad—specifically, does JP Morgan Chase actually call people at home to tell them they need to fill out surveys just because they hold an account there?

That's a really good question.

George Lewis9 said:If they aren't legally required to hunt down this data, they should at least offer an incentive for handing it over—kind of like how Verizon works, giving you $8.25 just for registering a prepaid line. I’d be more than happy to hand over my blood type if the banks actually offered a decent reward 🙂

Honestly, I think Americans go a bit overboard when it comes to data privacy. In Sweden, they have services linked directly to the tax authority where you can look up pretty much anyone—where they live, their birthday, what cars they own... and if you pay a little extra, you can even see their income or business interests (check out www.ratsit.se if you want to see for yourself). You can even use a license plate to find the owner and their registration history (there's this service http://biluppgifter.se/ for that). Nobody seems to complain

The info they actually *have* to ask for due to regulations is very limited.

rowdypilot19 said:Wait, so they're basically saying, "We won't give you your own money because you won't answer our questions"? Hahahaha, seriously? Where does it even say that in the contract?

Man, I wish they would try that with me. I’d love to just call my lawyer and start charging them interest from the second they refuse to pay... 🍿

It's better for them to collect data from you even if they already "have" it.

Technically, they aren't allowed to just go poking around your account data whenever they feel like it during their normal routine—actually, I'm pretty sure they can't touch it at all unless it falls within some super strict, specific guidelines.

But then again, if you basically hand everything over to them by "voluntarily" answering all those questions... well, I guess it's totally possible that changes the whole situation.

-Joe

I don't really know what to make of this... I guess maybe there's something there? It's hard to say for sure! kaže:
I don't really have a problem with things being a bit more strict, you know? But since they finally lifted your permanent ban, I'm assuming you're pretty much an expert on how all that works!
I honestly have no clue why you ended up getting those partials and the permanent ban... maybe I'm just missing something? I guess it all seems a bit sudden to me!

?
I mean, wouldn't it be a good idea to maybe look into it first, you know? Like, she should probably do some digging and get the facts straight before jumping in, right? I guess it just makes sense!
I mean, I guess that would be like... a decent starting point, right? Just a baseline to get things moving. Maybe! 😁

Alright, I'll lay everything out for you in the next reply!

Steven Reed said:ZMM, sorry for crashing this thread, but I’m genuinely confused here.

Jadetiger962, what is actually the absolute worst-case scenario if you decide to remove someone's partial ban after five years (and I mean five whole years 😕)?
That they trigger another partial ban and you suddenly have a permanent excuse to justify any future requests to remove one.
Seriously—after five years (hey, five years!) can't you just give a person a fair shot?
And please, don't hit me with "reasons"—I was there, I read the rules. People change—they grow up, life happens, and people end up thinking and reacting differently than they did five (heyyyyy, five years 🙂 ) ago.

ZMM, sorry again for jumping in, but this isn't the first time I've seen people holding onto partial bans longer than most murderers spend behind bars. 😉

It’s not even really about one single thing happening, you know? I mean, it's more complicated than that, I guess. It isn't just some isolated event... it's more like everything coming together at once!

The PDF is working like a charm now that those partial updates have finally kicked in! I guess everything just needed that extra nudge to get running smoothly, but man, it feels great to see it actually functioning properly now.
Honestly, the whole vibe here just feels so much better now. It’s way more chill, constructive, and actually helpful for everyone—whether you've been around forever or you're just joining us today. It's pretty simple, really!

Man, what we were dealing with before was just... honestly, it was pretty bad. Like, really bad. It felt like this constant, non-stop stream of pure malice and negativity aimed at everyone else here. Just total intolerance toward the rest of the community, one way or another, without any actual reason behind it. I guess it really just became a question of how much longer someone could actually get away with it under the forum rules, and how everyone else was expected to just deal with it.
Some people handled it way better than others, I guess. You had some folks totally losing their cool, while others just stayed calm through it all. It was such a long, drawn-out process, too... honestly, everything just kind of finally settled down once the partial results came in!

I honestly can't believe anyone actually thinks this has fundamentally changed, you know? Like, from the very top all the way down to the bottom... I just don't see it. It feels like nothing has really shifted at its core, despite what people might want to believe. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I guess it just seems that way to me!
Maybe so, but honestly? That’s probably not the option I'd be putting my money on.

If you just go ahead and trigger that partial again, you'll basically have a permanent excuse to demand they remove the partial whenever you feel like it. I mean, maybe it’s a bit of a loophole, but hey, it works!

It feels like we’re actually heading back to square one here. I guess things are just moving in reverse now.
I mean, honestly? They shouldn't be the ones out there constantly hunting for some kind of "permanent justification" for everything they do. Not right now, and not ever, really. I guess... if you ask me, the partial solution is actually the permanent one.
I mean, I guess whoever is actually in charge should be the one to come up with some seriously solid reasons and a real explanation for why they’d even consider trying to remove bear in the first place!

Just because a lot of time has passed doesn't really mean anything on its own, I guess.
"I've been fully aware of what happened, and honestly, I've been working my tail off to make things right with everyone involved," he would have said right there. Because, I mean, that was really the heart of the whole mess, wasn't it?
Nah, I don't think that's even remotely possible, and honestly, I don't believe anything like that ever actually happened.

Look, don't even start with me about all the reasons and excuses. I was actually there myself, and I read everything firsthand!

"Don't give me excuses" is such a weird way to handle an argument, isn't it? It feels like someone just shutting down instead of actually looking at the facts of the situation. I guess it doesn't really leave any room for a fair or objective discussion, you know?

Look, just so we're on the same page, back then I was really trying to keep everything condensed into just a few posts on this Comb thread—you know, less is more, right? And honestly, I don't really plan on writing a ton here either now.

-Steve

Sarah Morris57 said:So they called me again, but I didn't bother swinging by Chase—I didn't really have anything to take care of there anyway, plus it wasn't even on my way through town... and now I just got this notice in the mail saying I need to call them back ASAP. It looks super official, almost like some kind of summons from a court or something!

So, did you have any massive transactions? Like, maybe over $10,500 $0.00 that they’re talking about in that article up above?

-briskjackal5

So, I had this super interesting chat with them today, and honestly, they’re asking for way more than they actually need to, yet they'll probably finish the job without giving me anything at all.
The short version of how it went down is basically this
"Look, we just have a couple of quick questions before we..."
"Actually, I'm really not interested in filling out any questionnaires or answering extra questions.
"But you have to, because, well, Blablablabla..."
"No, I don't. "😁
"Blablablabla"
"So, tell me, what's the absolute legal minimum amount of info I'm required to give you?"
[They didn't answer that, probably because they didn't know]
"Well, if, for example, you were opening an account, you couldn't get anything done without..."
"Luckily, I'm not opening an account. 😁"
"Blablablabla" [Realizing they won't win me over, so they just give up on trying to persuade me] "Alright then, fine"
Then another person comes over, and they're trying to do exactly what I asked for, but their app keeps glitching out, and they're just totally lost.
This one tries to be helpful by repeating the same old line, like, "When you open an account, you still have to..."
And she gets the exact same response.
"I don't plan on opening any new accounts." 😁
"Blablablabla"
...
In the end, they only got one single piece of information from me—just enough to let them complete my request (which used to be possible without even that, until they recently updated their app to comply with new KYC rules); I didn't fill out a thing, and those ladies didn't even get around to asking those ridiculous details about who lives with whom or anything like that.

I really can't stand anything that feels like a sales pitch, or being pressured into things, unethical business practices and stuff like that. And this definitely falls into that category—all these "you have to" stories they try to sell you, which someone might actually take for granted if they weren't just flat-out wrong and totally inconsistent with the law.

-Steve

My mom doesn't bother with those self-help books or anything—if there’s ever a problem, she just gives me a call and I get it all sorted out.

I've actually read both types, you know, the self-help stuff and Cosmo.

I mean, it’s always good to stay informed and maybe broaden your horizons a bit, I guess.

-Steve

You have every single right to feel upset whenever you need to
: women's self-help :

-Steve

Linda Price5 said:The internet is just crawling with guys who run out of options, so they jump on a forum and start hunting for women like it's a job. They'll slide into some random lady's DMs with stuff like, "Hey, what's up? Cool profile lol," or whatever. Sometimes they don't even realize—like, if five different women get that exact same message at once, it’s pretty obvious they aren't being singled out. I guess their only criteria is basically "female, active on the forum in the last 24 hours" or something like that. 😁 This guy you're talking about clearly went the extra mile, though. He probably scrolled through your last three posts so he wouldn't look like he was just spamming everyone; he wanted to make sure he was actually targeting *you*. But honestly? He probably doesn't give a damn about you specifically,

How can you be so sure? For all we know, maybe you really did catch his eye.
And how is Hannah supposed to know you aren't just trying to sabotage their chances at happiness?

-Steve

crimsonfox26 said:So... is dextrose actually just glucose?

Yeah, totally!
It’s also called grape sugar or just plain old Candy.

I mean, maybe you could use those names just to confuse some girls or even the folks over at Walmart, you know? Just so they can't find what you're looking for.

-Me, Steve