is it possible at all for a bank to be honest

[bl4kjaguar]

If you write "I demand full disclosure on all transactions" or words to that effect on your account agreement, no bank will accept it.

Yeah, because that's an incredibly vague demand. What constitutes "full disclosure"? Why does a bank owe that to you?

You ask those questions one at a time with full context if you want answers.  

I already answered both those questions; what don't you like about my answer? I even gave you an example where a bank would not reveal the full truth behind the stuff that it prints on all its contracts.

HONESTY constitutes full disclosure, and you are not able to demand it from a bank. Therefore, it is not possible at all for a bank to be honest; i.e. you cannot enter into such an agreement with a bank.

Normally, you are entitled to full disclosure on a contract, and a check is nothing more than that.

See if a banker will tell you the truth about that!

[1715607760]

1715607760

[1715607760]

1715607760

[1715607760]

1715607760

[1715607760]

1715607760

[spazzdla]

I've been going over the history of modern banking, and right from the start when banks were little more than goldsmiths with vaults they already couldn't stop themselves from loaning out deposited client gold to other clients (e.g running a fractional reserve scam).

is it possible that humans by nature simply cannot hold other people's money for long periods of time without their greed leading either to them loaning out other people's money or downright running away with it?
it seems to me bitcoin's solution of being your own bank is the only way to keep your precious money from being stolen by one elaborate scam or another.

You are correct, it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans to hold onto others peoples wealth without running fractional banking.  100% impossible.

[worle1bm]

If you write "I demand full disclosure on all transactions" or words to that effect on your account agreement, no bank will accept it.

Yeah, because that's an incredibly vague demand. What constitutes "full disclosure"? Why does a bank owe that to you?

You ask those questions one at a time with full context if you want answers.  

I already answered both those questions; what don't you like about my answer? I even gave you an example where a bank would not reveal the full truth behind the stuff that it prints on all its contracts.

HONESTY constitutes full disclosure, and you are not able to demand it from a bank. Therefore, it is not possible at all for a bank to be honest; i.e. you cannot enter into such an agreement with a bank.

Normally, you are entitled to full disclosure on a contract, and a check is nothing more than that.

See if a banker will tell you the truth about that!

Yeah, you just keep avoiding giving an actual answer because you don't have an answer. You're just saying words that mean nothing.

[bl4kjaguar]

Yeah, you just keep avoiding giving an actual answer because you don't have an answer. You're just saying words that mean nothing.

I have some questions for you:
Is a check a contract?
Should a prudent man understand every contract before signing it?
What does "authorized signature" mean and why is it "fine print"?

[worle1bm]

Sorry, you need to ask them one at a time with full context.

[bl4kjaguar]

Sorry, you need to ask them one at a time with full context.

Why are the contract terms "authorized signature" written in "fine print" on all checks?

[semidead]

You can't be certain. There are always some bad apples.

[worle1bm]

Sorry, you need to ask them one at a time with full context.

Why are the contract terms "authorized signature" written in "fine print" on all checks?

To prevent fraud because it is difficult to emulate. To join a contract in the legal sense. To prevent unauthorized users of corporate accounts.

[bl4kjaguar]

Sorry, you need to ask them one at a time with full context.

Why are the contract terms "authorized signature" written in "fine print" on all checks?

To prevent fraud because it is difficult to emulate. To join a contract in the legal sense. To prevent unauthorized users of corporate accounts.

OK, now I must first inform you that official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps.

On your personal checks, your name is in all-caps; by signing above the "authorized signature" line, are you declaring yourself the authorized user of that corporate account?

[worle1bm]

On your personal checks, your name is in all-caps; by signing above the "authorized signature" line, are you declaring yourself the authorized user of that corporate account?

I'm sorry, you have to ask all questions with the full context.

[bl4kjaguar]

On your personal checks, your name is in all-caps; by signing above the "authorized signature" line, are you declaring yourself the authorized user of that corporate account?

I'm sorry, you have to ask all questions with the full context.

I did inform you that official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps.

Your name is a proper name, and there is a rule for how it is to be printed (i.e. "John Macadam"); so what is it doing in all caps on your "personal" checking account?

It appears the same way on all Social Security Cards--in all caps. It appears to me that said account and Social Security Card is not in your "proper" name, else they would print it differently (correctly).

I now ask you this question:
Why is "your name" printed in all caps on your personal checking account when proper names are not supposed to be printed that way?

A compilation of references to these publications is found here, but remember to do your own thinking (and ask good questions):
http://famguardian.org/subjects/lawandgovt/articles/memlawonthename.htm#2.5__US_Government_Style_Manual_

[brian_23452]

On your personal checks, your name is in all-caps; by signing above the "authorized signature" line, are you declaring yourself the authorized user of that corporate account?

I'm sorry, you have to ask all questions with the full context.

I did inform you that official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps.

Your name is a proper name, and there is a rule for how it is to be printed (i.e. "John Macadam"); so what is it doing in all caps on your "personal" checking account?

It appears the same way on all Social Security Cards--in all caps. It appears to me that said account and Social Security Card is not in your "proper" name, else they would print it differently (correctly).

I now ask you this question:
Why is "your name" printed in all caps on your personal checking account when proper names are not supposed to be printed that way?

A compilation of references to these publications is found here, but remember to do your own thinking (and ask good questions):
http://famguardian.org/subjects/lawandgovt/articles/memlawonthename.htm#2.5__US_Government_Style_Manual_

A check drawn on a private bank is not a "US government publication", so why would we care what the US Government style manual says is the correct format to print a name in a US government publication?  If you wish to know why the bank wrote your name the way that they did, did you try asking them?  What was their answer?

You still haven't answered a very simple question.   If you do not like the business practices on one or all banks, why do you do business with them?  I think it is fairly obvious at this point that you're simply a troll.

[bl4kjaguar]

On your personal checks, your name is in all-caps; by signing above the "authorized signature" line, are you declaring yourself the authorized user of that corporate account?

I'm sorry, you have to ask all questions with the full context.

I did inform you that official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps.

Your name is a proper name, and there is a rule for how it is to be printed (i.e. "John Macadam"); so what is it doing in all caps on your "personal" checking account?

It appears the same way on all Social Security Cards--in all caps. It appears to me that said account and Social Security Card is not in your "proper" name, else they would print it differently (correctly).

I now ask you this question:
Why is "your name" printed in all caps on your personal checking account when proper names are not supposed to be printed that way?

A compilation of references to these publications is found here, but remember to do your own thinking (and ask good questions):
http://famguardian.org/subjects/lawandgovt/articles/memlawonthename.htm#2.5__US_Government_Style_Manual_

A check drawn on a private bank is not a "US government publication", so why would we care what the US Government style manual says is the correct format to print a name in a US government publication?

Ah, but what about the SS Card? And are not "all" banks part of the Federal Reserve System?

It is not only the US Gov Style Manual that gives you these rules for proper names.

Read moar carefully:

There's an obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the name.

Feel free to ask questions one at a time with full context after you comprehend the above; I think it is obvious that you have not yet achieved full comprehension.

[worle1bm]

I think it is even more clear that you have a conspiracy theory rooted so deeply in your beliefs that you can no longer consider alternate theories, which is the opposite of what a skeptic should be. Your useless conspiracy theory is just that; useless.

[bl4kjaguar]

I think it is even more clear that you have a conspiracy theory rooted so deeply in your beliefs that you can no longer consider alternate theories, which is the opposite of what a skeptic should be. Your useless conspiracy theory is just that; useless.

I do appreciate your opinion, but your opinion will not change the facts.

Face it:

There's an obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the name.

Don't turn your back on facts. Rather, ask better questions. A hypothesis is NOT useless if it can be tested.

[YinShuiSiYuan]

Yeah, you just keep avoiding giving an actual answer because you don't have an answer. You're just saying words that mean nothing.

I have some questions for you:
Is a check a contract?
Should a prudent man understand every contract before signing it?
What does "authorized signature" mean and why is it "fine print"?

A check is a form of a contract yes, however a very simple one. It is essentially a promise to pay a certain amount that is payable by the bank the check is drawn on

[bl4kjaguar]

Yeah, you just keep avoiding giving an actual answer because you don't have an answer. You're just saying words that mean nothing.

I have some questions for you:
Is a check a contract?
Should a prudent man understand every contract before signing it?
What does "authorized signature" mean and why is it "fine print"?

A check is a form of a contract yes, however a very simple one. It is essentially a promise to pay a certain amount that is payable by the bank the check is drawn on

Negotiable instruments typically bear a signature and the question is "in which capacity are you signing when you sign above the 'authorized signature'"?

Are you not declaring yourself the authorized user of that corporate account (and thus liable if that check is returned for lack of funds)?

[worle1bm]

I think it is even more clear that you have a conspiracy theory rooted so deeply in your beliefs that you can no longer consider alternate theories, which is the opposite of what a skeptic should be. Your useless conspiracy theory is just that; useless.

I do appreciate your opinion, but your opinion will not change the facts.

Face it:

There's an obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the name.

Don't turn your back on facts. Rather, ask better questions. A hypothesis is NOT useless if it can be tested.

Ok, what is your hypothesis and have you tested it?

[bl4kjaguar]

I think it is even more clear that you have a conspiracy theory rooted so deeply in your beliefs that you can no longer consider alternate theories, which is the opposite of what a skeptic should be. Your useless conspiracy theory is just that; useless.

I do appreciate your opinion, but your opinion will not change the facts.

Face it:

There's an obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the name.

Don't turn your back on facts. Rather, ask better questions. A hypothesis is NOT useless if it can be tested.

Ok, what is your hypothesis and have you tested it?

I have yet to run a test; however, a page linked to in that reference I gave you will tell you what is needed to run a test: a systematic legal approach.

The hypothesis that we are discussing here is that there is a difference between the name on your checkbook and your proper name, and that this relates to the bank's use of "authorized signature" in the fine print below the signature line.

The bank WILL NOT tell you this up-front; I wonder if they will admit to it?

[brian_23452]

On your personal checks, your name is in all-caps; by signing above the "authorized signature" line, are you declaring yourself the authorized user of that corporate account?

I'm sorry, you have to ask all questions with the full context.

I did inform you that official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps.

Your name is a proper name, and there is a rule for how it is to be printed (i.e. "John Macadam"); so what is it doing in all caps on your "personal" checking account?

It appears the same way on all Social Security Cards--in all caps. It appears to me that said account and Social Security Card is not in your "proper" name, else they would print it differently (correctly).

I now ask you this question:
Why is "your name" printed in all caps on your personal checking account when proper names are not supposed to be printed that way?

A compilation of references to these publications is found here, but remember to do your own thinking (and ask good questions):
http://famguardian.org/subjects/lawandgovt/articles/memlawonthename.htm#2.5__US_Government_Style_Manual_

A check drawn on a private bank is not a "US government publication", so why would we care what the US Government style manual says is the correct format to print a name in a US government publication?

Ah, but what about the SS Card? And are not "all" banks part of the Federal Reserve System?

It is not only the US Gov Style Manual that gives you these rules for proper names.

Read moar carefully:

There's an obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the name.

Feel free to ask questions one at a time with full context after you comprehend the above; I think it is obvious that you have not yet achieved full comprehension.

Besides the obvious matter of a social security card not being a government publication  either, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a private bank or a checking account. 
Incidentally, it IS the only document giving you these guidelines.  If there was anywhere else, you wouldn't have to draw the conclusion for us, you would just point to that document.  Which you do not do.

As for asking you questions, you keep saying you will answer questions if they are asked, yet you have refused or ignored any question that you do not have a "good" answer for.  Obviously there is little point in having a discussion with someone who is not willing to actually discuss.