It's pretty well known that the Chinese walls in banks, designed to prevent some parts of the business illegally using information from other parts of the business, spent much of the approach to the 2008 financial collapse being ignored, and were often used to screw customers over for the purposes of enriching the banks. RBS just got busted for creating subsidiaries and feeding them confidential information for exactly that purpose. It was in the news in the last fortnight.
It's not at all disappointing to me to me that you bleat bullshit about "citation needed" as a defence. It's pretty expected around here; no need to actually do any work, just sit smugly pretending that you're civil and polite. Here we are engaging in yet more bullshit passive aggressiveness, each of us pretending that we're being oh-so-civil and look, look, it's the other one who's wrong, I'm just asking questions.
If you actually wanted to know, you could have found lots of examples yourself. You DON'T want to know, because this isn't about knowing anything. This is about some stranger on the internet disagreeing with your pre-formed opinions (which are pretty unusual around here, actually - the common religion here of free market fundamentalism would take it as read that FB will sell your information to your competitors) and your opportunity to posture and present yourself as reasonable.
So fuck you and fuck me, and fuck this passive-aggressive childishness that goes on around here as petty posturing from smug dickheads like you and like me. If you choose not to believe me, that's fine, but don't you dare suggest that it's my fucking job to educate you. I'm done with this passive-aggressive crap.
"You are suggesting that because people break laws we should not do things. That's not how it works."
No I'm not, and you fucking know it. I'm suggesting that giving your information to FB will lead to other people getting it. That's what I'm suggesting. This junk on the end about cars killing people is your strawman attempt to smugly present yourself as some kind of adult.
It's not at all disappointing to me to me that you bleat bullshit about "citation needed" as a defence. It's pretty expected around here; no need to actually do any work, just sit smugly pretending that you're civil and polite. Here we are engaging in yet more bullshit passive aggressiveness, each of us pretending that we're being oh-so-civil and look, look, it's the other one who's wrong, I'm just asking questions.
If you actually wanted to know, you could have found lots of examples yourself. You DON'T want to know, because this isn't about knowing anything. This is about some stranger on the internet disagreeing with your pre-formed opinions (which are pretty unusual around here, actually - the common religion here of free market fundamentalism would take it as read that FB will sell your information to your competitors) and your opportunity to posture and present yourself as reasonable.
So fuck you and fuck me, and fuck this passive-aggressive childishness that goes on around here as petty posturing from smug dickheads like you and like me. If you choose not to believe me, that's fine, but don't you dare suggest that it's my fucking job to educate you. I'm done with this passive-aggressive crap.
"You are suggesting that because people break laws we should not do things. That's not how it works."
No I'm not, and you fucking know it. I'm suggesting that giving your information to FB will lead to other people getting it. That's what I'm suggesting. This junk on the end about cars killing people is your strawman attempt to smugly present yourself as some kind of adult.