If it’s not theft, what is it?
From yesterday and the day before…I’m still pondering the phenomenon of pirating money for services that aren’t provided — seems that some consider that use of direct nomenclature is offensive, while what I think is offensive are the acts themselves. Theft wears an ugly face, so it deserves it’s ugly word group: theft, thieves stealing.
I realize that calling acts “theft” (and “fraud,” as I have also [other brewing issue here] applied to Cox Communications for sending fraudulent invoices to me, paid but disputed and will remain so to my view) represents strong language. I’m not an attorney, not a member of law enforcement or the judiciary, so the language is descriptive and not representational of a citation or legal ruling. I get to use the vocabulary available to me to describe what I experience and what I’ve experienced recently and at times past is merchants stealing money by fraud or sleight of hand but it’s still theft, and when it’s by way of a document that inaccurately represents a debt owed (but not owed), that’s fraud.
I guess I could tap dance around the elephants in the room, and say that “someone inadvertently accessed my bank account and I haven’t heard so much as an apology, much less an offer to refund or compensate for what’s been taken.”
But that would be too many pretty words to pretty-up ugly deeds that are, until and unless I read, see or hear otherwise, intentional taking of money from me that merchants aren’t owed.
Yes, “theft” and “fraud” are strong words. The offense is odorous, however, and why aid and assist the foul stuff by making it a pleasantry? Coffee talk? Dainty, fresh words for ugly deeds? Would that make the deeds less ugly? No. No, it wouldn’t.
If more consumers shared their down experiences with the down side of commerce, maybe we’d have less victimization by commerce of consumers.
Include the following in my list of bad merchants: Web Intellects (web host) and Cox Communications. No links from me, but they’re easy to locate.