ISP Information:
A group of commands usually stored in a file and run one at a time so that you don't have to type them in one at a time. Script is the newer, sexier term for batch. Don't talk about batch files anymore! It's all scripts and scripting languages. We're on the INTERNET, for goodness' sake!
ISP Glossary:
Script - In article <2skhr7F1m6kt3U1@uni-berlin.de>, rod_speed@yahoo.com (Rod Speed) writes:| > | And the receipt or statement from the| > | operation that received the money qualifys.|| > I don't believe that this is true in general.|| Corse it does.| > Again, you might want to ask about this in misc.taxes.moderated.|| No point. Its obvious what the reality is for anyone| with a clue from when no check is involved at all.It's amazing how often the intuitively obvious answer is... wrong... Youseem to have done no research in this area and you don't want to discuss itwhere you might actually get an expert answer. I don't claim to be an expert;I know just enough to know that your blanket statements are wrong.| > In one case I had the cancelled check and was able to eventually resolve| > the situation (though it required sending a copy to the president's office).||And if you had paid using a card, it would be trivially resolvable even easier.Unlike the world you inhabit, my world contains companies that do not acceptcredit cards. The company in question was an example.| > | > | The other obvious proof is the receipt for what was paid for etc| > | > | and the statement etc from who the payment was made to.|| > | > I've never received a receipt or a statement from the| > | > IRS in response to my quarterly estimated payments.| > | > Just to pick an obvious tax-related example...|| > | Thats a complete dud. That isnt something you| > | are claiming, or need to prove and they have| > | their own records of what you have paid etc.|| > Umm, it's something you need to prove if their| > records don't agree with what you actually sent.|| Nope.So you are saying that if their records understate your payments youwould just pay again? That's fine for you, but I don't think everyoneis quite so generous.| > I've noticed that a lot of the arguments that consumers have| > no need to prove payment are based on the assumption that| > businesses and the government keep perfect records.|| You're completely off with the fairys, as usual.I.e., lacking a response you resort to name calling.| If you pay by card, you dont have any equivalent of the| returned check and the system works fine without it.If you pay by card you have something which isn't equivalent to a cancelledcheck but which is very useful to prove payment. What's your point? I_like_ credit cards. Not everybody takes them.| > In my experience both keep pretty good (but not perfect) records,|| Duh.|| > but when they screw up they are not willing to just take my word for it.|| They dont need to if you pay using a card.Which again doesn't work if the recipient in question doesn't take creditcards. You are lucky that you can pay everything by credit card. Myimpression is that a lot of people are not able to pay, e.g., rent, mortgage,car/other loan, local taxes, child support, etc. by credit card. And thoseare just the kinds of payments for which many would like to have proof.Locally, the utilities (gas, electric, phone) do not take credit cards either.None of my insurance companies (auto, home owners, health) take credit cards.| > Your experience may (probably does) differ.|| Wrong again. I dont pay for anything by check anymore,| when the last operation, who delivers the newspapers,| finally got their act into gear and accept electronic transfers.What do you mean by "electronic transfers?" You've been pushing creditcards for everything, but now you have either added a new payment typeto the mix or changed your terminology. Which is it? Does your newspapertake credit cards or not?| > | > You say that they have no need to have physical checks returned.| > | > I think that's a great idea. We should have first legislated away the| > | > _need_ to have physical checks returned|| > | Wasnt neccessary to legislate.|| > Well sure it wasn't _necessary_. But it would| > have been a lot more friendly to consumers.|| Nope.So you are saying that it would not have been more friendly to consumers?| > If I could pay everyone who currently re
|
