(It's unclear whether the couple ever actually paid for the Bic lighters in question—the article only specifies that the footage shows they scanned the package of lighters but that the scanner didn't register it.)

The couple in question is gay and their sons are adopted, which may have introduced a whole new level of emotional reactions on both sides of the dispute. The men say their children told them that while they were being held in the security room, the security staff threatened the kids and "had made disparaging remarks about Paolucci and Hitchcock's lifestyle." It's not a stretch to imagine that such an attitude, if it existed, carried over into any face-to-face interactions. Meanwhile, the police who showed up and cuffed Paolucci, then forced the two men into the backs of different squad cars, claim that the men were causing a disturbance when they arrived at the scene.

Still, no amount of pro-gay or anti-gay outrage makes it okay for a retailer to place paying customers in such an abusive situation, especially when the retailer's own security footage—which was immediately available for review—shows that if there was any inventory issue it was due to a malfunction of the scanner. But Walmart can get away with it because it can afford to:

Asked if they intend to sue Wal-Mart, Paolucci said he and Hitchcock probably won't because other attorneys have advised them Wal-Mart historically "plays hardball" and isn't prone to settle cases out of court.

"We could spend a couple million dollars to sue them," Paolucci said.

But that doesn't mean there won't be court action. Paolucci and Hitchcock e-mailed The Tribune a copy of a letter from a law firm representing Wal-Mart seeking 10 times the retail price of the items the store still claims were shoplifted by Paolucci. The letter states the matter will be dropped if Paolucci submits the $158.40 payment.

Fortunately, the men seem to have enough money that they can afford to never shop at the discount retailer again, even if they weren't banned for life. If you're not part of a wealthy two-income family, though... well hopefully Walmart will look down favorably upon you when your post-checkout time comes, so long as you act contrite and respectful of their security team's authority.

(Oh yeah, now I remember why I don't want a Walmart anywhere near where I live.)

*Note: I originally reported the Walmart as being located in Niles, Illinois. However, the South Bend Tribune generally covers areas in Michigan and Indiana, and the couple lives in Buchanan, Michigan, which also has a Niles located nearby. I've updated the post to report the Walmart as being located in Niles, Michigan. -Chris

"Niles couple banned from Wal-Mart after dispute over BIC lighters" [South Bend Tribune] (Thanks to Shanon!)

RELATED
"Loomis Rent-A-Cops Have Shopper Cuffed, Hauled Away Over ATM Photo"
(Photo: Brave New Films)

Brendan sent this to us back in August right after we posted about Ameriprise's 5-month-long security hole that they wouldn't fix, despite repeated warnings from a security expert. (When a news organization contacted them to confirm the exploit, they fixed it within 2 hours.) Brendan decided to bring it up among the members of his Ameriprise consumer advisory panel—the one place where you might think discussions about things like reputation, trust, and reliability would be encouraged.

Up until yesterday, I was a member of Ameriprise's 600 member consumer advisory panel, which is a private forum administered by Communispace. Since most of the forum members are Ameriprise clients, I posted a link to the above article, and to the Register article it references.

That prompted the following e-mail from my "Financial Connection Facilitator":

Hi Brendan,

This morning we noticed that you posted a discussion titled "Ameriprise Web Site Riddled with Security Vulnerabilities for at Least Five Months!?"

The main purpose of this community is to serve as "consumer consultants' by sharing your perspectives and opinions with us and each other on your finances. While we encourage you to discuss whatever topics are important to you, we just ask that you keep in mind that the 600 of you represent a diverse group, and we are interested in hearing all perspectives on a given topic – even the unpopular ones.

That said, we are uncomfortable with the discussion you started. As per our member agreement, we reserve the right to remove any content from the Web Site for any reason or no reason and have removed your discussion.

Please continue to be considerate of all opinions, and recognize that not everyone will necessarily share your perspective.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email.

We appreciate your understanding and assistance.

Best,
Sandra

Brendan responded angrily,

Wow, Sandra.

So much for a free and open exchange of ideas.

What does our diversity have to do with it? Are you saying that we are such a diverse group that some members will not be interested in knowing that Ameriprise jeopardized their sensitive financial data?

Your wording implies that I was somehow out of line or off on some weird tangent. Name just one member out the 600 in our little group who would not share my perspective and completely agree with me that Ameriprise has done wrong. The company was clearly asleep at the wheel with regards to the security of customer information, spent five months ignoring a security expert who tried repeatedly to bring the problem to their attention, and then had the nerve claim that the problem was no big deal.

Instead of pretending that I have said or done something inappropriate, and instead of pretending that the other members of our community would somehow be offended or not appreciate knowing about this very valid security concern, why don't you just be honest: Ameriprise signs your paycheck, so you are going to suppress any discussion of this outrageous failing on the part of Ameriprise.

Sincerely,
Brendan

And with that, Sandra deleted Brendan's account.

Obviously you have a sick fetish, Brendan, where you're obsessed with things like trust and security when it comes to your finances. Gross! "Stay away from our beloved customers!" cries Ameriprise in pain. We hope you've looked for, and found, a better match for your higher standards.

RELATED
"Ameriprise Website Riddled With Security Vulnerabilities For At Least Five Months"
(Photo: calmdownlove)

What's not covered: pretty much what you'd expect, like robocalls from political groups, charities, and debt collectors. If the caller isn't trying to sell you something, it doesn't fall under FTC jurisdiction. (Things like flight and prescription alerts are also allowed.) We think political callers are trying to sell you something—a big fat pie made of lies, usually—but apparently the FTC doesn't see it that way.

So beginning next Tuesday, if you receive an auto warranty or other telemarketer robocall, feel free to turn them in to the FTC:

Consumers who receive an unauthorized call starting Tuesday can file complaints with the commission online at www.ftc.gov or by calling (877) FTC-HELP.

"FTC bans most robocalls" [Los Angeles Times]
(Photo: M. Janicki)

Here's how ChexSystems works, courtesy of an Assistant Vice President at a "large regional bank" who contacted us:

We have had to close out accounts in the past due to a negative report from ChexSystems which shows that the customer had a charged off account with money owed. To keep using ChexSystems we have to not open accounts that have money owed to other banks. That is usually the only way [for those banks] to collect.

Of course, BoA could have explained everything a lot better. Just because someone has a negative ChexSystems report, it doesn't mean they are blackballed forever. It's kind of like bankruptcy, as you come off their records after 7 years.

Although that's probably why most customers denied a new account at any bank are rejected, it doesn't sound like it applies to Jesse's case based on what he told us:

They said it "may have something to do with an unpaid account." The only problem is that I am young, have good credit, and had never had any account with Bank Of America. Their claim was impossible.

ChexSystems doesn't care where the old account was—in fact, the whole point of it is to catch people with bad accounts at unrelated banks. But if what Jesse told us was true then we doubt he has an unpaid account with a former bank.

We contacted him and asked him to spill more secrets about his financial history for the benefit of the community. Here's his response:

I had 2 accounts with a local branch in Massachusetts, the first was a savings account which I closed when I switched over to a checking account.

I waited to close this account until I had received my new one. After receiving my TD Bank card I closed the account with this bank over the phone and they had no issues with me.

I barely ever use checks and have never bounced one.

I have only one credit card, which I got only a few months before applying for BOA. I have yet to be late on a payment.

I have no idea how ChexSystems works, but the only debt I have is from student loans which are actually still in a grace period.

My best guess is that I was denied due to some sort of issue identifying my residential address because I had just moved. Of course that doesn't explain why they sent me the cards in the first place.

Who knows, maybe it was ChexSystems who caused the problem and not BOA. Still, is it really means to ban a customer for life?

We received so many stories from other readers telling us how BoA screwed up their new accounts that we had to spin them off into another post. After reading those stories, you may begin to feel that Jesse dodged a bullet by having been turned away immediately. At least that way BoA couldn't charge him overdraft fees, "research" fees, or other penalties without explanation.

Continue reading: "Bank Of America: 'That's Why You Don't Open New Accounts Online'"

RELATED
"Bank Of America Bans Customer For Life"
(Photo: TheTruthAbout)

If you don't have time to read all three stories, skip to the bottom to see what Edward found out after sending an EECB to Bank of America.

First, Wayne's story. It's long, but it illustrates that even when Bank of America attempts to fix the problem, they can cause more harm than good.

I recently moved to a new state and opened a checking account with BoA online (my local bank in Ohio didn't exist where I moved outside Philadelphia). It was a Sunday when I filled out the application online and I had considered just waiting until the next day and walking into the bank and opening one. After talking to an online customer service rep via their chat window I was assured it was smarter to open the account online because the free checking account offer I was signing up for was ONLY available online.

I transferred my balance (around $400 I think) over from my old bank to my new BoA account. The online rep explained to me that until I received my debit card in the mail I could just walk into my local BoA and take money out of my account, which was fine with me. Wednesday rolls around and I do just that. The bank teller lets me take $200 out of my account and sends me on my way. So far so good. A couple of days later I come back to take another $100 out of my account and I am told there is a problem.

First, the new bank teller says she can't understand how they let me take any money out of my account the previous time because there is a flag on my account and it says I don't have any money in the account. In fact, it shows that I came in on the date of my previous date and withdrew money, and that they charged me a fee for having insufficient funds. At this point I am totally confused...and slightly pissed.

She explains to me that she doesn't understand what is going on either and that I need to call their customer service center because they are the only ones that can handle my problem. I am on my lunch break from work so I hop back in my car, start heading back to work (hungry), and dial up the number the teller had given me. The customer service rep that answers my call confirms that there is a flag on my account because they could not verify my new address. I explained to her that I just moved not even a week ago and since I moved into my cousin's apartment, I didn't sign a lease or anything. I told her I had to sign some paperwork to move in with the leasing office however so that they knew who was going to be living there. She asked if I had any utility bills in my name there and I said no, I don't, but I did have a new cell phone from a provider in the area where the bill was sent to my new address with my cousin.

The rep told me to take something from the leasing office acknowledging that I was living there and my cell phone bill into my local branch and they could take care of it. I said that's fine, but shouldn't my social security card and ID be enough to verify I am who I am? She says that would help but take at least a copy of my cell phone bill or a letter from my cousin and instructs me to go back the branch. I turn my car around (still on my lunch break (and still hungry) and go back to the bank that I had just left.

I walk in and talk to the same teller and explain to her what the lady said. The teller seems even more confused. She tells me that there is no way they handle anything like that and gets the manager. The male manager confirms the same thing. At this point I am pretty frustrated and just want to close my account and take my money and get something to eat so I can get back to work and on with my day (and life...without BoA). The teller and manager at this point take me to a tabel on the side and have me call their customer service line again right there from the branch.

This time I get a male customer service rep who confirms there is a flag on my account because they couldn't verify my new address. Nothing shocking there. I clue him in on what the previous customer service rep and he seems incredibly confused stating he has no idea why the other rep would have said that and said that in fact they had already closed on my account out completely. He said I would be banned from ever opening an account with Bank of America again. I ask him when I can have my money back (since Christmas was less than 10 days away) and he tells me 6-8 weeks. I hang up the phone, tell the manager what he said and they seemed just as baffled as me. I leave the branch pissed off.

Now...the best part. I had around $100 left in my account at BoA when they closed it. Around 6 weeks later I receive a check in the mail from BoA for around $20 with another letter explaining an overdraft fee of $75, apparently from when I took the original $200 out of the account. The kicker is that THEY SENT THE CHECK TO MY NEW ADDRESS THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T CONFIRM. As far as I am concerned not only did BoA waste my time and screw me over for doing nothing other than signing up for one of their accounts online (under the guidance of one of their own online reps), but they also flat out stole money from my pocket by charging me for it and for taking my own money out of the account...after telling me that I could.

I wouldn't wish a BoA account upon my worst enemy. At least when my car was broken into and robbed the thief ran off and tried to hide. When BoA stole from me they sent me a letter to brag.

Here's Chris's email about the duplicate checking account and how BoA tried to charge him penalties for not noticing he'd been given a second, fake account.

I was just reading the Bank of America article and experienced the same thing this past year. I received a set of checks in the mail that were registered to a second account under my name, that I never knew existed. The account was registered to a bank in a town that I have never actually been to. Because I did not know about the second account I proceeded to use the checks and the checks got returned because the account did not have any money in it. Once I discovered what happened I was on the phone with Bank of America reps all day working my way up the food-chain. No one would listen to me until I said that Bank of America is a scam and that they were trying to con me. Once I threatened them with those words I finally got them to reimburse any charges that I received for checks bouncing and had them cancel the account. They tried to tell me I applied for this second account, even though it was at a Bank of America in a town that I have never been to. Bank of America is a screwy company at best.

Finally, here's a copy of the EECB Edward sent to Bank of America after his account was closed without explanation and dinged $60 for an unexplained "research fee":

On May 7, 2009 I applied online for a MyAccess checking account. I chose the Debit card funding option and had $100 withdrawn from my Chase bank account to fund the Bank of America checking account. I received confirmation of submission of my application. Shortly after, I receive notification my account was approved. On May 11, 2009 my Chase checking account was debited for $100.

On May 13, 2009 I received two seperate mailings: one included information regarding my temporary password for my online account and the other contained bank disclosures. I proceeded to enroll in online banking and was notified that a call to customer service was required. I called customer service and they informed me that my account was closed — they could not provide any reason and said I would need to contact their Risk Department at 877-240-6886. I called them that night, but they were closed — apparently they close at 4PM PST.

On May 14, 2009 I called the Risk Department around 1PM. Once the representative verified my information, she began reading to me what sounded like a prepared script. She went on to state that when opening the account online, I agreed to a disclosure that stated Bank of America reserves the right to close my account for any reason and at any time. She goes on to tell me that the account is closed and that I will never be able to open an account at Bank of America. I asked them what was the reason behind my account closure. The representative then repeats that Bank of America reserves the right to close my account for any reason and at any time. I ask again, "But why was it closed?". She repeats the same statement for the third time and then states, "That is the reason why." She said they will be sending me a cashier's check for $40. I inform her that my initial deposit was for $100 and it has already been debited from my bank account. She states that there was a research charge for $60. I respond saying that it is hard for me to comprehend how Bank of America can close my account, without giving any valid reason AND charges me $60 (60% of my account balance). She tells me for the fourth time that Bank of America reserves the right to close my account at any time for any reason and then disconnects me.

Immediately after this phone call, I walk into my local Bank of America branch. I am eventually directed to a personal banker. I explain the situation. After telling my story, she comments, "That's why you don't open up accounts online." She lets me know that the online departments are seperate from the retail branches, but says she will try to find any additional information. She asks for my social security number and tries to look up my account history. She cannot find any information. She lets me know all she can see is that the account is closed. She tells me there's no use in her calling the Risk Department as they will only tell her the same thing they told me. She gives me a card to Customer Solutions. She tells me to call the number as it is my best bet at getting this issue resolved.

I call Customer Solutions at 1-800-831-4419. I explain my story. They put me on hold as they contact the Risk Department. They come back on the line and give me the exact statement the Risk Department told me. I let the representative that it is completely absurd that they cannot even give me a valid reason, let alone charge me $60. She says Bank of America will not refund the fee. I ask her if I have ANY other options to get this issue resolved. She responds, "No." At this point, I want to start recording names and record the shady nature of these business transactions. I ask her for her name and extension or any other information in which I can identify her. The line goes silent for a minute and then disconnects.

I look online to see whether this has happened to other individuals. Apparently it has.

http://www.raisedguidance.com/2008/10/banned-from-bank-of-america-fo.html
http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/banking/bankofamerica-risk-assessment.html
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/checking-account-scam-c92924.html
http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=41155
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090312090401AAcoGUA

This has been absolutely my worst experience in dealing with a bank. It bewilders me to see how Bank of America treats its customers. I expect at the very least, a full justified explanation for my account closure along with a refund of my full $100 deposit. Assuming that Bank of America charges $20/hour for research, please let me know what exactly took three hours and what research they found because apparently I haven't heard it.

Edward notes that the EECB appeared to do the trick. He even finally got an answer as to what triggered the closure:

I was also sure to copy the comptroller of the currency who regulates these financial institutions. Long story short, someone from the "executive offices" of Bank of America gives me a call letting me know that Bank of America is sorry and that they will refund the fee they charged me. They sent me my entire balance back along with a $50 Home Depot gift card for my inconvenience. I also finally got a real answer in regards to why they closed my account — my mailing address was not the same as my legal address (note that despite this, they had no problem taking funds from my Chase bank account).

Anyways, thought you might want to share this with your readers. Obviously Bank of America has some serious procedural issues in regards to how they handle what they determine as "fraud".

RELATED
"Bank Of America Bans Customer For Life"
"Update: Banned Bank Of America Customer Says His Credit Is Clear"
(Photo: jonathan mcintosh)

Update: Be sure to check out Jesse's follow up post where he clarifies his credit history, and these stories from other short-lived Bank of America customers who had accounts closed for no clear reason, or worse.

Jesse writes,

I recently moved from Massachusetts to Connecticut. Upon my arrival I made the choice to leave my local bank account behind. I signed up for a Bank of America account through their website, thinking it would be simple to have ATMs that were available in both states.

After a month or two of frustratingly waiting, I received not one, but TWO debit cards in the mail. I looked through the paper work and found that they had in fact signed me up for two separate checking accounts.

I figured a quick call to customer service would clear the issue up, but the story only gets worse. The customer service rep I talked to told me that my account had a "flag" on it. I proceeded to ask if this was because THEY gave me two accounts and was told that the issue was not that. They said it "may have something to do with an unpaid account." The only problem is that I am young, have good credit, and had never had any account with Bank Of America. Their claim was impossible.

Finally I asked if I could just close the accounts and open a new one. They told me that I could no longer open an account with Bank Of America. I asked if I could open an account in the future and they told me that I could NEVER open an account with them again. As in NEVER.

Basically, Bank Of America banned me for signing up for an account after they made the mistake of sending me two accounts.

I called them a second time to see if I could get another answer and the customer service rep said "We suggest you find another bank."

I switched to TD BankNorth and currently have no major problems, besides any bank is better than one that gives you two accounts and bans you for life before you can use either.

In a way, BoA may have done you a favor, Jesse! Now if only Chase would start banning its customers for life, we'd be getting somewhere.

Update: Matthew says the same thing happened to him, and the only explanation BoA offered was that the fine print gives them the right to close an account at any time for any reason:

I too was banned from BoA. I recently got a new job and was looking to switch banks. I loved BoA's program in which they round up purchases, and send the difference to a savings account. I signed up online and was approved and received everything I needed in the mail; Cards, Pin Numbers, etc... I sat on the cards for about a week, waiting for all my purchases to clear from my former bank account to transfer everything over. I called to activate my card, and my account had been closed. "What the heck?" I thought. I'll call tomorrow and get this straightened out. I received a letter in the mail that day stating again, that my account had been closed. An account I never used.

I searched on your website and found the numbers for the higher ups and decided to give them a call. They did confirm that my account had been closed, but could not notify me why because they had some fine print (which was there) that stated either party can close the account at any given moment. The rep then stressed to me that I would NEVER be allowed to open another BoA account again.

I wasn't mad or anything, I'm was just more worried about WHY they closed it, more-so than the fact that they did.

(Photo: TheTruthAbout)

Coke denies that the sweetener in question, sodium cyclamate, is even in the beverage. Sodium cyclamate is legal in Venezuela, but not in the U.S.

The AP says:

The U.S. prohibits the use of cyclamates in human food because of health safety concerns. Sales of Coca-Cola Zero elsewhere in Latin America have met with resistance over the sweetener's use.

But Rosy Alvarez, a spokeswoman for Coca-Cola Servicios de Venezuela, told The Associated Press on Thursday that Coca-Cola Zero sold in Venezuela uses other artificial sweeteners.

"No ingredient of Coca-Cola Zero is harmful to peoples' health," she said

The Venezuelan government says that tests show Coke Zero contains the sweetener.

Venezuela Bans Coca-Cola [MyFoxAtlanta]

Note that this isn't a verbatim transcript, so take the whole thing with a grain of salt. It's still pretty funny and rude, though.

I just had the strangest customer service phone call. I was about to place an order for 20 Air-Eze Deep Breathing Devices (because I am a voice teacher, and I use them to help my students strengthen their breathing.) I called the toll-free customer service number at Jansen Medical Supply, who claims on their website to be the most respected company in their field. Here is how the conversation went:

Me: Hi! I need to order some Air-Eze Deep Breathing Incentive devices, but I had a couple of questions first.

JMS: We don't answer questions.

Me: Really?

JMS: You need to speak with a respiratory therapist about your questions.

Me: Oh, no! I don't have any questions about the devices, just about ordering them.

JMS: We don't answer ANY questions.

Me: (Thinking the guy is pulling my leg...) Are you kidding?

JMS: I am not kidding. We don't answer questions.

Me: (Still thinking the guys is joking...) You can't be serious.

JMS: I am DEAD SERIOUS.

Me: (Inquiring...) So, then, why do you answer the phone? You are the customer service representative. What do you usually do when you pick up the phone?

JMS: (no answer...this obviously made him mad)

Me: Well, then, I am not quite sure what to do. I need to place a large order and you won't answer my questions.

JMS: You will not be placing a large order with us.

Me: I won't?

JMS: We don't want your money. You need to take your business elsewhere.

Me: What? May I please speak with your manager?

JMS: Missy, you need to go away. You need to go away right now.

And then he hung up. That was the funniest and strangest customer service call I have ever made. Thought you might find it humorous. After the call, I went back to their website which states that they have a "Toll free customer service line to answer all your questions." Obviously not.

We contacted Jansen Medical and sent them a copy of the exchange, and asked what was going on. Naturally, since that was a question, they have chosen to ignore us.

Richard says:

I have swapped several emails with Stephen Toulouse, the Microsoft staffer who seems to be responsible for the press briefings on this (he was the one who gave the followup story to Kotaku). Firstly, he confirmed my enforced change was /not/ because my tag is the same as my name and /was/ because my tag is deemed to be offensive. I've sent him the following as an email querying a few more details.

Ah, good. Thank you for clearing that up. I also noticed last night that I cannot enter my last name in the Real Name field of my Xbox profile, although I can put it in the Bio section — does it become less offensive a few inches further down the screen? I tried Heterowood and Homowood too (both were barred) but Straightwood was allowed, oddly. Even the words "Unix" and "Linux" seem to be barred from the Real Name field, which I find rather bizarre. I also note that this was a system generated response, and not the result of a complaint about me.

So, what about the international issues? Wanker is quite a common surname in Germany, and is very rude to British people but (I understand) doesn't have as strong a connotation to the Americans — I'm pretty sure I've heard it on the Simpsons. Would that be allowed? What about swear words in foreign languages, how do you handle that case?

Basically, because of the international issue I think Microsoft haven't thought this through. I am conducting a bit of investigative journalism along those lines: getting two friends to register a gamertag that is outrageously obscene but in an obscure-ish language, then getting someone else to file a complaint about it. Want to bet the complaint will be ignored? I think MS are adopting a US-centric point of view here and I don't think that is acceptable for an international service like Live. If you're going to start censoring words you have to do it in all the languages active on Live.

Ball's in your court, Microsoft.

Here's Varun's letter:

Today, I discovered I couldn't connect to Xbox Live. After calling "Shanya" at Xbox Live (could not understand her, despite trying very hard), I was told that the Xbox Live service was down. How odd - everybody else, including my flatmate, on the same console is able to connect.

So I called back and "Ryan" answered. Ryan spent 35 minutes diagnosing my issue, making me connect, disconnect, reconnect and otherwise delete, undelete and trash my account. All the while, I explained to him that it clearly was NOT an issue with the connection, and not an issue on my end. After struggling to read his script, he finally took pity on me and followed my instructions to see whether there was anything wrong with my account. Sure enough, there was.

The system had tagged my Gamertag as offensive. What was my Gamertag? First name + last name.

What?!

That's right - my first name + last name is an offensive combination to the people who run Xbox Live. I asked Ryan what to do and he suggested changing the name order around.

So I've been forced to change my Gamertag - which means all the time that I've been using Xbox Live (about 30 months), my name has been offensive and apparently in violation of their terms, but they didn't bother to check or notify me or... well, do anything, really, except disconnect me today. I note that they updated the terms in 2005, twice in 2006, once in 2007 and somehow, I was in compliance with those terms all this time. Yet despite no change in the terms since June 2007, I am now in violation of those same terms. Explaining all this to the supervisor, "Lawrence", on the phone resulted in long, unintelligible mumbles (it was as if he arbitrarily picked words and letters out of the dictionary, strung them together, and then ran the whole gibberish through a randomizer), I was told that it was for my own security and protection they had decided that my name was offensive. Oh and the name that I had spent a while building an identity around? Yeah, there's no compensation for that. Nor did my preferences transfer over. In fact, I'm completely SOL...

Oh, for pete's sake, Microsoft.

After that fuss t'other day when Xbox Live banned the gamertag TheGayerGamer, I wondered if this would happen; lo and behold it has. They've banned my gamertag too. What makes this funny is that my old tag is just my name — Gaywood is my surname, which they could easily verify from my Live profile etc. I can't decide if I'm amused or annoyed by this.

Thought you might like to note this in your coverage of the story. I'd suspect anyone with the string "gay" in their name is going to get a free new Gamertag soon. I haven't played much on public live servers of late, so I suspect this is more likely to be down to an automated script trawling the database rather than individual tags that have been complained about. So, where does this end? What if my home address is in Scunthorpe?

Our sister site Kotaku obtained Mr. Gaywood's driver's license, which is more than Microsoft bothered to do:

PREVIOUSLY: "Gay" Player Name Banned By Xbox Live

1. Trans fats
   Banned in: New York City
2. Raw milk
   Banned in: 21 states
3. Absinthe
   Banned in: The U.S. (sort of: Absinthe is legal in the United States, contrary to popular belief, as long as the spirit's levels of thujone - a toxic chemical present in wormwood, one of the herbs used to make absinthe - do not surpass the Food and Drug Administration's limit of 10 parts per million.)
4. Foie Gras
   Banned in: Chicago
5. Uncertified Chilean sea bass
   Banned in: The U.S.
6. Horse meat
   Banned in: California, Illinois and other states
7. Wild Beluga caviar
   Banned in: The U.S.
8. Shark fins
   Banned in: The U.S.
9. High-fructose corn syrup
   On the endangered list in: San Francisco

What do you think of food bans? Some people are willing to risk breaking laws to smuggle raw milk across state lines... only to get diphtheria. Are you among them?

9 forbidden foods [Fortune Small Business] (Thanks, Stacy!)
(Photo: Unhindered By Talent )

From the NYT:

Lawmakers said that if Mr. Reid had used a lighter, instead of matches, he might have been able to ignite the bomb, but Kip Hawley, assistant secretary for the Transportation Security Administration, said in an interview on Thursday that the ban had done little to improve aviation security because small batteries could be used to set off a bomb.

Matches have never been prohibited on flights.

"Taking lighters away is security theater," Mr. Hawley said. "It trivializes the security process."

The policy change, which is to go into effect on Aug. 4, applies to disposable butane lighters, like Bics, and refillable lighters, like Zippos. Torch lighters, which have thin, hotter flames, will continue to be banned.

Hey Hawley... what about sippy cups and water bottles?

U.S. Will Allow Most Types of Lighters on Planes [NYT]
(Photo:foorious)

flag8 - Sorry, the RIAA is not a law-making body.

somnambulist - PR flack for United/Star Alliance trying to spread disinformation and sow unrest in any United-related post. There's below the line marketing, and then there's below the belt. Don't you have some posterboard to feed into a composter?

Heymoe - If you hate Consumerist so much, leave.

The Tourist - Always takes retailer's side. Insults consumers. Get back to the floor, young man, there's VCRs to be sold. Take those hands out of your packet. We're instituting a new policy where if any other employee or manager catches you with your hands in your pocket, you have to drop a quarter in this jar. At the end of the week, we'll draw straws to see which manager gets to keep the jar.

scoobydoo - Responds to a post on a neat, consumer-positive, company policy, by half-joking that it will disappear because now thousands of people will abuse it. If that's true, why don't we just turn off the blog. Let's skin fish on Alaskan fishing boats because obviously what we're doing here isn't working.

joeylopez, wholzem, bestbuy-staff - Retail trolls. Digg's detritus.

— BEN POPKEN

BANNED

Miss_smartypants: Troll.
Ghost_of_Awesomist: Insisted that the $55 Mac and Cheese customer was a "rube" who got what he deserved.
goaway147: Don't rant about the immorality of the Morning Deals.
JB3: Saw no similarity between a swastika and a totenkopf. Disparaged those that did with a litany of hateful words and phrases. Go figure.

A flux of new commenters means axing the old; with the dawn so comes the duck! — BEN POPKEN