5 ms·

My point is I really am only hearing one side of the story. If true, I wholeheartedly agree. However, my experience with those "payments" is closer to "I have

by kop316 7y ago

My point is I really am only hearing one side of the story. If true, I wholeheartedly agree. However, my experience with those "payments" is closer to "I have read the contract, agree to terms, etc." I am given the oppritunity to see the contract to review before I sign it, and walk out with it signed. Also, my point is common sense tells me that state farm would want to see my medical records to make sure I am not lying about previous disabilities (we are talking about disability insurance, not car or renters insurance), and usually you sign a contract for insurance. From a flow standpoint, I can see why state farm would only do one signature if it is all digital versus making the person sign five times, when all it says is "I have reviewed form X and agree." But if someone doesn't actually review all of the documents, then something like this happens.

kerkeslager 7y ago
No one is confused about why State Farm wants the data. The reason you're not hearing about why they want the data, is that why they want the data is irrelevant. That's not "the other side of the story", that's irrelevant information that doesn't justify State Farm forging signatures to fake consent for privacy violations. There aren't two sides to every story, and this appears to be a case where there is only one side to the story. Do you think that anything you've said justifies State Farm forging signatures to fake consent to violate clients' privacy? If not, why are you polluting the conversation with irrelevant information?
- kop316 7y ago
  I was trying to be nice to the poster. Being blunt, I think the poster has no idea how insurance works, and didn't bother to read anything while signing up. Now they are upset because they actually read it. Or being less charitable, they did understand the process, and wanted to create fake outrage about it. But the story does not add up to me at all taken at face value.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    If we just start assuming posters are lying, why should I assume you aren't lying? Were you really trying to be nice to the poster, or were you defending a company that forges documents to fake consent to violate your privacy? It sure sounded like you were defending State Farm's actions, and like what you're saying now is a backpedal. What motivated your decision to stop being nice and accuse the poster of lying? I don't see much reason to disbelieve what the poster said, given this is just a logical next step from sneaky behavior I've already seen lots of companies engage in.
    - kop316 7y ago
      I in general try to assume good intentions for someone else, and before I go accusing someone of being dumb or malicious, I like to hear others opinion. I suggest you try that sometime. I find life to be much better when I just don't go accusing people of bad intentions like you just did to me.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        > I in general try to assume good intentions for someone else, and before I go accusing someone of being dumb or malicious, I like to hear others opinion. Is that what you think you were doing when you said, > Being blunt, I think the poster has no idea how insurance works, and didn't bother to read anything while signing up. Now they are upset because they actually read it. > Or being less charitable, they did understand the process, and wanted to create fake outrage about it. > But the story does not add up to me at all taken at face value. Let's unpack this gem: > I suggest you try that sometime. I find life to be much better when I just don't go accusing people of bad intentions like you just did to me. You realize I was just turning what you said back on you? My point is: it doesn't feel good does it? So maybe don't do that? You're literally objecting to something you did.

by kop316 7y ago

kerkeslager 7y ago

No one is confused about why State Farm wants the data. The reason you're not hearing about why they want the data, is that why they want the data is irrelevant. That's not "the other side of the story", that's irrelevant information that doesn't justify State Farm forging signatures to fake consent for privacy violations. There aren't two sides to every story, and this appears to be a case where there is only one side to the story. Do you think that anything you've said justifies State Farm forging signatures to fake consent to violate clients' privacy? If not, why are you polluting the conversation with irrelevant information?

kop316 7y ago
I was trying to be nice to the poster. Being blunt, I think the poster has no idea how insurance works, and didn't bother to read anything while signing up. Now they are upset because they actually read it. Or being less charitable, they did understand the process, and wanted to create fake outrage about it. But the story does not add up to me at all taken at face value.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  If we just start assuming posters are lying, why should I assume you aren't lying? Were you really trying to be nice to the poster, or were you defending a company that forges documents to fake consent to violate your privacy? It sure sounded like you were defending State Farm's actions, and like what you're saying now is a backpedal. What motivated your decision to stop being nice and accuse the poster of lying? I don't see much reason to disbelieve what the poster said, given this is just a logical next step from sneaky behavior I've already seen lots of companies engage in.
  - kop316 7y ago
    I in general try to assume good intentions for someone else, and before I go accusing someone of being dumb or malicious, I like to hear others opinion. I suggest you try that sometime. I find life to be much better when I just don't go accusing people of bad intentions like you just did to me.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > I in general try to assume good intentions for someone else, and before I go accusing someone of being dumb or malicious, I like to hear others opinion. Is that what you think you were doing when you said, > Being blunt, I think the poster has no idea how insurance works, and didn't bother to read anything while signing up. Now they are upset because they actually read it. > Or being less charitable, they did understand the process, and wanted to create fake outrage about it. > But the story does not add up to me at all taken at face value. Let's unpack this gem: > I suggest you try that sometime. I find life to be much better when I just don't go accusing people of bad intentions like you just did to me. You realize I was just turning what you said back on you? My point is: it doesn't feel good does it? So maybe don't do that? You're literally objecting to something you did.