On Aug 9, 12:44*pm, "Recliner" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:

On Aug 9, 10:33 am, Chris *Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:

In message
,
at 14:11:42 on Sun, 8 Aug 2010, CJB
remarked:

TfL explained that it could not be aware of any over-charging until
the issue was reported by a passenger.

Apart, of course, from looking for cards where there were two top-up
[bank charges] on the same day.

Yes - some passengers will do that, but that doesn't actually
matter. What you are looking for is top-ups where there were two
debits but only one amount of credit added.

Not holding an Oyster card, I wouldn't know, but in many cases the
financial part of e-transactions is handled separately for security
reasons. If that is the case here, then how would TfL know in detail
about the debits?

If by 'e-transactions' you are talking about an e-commerce (i.e.
online purchase) situation, then that wouldn't apply here as this
concerns people topping up their Oyster cards in person at self-
service ticket machines at LU stations.

But using chip and pin bank cards to do so. It's also not clear if it
only happens with debit cards, or credit cards as well. And I don't
quite understand whether the problem is at certain machines, or all
machines at certain stations.

Does using a hip-and-pin card qualify it to have the 'e-transactions'
label?


But it does seem slightly suspicious that it seems mainly to happen at
large Tube+mainline stations with OSI time-out potential...

Yes, that was a factor in my earlier suspicion (though I subsequently
revisited this thread and doubted whether there could any
connection... but maybe...).

Basically, more information required - we're rather stabbing in the
dark otherwise.

Mizter T wrote:

Does using a hip-and-pin card qualify it to have the 'e-transactions'
label?

Occasionally people use expressions without knowing that others reckon
they are jargon. It's a bit like spelling mistakes - astute readers can
see past them, whilst some might feel the need to point them out. ;-)
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633122.html
(66 095 at Bridgend, 2 Jul 1999)

On Aug 9, 2:18*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Does using a hip-and-pin card qualify it to have the 'e-transactions'
label?

Occasionally people use expressions without knowing that others reckon
they are jargon. It's a bit like spelling mistakes - astute readers can
see past them, whilst some might feel the need to point them out. ;-)

Don't smiley face me.

On Aug 9, 2:44*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 9, 2:18*pm, Chris *Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Does using a chip-and-pin card qualify it to have the 'e-transactions'
label?

Occasionally people use expressions without knowing that others reckon
they are jargon. It's a bit like spelling mistakes - astute readers can
see past them, whilst some might feel the need to point them out. ;-)

Don't smiley face me.

Sorry, that was unnecessarily aggressive - I've read your other
substantive reply to my point/ question about what you meant by an 'e-
transaction'. Though I still don't quite see the need for the somewhat
snide put-down - especially in the context of the other 'Ipswich
idiocy' thread (which I intend to return to, if and when I can summon
up the requisite motivation), where I think it may not have been me
that was the one who was lacking in astuteness.

That aside, I didn't intend to suggest that the term 'e-transaction'
had some definitive meaning - my intention was merely to work clarify
what you mean by it.

Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 9, 2:44*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 9, 2:18*pm, Chris *Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Does using a chip-and-pin card qualify it to have the 'e-transactions'
label?

Occasionally people use expressions without knowing that others reckon
they are jargon. It's a bit like spelling mistakes - astute readers can
see past them, whilst some might feel the need to point them out. ;-)

Don't smiley face me.

Sorry, that was unnecessarily aggressive

Actually, I thought it was rather amusing, and I'm a little surprised
that you apparently intended it to be serious.

- I've read your other substantive reply to my point/ question about
what you meant by an 'e- transaction'. Though I still don't quite see
the need for the somewhat snide put-down - especially in the context
of the other 'Ipswich idiocy' thread (which I intend to return to, if
and when I can summon up the requisite motivation), where I think it
may not have been me that was the one who was lacking in astuteness.

There's no need to return to it. I knew what was going on all along. If
you hadn't kept on plugging away with the "who's being an idiot"
question, then I wouldn't have pointed out what the potential idiocy
was, and whom the poster who first used the word had in mind. But, as I
pointed out, I never applied that word to you, and if you think I did,
then with all due respect, I think you should read the exchange again.

That aside, I didn't intend to suggest that the term 'e-transaction'
had some definitive meaning - my intention was merely to work clarify
what you mean by it.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9682591.html
(08 601 and 08 604 at Tyseley, 4 Oct 1987)