Subject:
|
Re: X "eXits" banking biz
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.services
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:08:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1576 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.services, Rob Doucette writes:
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> news:G3r9Iw.AAv@lugnet.com...
> > X.com is quitting...
>
> My take on this is that nobody utilized the checking/debit card feature of
> the X.com accounts. PayPal achieved critical mass before X.com in the
> e-mail funds game. I would rather have seen X.com blend the two by adding
> the checking/debit card features to PayPal.
Well, I am just blown right out of the water. This stinks.
I like Paypal and I like using X.com banking. In the last few months I have
switched to using X.com banking for the majority of my financial
obligations. Now I have to switch my payroll direct deposit routing back to my
local bank. This stinks.
I am certainly glad that Paypal is still around, but I used X.com to store my
funds at and then used Paypal to send money. Since X.com is a bank account, I
was able to send money through Paypal as a non-credit card funded transaction.
This way payment recipients would not be penalized by the credit card
limitations of cash received via Paypal. This just stinks.
I may consider closing my Paypal account and going back to the old ways of
doing things, but that is highly illogical, Captain.
Did I say yet that I think this stinks?
__Kevin Salm__
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: X "eXits" banking biz
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G3r9Iw.AAv@lugnet.com... (...) My take on this is that nobody utilized the checking/debit card feature of the X.com accounts. PayPal achieved critical mass before X.com in the e-mail (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.market.services)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
