Quote from: frank-butcher24 on July 13, 2013, 11:18 pmWell, I feel somewhat reluctant to criticise too strongly as DPR is already clearly pissed off tonight over the fees flak he's been getting.Before the change we had a running total, now we have the same running total broken down chronologically. So they are keeping the data which show that I did certain-sized transactions at certain points in time. I did not think they did that. I thought they just added it all up and presented it as a total.That said, I don't remember ever reading anywhere that the date information was not kept, I just assumed it wasn't. Is there really a lie here SS, or did you (like me) make an assumption?Well let me break it down logically.1. It's been stated that purchase records are not kept for more than 3-4 months (I remember 3, Astor says 4).2. In order to be able to distinguish which specific orders were made more than 3-4 months ago, but less than a year ago, you HAVE to know which orders were made more than a year ago.3. If you know which orders were made more than a year ago, you're keeping the records. .:. Either the data was 100% made up and complete bullshit (I doubt it), or one of these assumptions is false. Presumably it's 1. That's basically a lie. It's kind of a big one, too, since it's a lie about what details are kept regarding orders.HOWEVER, if it's never said anywhere that records aren't kept for more than 3-4 months... well then there's no lie, and apparently we all got the wrong idea via some sort of dark net osmosis (or something...).When did I last see it? I dunno. It was there this evening. I can't give you an exact time. Awfully curious that it's gone now, though... mm? Thanks DPR. At least the illusion that you guys give a fuck is now no longer a direct contradiction... :D