I just wrote a long, pompous post in reply to another comment in this thread, but luckily I managed to restrain myself from clicking 'reply' so I'm going to try to be shorter this time (no promises on whether I'll succeed):

"and didn't make any sweeping statements about either the Netherlands or the US"

Well I disagree, there was definitely an assuming undertone in the post. I guess we can go 'did so/did not' on this one, but instead let's agree to disagree.

"but your reply is agressive"

Oh yeah, that was intentional, because I felt angry at the post, and in a way that I feel vindicates an aggressive attempt to restrain posts like the one we're talking about. Whether or not making aggressive posts on the internet serves that purpose is another question, although I guess the answer is "no, plus it makes you look like a douche" ('you', in this case, being me, just to make sure I'm being clear ;) )

"it might be worth familiarizing yourself with the kind of behavior that is accepted and expected here."

Sorry to pull that card on you, but I've been posting here quite a bit longer than you have, and lurking long time before that - and I long for the days where the type of comment like we're talking about now wouldn't have been posted at all, or the days just after those, where that type of comment would have (rightfully) been down voted into near-unintelligible grey right with the 'LOL', 'me too' and 'ur a faggot' posts. Sadly, those days seem to be long gone, and irrational ideologies seem to have become an accepted basis for posts.

"It seems even stranger when you consider the OP didn't even mention some of the points you are berating him with"

Not sure what you mean specifically - although to be fair, I did cover my ass by not berating him directly, and instead cowering behind a generalization of unspecified 'other' posts, only indicating that his 'falls in that general class'. Still I stand behind my point that my understanding of implied statements is completely in line with the content of my reply.

"Back on topic - I can't wait until there is some kind of global iDEAL system, it is so much more convenient than credit cards."

How so? Look, I use iDEAL myself (I used it 3 times just yesterday, even), and like it in the cases where it works, but two months ago I rented a car in a New Zealand airport terminal from a guy who had his whole office in his backpack (you know, the old-fashioned stencil paper credit card processing machine). How would that work with a direct debit system? I paid with credit cards in remote villages in Peru and I can pay or make reservations across the world with credit cards on the phone by just passing them my CC number. Furthermore, I have never paid a cent in interest charges on a credit card, payments are done in full, automatically, from my bank account. I'm not sure what the aversion against credit cards is, it's incredibly useful in many situations. I'd be perfectly happy traveling the world with just a Visa card (provided I can withdraw some cash locally in some places...), I have yet to see anything remotely as convenient as that. I paid more for withdrawing cash with my Maestro card in Spain last summer as I would have had I just paid for everything with my credit card FFS!

Here, let me throw in some more ranting against my country: you know why merchants don't accept credit cards in the Netherlands? Because it costs money, and the merchant mentality here is not 'the customer is always right and his convenience is something I need to think of', but 'I need to make sure I get paid, and as much as possible'. Merchants (not only online, I'd even say 'less so online') think of themselves much more as superiors to customers than those in more customer-oriented markets. There is a reason that 'boter bij de vis' doesn't have a direct similar construct in other languages such as English and Frech (that I know of) (it means: pay directly when items are received, no credit allowed). It probably also stems from the Protestant ethic: credit is a sin. Which I think is an even more daft reason to be adverse of credit.

(so it looks like I didn't manage to restrain myself after all - so be it)