Yes, I did. Imagine that. I wasn't going out of my way to avoid using a check, but faced with the simple fact that I didn't have one on me. Because I didn't go home to get one, I paid more money. Unless you're implying that trying to spend less money is "abnormal."

This isn't a question of whether I did wrong or right, but a simple statement of fact.

I can easily see the argument being made that an officer of the law personally delivering a court summons would constitute "legally protected proof."

I don't know how it works in your region, but in Pennsylvania, subpoenas and court summonses are still served by constables.

As and addendum, that's also the reason why some gas stations charge a lower price for gas on transactions made by cash.

Actually, I have a prime example for you on why your statement is a broad, inaccurate, generalization:
I recently purchased a computer from a small, one-man computer seller/repair shop. Like any business, he gets charged a percentage of all credit card transactions by his merchant. (I'm also aware of this because I worked for a small business and was privy to this sort of thing internally.) Because I didn't want to use a check (or cash), I paid an additional 2% over the cost of the invoice to cover his fees. You can argue that I could have taken my business elsewhere or a number of other things, but that's entirely irrelevant to this statement. The point is that using credit cards costs (additional) money, and sometimes that cost is passed on to the consumer.

Using checks is still a normal method of paying debts. Just because it's less convenient (for the payer) than other methods doesn't make that untrue.

I assure you that many "normal people" still pay things by cheques.

Do you mean constables?

Considering that the website, message board, and game all use the same ACCOUNT, this is kind of a pointless question to ask.

It's an HA test. Of course we're doing it double-blind. :P (ABC/HR, to be specific.)

Mod up for humor, please.

96kbps. We're talking about encoding bitrate, not sample rate.

"Public" in this sense is used to mean not private, meaning anyone with access to a computer and knows about it can participate.

Oh wait, you were trying to be funny? Oops.

How dare they ask you to do things when also asking you to donate your time to do things.

No opinions involved. This uses the double-blind ABX approach.

You've hit the nail on the head. In the old days of MP3, 96kbps was considered a "low quality" bitrate. We're now many years later, and various encoders have matured to the point where some of us feel that it's worth testing to see how they fare.