Your response can be aimed towards a multitude of posters on here, you know
the ones. They believe what they write to be true, but in fact, it's only
Too many of them would rather foam at the keyboard blabbering, than to
actually learn something useful. It appears they believe arguing and
ignoring the truth, makes what they believe is fact.
Your time and knowledge is too valuable to waste it on these types.
Include yourself in that lis that claims to know what is true. You
claimed that Frugal would be protected from loss through Paypal for
purchase. No worry. And I provided you with the link to Paypal
where it clearly says that the basic Paypal protection is $200. To
get the higher $2000 protection a specific list of criteria must be
met. The first is the seller must have more than 50 feedback.
Doh! The guy Frugal is dealing with has only 10.
And Frugal also reported on his discussions with VISA, that made it
clear that if you use a credit card through Paypal as just a standard
transaction, you aren't covered. They did tell him if he did a
special transaction, upfront notifying them of who the money is
ultimately going to via Paypal, sending VISA the contracts, invoices,
etc BEFORE the transaction, etc, then they would hand hold the
transaction and provide protection, essentially through some type of
That is way different than the claims the you and Gini made, which is
that just use a credit card through Paypal and everything is peachy
keen, you're protected just like if you used the card with a VISA
As I reported earlier, I myself went through this exact experience.
I used a Citibank VISA through Paypal to pay for an Ebay purchase,
which turned out to be fraud. Citibank told me exactly what I posted
previously. That their transaction with Paypal was legitimate and it
was not their problem as to Paypal then sending the money to some
party that Citibank has no relationship or knowledge of. I suppose
you think if you take a cash advance on a credit card from an ATM,
then take the cash and buy a watch from somebody that turns out to be
fake, VISA is going to take that loss too?
Now, some credit card companies and banks make react differently.
But to tell folks that they can just pay with a credit card through
Paypal and they are protected is hogwash. And go try pursuing it
with Paypal. Unlike VISA, where you can call and speak to a real
person, you'll find that with Paypal you're dealing with an email
server robot. Eventually a real person gets involved, but even then,
I could never speak to anyone. Ultimately I wound up out about $40
on a $175 Paypal/Ebay transaction, and that was becasuse the seller
finally relented and made the refund.
I also have a problem with the attitude, "It;s as I say. I don't
need to support it with a link, go look for one yourself." That
isn't very helpful. Nor is providing links that have nothing to do
with the obvious question. When Bigbackpaker said it's a violation
of Ebay rules for a seller to take Western Union, what did you do?
You posted links to avoiding Ebay fees. Those links said nothing at
all about Western Union. All you had to do was provide the correct
link, which would have avoided a long heated discussion. Instead you
starting hurling vulgarities at me. Real impressive.
au contre. Trade4 is not the one foaming at the keyboard. his points
are very analytical, specific and clinical as far as showing you where
you (Poppin Fresh) and Gini are/were dead wrong. He is not the one
using obscene language and he was the one that was not afraid to admit
he was wrong when shown, i.e. WU.
-dont laugh. show credibility and rebuttal his point. and then laugh
if that's what will make you feel better. mature individuals usually
dont laugh when they are in a position to share their knowledge. did
teachers in your school laugh at you? Or were you always this smart!
have your eyes checked. MY problem is spelled out at the beginning
of this thread.
well, it ain't there! And whatever is there certainly doesnt address
the specific example trader4 gave you; an example that is relevant to
I've been given wrong answers repeatedly, that much is correct.
Needless to say, anything of value was said once and it was dead-on.
provide a link to support your statement.
Had you ever gone to college or written a research paper, you would
understand that any claim needs to be supported by a reliable source -
referenced and cross-referenced. For example, all non-fiction books
and literature have sections called 'references' or 'bibliography'.
But how would YOU know? And that is the reason why you dance like a
comanche around hot fire and keep sending us on wild goose chase.
Trader4 asked you to support your statement. I asked you to reference
your source. Yet you choose to point to some "help" files. You might
as well point to the congress library.
your choice is:
1) support your claim/statement by providing a specific reference
2) withdraw your statement
3) qualify your statement as an uneducated opinion
I certainly can see now that alt.home.repair was the wrong group to
ask eBay question with the likes of you hanging around.
Trader4 asked you to support your statement. I asked you to reference
As several of us have said, click eBay, Help, search "western union", and
you will find several topics covering the many questions (is it legal, is it
fee avoidance, etc.) you asked about WU. You can do that for every single
question being asked by the many voices in your head. How much more freaking
documentation do you need? Plonk.
the WU is NOT the issue here at all. Gini/Popinn have already
established the restriction on WU use and Trader4 admitted he missed
that point and apologized. What Trader4 and I am asking for since Oct
27, 2:31 pm is this:
Gini ( Oct 27, 12:40 am) answered "YES" to Trade4's question:
and then again
Gini ( Oct 27, 11:16 am) to Trader4's question:
I asked if I sell
=(gini): I answered YES. You must be reading every other line.
and that is also what I am asking as there is no point reporting
anything if Trader4's example:
Is not a documented, undisputable, fact.
I am not lazy. I looked and I couldnt find it, which of course doesnt
mean it is not there. If Gini knows where it is, she should be able
to provide that reference within seconds.
=ROTFL! You want *me* to do *your* damn research and cross-referencing? Damn
that was funny! (The questions were *yours,* remember?)
Apparently *you* haven't gone to college or written a research paper
or you'd know how to find embarrassingly simple answers without my holding
your hand. Did you demand someone else
do your research and writing for you in, what, was your highest
grade--perhaps 8th? I'll put my academic
and published writing credentials up against yours anytime, and I'll be
damned if I'm going to spoonfeed a couple of lazy
asses who can't even find their way to Help files. Now, go on over to
alt.marketing.online.ebay, and quit making a complete
fool of yourself there. They'd love to play with you ;-) Sheesh. You could
have found those Help files 20 times in the amount
of time you've spent here making yourself look totally silly.
Frgual, by now it's obvious Gini realizes that she can't back up her
claim, because if she could, she would have provided it by now. The
assertion was that if a seller lists 15 boxes of shingles on Ebay and
in the course of that transaction, learns that the buyer also wants a
case of nails, that the seller must then list those nails and put them
through Ebay too. What's easier and establishes that she is correct?
Supplying a simple link to Ebay that shows she is right or making post
after post of nonsense about how it's up to someone else to prove?
And she and Poppin Fresh were dead wrong in leading people to believe
that if you just use a credit card through Paypal you're automaticaly
protected by the credit card company in the case that there is a
problem. You verified that is false with your calls to VISA, where
they told you that unless you follow a special procedure, including
notififying them ahead of time, sending them copies of the contract,
sales invoice, etc BEFORE doing the transaction that you are not
covered. And as I reported here, I went through that exact
scenario with Citibank VISA when I had a frauduantly purchase through
Ebay/Paypal and the answer was there is no protection from Citibank,
because their transaction wtih Paypal was legitimate, authorized by
the card holder and that is where their responsiblitly ends. They had
no control over who the money was ultimately sent to by Paypal.
Poppins advice was even worse, because the basic Paypal coverage, as
I'm sure you've seen, is only for $200. For the max Paypal coverage
of $2000, the transaction has to meet a bunch of criteria, one of
which is that the seller must have at least 50 feedbacks. The guy
you're dealing with has 10. So, listeneing to these two, you'd have
a whopping $200 of coverage on a $3500 purchase. On, and as another
shining example of how you can get screwed, in the Paypal coverage
fineprint it says it is only for tangible items. So, if you ordered
some concert tickets and got screwed out of $500, that ain't covered
at all. Sure, Paypal will try to help if it's indeed fraud, but if
the guy refused to refund the money, you're SOL. If you paid for
those tickets with a credit card directly, there is little doubt VISA
would make good on it.
So, folks can decide for themselves who is right and who if you listen
to, you're gonna wind up screwed.
- yes, the questions were mine; however, the answers - and the claim I
would like you to support was yours, not mine.
- no, I didnt. but at least I know what bibliography or references
- please, I dont mind being embarrassed. find it for me, pretty
please. I will thank you.
- do they include bibliography or references? Or every time you make
a stupid claim you tell your readers:
- dont worry. I have already seen what a friendly group those people
are. And how you conducted yourself there, for example in the "Ebay
tips on how to not get ripped off". Are those the published "writing
credentials" you talk about? Real beauty.... I give you that....
- I know where the files are and I think I read all there is except I
couldnt find anything to support your affirmative claim - specifically
the example that trader4 gave you. So please, educate me.
If you have a problem with a seller, pay by credit card and challenge a
fraudulent charge, E-Bay will block you from rating the frauduulent seller
or from further buying on E-Bay. IOW, use E-Bay onbly if you're willing to
give up on normal credit card protections. I guess it hurts their image
when a supplier gets a low grade.
E-Bay is trying to operate outside of the normal credit card business plan
with which consumers are familiar and it appears if you use a credit card
through Paypal you lose a significant amount of consumer protection. If you
charge directly to a credit card to get normal cc protection and have to
challenge a purchse (e.g,, for non-delivery, or faulty merchandise), E-Bay
will prevent you from rating the bad supplier. Because negative ratings may
be blocked, one must assume that reported ratings may be artificially
-- Textbook purchased on an E-Bay site and charged it to a credit card;
-- the seller failed to deliver;
-- E-Bay wants the consumer to wait 45 days before making a decision on a
problem, but the credit card cycle is 30 days. Consumer protection dictates
a challenge within 30 days. E-Bay would like to eliminate this consumer
-- E-Bay said it is against their (!) policy for customers (!!) to challenge
credit card purchases.
-- The credit card company said E-Bay's policy is a violation of the credit
card agreement with e-bay.
-- After the credit card challenge, E-Bay blocked the buyer from contacting
or rating the seller, so the seller still carries an artificially good
rating even though he hasn't delivered the goods
There are too many other reliable sources of stuff to worry about
questionable sources on e-bay, questionable credit card policies and
unreliable supplier ratings.
He's unwillng to listen to anything other than the voices in his head.
I filtered him after his post about not ever responding
to the manufacturer / distributor wo contacted him
because he "assumed" that the mfg. / distr. would somehow screw him.
He's a waste of electrons.
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:57:47 -0700, jJim McLaughlin
- incorrect ! I had clearly written that it was mainly a financial
decision since the mfg, a friend of yours btw, sells aluminum, more
expensive, shingles. His product sells for $190/SQ. Payment up
front. No guarantees (except yours; and who are you?) the shipment
will arrive. Comparable steel shingles sell for $110-$135/SQ. You do
And make no mistake, nobody is asking you to waste electrons if this
is all you have to offer. you are not the only one here. There's
thousands of others contributing and asking for advice in this forum.
You are here just to pick a fight w/ others if things dont go your way
since you're the self-appointed cop of this group....?
Geez, can't anyone get the facts right here?
It was never stated that the seller REQUIRED payment via Western
Union. It was only said that for IMMEDIATE SHIPMENT the seller wanted
payment via Western Union or Bank Draft. It was also stated he would
take any other form of payment where the money winds up cleared in his
bank account BEFORE he shipped. So, he'd clearly take a check and
wait for it to clear
So, again, please show me where any of that, including offering
Western Union as a payment option is a violation of Ebay policy by the
seller. I'm sure you can find something where Ebay recommends
using Paypal instead of Western Union. Gee, you think maybe that's
because they own Paypal? But please show me where they say a seller
can't accept Western Union as a payment option.
If you can't then be decent enough to retract your slam.
My wife is an ebayer, and her rule of thumb is that if they don't
accept paypal or CC's don't use them. She has had problems with
sellers but because she only uses paypal they have been easily solved.
..just got off the phone w/ visa customer rep. Paypal is just a
'middleman'. If paypal transaction is covered by a certain amount
(i.e. $200 - link at top), it means the seller put up $200 as his
collateral. Nothing else.
Now, let's say transaction worth $3000 goes through. The merchandise
is disputed a few days later. Since the seller most likely already
transferred (spent) the $2800 he/she received, paypal can only yank
the original $200 from the seller's account, not the disputed $3000.
Paypal, as a middleman, is just making sure they dont end up on the
hook for uncovered portions of transactions initiated by unscrupulous
and that goes to show the quality of advice you get here from the
likes of Jim McLaughlin and Anonymous.
But, the Consumer Credit Protection Act trumps PayPal. PayPal may only
cover $200 out of their pocket, but if you use a CREDIT CARD (not draft
card), and protest the payment the card issuer is on the hook. It
depends again, as someone else has pointed out, whether you're talking
credit of debit as to what the rules are; therefore the advice from VISA
may or may not be appropriate.
But, as someone else already noted, if you're uncomfortable with the
transaction, your choice is to either bite you tongue and go through
with it or not -- the seller doesn't have to change his published
business practice, eBay or not, to cater to you. If he is in violation
of eBay policy, then you can take that up w/ eBay, but even if he
changes that doesn't mean he has to accept a credit card, PayPal or no.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.