On Ebay, he normally uses the ID of Gigimgm, however it appears this is a second ID that he used to make the purchase.  The seller in his response to you must have known about the Gigimgm Ebay ID, because he mentioned it to you in his response which allowed me to realize what was going on.

Because I feel particularly Pacino today, it could also be that the seller has pulled this scam off before, and has been asked about the resell more than once, assuming it is the same item being resold, which is probable, but not necessarily true. Maybe the seller uses a stock photo (perhaps self-made) which explains why it would appear to be a resale -- me, I don't really care one way or the other, and would likely avoid the seller if this had happened to me.

So, thanks for pointing the guy out -- I'll be careful to only purchase things I don't really want.

bclarkie wrote:That's entirely possible as well and something I didn't consider at the time.      I am man enough to admit when I am wrong though and I apologize to Dimitri.

No harm done, bclarkie. I understand that, when it comes to internet and the anonymity of "user names",  it's quite difficult to be certain if someone is who he/she claims to be.

Regarding the situation, I may have further information in the near future. Let's see what happens, then.

My response:

Hi,

As I've already emailed gigimgm, this isn't the same copy. I've also advised him that if he wants this copy at what he won the other one for, that's fine.

Pipswich wrote:Funny reading.  I just read back a page or two.  Someone here just loves to jump to conclusions with speculative evidence.  

I did thing BClarkie successfully demonstrated that gigimgm=Pipswich long ago.  I will confirm that for anyone confused.

That really wasn't in doubt. It was already 100% proven.

Pipswich wrote: see no reason to leave the forum permanently or to change user id's, so no need to conspire to figure out how I am communicating.  I do it directly and when I chose to do so.

Do you mean other than saying you were going to do so?

Pipswich wrote:BC has his opinions and I am certain I can't change them for him.  It is pretty entertaining to realize that I managed to get under his skin so much that he sometimes tracks the days since my last post and then out of the blue jumped right back to false assumptions about me.

You give yourself WAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too much credit.  You are not anywhere close to being important enough to have, "gotten under my skin"

Beyond that, my assumptions were actually quite reasonable, considering:

A) You previously admitted on this forum to having multiple Ebay IDs

B) The seller in question mentioned your currently known Ebay ID.  

Pipswich wrote:And, to restate... my concern for ebay is partially selfish.  If ebay thrives, I can continue buying what I want fairly easily.

Which you could continue to do without it.

Pipswich wrote:And, my concern for sellers is also selfish and in the context of sellers who start auctions for 99c and then lose money on shipping.  I don't want them to stop selling $25 items on ebay for a buck with free shipping... I want to feed them enough postage money so they will keep selling items for a buck hoping for more... and ship them to me for a buck and postage when they are wrong.

Which again has been proven to be false. You don't care about sellers, you only care about you. You even went to the trouble of actually having a seller cancel an auction that already had bids, so you could get it for less than it was worth.  

We don't even need to get into the fact that you screwed Ebay out of fees in the process who you still continue to proclaim as someone else "that you care about".  

Pipswich wrote:and even try to enjoy BClarkie's assaults.

Yes, because I "assault" so many people, so often.  

Strangely, its been two full months since I have "assaulted" anyone(which just happened to be you BTW) and even stranger that I admitted immediately and apologized when I realized I was wrong.  

How about that, huh?

Pipswich wrote:I did note how quickly you apologized and haven't seen that before but was impressed.  Our last round of communication left me with the feeling that you were convinced of your own infallibility.

I never said I was infallible, nor did I ever claim to never be wrong.   As a matter of fact, I have no issue admitting when I am wrong, when in fact I am wrong.  I will not however admit to being wrong, just because someone's feelings got hurt.

Pipswich wrote:I don't see a reason to fail to use the resource over your posts.

Which doesn't change the fact that you said you were done with it.

Pipswich wrote:I disagree that your assumptions were reasonable.

That's not at all surprising. Feel free to point out they where I was unreasonable.  You can start out by using the 2 things I was going on.

Pipswich wrote:Your frequently correct but occasionally, very off-based assumptions are why we got in an argument to begin with...

No, as a matter of fact, I was dead on. Even to the point that you have no issue ripping off Ebay either, as long it suits your own purpose.  When you compound that with the fact that reason you previously so loudly decried sellers who overcharged S&H costs to "defraud" Ebay, makes it even more hypocritical.

Pipswich wrote:they are also why our courts operate on the presumption of innocence, thank goodness.

As do I.  If you don't give me reason to doubt your innocence, I won't.  As noted, if I am wrong, I have no issue admitting to being so and apologizing.  See above for an example of it.

Pipswich wrote:Subtlety seems to be an issue here.

Subtlety doesn't get the job done.

Pipswich wrote:I am perfectly comfortable caring about sellers and about my own interests.  I seek mutually advantageous business transactions.

No, you really don't, as evidenced many times now. You seek only advantageous business transactions for yourself.  If you at least had the fortitude to admit it openly, people could at least respect it for what it was.  The fact that you put up a facade makes it worse.

Pipswich wrote:What I don't care about... is a third party opinion that is not a party to the transaction... especially when it appears to be formulated as sour grapes or a personal grudge.

I never said that you had to care.  You can also "formulate" whatever reason that you want about it, it doesn't make it anymore true.

JohnGaunt wrote:Are we going to dance this dance again?

Too late.

Pipswich wrote:I will continue to think that your issue is simply that I bought or buy things you want or wanted.

And you'll continue to be wrong.  Why stop now, right?

Pipswich wrote:Additionally, you have no idea if Ebay gets the fees or not... you are apparently wired distrustfully and incapable of believing others can work  out reasonable, subtle, ethical solutions to business problems.

When the auction gets closed out for 1/100+ of what it's final price should have been, Ebay gets screwed out of fees.  It's pretty simple.

Pipswich wrote:However, you certainly remembered my posted strategy for how I ensure that they get them since you made fun of one of them. Subtlety apparently gets the job done better than you like.

Right, your fictional off the site payments.    Do you REALLY think that anyone is actually dumb enough to believe that?

Pipswich wrote:Believe what you like.  Transaction by transaction as I continue purchasing in this field, honest sellers learn better than you believe of me.

Except those who feel the wrath of your negative feedback and secret 1 star campaign that is.  Oh and of course those who that you negotiate low ball BINs with too.  We can't forget them.

Pipswich wrote:Funny thing is, I figured when you found the large lot closed for a dollar you would reconsider your accusations about the other lots that you consider unreasonably low.

I know what it sold for.  It sold for $100.  I emailed the seller and he emailed me back. Your biggest mistake was doing it on an auction that I intentionally threw in a bid on to try and prevent people from screwing over the seller with a low ball offer.  It's worked pretty well so far, as a matter of fact it help me nail you....again.

Pipswich wrote:As it stands... literally, I just keep getting amazing, extraordinary, "once" in a lifetime deals by convincing people who are literate, computer saavy, and who have access to ebay completed records to make what must be very very foolish business decisions.

Its pretty funny how smart you think that you are. Let me clue in on a little secret: You aren't the first one to negotiate low ball BINs and lie to sellers to take advantage of them.  It's a practice that's been going on for years now. You're not new, you're not special, you're not original and therefore you aren't nearly as "smart" as you think that you are.

Pipswich wrote:Wouldn't a more reasonable conclusion be that I make offers that with full information the sellers believe are in their best interest and accept?

Considering, once again, that I KNOW what the lot sold for makes whatever point that you may have had, moot.

Pipswich wrote:How the seller chooses to accept the offer, I leave up to them and I work out fees as best I can using my own moral compass.

Your moral compass only points one way, it's plain for all to see.

Pipswich wrote:Toodaloo Brian!  Thanks for the fun!

Until next time.

Pipswich wrote:LOL,  You nailed me at what?  Making an offer and buying something on ebay?

Again, circumventing the bidding system and ripping off a seller.  I didn't think it was that difficult to figure out.  I guess I was wrong.

Pipswich wrote:And, here, we have in your own words, the first confirmed count of my offer leaving you high and dry on a lot.   It certainly isn't the first one, but at least it is no longer speculation that you are in a conflict of interest position relative to my interests.  

High and Dry?  

Which part of "I put low ball bids on large lots to prevent sellers from being ripped off" are you struggling with understanding?  

We don't even need to get into the fact that I am most certainly not the only person to do it, nor the fact that I currently own at least 2 of everything that was in that lot.

High and Dry?  

Pipswich wrote:So sorry you don't like the way I buy, but my goodness, I must have developed a taste for your brand of insult because I am increasingly finding this outrageously funny.

The way that you buy?  Is that how you explain it?  Again too funny.

Pipswich wrote:Oh, and the dsr thing that got you mad at me to begin with.... no one seems to be talking about dsr's too much anymore.  The sky didn't fall... the market didn't end...

Are you deliberately acting obtuse or are you just willfully ignorant?

Pipswich wrote:and I haven't had a serious issue with the seller in quite some time.

Well, except sunnymomgirraffe and ashkingdom.

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d ... &items=200

Roughly 2 transactions with ~30 sellers, or 1for every 15. And those are just the ones that are obviously the negative/neutral feedback left.  You are improving. Sweet!

Pipswich wrote:From my experience, the dsr's look like they forced sellers into better habits and I am a happier buyer because of it.

Apparently not, see above.

Pipswich wrote:
Additionally, you have no idea if Ebay gets the fees or not... you are apparently wired distrustfully and incapable of believing others can work  out reasonable, subtle, ethical solutions to business problems.  However, you certainly remembered my posted strategy for how I ensure that they get them since you made fun of one of them. Subtlety apparently gets the job done better than you like.

Brian is, of course, making an assumption here - simple enough for you to clear up I would think. IMO a tiny bit of proof would be far more telling than a whole boat-load of talk.