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.
Pipswich wrote:I don't see a reason to fail to use the resource over your posts.
Pipswich wrote:I disagree that your assumptions were reasonable.
Pipswich wrote:Your frequently correct but occasionally, very off-based assumptions are why we got in an argument to begin with...
Pipswich wrote:they are also why our courts operate on the presumption of innocence, thank goodness.
Pipswich wrote:Subtlety seems to be an issue here.
Pipswich wrote:I am perfectly comfortable caring about sellers and about my own interests. I seek mutually advantageous business transactions.
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.
JohnGaunt wrote:Are we going to dance this dance again?
Pipswich wrote:I will continue to think that your issue is simply that I bought or buy things you want or wanted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Pipswich wrote:Toodaloo Brian! Thanks for the fun!
Pipswich wrote:LOL, You nailed me at what? Making an offer and buying something on ebay?
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.
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.
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...
Pipswich wrote:and I haven't had a serious issue with the seller in quite some time.
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.
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.
Pipswich wrote:LOL, you still think you can track my entire buying and selling, silly you. You have bid on more than one lot that doesn't have feedback posted from either party... which means they won't pull up.
Pipswich wrote:I seem to remember my disinclination to post feedback was an irritant to you once before.
Pipswich wrote:Nevertheless, I haven't had to call the post office fraud division
Pipswich wrote:and I eventually got the lot of minis that the woman sold and didn't ship for several weeks. She got a neutral for "forgetting" to ship. The other guy... shipped a paper collectible in an unsupported soft pack to save money on canada post.... it arrived folded, bent and damaged with a note inside saying that since it was insured that I would have to send the item back to him and he could then file a claim with Canada post and that the process would take 6 weeks after he got the item back. Since the reason for the damage was poor packing, that's hardly appropriate. Although the item was loosely D&D related I didn't think he would be selling to any of you or I would have posted the situation on Acaeum. As it is, if I find his note I will scan it and post it for a few laughs. It took some nerve to type up his letter and send it to a buyer, even if the packing was ok. If I remember correctly, the note even indicated he had been thrown off ebay for packing issues once before and was paranoid about it... with good reason.
Pipswich wrote:But yes... much better than it was in the fall and I am not buying any less than I was. Perhaps it was just people taking shortcuts around the holidays that caused all the shipping problems in Nov/Dec.
Pipswich wrote:As I have stated before, I have no intention of opening my books to the scrutiny of an individual who has shown nothing but malice toward me on this site. If that confuses any of the rest of you... so be it.
Pipswich wrote:I posted tonight, to clarify the situation when BC jumped to the conclusion that he had found a secondary ebay user ID and an additional acaeum forum handle for me. He didn't, and he has apologized for the accusation... not to me, of course, but to the other person involved.
Pipswich wrote:Further, when I got in the first round of spats with BC it was relative to DSR's and a legal matter that involved the store in NC that sent an empty box of peanuts instead of the limited edition fourth edition DM screen I purchased. There were lengthy discussions about what constitutes mail fraud and, oddly enough, whether or not the post office would involve their own fraud investigator and Federal prosecutors in a mail fraud crime claim. (which they did and do).
Pipswich wrote:It seems odd that BC would claim not to remember the rather long running thread.
Pipswich wrote:It also seems odd that he would forget arguments about whether or not for years many ebay users ignored collecting and giveing feedback once they hit 100 or so.
Pipswich wrote:Since, he seems determined to analyze peoples business based on the data available to him... my candid observation that most of us never cared or left it much... for years... disturbed his only means of analyzing other peoples business.
Pipswich wrote:I hope to see some of you at GenCon. And, I hope to continue buying from many of you... this year. I do sometimes buy from some of you on ebay and on the sites, and I appreciate the quality packing that I have gotten from all of you. I don't post specific thank you's here for the obvious reason that I am trying not to drag anyone else into the BC attacks that seem to go on like the Energizer bunny.
bclarkie wrote:I really do like how you ignored everything again that I posted and chose to try and re-frame the conversation, like somehow everyone who is reading it doesn't really know what is going on already.
pipswich wrote:Cheers BC. This was much more fun than last time. Your motives are better illuminated each time you do this.
Pipswich wrote:I haven't had a serious issue with the seller in quite some time.
Pipswich wrote:I read through the thread and can't find where I suggested someone contact a civil attorney for a criminal matter. I do think that the type of attorney and or court that is required can vary due to subtle circumstances beyond my expertise.
Pipswich wrote: If you hire an attorney, however, you can stand to recover your lose, damage and court costs, so it might be worth contacting an attorney in the town where the fraud originated.
Pipswich wrote: We have no option but to disagree about what constitutes fraud/mail fraud. My interpretation came from the postal inspector handling the case last fall, but he might be wrong.
Pipswich wrote: In response to "Are you making stuff up now? "I am glad you remember that we argued about whether or not many sellers and buyers gave a fig about feedback early on. You still insist everyone was anal about it and I certainly know that I didn't give a dern. I expect that is representative of a significant personality difference. All I ever cared about was having enough to lend confidence to a buyer that the item would likely be shipped as described. You seem to actually care about the number itself, for reasons I will never understand.
Pipswich wrote: And, relative to the mailing issues (involving the postal inspectors) that I experienced in the fall, a mother selling her sons figures and forgetting to ship until reminded twice, and a very badly packed $10 paper item are easy to forget about... although they certainly both deserve less than positive feedback.
Pipswich wrote:Thanks for linking to the entire argument about the last time I appeared to grab a buy it now full of modules that got under your skin. That could be entertaining reading for new members, especially in light of...
Pipswich wrote:It's funny how every time you jump me on the forum a lot of apparently bargain priced modules manages to get posted.
Pipswich wrote:Last round I closed by pointing out that you appear to be playing petty competitive games over bin's that would provide you a profit.
Pipswich wrote:This time, you actually went so far as to both admit to bidding on a module lot that I bought from the seller, but also you admitted to having at least two of everything in the stack. Your obvious motive for bidding and for the anger and flames is that I interfered with your profit motive.
Pipswich wrote:Did the seller take my offer that quickly because he got one from you for half my offer? My offers often get accepted when someone else tries to convince them the lot is worth much less than I do.
Pipswich wrote:And maybe the seller is just a nice guy who was happier to move his games along to a player/collector who actually doesn't have all of them and will put them to good use than an obvious reseller who has two of everthing. People do have the right to sell as they wish!
Pipswich wrote:BC, doesn't it really just come down to the fact that you hate my opinions about ebay/paypal and I am winning too many bin's and private deals that upset you?
Pipswich wrote:Oh, and "refuted as nonsense" is gibberish. You can state what you believe over and over and over and over. It's still your opinion and I have difficulty believing there aren't a lot of people in this forum who are sitting to the side nodding in agreement about most of us never caring much about feedback early on.
Pipswich wrote:I will likely get a few private messages about that issue again.
Pipswich wrote:But, since you always attack and attack and attack, very few people have the fortitude to step in with an opinion and end up on your bad side... and no one, especially me can blame them. You are a classic flaming troll and that's not likely to stop.
Pipswich wrote:I am sure many will note that I stayed quiet on the boards until falsely accused, again. I suspect this scenario will replay itself every now and then for years, and that as people get to know me better, here and at events, your position will make less and less sense to them.
Pipswich wrote:Cheers BC. This was much more fun than last time. Your motives are better illuminated each time you do this.