! everyone loves cake!

! everyone loves cake!

Pipswich wrote:  Feel free to be paranoid and block me even if you are honest and professional.

Okey-dokey - I see gigimgm has 35 wins in the last month so you'de better give us the other ebay handles for the rest of the 90 lots so that I can block them as well.

serleran wrote:My brother had a lovely strawberry cake at his wedding last Saturday when I attending the reception in California, hence also explaining my near week-long absence from posting, which I am sure no one noticed. It had actual strawberries inside it, and was very moist and extremely edible. A shame they only allowed one small piece to be nibbled, as, after that one taste, I wanted the whole damn thing!

Mrs gyg made an easter cake-thing yesterday - melted chocolate, golden syrup, those pink wafer biscuit things, marshmallows topped with cadburys mini-eggs - mmmmmmmmmm - I can feel my arteries hardening!

And sorry all for the clusterf**k in this thread.  For that I give you:

Pipswich wrote:I am going to address two core issues at once here, again.

In other words you are yet again going to attempt to re-frame the discussion. Surprising.

Pipswich wrote:Unfortunately, no one is proving anything here.  And that is not likely to change.

Actually, yes it has.  Several times as a matter of fact.

Pipswich wrote:I am certainly not going to be forthcoming with private information under these circumstances and no rational person really expects me to.

Not surprising.

Pipswich wrote:You can make a hobby of claiming that as proof that you are right... but it would be an irrational and self-destructive act to attempt to do so.

Right, because everyone should just take you at your word.  I mean you have been so honest and forthcoming so far, right?

Pipswich wrote:And, I note that you keep taking the transaction discussion out of context.

No, I really didn't, I quoted you word for word.  I am not sure how you saying that you had over 10,000 transactions on this account is being taken out of context as being anything other than you've had over 10,000 transactions on this account, but I am sure you'll try to again re-frame the argument to attempt to make it fit. i.e:

Pipswich wrote:First, it was an estimate based on current buying habits.

You overestimated by almost 8500 transactions, which is over 5 times the amount of transactions that you've really had? Seriously?

Pipswich wrote:Second, you falsely assumed you had every user id that I have used on ebay.

So you are reluctant to even give up any information about previous Ebay IDs that you no longer use?  Again, you really don't think anyone on here is actually dumb enough to believe that, right?

Pipswich wrote:Third, we have continued to define what was said differently.

Again, I am not sure how you saying that you have had over 10,000 transactions on this account can be defined as anything else other than I've had 10,000 transactions on this account.

Pipswich wrote:From my perspective, most importantly, the only reason transactions were brought up was because as a relatively new user, I chimed in on a couple of discussions.... expressed opinions that were not in the majority and my opinion dismissed for some of the false reasons stated above.

You over inflated your Ebay numbers to try and make it seem like your opinion was more valid. When you got caught, you threw a shitstorm, kind of like right now.

Pipswich wrote:Rather than being treated respectfully as a newcomer to the site, I was attacked, harassed, and forced into a defensive posture.  I still maintain that the motive for that is that I have purchased items privately and lots on ebay that interfere with some users collecting and commercial interests.  (Not that it is likely to change).

When you disrespect people by telling them bold face lies in an effort to sound better, you can't expect anyone to turn around and treat you with any respect.  You get respect, when you give respect.  Lying to people is not a way of getting respect. Sorry.

Pipswich wrote:Oh, and gyg, your post caught my attention so I went back to my ebay account.  The total is 103 for the last 60 days, so I have apparently slowed down a little bit on ebay... but 35 is not correct for the last 31 days either.  I don't think they come up if no one leaves feedback?  And I have been even less inclined than normal to leave it since BC starting posting my purchases on here.  Frankly, on some of the larger purchases, I ask people not to leave feedback for that very reason.

You're wrong, again.  You may have BID on 103 transactions over the last 60 days(which is conveniently only 13 more than your claimed 90 total transactions for the past 30 days as you stated above.  Over inflation of your supposed buying habits?  Nah, not you. ), Ebay shows ALL of your wins.  Not your losses, just all of your wins.  Leaving feedback does not affect it at all. The End.

oh, BC? I hope there is cream to go over the cake!!

Pipswich wrote:Actually, BC, you are wrong.  There are 103 won in the last 60 days and 51 not won.

[ Image ]

I am not sure that I have ever seen anyone in my life so intent in making a fool out of themselves by making things up and trying to pass them off as fact.   I never said you didn't have 103 in the last 60 days, nor did I say anything about 51 either. You claimed to have 90+ purchases EVERY MONTH, right here:

viewtopic.php?p=130328&highlight=#130328

Pipswich wrote:Grug
The feedback relative to 2009 transactions has only a couple of issues and I am still buying 90 or more lots on ebay every month.  I also have had ZERO problems with shipping from private purchases.  I saw two neutral/negs in 2009 and that is far from every two weeks for this year.

Pipswich wrote:Also note that, when I recognized my error, I volunteered the correct data and it is correct.

No you didn't, you moved the goal posts.  You quite clearly stated in no uncertain terms that you had 90+ buying transactions every month. Gyg pointed out that you only had 35 this past month and only after having that pointed out did you change it to 103 in 2 months.

Pipswich wrote:I notice you don't quote that original paragraph that you interpreted to mean 10,000 transactions on one user id.  That is because what it says is account, and in the context of the paragraph I intended paypal account and you have refused to accept that explanation which is your right... but it is unreasonable to fail to recognize the distinction.

You've already tried this excuse before.  It didn't work then and it isn't working now either.

Pipswich wrote:The screen shot should demonstrate conclusively that despite your vitriol and your reputation among your friends that you are not right about the sales totals for 31 days and for 60 days.

The screen shot clearly indicates that you did in fact over inflate your monthly buying totals yet again.  Good Job!

While you are at it, how about a screen shot for the last 30 days now, too?

Pipswich wrote:I am sure it will not stop your attacks, but it should at least cause pause to some of the outside observers like ashmire who have apparently never seen you proven wrong before.

And considering you failed at it again, he still hasn't seen it happen yet either.  Again, Good Job!

Pipswich wrote:And when it comes to matters of interpretation and to matters of trust, you are in a subclass all your own.

If you making a fool out yourself makes me a subclass all on my own, then consider me guilty as charged.

And since I know where this likely headed next, I blame myself for thinking common sense was going to be common in this circumstance. My mistake.



I should have qualified my previous comments about Ebay only showing your wins and not your losses under the assumption that outsiders have absolutely NO access to anyone's My Ebay page when I was talking about Gyg's post. With that said, since Ebay does not allow outsiders access to your My Ebay page, they only have access to this, which only now shows wins and not losses:



http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?V ... 100&sort=3



Which quite clearly indicates that you have 38 wins in the last 30 days, well short of the previously claimed 90+ wins a month.  



Again, I figured this would have been as obvious as can be, but my mistake for not specifying.