! everyone loves cake!

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

More like:  When your false statement was challenged by others and shown to be false, you then "volunteered the correct data."

So to summarize:
1.  You have a history of arranging rather dubious deals, some to bilk eBay out of fees, others potentially to take advantage of a naive buyer or to arrange lower BINs etc.
2.  You leave an exorbitant amount of negative or neutral feedback for sellers.  Of the past 400 feedbacks you have left, 38 are negs or neutrals, all of these in the last 6 months.  You either have the worst luck in the world, or are virtually impossible to please, or maybe even you are using feedback to extort better deals from sellers.
3.  I am rarely an eBay seller, but gigimgm will be added to my blocked bidder list, right alongside scubabri420 and cougarrinard.

hmm, I may be going out on a limb, but the topic is shady dealers. Did I read right that you have multiple ebay IDs? Shady.
you deflect actual quotes with contradiction and re-direction. Shady.
You troll here once in a blue moon, start a massive discussion for no reason and disappear again. Shady.
finally, your purpose appears to be to anger BC, you seem to think you have got under his skin. Standard troll argument and typical of someone very lonely & trying to boost their ego. Shady.
Ignored from now on

! everyone loves cake!

It's getting exceeding hard for me to not get really nasty now.

Pipswich wrote:
Now why would I accept your qualification after the fact?

Qualification after fact?  I made sure I brought it before you did.

Pipswich wrote:Your statement was wrong and you and Ashmire had insufficient data to prove your point.

No it wasn't.

Pipswich wrote:You now appear to be arguing with a screenshot, that upon first glance is clearly misleading to anyone less expert at analyzing it than you.

No, I absolutely loved the screen shot you posted. It proved again that you over inflate your buying totals.

Pipswich wrote:On a quick glance I see (last 31 days) hovering over Won (103)

The screen shot says 31 days under your buying reminders, not your wins.  They're completely separate.  The best part is that you already said that this was for the 60 days:

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

Now the fact that you are trying to say that it is for 30 days is beyond comical. Again though, feel free to take 2 more screen shots and prove me wrong.  One that shows the last 60 days and one that shows the last 30 days. And make sure this time that you don't cut off the "Period" box that will confirm it like you did the first time.

I'll wait.

Pipswich wrote:On the link to search my bidding history, I also see a very clear disclaimer from ebay that not everything is included...particularly high dollar items.

Great. And again once you provide the screen shots as asked for above we can see just how far off the Ebay link I posted is. I am having an extremely difficult time that you have bought over 52 more items that would exceed this supposed high price item barrier, but again I am willing to be proven wrong.  I will say that looking at this:

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?V ... =25&sort=3

That's the winner of Orange B3 lot that just ended yesterday.  The total on that auction was just over $2500 and it still appears on Ebays listing for everyone to see, thus it's not meeting the high bid barrier.  With that in mind, it's going to be interesting to see you try and argue that you have been buying large lots of D&D items for more than that at the very least $2500, 50 more times a month.  Again though, feel free to prove me wrong.

Pipswich wrote:In essence you have used your knowledge of ebay to attack me again, and you base arguments in "facts" that your own links demonstrate to be incomplete.

Again, I have done nothing except allow you to continue to prove what a fool you are.  The best part is that rather than admit it and accept it, you have continued to make yourself even more foolish and also an even bigger liar.  If that was your intention, then consider it mission accomplished.  

Pipswich wrote:Bad form, BC... but we should expect no less than bad arguments, refusal to accept innocent explanations for easy errors and redirection to older posts that were discussed ad nauseum once... but not resolved to either parties satisfaction.

I love it when you try and re-write history.  Whoever said it above was completely right, you should enter politics.

Pipswich wrote:So Ashmire, you have seen bclarkie proven wrong

Not that it really matters, but no, he really hasn't.  It's fun seeing you plead your case though.

Pipswich wrote: and I have successfully demonstrated that in spite of BC's sophisticated use of his seller search tools, that he does not have access to complete information.

Any information that I don't have access to, I have quite clearly said that I don't. Thankfully, I have you to actually post pictures of your buying totals that proves that you over inflate your monthly buying totals. Thanks!

Pipswich wrote:It is obvious that many of the conclusions he reaches and attacks other users with are specious.  It is also clear that he is losing items and lots that he desires to me and that it fuels his anger.

It's obvious that you have dug yourself a hole and rather than accept that you got busted and tried to move on, you have continued to dig.  You probably should have just quit while you were behind, but you insisted on pressing forward.

Pipswich wrote:As to the multiple ebay user ID's.  That has been significantly explained in previous flame wars against me.  We own and run businesses that have legitimate brand marketing reasons for independent identities.

Again, feel free to provide back-up to this assertion.

Pipswich wrote:Lately, I use this ebay ID for personal collecting and selling off duplicates gotten as I do so.

No, you have always used this ID. Until you verify the existence of this other mysterious ID, its all just more hot air.

Pipswich wrote:There is not only nothing wrong with that, any of you can see that I steadfastly have not created id's for the purpose of hiding behind them... even to the extent of accepting sustained abusive and incorrect attacks from "BC and friends".

And?

Pipswich wrote:And accusing me of posting on here for the sole purpose of trolling BC is ridiculous.  Anyone who has followed this thread knows that I only posted when falsely accused of hiding behind alternate accounts. I haven't left the forums, I have just decided not to post regularly and expose myself to this kind of harassment routinely.  Defending myself against false accusations, particularly when they have the potential to focus BC's wrath on yet another innocent user brought me into this mess with you guys last night.

Wait, I thought you started posting again because I was attacking your "buying" habits again?  You really need to make up your mind.

Pipswich wrote:I do point out, yet again, that BC is not quoting the content of the 10,000 transaction reference, or acknowledging a rational explanation for it's origin.  (NOTE that I never indicated that the transaction total was restricted to a single user id or even to ebay transaction since paypal was directly referenced and they process payments for our other business).  BC made that up and continues to repeat it because it suits his argument.

I took it out of context AND I made it up?  Are you getting confused by your own constant stream of bullsh*t?

Pipswich wrote:The origin was simple... my opinion as a relative newcomer to the site was dismissed rudely... first on the grounds that I was a buyer and not a seller, then on the grounds that I had insufficient or less experience on ebay than BC.

You lied and got busted for it.  Rather than admit it and move on, you fought on and dug your hole even deeper. You have lied so many times and been caught in them that you have ZERO credibility now.  Z-E-R-O.

Pipswich wrote:A whole ton of side arguments ensued, now lasting for weeks.

That have happened because you continued to make a fool out of yourself and continued to lie and get caught.

Pipswich wrote:And my goodness, is it that hard for any of you to believe that there are posters on an online collectors forum that have longstanding businesses averaging over 1000 transactions annually for a decade.

It's not, however you weren't using the ID continuously during those 10 years,  there have been large periods of time with little to no activity on it.
You also have not provided any sort of proof that any other actually exist, even ones that you supposedly don't use anymore.

Pipswich wrote:And Ashmire, BC's taking quotes out of context and/or reaching back past issues that are explained or accounted for... is a spurious argument form dating back at least to Greece.  It doesn't make the argument right, it will simply sway some with rhetoric, repetition and/or brute force.

I didn't take any quotes out of context, and the only reason previous argument are being discussed is because you insisted  on bring them up again. Did you already forget that or again are you just acting deliberately obtuse?

Pipswich wrote:It is one of the defining characteristics of an internet Troll, ie. BC.

You seem to know a lot about being a troll.

Pipswich wrote:BC may not claim infallibility with his words, but he certainly does through his actions.

Yet another thing that you accused me of, that you couldn't back up.

Badmike wrote:
Damn that looks nice.  You got any pie????????

Mike B.

I always have pie.  Blueberry...my favorite.

Mmm, bacon cake:



Of course, you'll need Beer Meringue Pie

awww, too much cake!!!!!

apologies offered, sir. I did not mean to offend!