vaillant

On this point Claudio I see it differently. I do not think the PL was created with any assumptions of good or bad faith intentions but only to serve as a mechanism to complete incomplete transactions. The transaction could be off the rails because someone is indeed dishonest, or it could be a simple oversight which is corrected when made public. I understand that it is the "going public" portion of it that can seem disproportionate in the case of otherwise good faith mistakes or errors, and if things get fixed via PM all the better for everyone, but if the PM route is not getting the job done, than publicity has always been the next best medicine for getting things moving. I did not say it was so, that’s why I asked – now that I have checked the Probation List I see that is clearly specified: "The following Board Members are currently on "Probation" for failure to complete a Marketplace Forum transaction in good faith after one month's time.". The explanation and discussion by Diaolos was polite, but as you say the discussion is bound to degenerate (also via repeated misunderstandings) and so I just stressed I also see Jason's point in feeling somewhat at unease, and I still believe it should be handled upon single transaction cases, even if there are more than one in play (when we consider good faith, that is). I’m sure Jason is sorry and will make the best to compensate for the problems.

I see what you mean, and I agree – but I did not say that "they are not the problem", I said that they "aren't the main problem" as I was talking more about Jason's present case here. It’s clear that if someone wants to twist something he can always find a way, and I agree especially on the fact "mystery boxes" should be only partially "mysterious": if one likes the surprise factor he will be satisfied but at the same time there will be no misunderstanding about actual value.

I think that Diaolos expressed his points and described the situation in a respectful and polite manner (so have others). It is clear that Jason tried to handle more than what he could manage, and did not worry enough of delays. But in response to Robert I have to say "flamed" was probably not the best adjective but I imagine that if Jason is burdened with personal problems it is understandable that one feels "under attack", and that’s what he simply meant, I think. In the end, I believe that the main problem are not the "mystery boxes" themselves (I don’t buy anything that way but I understand as Justin said that there are people who might like the "surprise" factor, aside from the possibility of getting a good deal) but that it boils down to two elements: – in some way, if you like the mystery box concept and buy one, you are taking the risk and so any objection being satisfied or unsatisfied about the content should be resolved with the seller; – Jason should just consider that shipment timing is very important, and if he sees this experience as teaching him something, that would surely be to take a good time margin not to handle things in a hurry, so if problems happen he has room to ship in enough timely manner; Also, shouldn't the probation list serve (chefly) to address dishonest behavior? If problems arise from a neglect (for the most varied reasons), I believe what is expected is that the seller solves them, but not that he is accused not to honor the transaction terms like he did it maliciously on purpose: while in these cases he is obviously faulty, it’s a different thing than being fraudulent. It also should be handled upon single cases, even if the seller behaved dishonestly on a larger scale.

I believe he meant that words mean nothing when they are not backed up by actions, or concrete behaviors. But it’s not always "not to ruffle feathers" that people simply choose not to interfere. There are public figures and politicians speaking about essential things, much more severe than personal PayPal issues, and still it’s not always the best thing to cause stirs by commenting out of impulsivity (like many people do).

Surely Ryan did not do anything bad… he just asked. "Bad form" is a nice way to put it…

I've just had this result: do I win something? Generated in 21.793 seconds in which 0.031 seconds were spent on a total of 10 queries. Zlib compression enabled.

Not sure why they added that. Maybe some folks took it as a heads-up that the seller and buyer might not be coming to terms for whatever reason, and thought they could get next in line. Yes, probably more an equivocation than anything else. Still, I found somewhat invasive that another buyer posted an if the deal falls through while DCMan had clearly purchased the book.

Pretty #43 Bill, I believe mine is somewhat crappy so I might upgrade it later on…

Right, as every white cover of the period, I think. My whiter one is still the one I picked from Robert (it is whiter in hand), and the one I prefer even if I have a VFNM one (already posted, pretty similar).

I just received another book from Jack, a Daredevil #4 that I purchased a while ago but was at my USA friend's home until now. Grade as described and… Thanks for letting me upgrade this awesome book!

That‘s a beauty! The only thing preventing that from being "perfect" is the very slight miswrap/cut, but you can’t have everything.

BTW, I used the word "quarrel": even if in brackets I see it's a strong word in english, I just meant a discussion. This gives me the opportunity to say that often is not easy to discuss: some people just prefer to avoid it, because the other party is bound to become passionate and treat us unfairly: good, it’s always worth doing if you stay calm. Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said "man is egocentric, irrational, unfair". It’s unimportant: love him all the same" – or something like that.

OK, I agree. But we are human, and that is bound to happen. When someone has scars (I mean inner scars) or simply is touched upon something he is more sensible to, there are reactions that, if not fully rational, should be understood. Don’t take this in a wrong way but my impression is that this tendency you have is akin to "dissecting" situations in order to determine the morality of actions or cases on a general: while this is often necessary and of primary importance, you often can't do it on a "grand scale" the risk is to sound presumptuous but – way more important – is to completely misjudge a situation because of a process of abstraction. Does this make less valid your points about principles? No. Truth is absolute. But it is dangerous as it can expose you to some kind of judgement, or make people judgemental towards you, in a personal way. And the Internet (and current mass media) just worsen it. (Now do not think this is "in defense" of Sharon: I am mentioning her because recently we have had a sort of small "quarrel" via PM and while I believe none of us was fully satisfied we just stepped out of it: we all have defects and we should use these experiences, which often are sad and resonate for a long time, as a means to become more humble. By God's grace.) BTW, I would like to reply more extensively about PayPal issue, but that would be long: I have been using PayPal since 1996, you are right in that I should stop using it, but when understanding rules becomes almost a job in itself, there is something wrong in a "service" if you allow me.

Well, not that the donor benefits from it, but if he does not donate (for whatever reason) he should make up for it ASAP, and send explanations. :shrug:

If someone paid using Personal PayPal and the seller didn't ship the books, you don't think it's probation list worthy? If it reassures you, I do.

RMA, unethical behavior is not always algebra. While your principles when you start a discussion are almost always perfectly sound, there is clearly an element of free will involved when you do something bad. I don’t think I have ever paid attention in the few cases someone sent me a PayPal payment with a "Personal" option, especially within a donation thread (which at least from one of the two parties is – indeed – a donation). So I’ll make you a very simple example: if an institution, or the very institution which emanates "laws" becomes corrupted, what determines the bad quality of an action? Laws are not absolute, they are both a means and a way to test good will. The principles on which laws are based are as much important as the laws themselves, otherwise you’d be easily fallen "under the law", instead having the law as an element of liberation. So, in short, while your point is clear, there are cases in which the contextual elements are as much important as the law itself, and this is clearly one of these. PayPal is not certainly an ideal example of crystal clear rules right now, as it seems it makes everything more and more complicate to prevent you from understanding what is going on when you use their services. Is that a highly ethical behavior? I think it is open to discussion. :shrug:

Right, it‘s a great copy, but personally I’d favor a VF or so with "perfect" centering. The curious thing is the miswrap on the #48 is always "front to back"…

Yep, someone's going to have to start hitting them with the ol' rules reminder template...rule #10. Don't make me do it. OK, I took the first one (DJ Diablo in G/S/B) to get the ball rollin'. Someone else take the next one... I must remember it when I'll run my next sales thread!

You must have never read Dr. Strange, as Mordo is among the foremost nemesis of Dr. Strange, more or less what Dr. Doom is to the Fantastic Four.

We have already discussed the awesomeness of the #7 in other occasions. I would add that more than a simple "self-portrait" of Jack, the Reed Richards on the cover is a blending between the classic features of Reed and Jack's features. Susan is also somewhat unusual. The splash page…

With your help, my english "urban dictionary" improves by the day!

Proof of that, I had to have them too (and I do not collect Spidey in full). My #33 needs improvement but I have no hurry. (thumbs u

Probably not, because that is one of the acknowledged best Spider-Man stories ever. (thumbs u