EC ed

Of course, this leads to its own free-standing discussion...that is, when does an individual become a merchant/business....? I would argue that buying and selling regularly here on the Boards is not sufficient to meet that definition. Again, it depends on circumstances and intent. Take me, for example. I buy and sell a lot from and to people on these boards. When I buy and sell, I am rearranging my collection, period. I am selling books I no longer want to collect, and buying books that I want to collect. In most cases, when I sell a book, I'm ecstatic if I can just break even - I guarantee you that in the majority of my sales, I lose money....and I do it a lot of times. I'm OK with that...I enjoy the books for awhile, and I view the "losses" as just part of the cost of evolving my collection. Is that consistent with me behaving like a business/merchant? I would argue not.

I agree. Also, I am optimistic about Venmo. However, having said that....look what I found while browsing around Venmo this morning. Recall that Venmo is owned by PayPal. This snippet I'm about to post further illustrates that PayPal/Venmo seems incapable of being clear in their intent/policies... LINK Can I use Venmo to pay someone for goods or services? No. Venmo is designed for payments between friends and people who know and trust one another. Just take a look at that mess. "No," period. Then, the second sentence follows....it's as if "they" cannot comprehend the situation where I might buy a physical object from a non-business/non-merchant personal friend OR individual that I know and trust. Literally taken, that two-sentence combination there precludes that possibility. My conclusion is that they must be defining "goods or services" to mean objects or services purchased from businesses/merchants, and not from individual "people" (I underlined their term "people" for emphasis). Right? (of course, this interpretation is challenged somewhat by their use of the term "someone" in the question...again, what a mess) If so, that might bear some relevance to yesterday's discussion, given that PayPal owns the company that joined those two sentences together.

I want her opinion: Louise Pentland Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Company Secretary Now, I just have to track down her e-mail address Or, she's on LinkedIn...maybe she'll respond to an InMail

It should not be acceptable for "Eadric" to refer to himself as "Ed." That "a" throws a wrench in things...

Come by more often...there really is interesting discussion happening here. Speaking of which...why the hell am I not using Venmo? What am I missing? If that's clearly a free money transfer service, why don't those of us who would prefer free money transfers with each other just use that? Admittedly, I had never heard of Venmo until now.

I must say...this Coke analogy also resonates with me... I must launch my own, independent investigation

Interesting synopsis (in a good way). Before I saw those e-mail responses from PayPal, I would have argued that there was no room for judgment here. However, those PayPal e-mail responses indeed seem to open the door for judgment calls. I still think it is clearly verboten for a collector-seller to ask for personal payments. But, I now have to re-think my philosophy about buyers voluntarily offering to pay via personal, in light of those e-mails. At minimum, I no longer think it's fair to refer to it in blanket terms as "theft" or "stealing," etc...

As an analogy...shoplifting is stealing, period. Right? The police can't say...well, if you only shoplift infrequently, it's not illegal, but if you shoplift frequently, it's illegal. Enforcement is a different matter, but the act of shoplifting is either illegal or it's not....it's clearly illegal. PayPal either permits you to use Personal to buy goods from a friend, or they don't. Enforcement is another matter...but as a matter of stated policy, it's either allowed behavior (whether I do it 1 time or 10,000 times), or it's not allowed. Two customer service reps have seemed to answer one way, and some of the written PayPal definitions seem to imply a different answer. Which is it, PayPal?

Probably because if PP finds out a seller is abusing personal in this way, they will get shut down. That's exactly how I understood it. But, if it's permitted behavior, how do you abuse it? What does "frequently" even mean? When does abuse begin? Why can't they just state a clear policy, and interpret it consistently? Surely there is someone who works at PayPal who can figure out how to do that...

Aaaaaaarrrrrrgggggggghhhh.....how many $$$ have I squandered by insisting that my "friends" pay me via regular PayPal, even when they offered to pay me via Personal. Why, o why? It helped me sleep at night...I thought I was doing the right thing.... Wait...what is the definition of "friend," anyway? Anyone who trusts me enough to pay me via Personal must be my friend, right? The only thing that still bugs me about that PayPal response is this bit: "But in the long run if the seller is doing these frequently then his PayPal account will be having some issues." Why would he be having issues? Too many friends? What kind of issues?

And, for those who want to try and wriggle out of that by saying "yes, it says the seller can't ASK...but it doesn't say the buyer can't PAY that way of their own volition!"....there's this: 16. Definitions: "Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase. Examples of Personal Payments include sending a gift to a friend or paying a friend back for your share of a lunch bill." Pertinent phrase: "WITHOUT A PURCHASE." For the slow among us, that means "you're not BUYING or SELLING something." And, on top of that, it also says "between two individuals (not to or from a business)"...so that automatically excludes all business accounts even without a purchase. Back on this for a minute, to whip this horse a bit more...to further reinforce the interpretation of that Definition #16, I found this buried in the depths of some PayPal help center screen ( LINK ): -Payment overview To send a payment, log in to your PayPal account and click Send & Request at the top of the page. Choose whether you're paying for goods or sending money to friends or family. Paying for Goods You're making a purchase if you're paying for: Services: to pay for a service someone provides, like a mechanic. Goods: to pay for goods other than ones you purchase on eBay. There is no fee to send money for a purchase. Friends and Family You're making a personal payment if you're sending money for : A gift: to send money as a gift, like for a birthday. Payment owed: to pay your friend back for your share of a dinner bill, or for another item that your friend bought for you. Cash advance: payment not involving the purchase of goods or services. Your credit card provider may charge fees for a cash advance. Living expense: to pay for things like rent or utilities. Other: other payments that aren't a purchase of goods or services. This sounds a whole lot more consistent with RMA's argument (which has also always been my interpretation) than with the counter-argument of the "wrigglers." I've also heard wriggling based on logic like "well if I'm buying goods from a friend, then that means I'm sending money to a friend, so I can use the personal method." That argument is handled by the above language. The definition of "Goods" does NOT say "goods other than ones you purchase on eBay or other than ones you purchase from a friend." That last part is what we all wish it said, because it would save us a lot of money when buying comics from one another. But, but it doesn't say that. Sorry. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, but I think that would take a direct explicit statement from PayPal that it's indeed OK for me to use Personal to buy goods from a friend. I don't think that statement will be coming.

Of course...that's clearly a problem, and could indeed be lumped into the "theft" category along with the PayPal personal thing. I was sticking with the example where you double-box and then send the package priority - that doesn't seem to be a problem the way the USPS language is written, precisely because the service is being used.

Interesting question. Like many, I use the double box method because those priority boxes are pretty damn thin. I don't think it's a problem. I haven't seen a rule that prohibits it...just looked at the USPS guide again. All it says is "Select Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail boxes are available free at the Post Office for items sent using either of these services." I interpret this, as written, to mean that all priority mail shipping supplies are fair game and can be used in any quantity/configuration, as long as you actually mail the item using that service. It doesn't say otherwise. If they wanted to impose a rule that you can only use one box per shipped package, they could certainly do so. The fact that they haven't said so to me means that it's acceptable to use multiple boxes, as long as you are using that service. In contrast, the PayPal terms of service are very clear: 4.1 Receiving Personal Payments. If you are selling goods or services, you may not ask the buyer to send you a Personal Payment for the purchase.

+1

Just had my first deal with Rob...hopefully not our last. (thumbs u Rob kindly bought a big stack of raw Daredevil books from me, and everything was smooth as silk. Great communication on his part...promptly let me know when the books arrived, etc. KUDOS!

Last time I was there it was at the base of the steps

Run up the "Rocky Steps" at the Museum of Art (and check out the Rocky statue). I did it the last time I was in Philly - it's awesome.

Question in the thread and save someone or a few less knowledgable from a bad experience on the boards. +1 Pointing out factual inaccuracies in a sales thread is not threadcrapping, in my opinion.

Cool theme. I don't have any of these, but here's a few more coaster covers to look for: Action Comics #46 Adventure Comics #130 Cindy Comics #35 Movie Comics #1

If it's spoken, it's slander. If it's written, it's libel. Technically (I think), in either case, part of the definition also involves some actual damage being done, otherwise it's just

And, stop lowballing. And that goes for all of you.

Seems to me that this particular point is being overplayed. If I have someone on ignore, it's because I find them so annoying that I simply don't want to hear them speak, speak to them, or deal with them whatsoever. It's not like I have some deep seeded feeling that I must keep a book I once owned out of their hands. Is that really what "ignore" means to you all? If I'm selling a book, Boardie A buys it, and after they receive it from me they hand it to Boardie B (who I have on ignore), why should I care? My purpose for ignoring Boardie B was fully served...that is, I didn't have to interact with them. It's not exactly like it's an action 1 9.0 and you have no choice but to deal with the seller no matter how reprehensible you find him. Where is your dignity MAN!! It's a modern book and eventually another one will pop up and probably cheaper. This response makes no sense in the context of my comment.

Seems to me that this particular point is being overplayed. If I have someone on ignore, it's because I find them so annoying that I simply don't want to hear them speak, speak to them, or deal with them whatsoever. It's not like I have some deep seeded feeling that I must keep a book I once owned out of their hands. Is that really what "ignore" means to you all? If I'm selling a book, Boardie A buys it, and after they receive it from me they hand it to Boardie B (who I have on ignore), why should I care? My purpose for ignoring Boardie B was fully served...that is, I didn't have to interact with them.

POST #4,000 ! FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work. Sorry....carry on.