RockMyAmadeus

Sexy. Still trying to complete the 9.8 #16-64 run, and those all have multiple SS copies already for the most part. I don't know if there's a single issue left that only has a single, or no, 9.8s.

Isn't it funny that he went from "I'd like to buy your books" to "I don't want your overgraded trash" in the span of THREE MESSAGES...?

To Swick: I'm serious about trying out Venmo....it sounds like it's exactly what you need and want. I might even check it out for on board transactions.

Wish I had an answer for you, but I would say "why pay Personal with credit card when you can just send regular"..? :shrug: I know the fee isn't quite precise, but otherwise, it's essentially the same.

This exchange literally just happened a few minutes ago: All within 5 minutes. Run, don't walk, to block. Nothing but problems for kids like this.

You probably should have done that several hours ago. That, of course, is ad hominem (personal commentary about someone that has nothing to do with the discussion), and demonstrably untrue. I only care about the facts, Swick, not personal commentary. Thus far, you have been entirely incapable of proving those facts. I trust you don't have these kinds of experiences in court...? I expect better from lawyers than to resort to ad hominen. And what, exactly, is it that you think you've been doing this entire time...? Yes, that's right: the same exact thing. So, does that mean "You are always right" too...? Does that logic just completely escape you? If someone argues with you, then they "think they're right." If YOU argue, you're just "making a point." But you're doing the exact same thing. It's the same illogical argument that is made all the time around here, and it's always a bad one. Hello...? Anybody home, here...? No, Swick...you're frustrated because, in THIS situation, you don't have any argument, so you resort to ad hominem at the end. That is always....without fail...the end of any rational debate, and the tacit admission of defeat (not that I'm interested in defeating anyone.) What "I always am" is irrelevant to the discussion: I've presented a sound defense of Paypal, and you don't like that. No worries. I won't reply to you in kind, because I don't need to. The answer to the question "why would you choose not to pay someone for providing a service to you that makes your life easier" is "because I can." That's the only bottom line that matters. If you want to stop trying to defend the indefensible, I encourage you to do so. Not because I say that arrogantly, or with any attempt to shame you, but only to point out what is.

This "Venmo", if it's what Jaybuck says it is, seems to be your solution. If you can buy items without a transaction fee, with no Buyer Protection, that seems to be exactly the service you're looking for.

You still haven't answered this? You keep saying that "PayPal isn't in the insurance business. They provide a service. You should pay for the service." To you, PayPal's service is sending and receiving money from one person to another. Why are you not charged a fee if you use the Personal PayPal / Friends & Family option? You're still getting the same service, right? Why no charge? Oh please. Making an issue because I haven't answered a question? You haven't answered a wholllle lot of questions. Did you notice my e-mail from Elizabeth that flatly and directly contradicts yours from "Eadric"? Why are you so interested in not paying Paypal for a service that they provide you? Why are you arguing so intently to be able to use a service for free that is a great convenience to you? Answer that, and I'll gladly answer your question. Honest answer, now, not "because I can." That's not an answer. Here's your answer: If I can get a $1,000 book for $970 because I can save the 3% that would normally go towards "Buyer Protection" and I'm buying from a friend, I'm going to do that everytime. Of course you are. That's the same reasoning a price tag switcher at a con goes through. "Hey, if I can get this $100 book for $25, I'm going to do that every time." No different. Same thought process. Price tag switchers usually don't think they're doing anything wrong, either. And some of them go to great lengths to justify it, too. "Well, this book wasn't worth what this guy was charging, and it wasn't fair, so I switched it to a reasonable price and bought it when the guy went to lunch and left the booth with his flunkie." That's the problem. Paypal doesn't sell "Buyer Protection." There is no "Buyer Protection" option, like there is a Loss/Damage Waiver when renting a vehicle, that is a separate charge, and which you can waive with the permission of the rental company. They sell a service, which is, transferring money from this account to that account. I'm sure $75 "saved" by the price tag switcher would buy a lot of ice cream cones, too. Of course not: you want something for free. None of this is surprising in ANY way. You don't want to pay for their service. And what do we call it when someone obtains a pay service, but doesn't pay for it....? And what YOU think is wrong. You won't find any word on the site that says anything about buying a "Buyer Protection" plan. It doesn't exist. "Buyer Protection is an automatic and inseparable part of the entire service charge. You don't get to decide not to pay the entire service charge, just because you don't want the "buyer protection" part. You've already been told by another Paypal rep that purchases aren't allowed for Personal payments...but you managed to find one person who either didn't understand your question, or doesn't understand his job. I've now spoken to several people who have acknowledge the exact same thing I've said, and even got it documented, just like you did. No, I have Paypal's opinion about what the 3% fees are for....you don't need to rely on my opinion; you have it straight from Paypal: personal payments aren't for purchases. The answer, Swick, is quite simple: you don't want to pay someone for a service they provide. I don't think anyone is surprised by this. That you won't call it what it is, however, is what is surprising. Sure I can: Paypal has decided to broaden its customer base by offering a SEGMENT of service for which they do not charge, in the hopes that more people will use Paypal, see how convenient it is, and decide to use it for regular purchases as well. It is a goodwill gesture on Paypal's part, which they don't have to provide (at least, as far as Paypal reps know), but they do as a means of providing a service to gain business. And no, they aren't "the SAME service", because one is for purchases...that is, money in exchange for goods and/or services...and the other is for NON-purchases, where NO goods and/or services are being exchanged. Pretty straightforward.

You still haven't answered this? You keep saying that "PayPal isn't in the insurance business. They provide a service. You should pay for the service." To you, PayPal's service is sending and receiving money from one person to another. Why are you not charged a fee if you use the Personal PayPal / Friends & Family option? You're still getting the same service, right? Why no charge? Oh please. Making an issue because I haven't answered a question? You haven't answered a wholllle lot of questions. Did you notice my e-mail from Elizabeth that flatly and directly contradicts yours from "Eadric"? Why are you so interested in not paying Paypal for a service that they provide you? Why are you arguing so intently to be able to use a service for free that is a great convenience to you? Answer that, and I'll gladly answer your question. Honest answer, now, not "because I can." That's not an answer.

Has anyone bothered to ask Swick why he has such a problem with paying Paypal for using their services...? I mean, besides me...? That really is the root, here. Personally, if someone provides a service that makes my life easier, hey, I'm happy to pay for it. Checks/MOs were laborious, time consuming, and it took weeks to get your stuff as you waited for the merchant to receive payment, then to clear, and then to ship...IF they shipped. Now...click, click, done. So easy. Why does someone want to go to such incredible lengths to justinify NOT paying someone for a service that makes their lives easier....? Why are some of you SO OPPOSED to paying for a service, that you'll literally argue for days in support of NOT paying for it? I told you why I argue: because it's stealing. Why are you supporters of not paying arguing? So you can use a service, but not pay for it? Does it matter what I think? Is this going to change anyone's behavior? Probably not. In fact, I suspect there will be some who use Personal payments for purchase who think to themselves "Yeah! Take THAT, RMA, with your hoity toity moralizing!"...do you know that I won't even know about it, much less be affected by it....? One of the best quotes I've ever seen in a sigline is this one: “Every act of dishonesty has at least two victims: the one we think of as the victim, and the perpetrator as well. Each little dishonesty makes another little rotten spot somewhere in the perpetrator's psyche.” ~ Leslie Conger It's true.

SILENCE!! The rabble is already roused, you! Did you ask Elizabeth what they've done with Christine? Where's Christine!?!?! Christine had to use the potty.

Yes...no fees for anyone! And then see how long it is before you're back to paying with checks and money orders.... NO FEES, NO FEES, YAY!!!

SILENCE!! The rabble is already roused, you!

No. PayPal requires payment for use if you use the Goods and Setvices option because you are paying for the Buyer Protection. It's protection that if something goes wrong, they'll cover (or insure) your money and you won't suffer a monetary loss. THAT is what your 2.9% fee pays for. Not the intermediary transfer of funds from one PayPal account to another PayPal account. No. Paypal is in the financial services business, not the insurance business. You can pretzel yourself any way you like, but that doesn't change that fact. Paypal isn't selling insurance that you can decide "not to pay." They are selling a service. You pay for that service, or you don't. But trying to do mental gymnastics for why you don't have to pay for it says more about you than you really ought to be saying.

Try again.

Note highlights. This is from Elizabeth, who researched the matter with her supervisor. She said the deciding group within Paypal is at this e-mail: P2P@paypal.com They are the ones who decide what's what with Personal payments. I have sent an e-mail to them asking this question. We shall see what they say. If they say "yes, you can use personal to send from a friend", fine. They're cutting their own throats, and they should change their TOS, but it's their right to do so...it's their company, they can do whatever they want. We shall see.

Lest anyone try to wriggle... Paypal's TERMS overrides any particular representative's statements. If Paypal wants to change their TERMS, by all means, they are free to do so. However...until they do, what "Eadric Lawson" (or, ANYONE at Paypal, yes, that means for OR against) has to say is just their opinion...the Terms of Service are the legal, final say in the matter until and if the TOS is changed. And again...let's not lose sight of the bottom line: Swick and others are arguing to use a service without paying for it, even though that service REQUIRES payment for use. If Paypal wants to give away their services for free, great. Personal payments for all! But UNTIL that happens....no one else has the right to decide not to pay them for their services when their TOS clearly requires it for purchases.

Working on it as we speak.

And as I said before, if it's not in the DMM, it does not carry the weight of regulation. Whether it's "on their website" (how do you think it got into the website? It was a departmental memo) or not, if it's not in the DMM, then it's not regulation. If it is...show me, and I'll gladly change my stance. You're still debating, and you haven't answered my question about interpretation. No need for snarky comments. Hard to call me a hypocrite if you don't agree to my standards.

And *I* got off the phone with Paypal, and spoke to "Christine" (or thereabouts) and SHE confirmed that no, in fact, you CANNOT buy goods "from a friend, more than once, using Paypal personal." I wonder who is correct...?

Aren't you a lawyer? Don't you provide intangible services for a fee? If I come talk to you about a case, and you say "before I talk to you, I require a $500 retainer", and I say "no, you provide me your services for free." ....how long before I am escorted to the door..? Are you "out" anything? Wouldn't you still exist, and be burning calories, if I never came through the door? What is the tangible cost of that meeting? Has it "cost" you anything? PS. There are actual, tangible costs in maintaining the servers, customer service, etc. Whether or not an individual transaction has "tangible costs" isn't relevant. They're providing a convenience. That convenience has a fee. It's stated, upfront, in very clear terms. Whether someone actually comes along and avails themselves of the service or not isn't relevant...that's Paypal's burden. But, if someone CHOOSES to use Paypal, they have to pay (or, their recipient.) Simple. I never said Paypal was "ACTUALLY" out costs for the transaction. I said they are actually out their rightfully due and payable fee for service rendered, which you have no right to deny them if you've availed yourself of their services. Whether it actually "cost" them anything for your transaction has no bearing on the argument. They are THERE, with the lights on, ready to serve you, if you would like. And if you choose that service, you pay that fee. After all...some ATMs charge a fee for using them. What is the bank providing the ATM "actually out" when someone uses their ATM? 1/100th of a cent on machine wear and tear? 1/10th cent labor to service the machine? 1/2 cent on Security measures? Do you get to circumvent the fee just because you don't feel like paying it, and the bank isn't really "out" anything close to what they're charging...? Oh boy. Are you really making this argument...? Really...? Come on. You're trying to compare public services with the activities of a private corporation...? "Public roads" are one of the things that citizens agree to provide....mostly toll free...in exchange for tax money. It has nothing whatsoever to do with private corporations charging for their services. The service is provided for free. If it's provided for free, then you aren't required to pay for it. Paypal does NOT provide a purchase service for free. Come on. Are you really making these arguments...? These are just really, really poor arguments. I have not a clue what you're talking about, here.

No, you don't understand that, even though I explained it. And, we're back to "well, you may not have actually SAID that, but that's what I TOOK it to mean!" There's no way to even answer that. And that's not very fair, is it...? As I already said: if it's not in the DMM, it is not regulation. The DMM, and ONLY the DMM, is the manual by which the USPS operates. When comic books (not merely those mailed as Second Class Matter when NEW) are specifically addressed as not allowed in the DMM, rather than a departmental memo, which carries no authority, then I will change my position. Until then...it's not the same issue. Let's be completely open, here: I'm well aware that Hector told you that he sent me a big box recently via Media Mail. And...? How can you possibly find anything about this "hypocritical"? After all, to be consistent, if you don't think that sending Personal payments for purchases is a problem, then why would using Media Mail for comics be a problem, either...or, does it only matter depending on the perspective of the person involved...? After all...if it's only a matter of interpretation, then how can you call me a hypocrite for interpreting things one way, while you interpret things another...? I'm not arguing my position, here, I'm arguing yours. If it's all just up to "interpretation"...then you can't really call me a hypocrite for interpreting differently from you, can you...? Either you have consistent standards...or you don't. You can't use your standards on one side of the argument, but MY standards on the other. That's inconsistent, to say the least. There's nothing preventing you from not talking about it any more. Or do you think that *I* should stop talking about it? In that case, who are you to determine what others can talk about...? I don't tell anyone what they can and cannot talk about, and that "enough is enough" when talking about something they care about. Isn't that what basic respect is about...? What makes you think that I said that my posts don't contribute to others not wanting to post? They absolutely do...and so do yours, and so does everyone who says things that not everyone agrees with. You certainly have your fair share of people who don't want to be involved because you're posting. And...? The question isn't what, the question is why. I don't tell people they can't post, or they should "let it go", or "enough is enough"....if it matters to them, then why shouldn't they have the right to discuss it, within the framework of the rules...? And...if my posting bothers you, I would suggest...in whatever capacity you may have....that the moderators get to work making that "all ignore" function a reality, so that you don't have to deal with me, and vice versa. I mean, I even do you the courtesy of preserving your color in your posts, which is a rather laborious task, to make sure that what you said is preserved and clear. That's a small way to show you respect. Is it reciprocated...? Ok. The answer to that, then, is simple: don't debate. You say that you "don't want to debate" frequently, and yet here you are.... ....debating. I didn't bring you up, or mention anything about you or anything you said in this conversation. You were the one who brought me up. But, you don't want to debate...? Is it only debate when someone responds to you? Do you get to "debate" and say whatever you think is appropriate, but people you don't agree with can't respond...? Does that seem very fair to you....? To anyone...? I don't want to interact with you, in any way. You've made your feelings about me very clear, and I respect your right to your opinion. But...if the feeling is mutual...and you've said it is....then make it so, and don't talk about me or what I've said. That's fair.

Because others are. That seems fairly obvious, does it not? Or, is it only "fighting it to the death" if you don't agree...? That's not true in any way. Saying that may offend you and others, but it is fact. The fact is, Paypal's service was used. It doesn't matter if that money would "go somewhere else if Personal didn't exist"...that argument holds no water once the service is actually used. It goes from "opportunity cost" to actual provision of service. When you hit "send money", you have chosen to use Paypal's service, and have an obligation to pay the fee (as the system is set up.) You use a service, you pay for the service. Most children can understand this concept. If you don't want to pay Paypal's fees...don't use them. There's nothing forcing anyone to use Paypal for any reason. Yes, Paypal is ACTUALLY out something, because its services were used without payment. Your justification is just justification. It's not valid. How you can argue that it is is what shocks me...even more than your cat. Here's your wrench, right back at you: Paypal is the one which makes the decision about whether their Venmo service is free. Paypal OWNS Venmo, and Paypal has the right to decide what, if anything, it will cost. YOU, however, do NOT own EITHER Paypal OR Venmo, and neither do I, and neither does anyone else except whoever and whatever owns Paypal. So neither YOU, nor I, nor anyone else has the right to decide FOR PAYPAL what aspect of their service is free, and what is not. If Paypal provides Venmo for free, the answer seems quite obvious: use Venmo. So what's the problem? Pretty simple.

In case anyone else is wondering (I know RMA is well versed in this stuff with his PhD in Comics Religion), there are some who believe it is disrespectful to the almighty to actually spell the word out (and I guess even say it) and I don't want to offend anyone (not that I don't do that in many other contexts). You never worry about offending me, so there's that at least....

You're suggesting that when the PayPal representative responded with: "You can place some notes when sending personal payment s " that maybe, just MAYBE they were contemplating this to be more than ONCE for AN item, A book, someTHING, THE item, A friend. Justification. When they say "you can place some notes when you send personal payments", it's a function of all personal payments in general, not that they're giving you a blanket ability to send any personal payments to any and all friends at any time, or the immediately following statement has no meaning: "But in the long run if the seller is doing these frequently then his Paypal account will have some issues." In other words: "yes, we will grant you an exception to our rule, but it IS an exception, so don't abuse it." What is abuse? 2 times? 5 times? 10? 500? You don't know, and, more importantly it's not your decision to make. It's Paypal's. And what if YOU are the Personal payment that gets an account shut down for Personal payments? I'll tell you, there are several board members that have had their ability to accept Personal payments taken away, and they have never been able to get it back...making it much, much harder for people to do certain transactions with them. Do you care about that...?