RockMyAmadeus

"The" term "item"...? It wasn't mentioned once. In the context, the singular was used 7 times, to refer to "item", "payment", and "friend/recipient." Not once was there anything about doing this multiple times. In fact, Roland went out of his way to explain..obliquely...that this wasn't allowed. It's not "purposefully vague" in any way. Swick worded the question to make it seem like he was asking about AN item, A purchase...and so, the reps said "yes, for A purchase, it's not a problem." If he had asked "can I do this any time I want, so long as it is my friend?" they would have said no.

Why is it that whenever I post anything that you even *suspect* refers to you, no matter how obliquely, you report it, but then feel free to talk about me and what it is I've said, and what it is you think I've said? Why must I be afraid to engage you in any way for fear of moderation, but you're free to talk about me and the things I say, and the things you think I say, without reservation...? Why is that...? Does that seem very fair to you...? Will this post be deleted, too...? No one here has been called a thief. If I have called someone a thief, please point out the exact post number, and I will apologize for it. Pointing out that something is stealing is not the same as calling someone a thief. Again...if you have seen me call someone a thief, please point it out, and I will apologize for it. That isn't appropriate, and I'll take full responsibility for it if it's true. But it's also important to understand the distinction between calling someONE a thief, and calling an ACTIVITY theft. If I say "you're stealing" that doesn't mean I'm calling you a thief. One is an act...the other is a description of a person. We've all stolen. We're not all thieves. Yes, that's very true, though I suspect that you and I have verrrry different ideas of just who is capable of "getting along with others", and the reasons why that is important. Personally, I think people who accuse others of fraud in private, where that person doesn't have the chance to defend themselves, is much worse than unprofessional. Neither does anyone else. This is a non-issue. There's nothing wrong with that. People are human. Mistakes happen. It is the motive that is the issue, here, not the action. And the motive being thrown around is "I can send Personal payments for purchases, and I don't really care what anyone says." The issue isn't people making mistakes, so why speak as if that has ever been the case? That is correct, I have said that...and no, the Post Office has NOT "specified that comics do not qualify." What regulates the Post Office is the DMM. If it's not in the DMM, it's just opinion. I've very clearly explained my reasons why that is, and they are very solid reasons. If you'd like to go into that discussion again, I'm more than willing to do so. If you want to compare the situations, by all means, let's have an open, honest, FEAR-FREE discussion about it. Am I using a service and not paying for it? And do you actually know if I ship Media Mail to ship comics? Or just have a position about it?

Yes, because having a sober, honest, rational debate doesn't work when you don't have an argument to stand on, so we must resort to memes that misrepresent what has been said. That's just the way it is. PS. There are many people around here with lots of important things to say, but avoid have serious discussions about anything because of pettiness like this. That's a great loss to the entire board.

This is what you said....correct any part that I get wrong: What part of that is NOT a "blanket right"? You say that "you can send friendS (plural) personal funds for book(s) (plural)" Where is your qualification as to how many times this may be done? There isn't any. You've said "You can send friends personal funds for book(s)" And that's not what Paypal said at all. They said Swick could do it ONCE for AN item, A book, someTHING, THE item, A friend. This is the distinction. Paypal didn't say you can send friendS (plural) personal funds for book(s) (plural.) In other words, they were allowing a one time exception because they did not understand the question being asked of them as actually intended by the asker. Your "big catch" isn't relevant to that distinction, because it doesn't have anything to do with the payer and what is "allowed" for THEM.

Depends on how much I care about the topic. Better to be damned with understanding, than praised without.

You should probably read the entire conversation, and if you have, read it again. Where do you get "book(s)" from...? What, in those conversations, leads you to believe that you, or anyone else, has the BLANKET right to send Personal payments to as many friends, for as many items, and at any time they want...? Read it again. You should probably read the entire conversation, and if you already have, read it again. There has been no vitriol from me. If you're reading that, you're reading it incorrectly. It doesn't matter who is making case. I have nothing *personally* against Swick. If you make the same argument, I'll make the same response. If you behave intellectually dishonestly, I'll say the same thing.

No one is talking about charity situations. That is a moot point. Did you take something that didn't belong to you without asking...? Did you use Paypal's services without paying for them...? What do you call that? What is "abuse"? Who gets to define it? 2 transactions? 5? 10? 500? The terms are crystal clear, and the answers from Paypal actually reinforce them: These Paypal reps thought....because that was the way it was asked them...that Swick was talking about a single, one time purchase. He didn't say...at all...if it was ok whenever he felt like it, with any and all of his "friends", which is what his question SHOULD have been if he was being honest. No, Paypal made a classic "exception that makes the rule" statement. AN item. A (single) book. SomeTHING (not thingS). And it's Paypal's right to do that. It's their call. And, according to the answer, Swick has been granted the right to do this ONCE, because that was the answer given to him: "Yes, you can still use the send money tab in sending a payment (that means ONE payment) for AN item (that means ONE item) especially (if) it is your friend (ONE friend, not friendS) as long as you receive THE item (ONE item.)" And, from the other: "Yes, you can pay your friend (<----friend, not friendS) for a book (<---A, not as many as you like.) Swick very carefully and purposely dodged the real issue: he wanted BLANKET approval to send Personal payments to ANYONE he deems is a "friend" at ANY time, for ANY amount of items. He carefully used language that made it seem as if he were asking for a ONE TIME DEAL, and got exactly the answer he was trying to get, so he could post it here in "triumph" and say "SEE!!? They said I could do it, SEE!!??" And that Paypal GRACIOUSLY granted an exception doesn't mean that the terms are no longer valid. It is their right to do so...not yours, not mine, not anyone else's... I have already said, on at least one occasion, that I'm not condemning or judging anyone. Calling the situation for what it really is isn't doing that. Just because I want to say "hey...there's a problem here, and it's a very serious one, and we ought not to be doing A while simultaneously doing B" isn't "passing judgment." I understand that you feel this way....but if someone uses your services, and doesn't pay you for them, without bothering to ask you first...how would you feel about that...? Why won't anyone answer that question? Answer: because it's the heart of the matter, and there is no defense. And if people continue to use Personal payments to buy goods or services, and (here, I'll add this new caveat here, though it isn't new, because I've said it before) don't get Paypal's permission to do so before each and every instance, I will continue to say that it's stealing, because it is. Who said anything about making a "new rule" about what I want "stopped"? That rule already exists: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1460472#Post1460472 Listen...I'm genuinely sorry that this upsets people. I wish it wasn't an issue. But, it is, and it needs to be addressed each and every time it comes up, or we until abandon the whole PL/HOS list entirely. Since I know the latter isn't going to happen, the former does. It is not right to complain about someone screwing us over, when we have no problem using Paypal's services without paying for them, justifying it in your own mind.

It didn't come, Ed. Paypal was describing a one-time courtesy, which they have every right to do. They didn't say it was ok for you to use Personal to buy goodS from a friend. They said it was ok to buy AN item from a friend, because that's the language Swick used. Those Paypal reps don't understand the situation, and so...graciously...they've allowed an exception to the term, which people will now use to justify doing it any and every time they feel like. Look at the language used: "AN item." "ESPECIALLY (if) it is your friend" :THE item" "A book" And Roger even says it's not something you can do "in the long term." And why do they respond like this...? Because that's the language Swick himself used: "A book." "someTHING" He doesn't bother to mention the actual situation, because then, of course, they would say no. Very crafty, but ultimately, illegitimate. Like C4F said, "the store owner may give you the occasional free coke (it being their choice, not yours)...but you can't back up a truck to load up"...and you certainly can't just TAKE a coke without bothering to ask first, which is what is happening here. They don't want sellers to make a habit of it, for sure. I know a couple of guys here that never asked for a personal payment ever but had that ability stripped from their accounts because too many people paid them that way and their account was used as a merchant. Their stances on the answer to the question seem different to payers as opposed to payees. They don't want to dissuade payers from using their services by disallowing the off personal payment for a borderline usage from someone they consider a friend, but they don't want payees soliciting that type of payment on a large scale. That's right...Paypal graciously provides an exception to the terms...they provide the exception...it's their decision. It's not one that anyone can unilaterally decide on their own. It's ok if the store owner says "here's a free coke." It's not ok to take a coke from the fridge without asking, and assuming the owner will be "just fine" with it, just because they said it was ok once. That's a pretty good and useful analogy. If one really had a concern, why not call up Paypal and ask about a specific transaction? It's easy to reach Paypal. If one really cared, they could ask Paypal's permission each and every time they wanted to. If Paypal grants that exception every time you ask, GREAT! But it's THEIR...DECISION. Not mine, not yours, not anyone else's. Granted, but the argument has nothing to do with the quality of one's friendship, and never did. There is a distinction that I made between friends in REAL LIFE (and I've met people through the boards, and they are very much my friends in real life) and ASSOCIATES on a message board. It's not about judging the quality of friendship...it's about addressing the fact that, for those so inclined, the "friend card" can and will be used for any and every transaction, regardless of the actual quality...or lack thereof...of the relationship. Paypal opening the door a crack....which is their decision to make...means that some (many?) here will take a sledgehammer and knock the door off it's hinges. I mean, really, let's be honest: this isn't about Paypal, or care for Paypal. It's completely and totally self-serving. Swick doesn't care one whit about Paypal. He just wants to be able to send AND receive Personal payments for purchases...and so do others. That's really the bottom line. They want to use the service, but not pay for it. All the rest of this is just window dressing.

No. Their motive is far, far simpler, and has little to nothing to do...ultimately...with "depriving buyers of protection." They want...to stay....in business. That is why Paypal charges a fee. They aren't running a charity. They are a business. That's right: provided it's THEIR decision. It is a GRACIOUS EXCEPTION to the rule, that they are willing to grant at THEIR discretion....not yours. Do you just not see the end of your "logic"? Everyone is my friend, and therefore, I don't have to pay Paypal to use it ever, because...everyone is my friend. Oh really...? Where did you see that? "Hundreds of people", that is..? And why not? After all, if those "hundreds of people" are all my friends, what right does Paypal have to say otherwise...? That's the argument being made here. The answer is ever so simple: you use a service...pay for the service. Why is this so hard to grasp? Answer: because people feel entitled to do what they want, as they see fit.

Rubbish. All the language you included speaks of a ONE TIME transaction. "A book" "someTHING"...and that's how the reps responded: "AN item." "A book." You didn't explain the situation AS IT EXISTS at all. You artfully dodged the situation completely. Paypal does not sell insurance. They are not an insurance company. They are a service company. They provide a service, part of which includes buyer protection, because that's how Visa/MasterCard and the FTC works. You don't have the right to unilaterally decide you are going to "waive" an "insurance policy", because Paypal doesn't sell, and you are not buying, an insurance policy...or Paypal would be a radically different company, operating under completely different rule. Paypal does not sell insurance. Paypal sells a service. If you use Paypal, you should pay for their service. That they may occasionally grant exceptions to their terms does not therefore give you the right to take those exceptions any and every time you feel like it, just because you can. Your argument isn't valid. Sorry.

If I use your services, and don't pay you for them, what is that..? It's a simple question, Swick, and at the heart of the matter. Everything else is side noise, meant to justify stealing. Did you read anything I wrote? Will you acknowledge it? No, of course not, because it demolishes your argument. You will do whatever you do, facts be damned. I already told you what you should own. You refuse. Not surprising. You don't have an argument to stand on, so not wanting to discuss it further isn't surprising. Does that sound arrogant...? It's still true. The points have been made, and they have been made well. Those interested in doing the right thing will do the right thing, and those not will use any justification to do what they do. I can't force anyone to do anything. I can, however, persuade, and as long as someone brings it up, I'll respond. If you don't want me to respond...don't try to justify it publicly. I have no interest in "vilifying" you or anyone. I really don't have strong feeling about you, one way or the other. I have an interest in doing the right thing or...at the very least...not continuing the hypocrisy of maintaining a Probation List/HOS, while simultaneously allowing people to use Paypal's services without paying for them. Basic common sense...just simple common sense, that any 5 year old can understand...says that if EVERYONE used Paypal the way you think it is acceptable, PAYPAL WOULD CEASE TO EXIST. That ALONE should tell you something, but if it does not....I have no problem pointing out that using a service and not paying for it, no matter the justification, is stealing.

It didn't come, Ed. Paypal was describing a one-time courtesy, which they have every right to do. They didn't say it was ok for you to use Personal to buy goodS from a friend. They said it was ok to buy AN item from a friend, because that's the language Swick used. Those Paypal reps don't understand the situation, and so...graciously...they've allowed an exception to the term, which people will now use to justify doing it any and every time they feel like. Look at the language used: "AN item." "ESPECIALLY (if) it is your friend" :THE item" "A book" And Roger even says it's not something you can do "in the long term." And why do they respond like this...? Because that's the language Swick himself used: "A book." "someTHING" He doesn't bother to mention the actual situation, because then, of course, they would say no. Very crafty, but ultimately, illegitimate. Like C4F said, "the store owner may give you the occasional free coke (it being their choice, not yours)...but you can't back up a truck to load up"...and you certainly can't just TAKE a coke without bothering to ask first, which is what is happening here.

Irrelevant issue, only brought up to discredit. You now have 3 posts in this discussion today. So? You're intellectually dishonest, and don't have a problem using someone else's services without paying for those services. Just own it, already.

You've mischaracterized the situation to Paypal, and Paypal...contrary to their own terms...because you did not explain it to them...GRACIOUSY grants you a ONE TIME exception...and you grab onto it like a drowning man grabbing a life preserver...and say "SEE!? SEE!!? They SAID it was OK, because they're my REAL LIFE FRIENDS!" which isn't the point. If you had HONESTLY explained the situation, instead of DISHONESTLY hiding details so that the Paypal reps didn't have a clear picture of what you were asking, you would have gotten a DIFFERENT ANSWER. I know that, because I talked to them about it, too. But carry on with your crusade.

Dance, dance, dance, Paypal doesn't understand the situation, and thinks that Swick is asking about a "one time deal" from a "friend", and they're willing to GRACIOUSLY grant an exception to the rule in that specific case...which "Roger" clearly says will be a problem at "some point"...and some of you think that throws the barn door wide open to using Paypal personal for any and every purchase, from anyone and everyone. People are fun.

You've misrepresented the situation to Paypal. The Paypal "reps" you wrote do not understand what you are asking. They think you're buying AN item from someone who is a friend in REAL LIFE, that is, someone who either lives by you and/or whom you see on a fairly regular basis. They're trying to grant you an occasional EXCEPTION, because they don't understand....and, interestingly enough, you haven't made clear to them...that you're dealing with people on a MESSAGE BOARD. And did you mention the FREQUENCY with which you do this? Nope. Of course not. Details, Swick details. Roland doesn't understand your very carefully crafted question. He thinks, because you have not bothered to tell him otherwise, that you're talking about a ONE TIME transaction. Intellectually dishonest? Absolutely. Not only that, their responses are contrary to Paypal's own terms, which means....something you should know very well, being a lawyer....what happens when advice contradicts WRITTEN terms...? Right. The terms always win. You are violating both the LETTER and the SPIRIT of the terms, by saying "well, Fred on the CGC board is my very dear friend, and he's not really a merchant, so is it ok if I send him a Personal payment for an item THIS ONE TIME?" But go ahead and use Paypal's service without paying for it. You'll justify stealing from them any way you can. Oh well.

This thread has taken an interesting turn.

(Yes, I know who "G-D" is.)

Who's G-D? Gary Dolgoff....? That would be cool if it was Gary Dolgoff, what with the comics connection and all...

No one cares about Beets n' Wolfy, huh? That's going to be the name of my new sitcom. Two struggling musicians, living together in the dog-eat-dog world of 18th century Vienna....one, the genius prodigy, who never gets paid what he's worth and is constantly trying to make ends meet, the other the brash young upstart, determined to make a name for himself in the modern music scene of Austria. It'll be a HIT, I tells ya! A HIT! Is one of them easy-going and messy, and the other is the opposite? Yes. No one's ever done anything like it. It will be TOTES original. (Totes, right...? Is that what those new-fangled hippoes with the beards are saying these days?)

Beets n' Wolfy™ Coming soon to Fox!

No one cares about Beets n' Wolfy, huh? That's going to be the name of my new sitcom. Two struggling musicians, living together in the dog-eat-dog world of 18th century Vienna....one, the genius prodigy, who never gets paid what he's worth and is constantly trying to make ends meet, the other the brash young upstart, determined to make a name for himself in the modern music scene of Austria. It'll be a HIT, I tells ya! A HIT!

I can't believe I made such a rookie mistake. I'm slipping. Man.

That would be the "no Number" #1? That book is rather common,so it carries a 50-100% premium outside of nosebleed grades. should this have been issue #37? They just forgot to include the number on the swapout with the Direct version. Swapping out was still very new when this happened. They fixed it, and continued the run, and didn't bother to scrap the no number copies. It's a fairly common book.

Whee!