RockMyAmadeus

When Quadmann returns Kraven, then you can play with the foosball table.

How exactly have you determined the price was outlandish? he was asking if i recall correctly $900 dollars or so and when I LAST TIME checked the sold prices on ebay they were going NO WHERE NEAR that price. Wait.... You said this earlier: Post #8720617, July 5. So....which is it? You DO check prices, or you DON'T? (PS. I've edited back the title of the thread. If you don't want to keep seeing your name, you should make some effort to do the same in your posts.) I appreciate you editing that as well.... to answer your question, NO i don't check the values of books constantly or on a regular basis. i don't make a living on buying and selling comics, to me this is just a hobby... so in reality i don't care. i DO however check when it's one of the books i already own just to see the going rate via ebay's list of sold items just for curiosity. Sorry, but that answer doesn't jibe. When I posted the sales for this book, showing an average of $700 going back at least 6 months over 25+ sales, your reply was "I don't keep up with all the current sales of a book"...meaning, you were claiming that you had no idea what the Fair Market Value of this book was. Now, you've changed your tune, saying, "oh...ohhhhhh....you mean THIS book....oh, yeah, I totally checked out THIS one." It can't be both. Either you checked out the prices, and therefore KNEW what the book's FMV was, or you didn't, and thus had an excuse for your 79% off FMV offer. You can't keep your story straight. The conversation is still intact, several pages back, if anyone wants to check it. Do you have any proof that elektra101 was asking $900 or $1000? And why is it you neglect to mention your offering price...? Because it casts you in a bad light...? You might want to get a shovel, it's getting a bit deep.

Are you volunteering?

How exactly have you determined the price was outlandish? he was asking if i recall correctly $900 dollars or so and when I LAST TIME checked the sold prices on ebay they were going NO WHERE NEAR that price. Wait.... You said this earlier: Post #8720617, July 5. So....which is it? You DO check prices, or you DON'T? (PS. I've edited back the title of the thread. If you don't want to keep seeing your name, you should make some effort to do the same in your posts.)

"Drama" can be a great necessity, and "strife" may not be that at all, when there are issues that need to be addressed. Words mean nothing. Actions, and more importantly, the motives behind those actions, are all that count. Grave injustice had been done in the world by people who did not speak up when they had the chance, in the name of "not ruffling feathers."

No, thank you. I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to appease your sensibilities. If and when someone approaches me, I'll make my own determination at that time. I have explained and defended my stance, in the interest of transparency, to a degree that is far more than would ever be required of anyone.

Why not look at it like this to ease your mind on people "stealing" from Paypal. Whenever you allow a PL member to purchase your goods, you are inadvertently being paid with stolen money. I say that because that money is probably owed to another boardie for something that same buyer probably welched on. I have never actually sold anything to anyone on any list, but that is neither here nor there. As I have explained at great length elsewhere, the PL is flawed, and people have been on it who didn't belong on it, and people have NOT been on it, who did. So, to state that I am "inadvertently being paid with stolen money" simply isn't accurate. Not only is it not accurate, but people go on the PL for things like simply not paying for an item they claimed. That isn't "stolen money", that's just not paying. Those who hit a BIN on eBay from me and don't pay haven't stolen from me (other than time.) Yes, it's a pain in the rear, and yes, it's a waste of time, but it's not theft. Case-by-case means case-by-case. IF I am ever approached by a PL member to buy something, I will consider it on THAT case, by MY determination...just like everyone else has the right to do, and SHOULD do, rather than looking for the easy fix. Read the very post of mine that you quoted, and you'll see the explanation why. If you imagine that I will do business with people who have ACTIVELY stolen from others, and have YET to make restitution, you are gravely mistaken, and have completely and utterly ignored my entire history on these boards. Let me say this so there is absolutely ZERO misunderstanding on your part: Theft is theft. It doesn't matter if it is from Paypal, or CGC, or a seller here, a buyer here, or ANYONE. It is not acceptable, and I will not do business with anyone I know to be engaged in it, regardless of my personal feelings for them or the people they stole from. But, you see...that's not all the PL contains, does it...? No. It doesn't. And that is why I consider it on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. I really, truly hope that clears it up for you. You aren't paying to use CGC's message board to sell your goods. You aren't paying it use the PL list to protect yourself. Use of the Boards is a free service though... and the PL list (also free but still a service) provides you at least some measure of security in who you are dealing with when it comes to sending payments. Not if it's inaccurate, it doesn't. In fact, if it's inaccurate, it does more harm than good. See above. "Won't worry"? That's a defamatory charge, not true, and based solely on your very narrow definition of what constitutes "worry." My actions tell a different story. I'll do the same thing you're doing: so, because they are a "massive conglomerate" (they're not, but let's just say you're being loose with the language), it's perfectly ok to steal from them? That's what you're saying? That theft is only conditional? That if an entity "can afford it" (solely by one's own personal determination, no less) it's "not bad?" When you put the word stealing in quotes, it says that you don't really consider using a service and not paying for that service to be stealing. It's "stealing", to you. So, why would anyone consider your arguments about this, when you don't even think actual stealing is what it is? But I DO consider your arguments, based on their merit or lack thereof. And this argument...that someone is "stealing" from others by doing business with people on the PL...completely fails as a blanket argument. That is why it is case-by-case. Your position here, unfortunately, fails on several points, as I've addressed, so your blanket claim that "doing business with PL people is stealing from others" is inaccurate, and everything that follows is necessarily flawed.

Never used to have deadbeat BIN buyers before, but the last couple of years have created this new category. rob_mseat1 rzipp65 Just don't hit the BIN. Seems simple.

This is just a discussion, a discussion that interests and affects many people. No one has "whined" about it, and no one is "butt hurt" except Elektra101 (which he admitted), and donmeca (who has not.) Why potentially alienate people by characterizing a good discussion as "whining"? Is everyone only allowed to discuss things the way you would like?

I consider a low ball offer rude. A small percentage of value for a book that is a key and easy to sell and hard to replace doesn't show any respect for me or my book. I don't get mad or rude but it does bother me. I also don't like sellers asking way over fmv for a book. There's tons of them on ebay asking 2 or 3 times fmv hoping to find a sucker or someone who''ll start negotiating way too high and end up paying too much. Exactly torch. I had a WD #2 9.4 listed for $350 obo FREE SHIPPING (people don't get that it cost $20 to ship and insure a $300 book plus fees etc.) Got 5 offers. The lowest one was $180 the highest was $265. Last guy emailed me and asked my lowest, told him 3 and a quarter, he agreed and deal was done. Doesn't bother me that I got low offers, I just counter and they decline. All this time and people still think they'll get a #2 graded for $200, sorry not gonna happen anytime soon. not always a matter of 'thinking you'll get one for $200', more of 'hoping I'll get one $200, why not make an offer?' What if the book is $3,000? Is a $200 offer anything other than a waste of someone's time? Does the buyer really imagine that a seller, who established an asking price of $3,000, which is somewhere around FMV, would then take $200? That's just fantasy, and a waste of both the potential buyer's and seller's time. As I said earlier: it's easy to set an auto-reject for 3, 5, 10 items....not so much for 1,000. It isn't a big deal. Just something worth discussing.

Because you are the "Complete Ignore Function" God. If you say so. I'm hardly the only one to request this. Because you're talking directly to me. Why would you talk directly to me, and then expect me to ignore you? One more time: because you're talking directly to me. Not trying to belabor the obvious. When you don't talk to or about me, I ignore you. This isn't rocket science. Why are you having such difficulty understanding it? And why are we even talking about this? What does this have to do with PL/HOS rules?

You don't think my post was about you do you? Right. Because "Wall of text incoming. Woot woot. Wall of text incoming" was directed at Pov. I rarely make a wall of incoming text. My posts are succinct, thoughtful and sometimes humorous. Yeah, that was the point.

You don't think my post was about you do you? Right. Because "Wall of text incoming. Woot woot. Wall of text incoming" was directed at Pov.

Right. It doesn't matter who else gets screwed, as long as "the board" doesn't. That's what it's boiled down to. But it would help to read all the comments in the discussion. Screwing Paypal is wrong. I never said that it does not matter. I even suggested a possible remedy (notifying Paypal). What I said (rather clearly I might add) is that the other party (the one that did not screw Paypal) needs to be held accountable for there behavior here. Creating a Paypal loophole to protect bad sellers (and buyers) hurts all of us yet does absolutely nothing to help Paypal. I read all of the comments but nothing you can say will convince me that your proposed rule would do anything good. If you red all the comments ("red" is on purpose), then you would have seen that the point of my "proposed rule change" wasn't to change any rules, but to bring to light the issue of maintaining a PL/HOS while simultaneously pretending as if using Paypal's services without paying for them wasn't a problem, which is a glaring inconsistency and needed to be addressed. As for "suggested remedy"...characterizing it as "ratting out" doesn't seem like you're too on board with the idea, and it shouldn't be up to anyone to police other people's actions.

I am confused as to why you are replying to me with your penchant for the "complete ignore function". Most confusing. Because you're talking to me. I think that would be fairly obvious. Until you can no longer see my posts to comment on them, why would I ignore yours when they are direct responses to me? That makes no sense whatsoever. It was reasonably clear. The post from iceman399 was sandwiched right in between two of yours. Since your username has nothing to do with "ice", it wouldn't take too much effort to figure out that I wasn't referring to you, nor a post from some other thread on some other topic. There's enough hand holding around here as it is. You're a big boy. You can figure it out. And if you can't, just ask.

Good thing. You wouldn't want to put Frontline all over it.

Right. It doesn't matter who else gets screwed, as long as "the board" doesn't. That's what it's boiled down to. But it would help to read all the comments in the discussion.

"iceman399" You have to read ALL the posts.

Right. There's micromanagement...then there's the simple & obvious, right in front of our noses. You choose the immensely and unnecessarily complex, and ignore the very simple and obvious. Why? Who knows? Sorry to disappoint you, "ice."

You think more highly of yourself than you ought, and you think that this has something to do with you, personally. It does not, as I have now said repeatedly. I am discussing principles. That you happened to be "A catalyst" is meaningless; it would have been the same response from me no matter WHO was involved. If you wish to believe that this is personal, and that you are some sort of victim of me, that is your right to believe, despite the evidence of me literally ignoring every word you've said for years. You are the one who had the problem with me...not the other way around, as you very well know. You don't own principles. You don't own ideas. If I choose to talk about a principle that happens to touch on an issue you've had, that doesn't mean it's about you. You instantly notify the mods when I post something you even suspect is about you. I am asking you...again...to abide by the same standard. Please stop referring to me in your posts, as I have not referred to you in mine. If you think this song is about you...you're singing the wrong tune. Thank you. Irony, it's what's for dinner. I know, right? In so many more ways, too....

$10 by late May? That would be quite a shocking price (equivalent to a $2.95 cover price book being $100 in two months today.) Ok, probably not late May then, more like June after the fans had found out how popular the movie was. What's so unbelievable about a scorching hot book being at the equivalent of $100 after a few months? Have we forgotten about some of the early Valiants along with some of the Wizard driven hot books once they got their hype machine running at full speed. My question wasn't the price, but the timing. Yes, I have no problem with SW #1 being a $10 book in June, after the film had been #1 at the box office already, and was on its way to a dominating 19 consecutive weeks at #1. The timing makes all the difference. But there are very, very few books that had a 33-fold or more increase in value in only a few months. Spidey #121-122...Superman #75....that's pretty much it. Even the most popular and expensive regular Valiant, Harbinger #1, took a year to climb to its original heights. Bob wasn't nearly so slow, when he and his price guide were both younger.

You think more highly of yourself than you ought, and you think that this has something to do with you, personally. It does not, as I have now said repeatedly. I am discussing principles. That you happened to be "A catalyst" is meaningless; it would have been the same response from me no matter WHO was involved. If you wish to believe that this is personal, and that you are some sort of victim of me, that is your right to believe, despite the evidence of me literally ignoring every word you've said for years. You are the one who had the problem with me...not the other way around, as you very well know. You don't own principles. You don't own ideas. If I choose to talk about a principle that happens to touch on an issue you've had, that doesn't mean it's about you. You instantly notify the mods when I post something you even suspect is about you. I am asking you...again...to abide by the same standard. Please stop referring to me in your posts, as I have not referred to you in mine. If you think this song is about you...you're singing the wrong tune. Thank you.

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 dont 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 Ill 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 youd 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: If you use a service...you should pay for a service. What the service provider does otherwise isn't relevant to you paying for a service you use. If you are opposed to the actions of the service provider, you shouldn't use their service. If you cannot understand how their service works, you shouldn't use it until you can and do. Paypal's behavior has no bearing on yours when you decide to use their service. This isn't rocket science, nor is it algebra. You use the service...you pay for the service.

Again: Paypal clearly defines what a "Personal payment" is. It means "without a purchase." If you are buying something, it's a purchase, regardless of why you're buying it. If you're buying something, Personal payment to pay for it is not an option (and the answer why is obvious: Paypal charges for their service.) If you use their service, you should pay for their service (that is, the seller receiving payment should pay their fee.) Using their service in a manner that avoids those fees, then, is stealing. Why this is even up for debate is unfathomable. You use a service, you pay for the service. Using a service, and not paying for it, is stealing. Everything else is just endless dancing around the issue to justify stealing. Maybe someone else will come along and say it, because clearly the message is being lost in the messenger.