paypal question..

[OrangeNemesis]

so is drinking....go preach to them...

 

 

this thread has gotten way off topic.

 

 

the end.

[AtlasFan]

so is drinking....go preach to them...

 

 

this thread has gotten way off topic.

 

 

the end.

 

Dont forget unprotected sex.

[OrangeNemesis]

so is drinking....go preach to them...

 

 

this thread has gotten way off topic.

 

 

the end.

 

Dont forget unprotected sex.

 

yea but WWJD?

[Bomber-Bob]

so is drinking....go preach to them...

 

 

this thread has gotten way off topic.

 

 

the end.

 

Atlas Fan meant to say pot smoking is bad for comic books.

Actually, over the years, I have received comics that had lived in a smoker's house and they defintely absorb the smell. I knew someone that had collected some 'key' baseball cards over the years and had them on display in his recreation room, where he indulged in smoking. Between the light and the smoke the cards were in terrible condition, all faded and yellowing.

[OrangeNemesis]

so is drinking....go preach to them...

 

 

this thread has gotten way off topic.

 

 

the end.

 

Atlas Fan meant to say pot smoking is bad for comic books.

Actually, over the years, I have received comics that had lived in a smoker's house and they defintely absorb the smell. I knew someone that had collected some 'key' baseball cards over the years and had them on display in his recreation room, where he indulged in smoking. Between the light and the smoke the cards were in terrible condition, all faded and yellowing.

 

oh yea. its an unwritten rule here that you dont smoke inside, especially in my man room.. only on the back porch.

[RockMyAmadeus]

True, but it only goes to show, you can't trust just any one either

 

That's my point. The difference is, if you trust someone with a private PP personal, and they screw you over, well, you're out a few hundred (thousand?) dollars, but your CC company will probably cover you.

 

Not if you used it to duck fees, you won't.

[KryptoSpidey]

I was just able to lower my paypal % that i'm paying from 2.9 to 2.5 thru the "merchant services" section because i do over $3000 a month...is this new?

I never knew about this,and probably have paid hundreds,if not more in % to paypal for no reason.

Anybody else lower their fee's this way?

[RockMyAmadeus]

It's a violation of Paypal's terms to use Personal payment to purchase goods and services. The Personal payment option is intended for users to pay bills, loans, or other personal debts.

 

It's a very generous program, and one of the very few good things eBay/Paypal has come up with in the last few years.

 

Abusing the program by using it for the purchase of goods...even from people we know...will eventually result in it being removed.

 

Also...since it's not for goods/services, there is absolutely no way to challenge the payment if there's a problem.

 

CGC mods have recognized all this, and banned it. Sellers are NOT to ask for personal payment as a payment option.

 

So please...don't ruin it for the rest of us by using personal payment to purchase goods/services.

 

(thumbs u

 

To be specific, the "rules" state that the seller is not allowed to LIST the option of using personal Paypal in a post.

 

That's what "Sellers are NOT to ask for personal payment as a payment option" means, does it not... ?

 

Frankly, there is no way to enforce it. If a seller is dictating that he will only use this paypal method for selling, then the buyer has the right to tell the seller where to go. If the buyer and seller mutually agree to use this method, that's their business. The buyer should understand that he would not be able to get his money back should the deal go south.

 

So, you're advocating ignoring Paypal's terms and using their service in full violation of their rules, simply because you and the buyer/seller "agree" to it...?

 

 

Interesting.

 

 

Paypal's rules cannot be enforced here, so that point is moot.

 

......

 

Wow.

 

Just ING wow....

 

Not only is it NOT "moot"...that's the ENTIRE ING POINT.

 

Let me spell it clearly out for you: whether or not Paypal's rules can be ENFORCED ANYWHERE has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

 

You're VIOLATING PAYPAL'S TERMS OF SERVICE TO USE PERSONAL PAYMENT TO PURCHASES GOODS AND SERVICES.

 

Whether or not you get CAUGHT is IRRELEVANT.

 

Whether or not it is ENFORCABLE is IRRELEVANT.

 

It is AGAINST ***THEIR*** RULES.

 

If you don't like THEIR RULES...don't use THEIR SERVICE.

 

If I decide to drink and drive, that's my business, and you have no right to question me, right...?

 

Basically the spirit of the rules on this Board state that the seller cannot demand the buyer to use Personal Paypal as part of the transaction. This blanket rule also openly prevents the seller from offering a discount for using Personal Paypal.

 

My point is that how the seller and buyer choose the terms of payment is their business...and the Board rule of not being able to LIST Personal Paypal as payment option in a sales thread respects that. If a seller want to offer a discount for PP, then its up to the buyer to determine if they want to accept the risk.

 

 

 

You have completely and utterly missed the point. All of your argument is ENTIRELY superceded and made IRRELEVANT by the fact that it is AGAINST THE RULES of the company PROVIDING the service.

 

If the CGC board said "don't drink and drive", but you said "pfffft. That's unenforceable. It's none of their business, and that's between me and my car"...would you make the same argument?

 

The moral equivalency in this thread gives me a headache.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I was just able to lower my paypal % that i'm paying from 2.9 to 2.5 thru the "merchant services" section because i do over $3000 a month...is this new?

I never knew about this,and probably have paid hundreds,if not more in % to paypal for no reason.

Anybody else lower their fee's this way?

 

No, it's not new.

 

If you do over $100K a month, your fee becomes 1.9%, saving you 1% which = $1,000.

 

Not a lot, but every little bit helps.

[OrangeNemesis]

so now this is an issue of morality?

 

wow we have gotten way off topic..

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

if it doesnt violate a persons rights then i say yes. Smoking pot is against the law and i do it every night at my house and it hurts no one

 

This doesn't surprise me.

 

And your brain cells might disagree....

 

....maybe i shouldnt do that either...

 

or maybe i could care less about paypals rules..

 

Well, you can't even get basic grammar correct, so following rules probably is pretty hard for you.

 

(thumbs u

 

oh the grammar police is out...usually a tactic resorted to when one has nothing clever to say..

 

Usually, huh? Allow me to introduce myself: I'm the exception.

 

(thumbs u

 

and dont mean to bust your bubble but smoking pot does not kill brain cells

 

Who said anything about KILLING them...? I certainly didn't.

 

Myth: Marijuana Kills Brain Cells. Used over time, marijuana permanently alters brain structure and function, causing memory loss, cognitive impairment, personality deterioration, and reduced productivity.

 

Fact: None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.

 

Source...?

 

(I know, I'm asking for the impossible. Let's see if he coughs it up.)

 

Here's my response:

 

"Research on the long-term effects of marijuana abuse indicates some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system3 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine.4 Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse."

 

(emphasis mine)

 

http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

 

By the way...what is your eBay user id? I want to put you on my blocked bidders and sellers lists. Your ethics are clouded, at best, and I'd prefer simply not to deal with someone who doesn't think following the rules is important or necessary.

 

Thanks!

[lizards2]

so now this is an issue of morality?

 

wow we have gotten way off topic..

 

It's about ethics. People rationalize just about anything when it suits their bottom line.

 

I'd like to get a postal inspector in sometime to watch as I open my packages from here and eBay - all you guys cutting up new priority boxes and using wadded priority envelopes for packing materials. No one seems to care much, but being a tax payer, I know who pays for all this excess, and it makes me sick.

[RockMyAmadeus]

so now this is an issue of morality?

 

wow we have gotten way off topic..

 

You're absolutely right this is an issue of morality. You think that following the rules isn't necessary, because you think the violation "doesn't hurt anybody" (in fact, it does...it hurts Paypal.)

 

Because you think it's ok to violate the rules without a solid moral reason for doing so, you show a basic lack of ethical mooring.

[OrangeNemesis]

amadeus - i dont use ebay so dont worry about me giving you my drug/blood money

 

 

oh and heres your soures since you wont do the researh anyways and keep propogating ancient studies that have been proven wrong.

 

Heath, R.G., et al. “Cannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function and Ultrastructure in Rhesus Monkeys.” Biological Psychiatry 15 (1980): 657-690.

Ali, S.F., et al. “Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey IV: Neurochemical Effects and Comparison to Acute and Chronic Exposure to Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in Rats.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 40 (1991): 677-82.

[OrangeNemesis]

This doesn't surprise me.

 

And your brain cells might disagree....

 

is what you posted..

 

 

you are implying that my brain cells would disagree because of what? oh yeahhh...lets play the twisty word game to try and make you look right when you come off as a complete insufficiently_thoughtful_person on the subject.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

amadeus - i dont use ebay so dont worry about me giving you my drug/blood money

 

 

oh and heres your soures since you wont do the researh anyways and keep propogating ancient studies that have been proven wrong.

 

I didn't make the claim. You did. Therefore, it's your responsibility to cite your source(s) when challenged.

 

As far as "ancient studies that have been proven wrong"...that's the National Institute on Drug Abuse. If you want to argue with them, feel free. I daresay, though, they have a handle on current medical practice.

 

Not relevant to this thread, regardless.

[OrangeNemesis]

amadeus - i dont use ebay so dont worry about me giving you my drug/blood money

 

 

oh and heres your soures since you wont do the researh anyways and keep propogating ancient studies that have been proven wrong.

 

I didn't make the claim. You did. Therefore, it's your responsibility to cite your source(s) when challenged.

 

As far as "ancient studies that have been proven wrong"...that's the National Institute on Drug Abuse. If you want to argue with them, feel free. I daresay, though, they have a handle on current medical practice.

 

Not relevant to this thread, regardless.

 

if you actually would research the subject you would find the studies they government did to make that assumption was making monkeys inhale pot smoke (roughly 30 joints worth at a time) through a mask without the presence of oxygen. .thus killing brain cells.

 

Now you wont see the gov say how they came up with those findings..keep in mind the time period those tests were done and the propoganda the gov was pushing during that era about marijuana being the MOST dangerous drug known to man.

[RockMyAmadeus]

amadeus - i dont use ebay so dont worry about me giving you my drug/blood money

 

 

oh and heres your soures since you wont do the researh anyways and keep propogating ancient studies that have been proven wrong.

 

I didn't make the claim. You did. Therefore, it's your responsibility to cite your source(s) when challenged.

 

As far as "ancient studies that have been proven wrong"...that's the National Institute on Drug Abuse. If you want to argue with them, feel free. I daresay, though, they have a handle on current medical practice.

 

Not relevant to this thread, regardless.

 

if you actually would research the subject you would find the studies they government did to make that assumption was making monkeys inhale pot smoke (roughly 30 joints worth at a time) through a mask without the presence of oxygen. .thus killing brain cells.

 

Now you wont see the gov say how they came up with those findings..keep in mind the time period those tests were done and the propoganda the gov was pushing during that era about marijuana being the MOST dangerous drug known to man.

 

Still not relevant.

[OrangeNemesis]

amadeus - i dont use ebay so dont worry about me giving you my drug/blood money

 

 

oh and heres your soures since you wont do the researh anyways and keep propogating ancient studies that have been proven wrong.

 

I didn't make the claim. You did. Therefore, it's your responsibility to cite your source(s) when challenged.

 

As far as "ancient studies that have been proven wrong"...that's the National Institute on Drug Abuse. If you want to argue with them, feel free. I daresay, though, they have a handle on current medical practice.

 

Not relevant to this thread, regardless.

 

if you actually would research the subject you would find the studies they government did to make that assumption was making monkeys inhale pot smoke (roughly 30 joints worth at a time) through a mask without the presence of oxygen. .thus killing brain cells.

 

Now you wont see the gov say how they came up with those findings..keep in mind the time period those tests were done and the propoganda the gov was pushing during that era about marijuana being the MOST dangerous drug known to man.

 

Still not relevant.

 

nothing clever this time?

[RockMyAmadeus]

amadeus - i dont use ebay so dont worry about me giving you my drug/blood money

 

 

oh and heres your soures since you wont do the researh anyways and keep propogating ancient studies that have been proven wrong.

 

I didn't make the claim. You did. Therefore, it's your responsibility to cite your source(s) when challenged.

 

As far as "ancient studies that have been proven wrong"...that's the National Institute on Drug Abuse. If you want to argue with them, feel free. I daresay, though, they have a handle on current medical practice.

 

Not relevant to this thread, regardless.

 

if you actually would research the subject you would find the studies they government did to make that assumption was making monkeys inhale pot smoke (roughly 30 joints worth at a time) through a mask without the presence of oxygen. .thus killing brain cells.

 

Now you wont see the gov say how they came up with those findings..keep in mind the time period those tests were done and the propoganda the gov was pushing during that era about marijuana being the MOST dangerous drug known to man.

 

Still not relevant.

 

nothing clever this time?

 

Yeah. You got me.