My EBAY Nightmare

[VintageComics]

 

I still see no proof Ebay committed an error.

 

 

eBay personnel admitted to the OP that there were approved bidders who's bid did not post due to an error on eBay's part (or the part of their software).

 

That would count as an admission to me that their auction site screwed up.

 

See below:

 

 

One thing I was wandering you said people e-mailed you and said they were trying to bid on the book but it wouldn't let them. Did e-bay show anything to prove this in there system.

 

Ebay did confirm that one bidder (who would have actually been the high bidder) did get his bid in on time but it would not register. They also confirmed that other bidders were timed out by requests for information. They also confirmed that these bidders, by their own policies, should not have been required to verify anything. The requirement was for bidders without checking accounts, credit cards, addresses (etc.) on file.

 

Their basic response was: "Well, that's just too bad for you."

[VintageComics]

There are some posters I recognize from earlier threads and always like reading their posts. (The greatest thread I have ever read on here is the MPFW thread from last year, and the greatest post was when r1970d posted pics of his unslabbed copy. Hell, that may have been the greatest post in the history of the internet.)

 

 

 

 

Thank you. Out of 37,000 posts I finally got one right.

 

[mrmitchgro]

 

There I like that one better anyway (thumbs u

[seanfingh]

There are some posters I recognize from earlier threads and always like reading their posts. (The greatest thread I have ever read on here is the MPFW thread from last year, and the greatest post was when r1970d posted pics of his unslabbed copy. Hell, that may have been the greatest post in the history of the internet.)

 

 

 

 

Thank you. Out of 37,000 posts I finally got one right.

 

 

Blind squirrels and nuts . . .

[VintageComics]

There are some posters I recognize from earlier threads and always like reading their posts. (The greatest thread I have ever read on here is the MPFW thread from last year, and the greatest post was when r1970d posted pics of his unslabbed copy. Hell, that may have been the greatest post in the history of the internet.)

 

 

 

 

Thank you. Out of 37,000 posts I finally got one right.

 

 

Blind squirrels and nuts . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JH1-migration]

 

I still see no proof Ebay committed an error.

 

 

eBay personnel admitted to the OP that there were approved bidders who's bid did not post due to an error on eBay's part (or the part of their software).

 

That would count as an admission to me that their auction site screwed up.

 

See below:

 

 

One thing I was wandering you said people e-mailed you and said they were trying to bid on the book but it wouldn't let them. Did e-bay show anything to prove this in there system.

 

Ebay did confirm that one bidder (who would have actually been the high bidder) did get his bid in on time but it would not register. They also confirmed that other bidders were timed out by requests for information. They also confirmed that these bidders, by their own policies, should not have been required to verify anything. The requirement was for bidders without checking accounts, credit cards, addresses (etc.) on file.

 

Their basic response was: "Well, that's just too bad for you."

 

don't believe the hype

[VintageComics]

don't believe the hype

 

I guess if you're saying that you don't believe the original poster then that's your prerogative. I have no reason NOT to believe him.

 

[DrWatson]

Blind squirrels and nuts . . .

It's all fun and games until they try to plant an acorn in your .

[Comicopolis]

Blind squirrels and nuts . . .

It's all fun and games until they try to plant an acorn in your .

 

How much did that cost you?

[DrWatson]

Blind squirrels work on the cheap.

[AbsoluteCarnage]

Watson breeds headless chickens for KFC & blind squirrels for his squirrel olympic yearly games. Apparently when they're blind their other senses blaze into overdrive ala DD.

 

His squirrels have won 9 outta the last 10 squirrel olympics, except that year Greggys squirrel won.

[RockMyAmadeus]

One other point for RMA. It is presumptuous to dissect another posters position with the liberal use of "False", when you are truly only stating your own opinion which may be just as False.

 

You are absolutely correct.

 

That's why I don't do it.

 

So I'm not quite sure why this point was for me... :shrug:

 

I only use the word "false" when something is demonstrably proven, through evidence, to actually be false.

 

 

False

 

No, true.

 

 

 

Or is it in fact TRUE that the auction completed successfully, when that is the very thing we're debating...? If there's debate, it clearly did not end successfully, did it..? Or is it just my OPINION that it didn't end successfully...?

 

Just because we are debating it, does not mean that the auction did not end successfully.

 

The very fact that there's a dispute means the auction didn't end successfully, by definition. The program may have functioned correctly in counting down the remaining time, but that doesn't mean the auction ended successfully.

 

I guarantee if your were to take ebay to court their lawyer would claim that it functioned flawlessly, regardless of what some CS phone rep stated.

 

So? Anyone can make any claim they want. Sans proof, it means nothing.

 

Or is it in fact TRUE that there is no PROOF that both bidders and eBay stated there were problems bidding, when the OP directly testified to those facts (testimony is a form of proof...a pretty powerful one)...? Or is it just my OPINION that the OP made that claim...?

 

 

Of course the OP claimed there were problems bidding, but that was not where you stated "False". Here is the Pmack quote:

 

 

Then you have speculation: Some bidders, absent of any actual PROOF, claim to have tried to bid higher than the winner. It is understood that these last-second snipers got hung up on an ebay rule of which they were unaware. Some claimed, absent of any actual PROOF, that they ran through ebay's gauntlet and were still denied.

 

 

This statement is clearly an opinion that Pmack is floating, albeit with a decent argument behind it. Why should his opinion matter any less than anyone else's?

 

Here's where you're stuck: he said "absent of any actual PROOF." We're not absent of any actual proof. We have the OP's testimony. Testimony IS proof. What we don't have at this time is the corroborating evidence in hand. The problem is, Pmack...for whatever reason...wanted to completely throw out the OP's testimony simply because it has heretofore been uncorroborated, and then jump to conclusions absent that testimony, including "the seller was not happy with the ending price, so he made up an excuse to not sell it."

 

That's not solid debate.

 

Although I don't particularly agree with the wording of Pmack's statement and by no means is this truly "understood", it is clear that additional official bids were not recognized before the auction expired. Regardless of bidder's claims otherwise, additional bids were not accepted. This incontrovertible fact leads me to believe that although a CS rep might have said something along the lines of "wow, these guys should have been able to bid on that", it is likely that the OP interpreted the statement to mean "eBay improperly prevented bidders from placing official bids on my auction". Additionally there is a very significant chance that the CS rep was misinformed. The simple explanation is usually the right one and when all is said and done, it is far more likely that the auction process functioned properly.

 

And, as I stated before, I'm inclined to agree with you (that the simple explanation is usually the right one)...EXCEPT...we have two unrelated entities (bidder & eBay) corroborating each other that there was, in fact, a problem. When two entities with different agendas corroborate each other, that's powerful evidence.

 

Now...I already explained that all we have is the OP's testimony. I get it. I also explained why I'm inclined to believe the OP's testimony, exactly as stated.

 

Remember, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, right...? The seller making this up, or falsifying any of this information is NOT the simplest explanation for this entire scenario.

 

Seriously. Do your research before presuming to correct someone next time.

 

Seriously. Just state things for what they are. Your opinions.

 

Man oh man.

 

I was with you until that last remark. I was even going to congratulate you on a debate well handled.

 

But again, I am not arguing my opinion or my interpretation or my supposition. I'm arguing the seller's evidence, and that's all. My entire interlude with Pmack was that he wanted to completely toss out what the OP said, and then build a case entirely contrary to what has thusfar been presented.

 

If you want to get *really* silly, you can just say everything...including such facts as "2+2=4" and "the moon is a solar body which revolves around the earth"...are just someone's opinions...because they are...even the law is just a collection of various people's opinions.

 

But opinion based on fact and logic and reason and evidence carries much more weight than opinion based on theory which ignores fact, logic, reason, and evidence. Not all opinions are created equally.

 

So, let's argue the merits of the case, rather than each other's debate skills, shall we..?

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA.

 

Just stop.

 

Seriously, just stop.

 

No, FT, you stop.

 

Seriously, just stop.

 

Stop whining about what other people enjoy, and stop trying to dictate to people how you think they should post. No one is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read anything I write.

 

Enough already.

 

 

[Pmack-migration]

[The problem is, Pmack...for whatever reason...wanted to completely throw out the OP's testimony simply because it has heretofore been uncorroborated, and then jump to conclusions absent that testimony, including "the seller was not happy with the ending price, so he made up an excuse to not sell it."

 

(...)

 

Remember, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, right...? The seller making this up, or falsifying any of this information is NOT the simplest explanation for this entire scenario.

I know I said I wasn't going to reply to you anymore, but I have a small request. If you're going to summarize my position in this contest, would you be so kind as to summarize things I've said, and not create things out of whole cloth? I realize it's easier to argue against strawmen arguments, but I never, at any time, said the OP made up anything, nor did I say he falsified anything.

 

Now we're going to go around and around again, as you're going to pull a quote, deliberately misinterpret it, and then I'm going to have to correct you again. At which point you are going to post again about some other nonsense in the quest to have the last word. I'll let you have it, as I don't want to take this very important thing away from you, but I just request that you not micharacterize my argument in order to keep your self-applied Internet Messageboard Debate Champeen crown.

 

 

 

[hockey&comicsguy]

[The problem is, Pmack...for whatever reason...wanted to completely throw out the OP's testimony simply because it has heretofore been uncorroborated, and then jump to conclusions absent that testimony, including "the seller was not happy with the ending price, so he made up an excuse to not sell it."

 

(...)

 

Remember, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, right...? The seller making this up, or falsifying any of this information is NOT the simplest explanation for this entire scenario.

I know I said I wasn't going to reply to you anymore, but I have a small request. If you're going to summarize my position in this contest, would you be so kind as to summarize things I've said, and not create things out of whole cloth? I realize it's easier to argue against strawmen arguments, but I never, at any time, said the OP made up anything, nor did I say he falsified anything.

 

Now we're going to go around and around again, as you're going to pull a quote, deliberately misinterpret it, and then I'm going to have to correct you again. At which point you are going to post again about some other nonsense in the quest to have the last word. I'll let you have it, as I don't want to take this very important thing away from you, but I just request that you not micharacterize my argument in order to keep your self-applied Internet Messageboard Debate Champeen crown.

 

 

 

I liked you better when you never posted.

[Shootydog]

[The problem is, Pmack...for whatever reason...wanted to completely throw out the OP's testimony simply because it has heretofore been uncorroborated, and then jump to conclusions absent that testimony, including "the seller was not happy with the ending price, so he made up an excuse to not sell it."

 

(...)

 

Remember, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, right...? The seller making this up, or falsifying any of this information is NOT the simplest explanation for this entire scenario.

I know I said I wasn't going to reply to you anymore, but I have a small request. If you're going to summarize my position in this contest, would you be so kind as to summarize things I've said, and not create things out of whole cloth? I realize it's easier to argue against strawmen arguments, but I never, at any time, said the OP made up anything, nor did I say he falsified anything.

 

Now we're going to go around and around again, as you're going to pull a quote, deliberately misinterpret it, and then I'm going to have to correct you again. At which point you are going to post again about some other nonsense in the quest to have the last word. I'll let you have it, as I don't want to take this very important thing away from you, but I just request that you not micharacterize my argument in order to keep your self-applied Internet Messageboard Debate Champeen crown.

 

 

 

I liked you better when you never posted.

 

and your a poo poo head who should have never posted.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

 

and your a poo poo head who should have never posted.

 

 

 

[Pmack-migration]

I liked you better when you never posted.

Awww.. maybe we got off on the wrong foot.

 

How about I grab a couple of nice steaks and a case of good beer, you come over, I'll grill up the steaks and then I'll beat you to death with an axe handle and eat my steaks and drink my beer.

 

That ought to solve the problem.

 

 

(I'm laughing while typing this, so please don't take it seriously!)

[InvstmntComcSuply]

[The problem is, Pmack...for whatever reason...wanted to completely throw out the OP's testimony simply because it has heretofore been uncorroborated, and then jump to conclusions absent that testimony, including "the seller was not happy with the ending price, so he made up an excuse to not sell it."

 

(...)

 

Remember, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, right...? The seller making this up, or falsifying any of this information is NOT the simplest explanation for this entire scenario.

I know I said I wasn't going to reply to you anymore, but I have a small request. If you're going to summarize my position in this contest, would you be so kind as to summarize things I've said, and not create things out of whole cloth? I realize it's easier to argue against strawmen arguments, but I never, at any time, said the OP made up anything, nor did I say he falsified anything.

 

Now we're going to go around and around again, as you're going to pull a quote, deliberately misinterpret it, and then I'm going to have to correct you again. At which point you are going to post again about some other nonsense in the quest to have the last word. I'll let you have it, as I don't want to take this very important thing away from you, but I just request that you not micharacterize my argument in order to keep your self-applied Internet Messageboard Debate Champeen crown.

 

 

 

He seems to have full command of the

function .... when it suits his argument

[rodan57]

I liked you better when you never posted.

Awww.. maybe we got off on the wrong foot.

 

How about I grab a couple of nice steaks and a case of good beer, you come over, I'll grill up the steaks and then I'll beat you to death with an axe handle and eat my steaks and drink my beer.

 

That ought to solve the problem.

 

 

(I'm laughing while typing this, so please don't take it seriously!)

 

Not funny.