My EBAY Nightmare

[InvstmntComcSuply]

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.

Agreed, not funny

[RockMyAmadeus]

[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.

 

 

 

 

Pmack, buddy, you have absolutely no self-control, do you? I'm like sweet, sweet sugar to you, huh? That's ok, I don't have much more than you.

 

(thumbs u

 

You weren't misinterpreted, you weren't misquoted, and you weren't mischaracterized. All of that's already been explained. If I explain it again, the Board Overlords (and by that I mean the cadre who think they run the boards, not CGC) will send me back to the woodshed.

 

 

 

[Pmack-migration]

You weren't misinterpreted, you weren't misquoted, and you weren't mischaracterized. All of that's already been explained. If I explain it again, the Board Overlords (and by that I mean the cadre who think they run the boards, not CGC) will send me back to the woodshed.

Translation: you caught me with my pants down, and I have no comeback.

 

This is exactly what I said:

 

The truth is the seller saw dollar signs, and instead of taking the $14,000 on the table, believed that he could get more "if only". So he asked the legitimate winner of the auction to give up his win because the seller didn't make as much as he thought he should or could have, "if only".

 

Originally Posted By: (RockMyAmadeus: Do you think the OP is lying...?)

No, I don't think the OP is lying at all. If I've given that impression I owe him an apology.

Everything he's said I believe he believes is the truth. I think he really believes there was an ebay glitch that cheated him out of thousands of dollars.

 

Once he's got the idea in his head that ebay screwed him, he approaches the bidder and essentially tells him the auction's invalid. The OP is not acting in bad faith, just ignorance.

 

Please point out where in those quotes I said the seller made anything up or falsified information. It will be tough to do, especially since you asked me directly if I thought the seller was lying and I said no unequivocally. But since you're the debate champion, I have no doubt you can do it, scooter. I only have 19 posts, so it shouldn't take long to find the smoking gun.

 

Otherwise, I'd expect an apology from you for blatantly micharacterizing my argument. Whether this is by oversight or design is best left to the reader.

 

I have no interest in further discussion with you, but I will not allow you to lie about my position to bolster yours. So we will go back and forth about this until you either apologize for lying or slink out of this thread out of shame. I expect this will require another 100 posts between us.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Sweet, sweet sugar......

 

 

"First you get de sugar...den you get de power...den you get de women...."

[Pmack-migration]

So we will go back and forth about this until you either apologize for lying or slink out of this thread out of shame.

I forgot the third option, which is you continue to post but avoid addressing the issue because you know you're completely wrong but lack the courage to man up and own your mistake.

 

In other words....

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

So we will go back and forth about this until you either apologize for lying or slink out of this thread out of shame.

I forgot the third option, which is you continue to post but avoid addressing the issue because you know you're completely wrong but lack the courage to man up and own your mistake.

 

Mmmmm.....SUGAR.......

 

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

There are too many quotes for me to figure out how to separate all of them into coherent arguments so I will just line 'em up.

 

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.

 

The very fact the auction ended with a winner means the auction ended successfully, by definition.

 

 

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.

 

I believe an eBay lawyer would provide proof that it functioned flawlessly. Not only did the program function correctly when counting down the remaining time, but also in vetting prospective bids and requiring additional documentation from bidders and throwing out those bids when they ultimately were not executed in time.

 

 

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.

 

No, we have one entity (OP) and hearsay evidence of two unrelated entities stating various and sundry things, many of which are clearly incorrect.

 

This leaves open the strong possibility in my mind that:

OP contacted a normal clueless eBay CS rep who gave him wrong information and or misspoke and or was misheard and concluded that eBay improperly prevented bidders from placing official bids on his auction

[Pmack-migration]

blah blah blah

That is awesome. As I went to reply to your post, you edited the final line out of your last post, which said something like: "I've already replied, read the thread, I'm not typing it again."

 

I planned to ask you to just post a link to it, because we both know it's not there.

 

I think this concludes this discussion, with your tacit admission that you've got nothing. Last word to you, champ.

 

 

[Shootydog]

Sweet, sweet sugar......

 

 

"First you get de sugar...den you get de power...den you get de women...."

 

Now your just being an . Or more of the same.

 

Are you gonna make raspberries noises and go Nyahh Nyahh next?

 

 

[Pmack-migration]

Not only did the program function correctly when counting down the remaining time, but also in vetting prospective bids and requiring additional documentation from bidders and throwing out those bids when they ultimately were not executed in time.

As some additional backing to this idea: there was a post I made but ultimately deleted in which I pointed out that if you view the auction results, the winning bidder placed his bid 16 seconds before the end of the auction, and another bidder tried to snipe him at 10 seconds before the end. So the auction seemed to function correctly all the way to the finish; some people were able to bid without a problem.

[hockey&comicsguy]

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!)

 

Why the handle? "Because it'll hurt more, you twit!" Who are you, the sheriff of Nottingham?

 

 

Steak and beer =

[seanfingh]

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!)

 

Why the handle? "Because it'll hurt more, you twit!" Who are you, the sheriff of Nottingham?

 

 

Steak and beer =

 

The fact that you are quoting from the Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie means you are supreme dork. I have, however, by acknowledging said quote, revealed my own nascent dorkiness.

[Pmack-migration]

Okay, I don't want to conclude my participation in this thread on a down note, so I'll throw this out there:

 

How many sellers reading this thread and selling HV books on ebay will add a line in their description alerting potential bidders and snipers of the $15k verification speedbump?

 

If I were selling those kind of books, I'd certainly do it. It'll give snipers the heads up to get their ducks in order before trying to snipe at the end.

 

I'm idly wondering how many snipers over the years have been shut out because of this.

[Pmack-migration]

Why the handle? "Because it'll hurt more, you twit!" Who are you, the sheriff of Nottingham?

Hah hah, no... true story: I bought a new axe handle last night. It's leaning against my garage door and my grill is about 30 feet away. When I thought about weapons to use for the joke, that's what came to mind.

 

Of course, my daughter's tricycle is also nearby, but I couldn't figure out a way to make that sound menacing. "I will beat you to death... with a pink and yellow tricycle!"

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I would bet that it is a common occurrence. And as I was going to post a couple of times but edited out each time; it highly increases the likelihood of nonperforming bidders contacting the seller with their regrets/offers.

[Wong]

There are too many quotes for me to figure out how to separate all of them into coherent arguments so I will just line 'em up.

 

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.

 

The very fact the auction ended with a winner means the auction ended successfully, by definition.

 

 

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.

 

I believe an eBay lawyer would provide proof that it functioned flawlessly. Not only did the program function correctly when counting down the remaining time, but also in vetting prospective bids and requiring additional documentation from bidders and throwing out those bids when they ultimately were not executed in time.

 

 

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.

 

No, we have one entity (OP) and hearsay evidence of two unrelated entities stating various and sundry things, many of which are clearly incorrect.

 

This leaves open the strong possibility in my mind that:

OP contacted a normal clueless eBay CS rep who gave him wrong information and or misspoke and or was misheard and concluded that eBay improperly prevented bidders from placing official bids on his auction

 

If I were a juror, I would vote VALID AUCTION - NO GLITCH! Just a lame-brained ebay rep giving wrong information.

[hockey&comicsguy]

Why the handle? "Because it'll hurt more, you twit!" Who are you, the sheriff of Nottingham?

Hah hah, no... true story: I bought a new axe handle last night. It's leaning against my garage door and my grill is about 30 feet away. When I thought about weapons to use for the joke, that's what came to mind.

 

Of course, my daughter's tricycle is also nearby, but I couldn't figure out a way to make that sound menacing. "I will beat you to death... with a pink and yellow tricycle!"

 

Aw shucks. You got a little girl too? Now I almost feel compelled to have to be nice to you. I hate being nice.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

The fact that you are quoting from the Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie means you are supreme dork. I have, however, by acknowledging said quote, revealed my own nascent dorkiness.

 

fingh = super-massive dork

[Thomas Nielsen]

Not only did the program function correctly when counting down the remaining time, but also in vetting prospective bids and requiring additional documentation from bidders and throwing out those bids when they ultimately were not executed in time.

As some additional backing to this idea: there was a post I made but ultimately deleted in which I pointed out that if you view the auction results, the winning bidder placed his bid 16 seconds before the end of the auction, and another bidder tried to snipe him at 10 seconds before the end. So the auction seemed to function correctly all the way to the finish; some people were able to bid without a problem.

 

I wondered where that post went, mystery solved. Why did you delete it ? (it was good)

[seanfingh]

 

The fact that you are quoting from the Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie means you are supreme dork. I have, however, by acknowledging said quote, revealed my own nascent dorkiness.

 

fingh = super-massive dork