No more Paypal personal for me. Big Brother came and took it :(

[RockMyAmadeus]

Who owns paypal Don't answer, clearly I know, the question was rhetorical. They don't give a mess about their employees.

 

How do you know this? Have you ever talked to a Paypal employee about it? Have you ever talked to a Paypal exec?

 

Contrary to the CLEARLY popular "screw the big guy!" screwball philosophy that infects American culture like an insidious plague, companies DO care about their employees, if for no other reason than retention. Happy employees are productive employees and productive employees make the company more money.

 

It's not rocket science.

 

How this concept got lost in the last few generations is a topic we can't talk about. (thumbs u

 

If Rupp makes a few extra bucks to pay for school I say go for yours! I'm sure Harry the Ebay employee wont see a *spooning* dime more if I pay the 3%.

 

 

So, hey, I need a few extra bucks to pay for school, too. Can I come rob you? I could REALLY use the money.

 

You sound stupid. Plain and simple, stupid and uninformed. This is not meant to ge an argument, you are just being naive. Take a few minutes and read back. I actually support Paypal, just not the liberal bull mess that think that finding loopholes is stealing. I think Paypal is right just not in need of pity.

 

How old are you, Mike?

 

Is the '88 your birth year?

 

Just curious.

 

Has no bearing on the discussion, just wondering.

 

For the record, you don't know what the word "liberal" means. It is CONSERVATIVE to call stealing "stealing." No liberal in their right minds would have a problem with "finding loopholes" to deny a big, bad corporation more money.

 

Oh, and for the record part the second...if you imagine that anyone in this thread...at any time...has expressed "pity" for Paypal, you need to read it again.

 

(thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

You sound stupid. Plain and simple, stupid and uninformed. This is not meant to ge an argument, you are just being naive.

 

Red cape, meet bull.

 

Oh please. Do you not know me better than that after all these years? I only bother with people who might conceivably be reasoned with.

 

I don't waste my time on hopeless cases.

 

I DO love the irony of the statement, though....

[FlyingDonut]

Ok, I'm a bit confused. If they don't want you to use the personal option, why is it there?

 

Because it's not for purchasing merchandise.

 

I use Paypal personal frequently. I use it for what it's intended for: paying people back, paying friends for signing opportunities (that they aren't making money on, I'm just passing the fees to them), passing money to family members out of state for various and sundry family business.

 

Actually, no. The option is there so they aren't a bank and therefore are no't regulated by the FDIC.

Actually no to WHAT? There's no "yes or no" statement being made.

 

It doesn't matter what Paypal's reasons are for having it, the fact is, it's not for purchasing merchandise, by their rules. If one doesn't like it, one should not use the service, rather than cheat Paypal out of their fees.

 

The "No" was to the reasoning for the personal option existing at all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any transactional purchases, it has to do solely with them being able to skirt FDIC regulations.

 

We are in agreement, by the way.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Ok, I'm a bit confused. If they don't want you to use the personal option, why is it there?

 

Because it's not for purchasing merchandise.

 

I use Paypal personal frequently. I use it for what it's intended for: paying people back, paying friends for signing opportunities (that they aren't making money on, I'm just passing the fees to them), passing money to family members out of state for various and sundry family business.

 

Actually, no. The option is there so they aren't a bank and therefore are no't regulated by the FDIC.

Actually no to WHAT? There's no "yes or no" statement being made.

 

It doesn't matter what Paypal's reasons are for having it, the fact is, it's not for purchasing merchandise, by their rules. If one doesn't like it, one should not use the service, rather than cheat Paypal out of their fees.

 

The "No" was to the reasoning for the personal option existing at all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any transactional purchases, it has to do solely with them being able to skirt FDIC regulations.

 

As far as the user is concerned, it is intended for what I stated. Which, of course, was the discussion...not Paypal's reasoning for why it exists, which is a whole other point we've all discussed in the past ad nauseum.

 

We are in agreement, by the way.

 

We are more often than not.

 

You must be stupid and uninformed, too.

 

 

[FlyingDonut]

Ok, I'm a bit confused. If they don't want you to use the personal option, why is it there?

 

Because it's not for purchasing merchandise.

 

I use Paypal personal frequently. I use it for what it's intended for: paying people back, paying friends for signing opportunities (that they aren't making money on, I'm just passing the fees to them), passing money to family members out of state for various and sundry family business.

 

Actually, no. The option is there so they aren't a bank and therefore are no't regulated by the FDIC.

Actually no to WHAT? There's no "yes or no" statement being made.

 

It doesn't matter what Paypal's reasons are for having it, the fact is, it's not for purchasing merchandise, by their rules. If one doesn't like it, one should not use the service, rather than cheat Paypal out of their fees.

 

The "No" was to the reasoning for the personal option existing at all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any transactional purchases, it has to do solely with them being able to skirt FDIC regulations.

 

As far as the user is concerned, it is intended for what I stated. Which, of course, was the discussion...not Paypal's reasoning for why it exists, which is a whole other point we've all discussed in the past ad nauseum.

 

We are in agreement, by the way.

 

We are more often than not.

 

You must be stupid and uninformed, too.

 

 

I'm pretty informed, but I'll go with the stupid part. I do like that someone called you a liberal in this thread. That made me . There's hope for you yet.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Ok, I'm a bit confused. If they don't want you to use the personal option, why is it there?

 

Because it's not for purchasing merchandise.

 

I use Paypal personal frequently. I use it for what it's intended for: paying people back, paying friends for signing opportunities (that they aren't making money on, I'm just passing the fees to them), passing money to family members out of state for various and sundry family business.

 

Actually, no. The option is there so they aren't a bank and therefore are no't regulated by the FDIC.

Actually no to WHAT? There's no "yes or no" statement being made.

 

It doesn't matter what Paypal's reasons are for having it, the fact is, it's not for purchasing merchandise, by their rules. If one doesn't like it, one should not use the service, rather than cheat Paypal out of their fees.

 

The "No" was to the reasoning for the personal option existing at all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any transactional purchases, it has to do solely with them being able to skirt FDIC regulations.

 

As far as the user is concerned, it is intended for what I stated. Which, of course, was the discussion...not Paypal's reasoning for why it exists, which is a whole other point we've all discussed in the past ad nauseum.

 

We are in agreement, by the way.

 

We are more often than not.

 

You must be stupid and uninformed, too.

 

 

I'm pretty informed, but I'll go with the stupid part. I do like that someone called you a liberal in this thread. That made me . There's hope for you yet.

 

 

Like I say to some of my dearest friends, you're not a liberal. You're much, much too smart to be. You just *think* you are.

 

We better cool it, I hear Arch coming down the hall!

 

[hockey&comicsguy]

Happy employees [/b]

 

 

How this concept got lost in the last few generations is a topic we can't talk about. (thumbs u

 

 

 

I don't know too many happy employees. But I know a lot of unhappy ones getting ed over left, right and center. (thumbs u

 

The concept isn't lost. It's been shattered to a million pieces.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Happy employees [/b]

 

 

How this concept got lost in the last few generations is a topic we can't talk about. (thumbs u

 

 

 

I don't know too many happy employees. But I know a lot of unhappy ones getting ed over left, right and center. (thumbs u

 

The concept isn't lost. It's been shattered to a million pieces.

 

Do you know what the cure to unhappiness in your place of employ is?

 

Find another job, or start your own business.

 

Slavery was outlawed in this nation in 1865. The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified December 6, 1865.

 

Therefore, employees "getting ed over" are doing it voluntarily.

[mikenyc]

What is your argument? If you take advantage of policies that create a loophole to a company you are being immoral, criminal? When you go to an estate sale or flea market or comic store and buy a book you know is worth double the price do you tell them? That's not right, you know that the seller should be getting a much better deal, but what?

 

I think it is funny that you attempt to criticize individual sellers trying to save a few bucks against a corporation and call them thieves.

 

Paypal serves a valuable purpose in the online community and there will be chances to take advantage. They are a fantastic service and deserve their 3% but if some guy from Tennesse can get around, God bless him!

[Junkdrawer]

What is your argument? If you take advantage of policies that create a loophole to a company you are being immoral, criminal? When you go to an estate sale or flea market or comic store and buy a book you know is worth double the price do you tell them? That's not right, you know that the seller should be getting a much better deal, but what?

 

I think it is funny that you attempt to criticize individual sellers trying to save a few bucks against a corporation and call them thieves.

 

Paypal serves a valuable purpose in the online community and there will be chances to take advantage. They are a fantastic service and deserve their 3% but if some guy from Tennesse can get around, God bless him!

Thats basically my theory on speeding, every day I drive over the speed limit, years go by and bingo I get a ticket, shortly there after I'm speeding again. Catch me if you can....I'm stealing time

[MightyBeanComics]

I'm not sure it's a loophole. Rather, Personal for purchases is a clear violation of the rules.

 

No real fine print there.

 

I can reach over the counter at Subway and grab ham. Is that taking advantage of a loophole (low counters) or is that theft?

[mikenyc]

I'm not sure it's a loophole. Rather, Personal for purchases is a clear violation of the rules.

 

No real fine print there.

 

I can reach over the counter at Subway and grab ham. Is that taking advantage of a loophole (low counters) or is that theft?

 

C'mon I'm on thin ice with you. I was blocked once, but upon further review you realized it was a mistake ::

[Junkdrawer]

I'm not sure it's a loophole. Rather, Personal for purchases is a clear violation of the rules.

 

No real fine print there.

 

I can reach over the counter at Subway and grab ham. Is that taking advantage of a loophole (low counters) or is that theft?

Suppose you move into an new apartment and when you connect your TV set you are getting cable. I say nothing. I have been in that situation and it lasted years. These days in my current place I have about 5 channels that come in english and internet for $65/ month. Television was always FREE when you pluged one in when I was a kid. I promise to screw the cable company if I ever get the chance.

[MightyBeanComics]

Good point. I forgot about that!

 

[MightyBeanComics]

I'm not sure it's a loophole. Rather, Personal for purchases is a clear violation of the rules.

 

No real fine print there.

 

I can reach over the counter at Subway and grab ham. Is that taking advantage of a loophole (low counters) or is that theft?

Suppose you move into an new apartment and when you connect your TV set you are getting cable. I say nothing. I have been in that situation and it lasted years. These days in my current place I have about 5 channels that come in english and internet for $65/ month. Television was always FREE when you pluged one in when I was a kid. I promise to screw the cable company if I ever get the chance.

 

Television is still free today if you get an antenna.

 

 

[brasseye]

Ahem, PP isn't a bank, zero comeback for the consumer, yet they have their fee's based on a bank's structure.

 

Anyone ever negoiated the terms of their contract???

 

what...nooooo, wow, guess what thats called...anyone???

 

 

An overpriced electronic transfer is about 50c, but what was your last fee statement like???

 

PP/Ebay Uk are registered in Luxenbourg.... a highly accessible place jurisdictionally speaking

 

Yet baffoons here accuse people of stealing from them!!!

You need your head checked!!!

 

 

[Prince Namor]

If you were to perform the same operation on a larger scale it would be a felony and you would go to jail (The Paypal thing, not the speeding). Your defense would be laughed at.

 

Instead of trying to 'stick it' to a large corporation, you need to start your own company and hire the best lobbyists you can to change the laws in your favor.

[Junkdrawer]

Paypal exists to help transactions on ebay become safer for both buyer and seller. That's a service everyone should be glad for. Your bank will not be of any use should you want to buy anything on ebay. Everyone knows by now that money orders can be used with no problem, but you don't get ebay bucks. there are other perks that actually bring down the 2.9% as well

[RockMyAmadeus]

What is your argument? If you take advantage of policies that create a loophole to a company you are being immoral, criminal?

 

Immoral, yes. Criminal, no. Immorality does not need to be codified to be immoral. Your reasoning dances adeptly around the issue, but it remains flawed nonetheless. Let me break it down into a simple argument you can understand:

 

IF: Paypal's "personal payment" is NOT to be used for purchasing merchandise, by their own terms...

 

THEN: Using Paypal's "personal payment" for buying/selling merchandise for the express purpose of avoiding fees the user would otherwise rightfully be charged is stealing.

 

When you go to an estate sale or flea market or comic store and buy a book you know is worth double the price do you tell them? That's not right, you know that the seller should be getting a much better deal, but what?

 

This analogy has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. It couldn't be more inappropriate. You might as well have said "Paper blanket rock spins moonpie fart!"

 

If you think knowledge and experience about a collectible's value has anything to do with circumventing the TOS of a payment company, you're nutty.

 

I think it is funny that you attempt to criticize individual sellers trying to save a few bucks against a corporation and call them thieves.

 

You have a victocrat mentality. You can see it in the words you use: "save a few bucks against a corporation"...as if "corporation" is a dirty word.

 

As for calling them thieves, if someone steals, what would the appropriate term be? "Asset removal and re-allocation specialist?"

 

Paypal serves a valuable purpose in the online community and there will be chances to take advantage. They are a fantastic service and deserve their 3% but if some guy from Tennesse can get around, God bless him!

 

 

I'd be reallllllly careful asking God to bless theft if I were you....

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'm not sure it's a loophole. Rather, Personal for purchases is a clear violation of the rules.

 

No real fine print there.

 

I can reach over the counter at Subway and grab ham. Is that taking advantage of a loophole (low counters) or is that theft?

 

If I see a nice copy of Batman #171 at a comic shop with a sticker of $375 on it, and then swap bags with a copy of X-Men #213 with a $10 sticker on it, then wait until the owner isn't around and buy it from the unknowledgable clerk, hiding the X-Men #213 in with the Archies, how many loopholes have I taken advantage of...?

 

Especially if I did that at that Bedrock Comics guy's store. He's got like FIFTY stores! Dirty, evil corporation...