General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, I forgot my role as spectator. Gotcha!

 

Right, that's exactly what I said. You nailed it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So, we have concluded that we are all thieves? Are we all probation worthy?

 

You can only speak for yourself.

 

I'm loving the contempt.

[N/A]

Oh, I forgot my role as spectator. Gotcha!

 

Right, that's exactly what I said. You nailed it.

 

It's my interpretation.

[comix4fun]

 

 

 

[N/A]

 

 

 

 

[EC ed]

In contrast, the PayPal terms of service are very clear:

 

4.1 Receiving Personal Payments. If you are selling goods or services, you may not ask the buyer to send you a Personal Payment for the purchase.

 

 

And, for those who want to try and wriggle out of that by saying "yes, it says the seller can't ASK...but it doesn't say the buyer can't PAY that way of their own volition!"....there's this:

 

16. Definitions:

 

"Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase. Examples of Personal Payments include sending a gift to a friend or paying a friend back for your share of a lunch bill."

 

Pertinent phrase: "WITHOUT A PURCHASE." For the slow among us, that means "you're not BUYING or SELLING something."

 

And, on top of that, it also says "between two individuals (not to or from a business)"...so that automatically excludes all business accounts even without a purchase.

 

Back on this for a minute, to whip this horse a bit more...to further reinforce the interpretation of that Definition #16, I found this buried in the depths of some PayPal help center screen ( LINK ):

 

-Payment overview

To send a payment, log in to your PayPal account and click Send & Request at the top of the page. Choose whether you're paying for goods or sending money to friends or family.

 

Paying for Goods

You're making a purchase if you're paying for:

• Services: to pay for a service someone provides, like a mechanic.
  
• Goods: to pay for goods other than ones you purchase on eBay.

There is no fee to send money for a purchase.

 

Friends and Family

You're making a personal payment if you're sending money for :

• A gift: to send money as a gift, like for a birthday.
  
• Payment owed: to pay your friend back for your share of a dinner bill, or for another item that your friend bought for you.
  
• Cash advance: payment not involving the purchase of goods or services. Your credit card provider may charge fees for a cash advance.
  
• Living expense: to pay for things like rent or utilities.
  
• Other: other payments that aren't a purchase of goods or services.

 

This sounds a whole lot more consistent with RMA's argument (which has also always been my interpretation) than with the counter-argument of the "wrigglers."

 

I've also heard wriggling based on logic like "well if I'm buying goods from a friend, then that means I'm sending money to a friend, so I can use the personal method." That argument is handled by the above language. The definition of "Goods" does NOT say "goods other than ones you purchase on eBay or other than ones you purchase from a friend."

 

That last part is what we all wish it said, because it would save us a lot of money when buying comics from one another. But, but it doesn't say that. Sorry. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, but I think that would take a direct explicit statement from PayPal that it's indeed OK for me to use Personal to buy goods from a friend. I don't think that statement will be coming.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, I forgot my role as spectator. Gotcha!

 

Right, that's exactly what I said. You nailed it.

 

It's my interpretation.

 

No, it's not. It is, however, your means of making a statement that you think the topic has gone on more than long enough, that I'm belaboring the point, and you'll make light of it to counter that, showing contempt for me in the process.

 

 

[Buzzetta]

So, we have concluded that we are all thieves? Are we all probation worthy?

 

You can only speak for yourself.

 

 

Seems everyone in this thread is guilty of one thing or another.

 

You're going to ruin it. Soon we will not be allowed to speak at all.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Back on this for a minute, to whip this horse a bit more...

 

I wonder who is the determiner for when a discussion has gone on long enough is....? Was there an election, and I missed it? Maybe a set of guidelines?

 

 

"That's quite enough out of you!"

 

(Not aimed at you, Ed, just making an observation.)

[N/A]

Oh, I forgot my role as spectator. Gotcha!

 

Right, that's exactly what I said. You nailed it.

 

It's my interpretation.

 

No, it's not. It is, however, your means of making a statement that you think the topic has gone on more than long enough, that I'm belaboring the point, and you'll make light of it to counter that, showing contempt for me in the process.

 

 

No.

 

That's your interpretation. (thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

So, we have concluded that we are all thieves? Are we all probation worthy?

 

You can only speak for yourself.

 

 

Seems everyone in this thread is guilty of one thing or another.

 

You're going to ruin it. Soon we will not be allowed to speak at all.

 

I know, isn't that terrible? Thinking that people shouldn't try to speak for others in an attempt to "shore up" their own arguments...madness!

 

That's totally the same thing as what you're saying......

 

.......right?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, I forgot my role as spectator. Gotcha!

 

Right, that's exactly what I said. You nailed it.

 

It's my interpretation.

 

No, it's not. It is, however, your means of making a statement that you think the topic has gone on more than long enough, that I'm belaboring the point, and you'll make light of it to counter that, showing contempt for me in the process.

 

 

No.

 

That's your interpretation. (thumbs u

 

No.

 

That's what is.

 

Otherwise, what you have been posting has no meaning.

[N/A]

Oh, I forgot my role as spectator. Gotcha!

 

Right, that's exactly what I said. You nailed it.

 

It's my interpretation.

 

No, it's not. It is, however, your means of making a statement that you think the topic has gone on more than long enough, that I'm belaboring the point, and you'll make light of it to counter that, showing contempt for me in the process.

 

 

No.

 

That's your interpretation. (thumbs u

 

No.

 

That's what is.

 

Otherwise, what you have been posting has no meaning.

 

Wow.

 

No.

 

Your interpretation is not the only interpretation. (thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, I forgot my role as spectator. Gotcha!

 

Right, that's exactly what I said. You nailed it.

 

It's my interpretation.

 

No, it's not. It is, however, your means of making a statement that you think the topic has gone on more than long enough, that I'm belaboring the point, and you'll make light of it to counter that, showing contempt for me in the process.

 

 

No.

 

That's your interpretation. (thumbs u

 

No.

 

That's what is.

 

Otherwise, what you have been posting has no meaning.

 

Wow.

 

No.

 

Your interpretation is not the only interpretation. (thumbs u

 

Ok. So, then, what IS the meaning of what you've been saying, making light remarks about the situation?

 

Because:

 

"Then what is the point?

 

Stealing was defined and generally accepted. "

 

Is pretty much saying "what's the point?", is it not...? I mean, I could be wrong, here. When you say "what is the point?" it could mean something BESIDES "what is the point?" I guess.

 

 

 

[N/A]

I asked what the point of the discussion was. I thought it was to show the hipocracy between a probation list and stealing from PayPal. Seems the point was made. What's the problem with asking what the point is now?

 

 

[Buzzetta]

So, we have concluded that we are all thieves? Are we all probation worthy?

 

You can only speak for yourself.

 

 

Seems everyone in this thread is guilty of one thing or another.

 

You're going to ruin it. Soon we will not be allowed to speak at all.

 

I know, isn't that terrible? Thinking that people shouldn't try to speak for others in an attempt to "shore up" their own arguments...madness!

 

That's totally the same thing as what you're saying......

 

.......right?

 

 

[comix4fun]

[rodan57]

I don't think it would be unreasonable to view morality on a spectrum -- and everyone would have a roughly inscribed line on the spectrum beyond which they cease to be a good person.

 

Some individuals' decisions, such as gaming the PayPal system for 3%, probably do not even register as a moral issue. And I used the word gaming rather than stealing to underscore the moral relativism of the issue.

 

Someone might kill an insect without thought but would never contemplate doing harm to a dog or cat.

 

The level of transgression can become a difference of kind rather than degree.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So, we have concluded that we are all thieves? Are we all probation worthy?

 

You can only speak for yourself.

 

 

Seems everyone in this thread is guilty of one thing or another.

 

You're going to ruin it. Soon we will not be allowed to speak at all.

 

I know, isn't that terrible? Thinking that people shouldn't try to speak for others in an attempt to "shore up" their own arguments...madness!

 

That's totally the same thing as what you're saying......

 

.......right?

 

 

 

There's no anger, Buzz. Disappointment and frustration, yes, but there are far more important things to spend emotional energy on than getting angry at strangers online.

 

Your scorn, however, is duly noted.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I don't think it would be unreasonable to view morality on a spectrum -- and everyone would have a roughly inscribed line on the spectrum beyond which they cease to be a good person.

 

Some individuals' decisions, such as gaming the PayPal system for 3%, probably do not even register as a moral issue. And I used the word gaming rather than stealing to underscore the moral relativism of the issue.

 

Someone might kill an insect without thought but would never contemplate doing harm to a dog or cat.

 

The level of transgression can become a difference of kind rather than degree.

 

Yes, because it's all just relative, and everyone does what is right in his own eyes, right...?

 

Ok, not a problem.

 

But one must apply those same standards to one's own doings, as well, and not complain if they are quote-unquote "gaming", and they get "gamed" in the process.

 

And, it would be nice to know who one is dealing with...after all, I don't want to do business with those who think "gaming" the system is acceptable, because there's literally nothing stopping them from "gaming" me.

 

I choose not to do business with those people.

 

Just call it "risk management."