General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[RockMyAmadeus]

There was no clear language that defined an allowed number of transactions even if they did use the term "personal payments".

 

You're suggesting that when the PayPal representative responded with:

 

"You can place some notes when sending personal payment s "

 

that maybe, just MAYBE they were contemplating this to be more than ONCE for AN item, A book, someTHING, THE item, A friend.

 

 

Justification.

 

When they say "you can place some notes when you send personal payments", it's a function of all personal payments in general, not that they're giving you a blanket ability to send any personal payments to any and all friends at any time, or the immediately following statement has no meaning:

 

"But in the long run if the seller is doing these frequently then his Paypal account will have some issues."

 

In other words: "yes, we will grant you an exception to our rule, but it IS an exception, so don't abuse it." What is abuse? 2 times? 5 times? 10? 500?

 

You don't know, and, more importantly it's not your decision to make. It's Paypal's.

 

And what if YOU are the Personal payment that gets an account shut down for Personal payments?

 

I'll tell you, there are several board members that have had their ability to accept Personal payments taken away, and they have never been able to get it back...making it much, much harder for people to do certain transactions with them.

 

Do you care about that...?

 

[jaybuck43]

This is STILL going on??? My cat is SHOCKED shocked I say!

 

RMA I get that this upsets you, but why are you fighting it to the death? At the end of the day, Paypal isn't ACTUALLY out anything. There are no fees that they spent that they didn't get to recoup, all they lost was opportunity cost (i.e. the fact that MAYBE the person would have done the transaction via Paypal business and Paypal would have taken 2.9% of the transaction) There is no guarantee that if tomorrow Paypal eliminated Friends and Family, that those same transactions would be done through regular Paypal. Instead they may use a check, or cash, or a money order, or bitcoin, or barter or who knows what. If there was some ACTUAL lose, other than opportunity then I could understand this. But there is no ACH fee or other fee that Paypal is taking on for transferring the funds.

 

To really throw a wrench into your argument. Paypal owns Venmo. Sending money for ANY reason on Venmo is free as long as you fund the purchase from your balance, your bank account, or a major debit card (not sure what a major debit card is but I assume most of us have one). There are NO fees whatsoever for sending using those methods. There is NEVER a fee to receive money (no matter how it comes to you). So am I stealing from Paypal if I use Venmo for a transaction instead of Paypal? I'm using Paypal's system (Venmo transactions travel over Paypal's).

[skypinkblu]

I only think you are talking about me when there is evidence that you have.

 

A few weeks ago, I made a statement on the probation discussion thread about proposing someone.

 

In that statement, I mentioned that he was selling because he needed money to go to his grandmother's funeral and the purpose of my buying something, was merely to help him out, but I never got the books he said he was sending.. I said I could not go to PP because I had used personal PP. I didn't say I thought it was a great idea, I said I should not have.

 

What ensued after was many posts about stealing. If you say someone is stealing, in my mind you are calling them a thief.

 

I'm not going to go back and nitpick every post, but your position about the probation list and asking for a rule stating someone should not be able to propose someone for the probation list happened (and I sincerely doubt it was coincidence) after my post.

 

 

I don't really understand how you can say that saying someone is stealing is not calling them a thief, but if you are making an apology, I accept it.

 

Believe or not, really don't need or want to argue with you, but you've been upset with me for years. You make oblique comments that point to what I've done on the boards and how some people are not as nice as people think and I find it disturbing. If you want to stop that, it would be peachy keen with me.

 

I'm not the one who has a zillion posts because they can't handle it when someone disagrees with them. I certainly have disagreed with you. I admit that.

 

 

 

As for the media mail, can you say truthfully that you have never asked someone to mail something media mail to you since the PO changed their statement in their rules and specifically mentioned comics as not being eligible about 2 years ago?

 

If you cannot, then I think this whole Paypal thing on your part is kind of hypocritical.

 

I happen to agree with you on a few of the Paypal points, but enough is enough. It's been said a zillion ways.

 

You are correct that many people don't post because of the back and forth stuff, but what makes you think that your posts do not contribute to others not wanting to get involved? I know I post a lot less and so do some other people I know.

 

 

Anyway, these are my answers. I'm not going back in forth with you. Been there, done that. Life is too short and I've never in my life wanted to join a debate team.

 

[vaillant]

The only thing that still bugs me about that PayPal response is this bit: "But in the long run if the seller is doing these frequently then his PayPal account will be having some issues." Why would he be having issues? Too many friends? What kind of issues?

Comic book issues, obviously. An awful lot of them.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

RMA I get that this upsets you, but why are you fighting it to the death?

 

Because others are. That seems fairly obvious, does it not?

 

Or, is it only "fighting it to the death" if you don't agree...?

 

 

At the end of the day, Paypal isn't ACTUALLY out anything. There are no fees that they spent that they didn't get to recoup, all they lost was opportunity cost (i.e. the fact that MAYBE the person would have done the transaction via Paypal business and Paypal would have taken 2.9% of the transaction) There is no guarantee that if tomorrow Paypal eliminated Friends and Family, that those same transactions would be done through regular Paypal. Instead they may use a check, or cash, or a money order, or bitcoin, or barter or who knows what. If there was some ACTUAL lose, other than opportunity then I could understand this. But there is no ACH fee or other fee that Paypal is taking on for transferring the funds.

 

That's not true in any way. Saying that may offend you and others, but it is fact. The fact is, Paypal's service was used. It doesn't matter if that money would "go somewhere else if Personal didn't exist"...that argument holds no water once the service is actually used. It goes from "opportunity cost" to actual provision of service. When you hit "send money", you have chosen to use Paypal's service, and have an obligation to pay the fee (as the system is set up.)

 

You use a service, you pay for the service. Most children can understand this concept. If you don't want to pay Paypal's fees...don't use them. There's nothing forcing anyone to use Paypal for any reason.

 

Yes, Paypal is ACTUALLY out something, because its services were used without payment. Your justification is just justification. It's not valid. How you can argue that it is is what shocks me...even more than your cat.

 

To really throw a wrench into your argument. Paypal owns Venmo. Sending money for ANY reason on Venmo is free as long as you fund the purchase from your balance, your bank account, or a major debit card (not sure what a major debit card is but I assume most of us have one). There are NO fees whatsoever for sending using those methods. There is NEVER a fee to receive money (no matter how it comes to you). So am I stealing from Paypal if I use Venmo for a transaction instead of Paypal? I'm using Paypal's system (Venmo transactions travel over Paypal's).

 

Here's your wrench, right back at you: Paypal is the one which makes the decision about whether their Venmo service is free. Paypal OWNS Venmo, and Paypal has the right to decide what, if anything, it will cost.

 

YOU, however, do NOT own EITHER Paypal OR Venmo, and neither do I, and neither does anyone else except whoever and whatever owns Paypal. So neither YOU, nor I, nor anyone else has the right to decide FOR PAYPAL what aspect of their service is free, and what is not.

 

If Paypal provides Venmo for free, the answer seems quite obvious: use Venmo. So what's the problem?

 

Pretty simple.

[cujobyte]

WOW, now I remember why I rarely frequent this part of the boards.

 

 

[EC ed]

WOW, now I remember why I rarely frequent this part of the boards.

 

 

Come by more often...there really is interesting discussion happening here.

 

Speaking of which...why the hell am I not using Venmo? What am I missing? If that's clearly a free money transfer service, why don't those of us who would prefer free money transfers with each other just use that? Admittedly, I had never heard of Venmo until now.

[vaillant]

WOW, now I remember why I rarely frequent this part of the boards.

 

 

Come by more often...there really is interesting discussion happening here.

 

Speaking of which...why the hell am I not using Venmo? What am I missing? If that's clearly a free money transfer service, why don't those of us who would prefer free money transfers with each other just use that? Admittedly, I had never heard of Venmo until now.

There is also Stripe, they even launched a "private beta" in italian… but I am too lazy.

[DR.X]

WOW, now I remember why I rarely frequent this part of the boards.

 

 

I'm posting less and less too. I'm off to bury myself in the back yard up the head and wait for the red ants.

[jaybuck43]

 

RMA I get that this upsets you, but why are you fighting it to the death?

 

Because others are. That seems fairly obvious, does it not?

 

Or, is it only "fighting it to the death" if you don't agree...?

 

 

At the end of the day, Paypal isn't ACTUALLY out anything. There are no fees that they spent that they didn't get to recoup, all they lost was opportunity cost (i.e. the fact that MAYBE the person would have done the transaction via Paypal business and Paypal would have taken 2.9% of the transaction) There is no guarantee that if tomorrow Paypal eliminated Friends and Family, that those same transactions would be done through regular Paypal. Instead they may use a check, or cash, or a money order, or bitcoin, or barter or who knows what. If there was some ACTUAL lose, other than opportunity then I could understand this. But there is no ACH fee or other fee that Paypal is taking on for transferring the funds.

 

That's not true in any way. Saying that may offend you and others, but it is fact. The fact is, Paypal's service was used. It doesn't matter if that money would "go somewhere else if Personal didn't exist"...that argument holds no water once the service is actually used. It goes from "opportunity cost" to actual provision of service. When you hit "send money", you have chosen to use Paypal's service, and have an obligation to pay the fee (as the system is set up.)

 

You use a service, you pay for the service. Most children can understand this concept. If you don't want to pay Paypal's fees...don't use them. There's nothing forcing anyone to use Paypal for any reason.

 

Yes, Paypal is ACTUALLY out something, because its services were used without payment. Your justification is just justification. It's not valid. How you can argue that it is is what shocks me...even more than your cat.

 

To really throw a wrench into your argument. Paypal owns Venmo. Sending money for ANY reason on Venmo is free as long as you fund the purchase from your balance, your bank account, or a major debit card (not sure what a major debit card is but I assume most of us have one). There are NO fees whatsoever for sending using those methods. There is NEVER a fee to receive money (no matter how it comes to you). So am I stealing from Paypal if I use Venmo for a transaction instead of Paypal? I'm using Paypal's system (Venmo transactions travel over Paypal's).

 

Here's your wrench, right back at you: Paypal is the one which makes the decision about whether their Venmo service is free. Paypal OWNS Venmo, and Paypal has the right to decide what, if anything, it will cost.

 

YOU, however, do NOT own EITHER Paypal OR Venmo, and neither do I, and neither does anyone else except whoever and whatever owns Paypal. So neither YOU, nor I, nor anyone else has the right to decide FOR PAYPAL what aspect of their service is free, and what is not.

 

If Paypal provides Venmo for free, the answer seems quite obvious: use Venmo. So what's the problem?

 

Pretty simple.

 

RMA

 

I'm STILL asking you what Paypal lost out on other than opportunity costs. You say using the services means they are ACTUALLY out something, but you haven't stated what. I want a concrete number (i.e. 2 cents for processing, 1 cent for transmitting, 10 cents for personnel costs etc) some tangible cost.

 

So anytime I use a service that I don't pay for I'm stealing? I don't pay taxes in Pennsylvania but I use their roads at least once a month. Am I stealing from Pennsylvania tax payers? Should I send them a check? For how much? I use Adblocker when I go on Google. Therefore I use their service without them getting ad revenue off me. Am I stealing? I've ACTUALLY used the service without paying for it.

 

Do I need to change my Vanguard password? You seem to think you know my family and my's share holdings, so I guess I should make the password stronger.

[jaybuck43]

WOW, now I remember why I rarely frequent this part of the boards.

 

 

Come by more often...there really is interesting discussion happening here.

 

Speaking of which...why the hell am I not using Venmo? What am I missing? If that's clearly a free money transfer service, why don't those of us who would prefer free money transfers with each other just use that? Admittedly, I had never heard of Venmo until now.

 

Because there is no protection. Feel free to use Venmo though with people you trust. It's great.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I don't really understand how you can say that saying someone is stealing is not calling them a thief, but if you are making an apology, I accept it.

 

No, you don't understand that, even though I explained it. And, we're back to "well, you may not have actually SAID that, but that's what I TOOK it to mean!"

 

There's no way to even answer that. And that's not very fair, is it...?

 

As for the media mail, can you say truthfully that you have never asked someone to mail something media mail to you since the PO changed their statement in their rules and specifically mentioned comics as not being eligible about 2 years ago?

 

If you cannot, then I think this whole Paypal thing on your part is kind of hypocritical.

 

As I already said: if it's not in the DMM, it is not regulation. The DMM, and ONLY the DMM, is the manual by which the USPS operates. When comic books (not merely those mailed as Second Class Matter when NEW) are specifically addressed as not allowed in the DMM, rather than a departmental memo, which carries no authority, then I will change my position. Until then...it's not the same issue.

 

Let's be completely open, here: I'm well aware that Hector told you that he sent me a big box recently via Media Mail. And...?

 

How can you possibly find anything about this "hypocritical"? After all, to be consistent, if you don't think that sending Personal payments for purchases is a problem, then why would using Media Mail for comics be a problem, either...or, does it only matter depending on the perspective of the person involved...?

 

After all...if it's only a matter of interpretation, then how can you call me a hypocrite for interpreting things one way, while you interpret things another...? I'm not arguing my position, here, I'm arguing yours. If it's all just up to "interpretation"...then you can't really call me a hypocrite for interpreting differently from you, can you...? Either you have consistent standards...or you don't. You can't use your standards on one side of the argument, but MY standards on the other. That's inconsistent, to say the least.

 

 

I happen to agree with you on a few of the Paypal points, but enough is enough. It's been said a zillion ways.

 

There's nothing preventing you from not talking about it any more. Or do you think that *I* should stop talking about it? In that case, who are you to determine what others can talk about...?

 

I don't tell anyone what they can and cannot talk about, and that "enough is enough" when talking about something they care about.

 

Isn't that what basic respect is about...?

 

[You are correct that many people don't post because of the back and forth stuff, but what makes you think that your posts do not contribute to others not wanting to get involved? I know I post a lot less and so do some other people I know.

 

What makes you think that I said that my posts don't contribute to others not wanting to post? They absolutely do...and so do yours, and so does everyone who says things that not everyone agrees with.

 

You certainly have your fair share of people who don't want to be involved because you're posting.

 

And...? The question isn't what, the question is why. I don't tell people they can't post, or they should "let it go", or "enough is enough"....if it matters to them, then why shouldn't they have the right to discuss it, within the framework of the rules...?

 

And...if my posting bothers you, I would suggest...in whatever capacity you may have....that the moderators get to work making that "all ignore" function a reality, so that you don't have to deal with me, and vice versa.

 

I mean, I even do you the courtesy of preserving your color in your posts, which is a rather laborious task, to make sure that what you said is preserved and clear.

 

That's a small way to show you respect. Is it reciprocated...?

 

[]Anyway, these are my answers. I'm not going back in forth with you. Been there, done that. Life is too short and I've never in my life wanted to join a debate team.

 

 

Ok. The answer to that, then, is simple: don't debate. You say that you "don't want to debate" frequently, and yet here you are....

 

....debating.

 

I didn't bring you up, or mention anything about you or anything you said in this conversation.

 

You were the one who brought me up.

 

But, you don't want to debate...?

 

Is it only debate when someone responds to you? Do you get to "debate" and say whatever you think is appropriate, but people you don't agree with can't respond...? Does that seem very fair to you....? To anyone...?

 

 

I don't want to interact with you, in any way. You've made your feelings about me very clear, and I respect your right to your opinion. But...if the feeling is mutual...and you've said it is....then make it so, and don't talk about me or what I've said.

 

That's fair.

[N/A]

WOW, now I remember why I rarely frequent this part of the boards.

 

 

 

Yuuuuup!

[N/A]

WOW, now I remember why I rarely frequent this part of the boards.

 

 

I'm posting less and less too. I'm off to bury myself in the back yard up the head and wait for the red ants.

 

[HarveySwick]

I just got off the phone with PayPal. I can send call records if anyone needs proof.

 

I AGAIN confirmed that I can buy goods, from a friend, MORE THAN ONCE, using PayPal Personal.

 

I asked "Ed" to send me an email confirming this. He found it comical that this was being questioned so much and giggled often.

 

I highlighted the relevant section in Notes.

 

 

 

[N/A]

PayPal needs to learn to spell.

[vaillant]

"Eadric" is a great name… I like it.

[retrothecollector]

Yes score again Harvey

[EC ed]

I asked "Ed" to send me an email confirming this.

 

It should not be acceptable for "Eadric" to refer to himself as "Ed." That "a" throws a wrench in things...

[Awax]