• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Nominating DavidtheDavid
1 1

318 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

Here's the problem.  Both of you have sterling reputations and  assigning blame is impossible here, it's your word against his and both of you are credible and believable to me.

Determining how and when the book was damaged is impossible. 

This pretty much sums up where I am at with this, it has gone to Paypal to settle it, the Boards certainly cannot, and I would be strongly against any PL nomination for either party. The whole thing is just very upsetting and discouraging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

Here's the problem.  Both of you have sterling reputations and  assigning blame is impossible here, it's your word against his and both of you are credible and believable to me.

Determining how and when the book was damaged is impossible. 

Yep...some unfortunate events here, that do seem as if from some strange alternate universe, as Jimbo said. I hope that there eventually is some amicable resolution that both of these heretofore well-respected boardies can live with. 

As for the explicit purpose of this thread, based on the events to date, I don't see there being much support for putting DavidTheDavid on the PL...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I opened the door to a discussion. The other party lost his mind, fast, as seen in the PM thread and statements here. Not to mention the rant in his PayPal dispute, something I've kept personal because that's a PayPal issue but he decided to post here, again partially, not to mention that he escalated the dispute to a claim instead of offering some other solution. Yes, it is unfortunate that it's come to this, but I didn't bring it here. And I refrained greatly from a much stronger response--there wasn't really a need when Eric's every post grew more erratic. People need to also look at his rhetoric--baiting me with questions, recalling events out of order, providing only partial statements, building arguments on spurious suppositions. I just wasn't, and won't, let that go entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Again, I opened the door to a discussion. The other party lost his mind, fast, as seen in the PM thread and statements here. Not to mention the rant in his PayPal dispute, something I've kept personal because that's a PayPal issue but he decided to post here, again partially, not to mention that he escalated the dispute to a claim instead of offering some other solution. Yes, it is unfortunate that it's come to this, but I didn't bring it here. And I refrained greatly from a much stronger response--there wasn't really a need when Eric's every post grew more erratic. People need to also look at his rhetoric--baiting me with questions, recalling events out of order, providing only partial statements, building arguments on spurious suppositions. I just wasn't, and won't, let that go entirely.

It now comes down to the Paypal dispute and people on the boards have made their comments - your wording and commentary has been as every bit mean spirited, cutting and harmful as mine has been - you just pretend to act like you don't swing the same hammer - and you lack accountability - and clearly you have taken a position and I have taken mine. As for Paypal, what did they say, they'll let us know by 7/22/17?? And if by chance you lose the dispute, well...I guess we'll see. So now you and I wait another month. Remember that when dealing with vengeance you need to always dig two holes. Have a nice night. Bug hug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

It now comes down to the Paypal dispute and people on the boards have made their comments - your wording and commentary has been as every bit mean spirited, cutting and harmful as mine has been - you just pretend to act like you don't swing the same hammer - and you lack accountability - and clearly you have taken a position and I have taken mine. As for Paypal, what did they say, they'll let us know by 7/22/17?? And if by chance you lose the dispute, well...I guess we'll see. So now you and I wait another month. Remember that when dealing with vengeance you need to always dig two holes. Have a nice night. Bug hug.

Bug Hug?  What's that?

Is it possible the book shifted in it's bag during shipping and the corner shifted and bent?  Some possible scenario where the book sustained damage during transit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thehumantorch said:

Bug Hug?  What's that?

Is it possible the book shifted in it's bag during shipping and the corner shifted and bent?  Some possible scenario where the book sustained damage during transit? 

Typo. Big Hug. Didn't want to change it and also add the "Muah" because David's always talking about capturing screenshots. I asked if it was something to take up with USPS. David said the box wasn't damaged and he always takes pictures when it is (It's in the PM's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

Typo. Big Hug. Didn't want to change it and also add the "Muah" because David's always talking about capturing screenshots. I asked if it was something to take up with USPS. David said the box wasn't damaged and he always takes pictures when it is (It's in the PM's).

I like Bug Hug better, just trying to imagine what type of bug and how it would work.

Stuff can get damaged in a box even if the box shows zero damage.  For instance if the delivering employee shakes the box really hard and the book shifts quickly inside the bag and hits the edge of the bag.  Seems to me we had an issue like this last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

I like Bug Hug better, just trying to imagine what type of bug and how it would work.

Stuff can get damaged in a box even if the box shows zero damage.  For instance if the delivering employee shakes the box really hard and the book shifts quickly inside the bag and hits the edge of the bag.  Seems to me we had an issue like this last year.

That makes sense to me - but I remember packing the book pretty well - David would need to describe how it arrived - wait, I think his wife signed for it and then it sat for a few days until he returned from Alabama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

That makes sense to me - but I remember packing the book pretty well - David would need to describe how it arrived - wait, I think his wife signed for it and then it sat for a few days until he returned from Alabama.

Perhaps this should be a postal claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Again, I opened the door to a discussion. The other party lost his mind, fast, as seen in the PM thread and statements here. Not to mention the rant in his PayPal dispute, something I've kept personal because that's a PayPal issue but he decided to post here, again partially, not to mention that he escalated the dispute to a claim instead of offering some other solution. Yes, it is unfortunate that it's come to this, but I didn't bring it here. And I refrained greatly from a much stronger response--there wasn't really a need when Eric's every post grew more erratic. People need to also look at his rhetoric--baiting me with questions, recalling events out of order, providing only partial statements, building arguments on spurious suppositions. I just wasn't, and won't, let that go entirely.

David, I believe most of us agree it’s unhappy how Mxwll supposed a malicious intention on your part – and we see how he talked.
But honestly, if there was no malice involved (and I’m sure of that) I can’t see why you feel the need to retort the attack.

I still believe the possible damage was not intentional or the events traceable. Maybe there was no malice involved at all, I believe so.
Why don’t you find an agreement and get past the offenses?

Edited by vaillant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

It now comes down to the Paypal dispute and people on the boards have made their comments - your wording and commentary has been as every bit mean spirited, cutting and harmful as mine has been - you just pretend to act like you don't swing the same hammer - and you lack accountability - and clearly you have taken a position and I have taken mine. As for Paypal, what did they say, they'll let us know by 7/22/17?? And if by chance you lose the dispute, well...I guess we'll see. So now you and I wait another month. Remember that when dealing with vengeance you need to always dig two holes. Have a nice night. Bug hug.

Bold 1: You have called me a liar, con artists, BS artists, full of BS, POS and generally assaulted my character based on your suppositions. I've made observations of your behavior, like you being erratic. This is not a pot-kettle moment.

Bold 2: I would guess that I'm not the only one who would like for you to elaborate on this comment. It can easily be read as a veiled threat. Please explain, not just to me, but the boardies who have taken a public, even private, interest in this thread.

Bold 3: What I have written to indicate that I want vengeance? You're the one who wrote in PM that "you're going to regret your actions." I want to settle a matter between seller and buyer. You want blood and started this nomination to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Bold 1: You have called me a liar, con artists, BS artists, full of BS, POS and generally assaulted my character based on your suppositions. I've made observations of your behavior, like you being erratic. This is not a pot-kettle moment.

My "suppositions" are actual beliefs based upon your initial email of the "gorgeous book" comment and the kudos. Secondly, I have not been erratic with my behavior - I have been consistent. I have consistently stated my beliefs about you and yet again, you're in denial about your actions.

2 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Bold 2: I would guess that I'm not the only one who would like for you to elaborate on this comment. It can easily be read as a veiled threat. Please explain, not just to me, but the boardies who have taken a public, even private, interest in this thread.

Veiled threat?? And now you know why I can't take you seriously.

2 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Bold 3: What I have written to indicate that I want vengeance? You're the one who wrote in PM that "you're going to regret your actions." I want to settle a matter between seller and buyer. You want blood and started this nomination to get it.

Not going here with you. "You want to settle a matter between seller and buyer". This is one of the funniest set of comments I've read thus far.  Again, big hug tottela!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Bold 1: You have called me a liar, con artists, BS artists, full of BS, POS and generally assaulted my character based on your suppositions. I've made observations of your behavior, like you being erratic. This is not a pot-kettle moment.

Let's break this down, shall we, and see if we can't cut through the vitriol and see what's really the case here. Here are comments you've made throughout discussion:

Quote

but Eric lost his lid pretty fast.

 

Quote

and of course all the name calling, etc.

 

Quote

Eric's irrational leaps and temperamental reaction don't change that

 

Quote

Really, people need to consider OP for Probation List as well, if not HOS.

This is a "tit for tat" response.

Quote

You've chosen to believe your own conspiracy theories. It's looking more and more like you're up to no good, sliding really hard to not eat a loss. I'd rather you explain why the book you shipped me does not match the pictures. Did you do that to cover up the damage? Looking more and more like it.

In this post, you directly smear his character, intimating that he may have tried to purposely defraud you.

But you say you're merely making "observations of (his) behavior, like (him) being erratic", and this is not a "pot-kettle moment"...? Really...? Implying that he's trying to defraud you is just you pointing out that he's being erratic...? Really....?

You sure have an interesting perspective!

Quote

If you were being transparent, then you would explain the damage.

But yes, please explain why you shipped a book that did not match the images, why you requested the book be returned to you, reversed course, and how you intend to make me whole.

How could he explain the damage, unless he caused it...? And if he caused it, then he is trying to defraud you, for which you have no evidence.

How could he have "shipped a book that did not match the images", if the book matched the images at the time it was shipped?

He requested a return because he was acting in good faith. He assumed you were, too.

He reversed course because he thought about the circumstances, which are rather unnerving, and changed his mind.

Not too hard to understand.

How does he intend to make you whole? How do you intend to make him whole? Or are you not concerned with that?

 

Quote

He could just as easily have sent me a damaged book and now is working to have both the book and the money. That's just as likely a scam as everything he's fabricated so far. Sounds like HOS material to me.

Compare this comment directly above with this comment here:

Quote

Hypothesizing solutions that would support your unsupported contentions doesn't accomplish much.

To my eyes, it looks like you're "hypothesizing" reasons "to support your unsupported contentions", too.

Also...I'm not quite sure you understand what the Hall of Shame is, or how it works. The Hall of Shame is intended for egregious, obvious acts of deception or fraud, or repeated acts of irresponsibility demonstrating contempt and disregard for others.

A single bad transaction, wherein both parties are making, or appear to be making, good faith efforts at resolution, regardless of the level of professionalism, or its lack, involved, is almost never "HOS material." That's perspective that is out of alignment with reality.

As well, you may not be aware of this, but suggesting that the seller is working to have "both the book and the money" is quite the character attack. At no point, again to my eyes, does it appear that Mxwell Smrt is attempting to take back the book AND keep your money in the process. That would be fraud. He has certainly suggested that you cover the difference for the damage he believes you did...and you wouldn't be the first person to inadvertently damage an item, and then claim "it was already like that" upon discovering you'd damaged it...but at no point is it at all the case that Mxwell Smrt is attempting to get both the book back and the entire amount you paid, as well. That's "calling him a con artist", even if only "hypothesized."

Those are unprofessional, irresponsible comments to make, and just as much of a character attack as you claim is being made against you.

But the most damaging piece of evidence against you...and for which you should, at the very least, be quite a bit more gracious in response...is that you received the book and were satisfied with its condition.

That some have suggested that you not doing your due diligence is somehow equivalent to the seller accepting the return is, again, out of perspective. The seller was being gracious. You stated, with no ambiguity, that you were satisfied with the condition of the book upon receipt. In fact, here's what you said:

Quote

Gorgeous book. Really happy to have that in my hands. Looks incredible (sic) fresh, doesn't it?

Do you have a kudos thread for me to bump?

Either you 1) didn't do your due diligence, or 2) damaged the book, by accident or not, and want to pass responsibility to the seller.

The first is irresponsible, the second is fraud. Either way, the fact that you expressed satisfaction with the item without doing your due diligence means that you should, at a minimum, understand the seller's position, and be much more gracious than you have been. You sent the PM expressing your satisfaction in the late night hours of June 16...and then didn't send the PM with the complaint until June 23...a full 6-7 days later.

But here's where you do the most damage to your case:

Quote

Sorry to turn this into a drag...I noticed the front corner when I first looked at it but didn't inspect the back  very well.

I did see the creasing on the front right top corner initially and thought, will (sic), it'll probably press out

So, by your own testimony, you saw the damage that you are now claiming is the reason for the return (and FULL refund), but you STILL said "Gorgeous book. Really happy to have that in my hands", AND you left kudos for him.

In other words...you saw what might be damage when you first opened the package...didn't inspect it carefully at that time...expressed your satisfaction with the book...then, 6-7 days later, you decide to look at it more closely and THEN you had a problem with it...?

Houston...? We certainly do have a problem.

When you expressed satisfaction,  you told the seller that you accepted the book in the condition it was in.

This isn't like missed restoration, or something that would take a skilled grader to assess. You freely admit that you saw an issue, but couldn't bother with examining it further at the time. Not only did you implicitly accept the book when you did that, but you explicitly did so, as well.

You really don't have much ground to stand on, here.

As an aside, this comment from Mxwll is also telling:

Quote

I'd need to see the book up close again to respond to the damage you've mentioned because I clearly missed it beforehand.

See that? Mxwll demonstrates good faith here. He doesn't presume you damaged the book at first. He acknowledges that he could have missed something, that it could have been his responsibility, even if he doesn't believe it.

That's good faith at work.

You, on that other hand, have not done likewise.

You've started a retaliatory "Probation List nomination" against Mxwell Smrt, instead of letting the issue be worked out here, cluttering up the boards with unnecessary threads. That's unprofessional and churlish.

You opened a Paypal dispute before the seller even received the book back is also unprofessional and churlish.

And, most tellingly, you, yourself, have been guilty of drawing erroneous conclusions, rushing to judgment, and character attacks against others on this board, people you haven't even been involved in transactions with, the very thing you accuse Mxwell Smrt of doing to you. You've been careless, sloppy, irresponsible, and callous in your judgment of others, and now it's come back upon you.  I daresay you're reaping what you've sown.

I don't think anyone is saying that Mxwell Smrt's reaction has been professional, either. It hasn't been. He's angry, and has said things he shouldn't have said. He shouldn't have accused you of damaging the book without proof, and his reaction has been, admittedly, over the top. Granted.

But it was your responsibility, as the buyer, to inspect the item and let the seller know immediately if there was a problem. You didn't do that. You expressed your satisfaction. And, worse, you expressed your satisfaction even after you admittedly noticed something wasn't quite right. Therefore, the onus is on you to not respond in kind and escalate the situation. You aren't both on the same moral field, equally responsible. You bore the greater responsibility, because you didn't do your due diligence....if, indeed, that's what happened.

Let's go back to your original comment:

Quote

You have called me a liar, con artists, BS artists, full of BS, POS and generally assaulted my character based on your suppositions

I've very carefully examined all the comments posted in this thread, PMs and all. I don't see where Mxwll called you a "liar"; though he did accuse you of lying. Bit of a linguistic difference, but that may be picking nits, granted.

At no point did he call you a "con artists" (sic)

At no point did he call you a "BS artists" (sic)

At no point did he say you were "full of BS" (though he did say you were "FOS" a couple of times, and that he was calling you out on your BS.)

Minor quibbles...? Maybe. But it demonstrates that you play fast and loose with the details. Details, DavidtheDavid, matter. You have been sloppy, irresponsible, and cavalier about the details. If you can't be precise about the small, meaningless details, how can anyone expect you to be precise about the important ones...like a back corner crease that should have been noted upon receipt?

Let's look at this comment:

Quote

But it does. He accepted my new information, made a clear indication to return the book for a refund, and then backed off. Events happen sequentially.

The seller makes a good faith effort to accept a return for a dissatisfied customer, then changes his mind after thinking about it, and you use it against him as proof that he "accepted your new information"...? Classy.

If you had done your due diligence, you wouldn't have put the seller in this position in the first place.

Then, you state in your Paypal claim that there has been "no good will" on Mxwll's part, which, as I demonstrated above, isn't at all true.

You conveniently leave out that you received the book...saw it might have issues...but then expressed satisfaction anyways...and then waited another 6-7 days to examine the book more carefully to THEN see that it had problems...if, in fact, that's what really happened.

In other words, you lied to Paypal. You said the book "arrived damaged" (which it clearly did) but you decided it didn't bother you at that time. It was only after you saw HOW damaged it was that you decided there was a problem....all of which you conveniently left out of your complaint to Paypal.

Sloppy, if not deceitful.

But, then, that's typical of my experience with you, and I suspect others, as well.

And you haven't even apologized for your lack of due diligence, or shown any sort of contrition about it. How powerful would "I'm sorry I missed it. I should have looked more closely when I received it. Is there anything you're wiling to do?" be to resolving this amicably?

Mxwll was, at least at first, willing to admit he might have missed something, and said so.

You actually did miss something, a major, material something, but it's beneath you to even say sorry...? Or would you rather not do that, because it is an admission of culpability...?

As to the claim others have made, that "both sides made mistakes"...I'd sure like to know what mistake the seller made that would have made him liable for damages in this situation?

We know the mistake the buyer made: he neglected to do his due diligence. Failing to do your due diligence has cost countless litigants countless dollars over countless years.

But what mistake did the seller make that would make him...in any way...liable to be "equally at fault"...?

Being angry and calling names and rushing to judgment are mistakes, no doubt...but not mistakes that would result in the seller bearing any responsibility for the damages.

Quote

I would guess that I'm not the only one who would like for you to elaborate on this comment. It can easily be read as a veiled threat.

It could be...if one wasn't up on their reading comprehension. What Mxwll said was "and if by chance YOU (emphasis mine) lose the dispute, well...I guess we'll see."

That doesn't say "and if by chance *I* lose the dispute", in which case, you'd have a valid claim of a veiled threat. But he didn't say that. He said YOU. If YOU lose the dispute, we'll see what happens. What would he possibly do to you if YOU lose the dispute...? Gloat...? Succeed in getting you put on the (essentially ineffective) Probation list...? If you lose, HE WINS. What threat would there be from him at that point...?

Sloppy. Details matter.

Quote

obviously should have looked at it more carefully

True words, there.

Presuming that both the seller and the buyer are telling the truth, or believe they are telling the truth, it looks like the book was simply damaged in transit. Whether the box itself was damaged or not is irrelevant. This kind of damage is common, and happens all the time, as others have said.

But the party that bears responsibility in this for failing to do his due diligence is the buyer. You don't get to say you're satisfied, and THEN change your mind, especially when you notice cause for concern from the outset. That's not how it works. If you don't have time to check, the answer is very simple: don't say anything until you do, and thoroughly examine it within a reasonable period of time. But DO NOT say anything, especially not "all good!", until you do your due diligence.

And you certainly don't leave kudos on a public message board until then.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sorry for the length of that...details and all.

Formatting is substantially harder on this board than the old one.....and I don't see a preview function, like the old one had.

A shame.

Preview is to the left of the "B" for bold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sorry for the length of that...details and all.

Formatting is substantially harder on this board than the old one.....and I don't see a preview function, like the old one had.

A shame.

One has to appreciate your meticulousness when it’s aimed at balance, even when it becomes verbose. :)

As for the rest: I already commented and I entirely agree with Sharon. I understand both want to be right, and are convinced of their positions. Both positions could be "right" (as there are no specific facts to support them), so it would be a good thing to accept the idea to split the monetary loss and be content with this, as I also told James via PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
1 1