Re: Dodgy Ebay seller - what to do?

lionel,

Word of advice .. do not let Miro rile you up into saying something you may
later regret. The guy is here to do nothing but cause trouble.

Most people within the newsgroup treat everything he says with the respect
it deserves ... NONE




"Lionel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:bd6pkh$9df$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:19:52 +1000, in
> <3ef6e25d$0$26638$(E-Mail Removed)> , " Miro"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> >I think in future you must be clear who is responsible for the item. If
you
> >do not pay insurance and you do not pay for the best packing and the best
> >courier you really cant blame the seller.




VH-MR2

VH-MR2 wrote:

> lionel,
>
> Word of advice .. do not let Miro rile you up into saying something you may
> later regret. The guy is here to do nothing but cause trouble.
>
> Most people within the newsgroup treat everything he says with the respect
> it deserves ... NONE

I've been caught out sticking up for Miro before, thinking he'd become a better
person, only to find him returning to his ways of old. But...

Between the garble & irrationally constructed words, Miro often has good
advice. He often offers crap too. In this, he's no different to any other
usenet poster, perhaps with the exception of myself

I read most posts here, I research elsewhere, I add it all up and end up with a
composite of knowledge, endorsed or backed by my own experience. I find it's
served me well.

I won't get all Dalai Lama on you, but I will offer this advice: To ignore
anyone is to expand your own ignorance.

Cheers,
Andrew )

"ahennell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> VH-MR2 wrote:
>
>
> I won't get all Dalai Lama on you, but I will offer this advice: To
ignore
> anyone is to expand your own ignorance.

Good advice, however Miro appears to be the only one trying to rile the
situation up into a flame war .. others are merely engaging in a discussion.
As you say, supporting Miro's stance on anything usually ends with you
wearing egg on your face .. this is no different.

I'd like to see this conversation continue in a mature manner .. we can all
learn from what happened here and I am extremely interested in the outcome
something i'm sure others will admit to as well. What I don't want to see
is a huge internet argument about it though.

I'd hope the outcome resulted in a return of the lense and a refund of the
money (less postage) but we shall see.

I will state quite clearly that I don't have the expertise to know if the
damage is bad or not to the lense, but the fact that the side of the lense
with the damage was not indicated on the auction site is IMO a big mistake
on the part of the seller. Better to over inform people and risk losing a
sale than gaining a sale and having an incident like this occur.



B.

"Rob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> VH-MR2 wrote:
> >
>
> > Good advice, however Miro appears to be the only one trying to rile the
> > situation up into a flame war .. others are merely engaging in a
discussion.
> > As you say, supporting Miro's stance on anything usually ends with you
> > wearing egg on your face .. this is no different.
>
> I believe that only happens when a retort is fired off without due
> consideration, thereafter the thread usually quickly deterioirates.
>
> Rob

You should be careful dealing with the thought Nazi's, they have long
memories and they must not be contradicted.

"ahennell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> VH-MR2 wrote:
>
> > lionel,
> >
> > Word of advice .. do not let Miro rile you up into saying something you
may
> > later regret. The guy is here to do nothing but cause trouble.
> >
> > Most people within the newsgroup treat everything he says with the
respect
> > it deserves ... NONE
>
> I've been caught out sticking up for Miro before, thinking he'd become a
better
> person, only to find him returning to his ways of old. But...

You should only say what you feel reflects your interpretation or
understanding of a subject. Whether it be based on fact or opinion matters
little or not at all. The freedoms of thought are intended to be universally
individual not pooled into factions and cohorts.

If Usenet is meant to reflect similarity and total uniformity then it may
come as a shock to most others that it is as diverse as society and those
choosing to struggle with mere thought alone must have a similar deficit in
other areas of their lives.

If I see that someone agrees with me I feel that is ok, if someone disagrees
I could care less.

VH-MR2 wrote:
>

> Good advice, however Miro appears to be the only one trying to rile the
> situation up into a flame war .. others are merely engaging in a discussion.
> As you say, supporting Miro's stance on anything usually ends with you
> wearing egg on your face .. this is no different.

I believe that only happens when a retort is fired off without due
consideration, thereafter the thread usually quickly deterioirates.

Rob

Well now...
It's an interest worth noting that the people posting replies in the flavor
"It's the buyers fault" all seem to be E-bay dealers... Even if the $20,000
they made out of it last year is just their "Hobby", they are still full-on
dealers.

It's a sad day when someone who relies on people giving them money for their
livelihood (hobby if you wish), thinks the customer is the one who is wrong.
It seems pretty clear from the photos I saw that the lens has bitten the
bitumen (or concrete) and it is just as obvious that such damage could not
occur in the packaging the lens arrived in unless it (the package) was also
damaged.

Given all that... The seller has pulled a scam on the buyer... He's taken
advantage of the fact that a buyer seeing only the good side of the lens
could be duped into thinking it was in the condition it was presented... It
wasn't and that act of deception is called FRAUD in every other industry.

The poster (ahennell) who admits to being a frequent E-bay seller of goods
worth thousands of dollars and it just being a "hobby", hit the nail on the
head when he said there is NO consumer protection at auctions be they real
or on-line. What he curiously omitted to mention is that at a real auction
bidders have the opportunity to "see and feel" before bidding.

On E-bay all there is to rely on is the description of the goods by a
phantom hiding behind an often odd sounding nick-name. Sellers on E-bay have
a duty of care to describe every defect in whatever they sell. Anything less
is fraudulent.

JT

> "" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > VH-MR2 wrote:
> >
> > lionel, Word of advice .. do not let Miro rile you up into saying
something you may
> > later regret. The guy is here to do nothing but cause trouble.
> >
> > > Most people within the newsgroup treat everything he says with the
respect
> > > it deserves ... NONE
> >
> > I've been caught out sticking up for Miro before, thinking he'd become a
> better person, only to find him returning to his ways of old. But...

I've been waiting for "caveat emptor" to come up in this discussion...

"Caveat Emptor: commercial principle that without a warranty
the buyer takes upon himself the risk of quality".

He didnt really misadvertise it, but by the same token, I'd be pretty
annoyed if it turned up like that. But I'd have asked directly about
whether there was anything else wrong with it at all.



Auspics wrote:
> Well now...
> It's an interest worth noting that the people posting replies in the flavor
> "It's the buyers fault" all seem to be E-bay dealers... Even if the $20,000
> they made out of it last year is just their "Hobby", they are still full-on
> dealers.
>
> It's a sad day when someone who relies on people giving them money for their
> livelihood (hobby if you wish), thinks the customer is the one who is wrong.
> It seems pretty clear from the photos I saw that the lens has bitten the
> bitumen (or concrete) and it is just as obvious that such damage could not
> occur in the packaging the lens arrived in unless it (the package) was also
> damaged.
>
> Given all that... The seller has pulled a scam on the buyer... He's taken
> advantage of the fact that a buyer seeing only the good side of the lens
> could be duped into thinking it was in the condition it was presented... It
> wasn't and that act of deception is called FRAUD in every other industry.
>
> The poster (ahennell) who admits to being a frequent E-bay seller of goods
> worth thousands of dollars and it just being a "hobby", hit the nail on the
> head when he said there is NO consumer protection at auctions be they real
> or on-line. What he curiously omitted to mention is that at a real auction
> bidders have the opportunity to "see and feel" before bidding.
>
> On E-bay all there is to rely on is the description of the goods by a
> phantom hiding behind an often odd sounding nick-name. Sellers on E-bay have
> a duty of care to describe every defect in whatever they sell. Anything less
> is fraudulent.
>
> JT
>
>
>>"" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>VH-MR2 wrote:
>>>
>>>lionel, Word of advice .. do not let Miro rile you up into saying
>>
> something you may
>
>>>later regret. The guy is here to do nothing but cause trouble.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Most people within the newsgroup treat everything he says with the
>>>
> respect
>
>>>>it deserves ... NONE
>>>
>>>I've been caught out sticking up for Miro before, thinking he'd become a
>>
>>better person, only to find him returning to his ways of old. But...
>
>
>
>

Auspics wrote:

> Well now...
> It's an interest worth noting that the people posting replies in the flavor
> "It's the buyers fault" all seem to be E-bay dealers... Even if the $20,000
> they made out of it last year is just their "Hobby", they are still full-on
> dealers.

oh god, I'd _love_ to have _made_ $20,000 from ebay! LOL. Where'd this figure
come from? and who is "they"? Hearing voices again?

> It's a sad day when someone who relies on people giving them money for their
> livelihood (hobby if you wish), thinks the customer is the one who is wrong.

[sigh] you don't get it do you? Someone who relies on it as their livelihood,
will not rip off their buyers. It's as simple as that.
(and before you decide I'm a bigwig dealer, I'm not - I've sold on ebay to
dispose of old gear (replacing the trading post for that purpose), and in almost
all cases received less than the item's book value.

> It seems pretty clear from the photos I saw that the lens has bitten the
> bitumen (or concrete) and it is just as obvious that such damage could not
> occur in the packaging the lens arrived in unless it (the package) was also
> damaged.

For the dent? no. For the rattle? yes, easily in transit.

> Given all that... The seller has pulled a scam on the buyer... He's taken
> advantage of the fact that a buyer seeing only the good side of the lens
> could be duped into thinking it was in the condition it was presented... It
> wasn't and that act of deception is called FRAUD in every other industry.

In his description of the goods, maybe. But all auctions, online or not, are
buyer beware. Always have been, always will be, and if you don't like it, don't
bid!

> The poster (ahennell) who admits to being a frequent E-bay seller of goods
> worth thousands of dollars and it just being a "hobby", hit the nail on the
> head when he said there is NO consumer protection at auctions be they real
> or on-line. What he curiously omitted to mention is that at a real auction
> bidders have the opportunity to "see and feel" before bidding.

Hallucinating again?
Where did I say "thousands of dollars worth of goods"? I've _bought_ maybe $20k
worth, but sales in total might add up to, oh, $4k max?
What you curiously omitted is any fact in your quotation of me. Iindeed, you
seem to have just made up figures.
Regardless, ebay buyers can (and most DO) take precautions to reduce the risk of
being dudded - it's not rocket science.

> On E-bay all there is to rely on is the description of the goods by a
> phantom hiding behind an often odd sounding nick-name. Sellers on E-bay have
> a duty of care to describe every defect in whatever they sell. Anything less
> is fraudulent.

And buyers can take every step they can to ensure the goods _are_ what is
described, and guess what (here's the interesting part you just don't get)... if
you don't want to buy from ebay, don't. I've yet to see someone with a gun to
their head saying "bid now or die".

You get bargains on ebay. 2nd hand bargains. used, 2nd hand bargains. from
strangers. And you want something like a brand new warranty? [chuckle] But
even with this considered, most ebayers, all I've dealt with, are honourable
people and there has been no malice or fraud of any sort.

Continue the debate all you like, but don't misquote me or just invent things -
it discredits what little credibility you have.

Cheers,
Andrew )

Scott Coutts wrote:

> I've been waiting for "caveat emptor" to come up in this discussion...

I did yesterday, when I began with "Unfortunately, it's a bit of Caveat Emptor"

> "Caveat Emptor: commercial principle that without a warranty
> the buyer takes upon himself the risk of quality".

yup

> He didnt really misadvertise it, but by the same token, I'd be pretty
> annoyed if it turned up like that. But I'd have asked directly about
> whether there was anything else wrong with it at all.

exactly )