Is This Guy for Real?

Well, here's the EXACT WORDING...

"Emailing buyers in an open or ended transaction to warn them away from a seller or item".

-----------------------------------------------

"Warn them away" being the key words here.

What I did did NOT constitute a warning because I only left a link. I made no comment of any kind, nada, nil, none. No words, no claims, nothing.

However Matt P. has gone out of his way to claim that I did say something to the bidder, when I did not.

assuming your point is raised to ebay, how do you
intend on showing that your motive was NOT to
discourage bidding/purchasing??

Well, first of all, I did not even know about the rule you are mentioning, and yet I STILL didn't say word one. I specifically said nothing even though I did not know their rule because I had no right to say anything about the condition of the camera, and I did not say word one about the condition of the camera nor the seller.

A couple of other things to consider. Ebay could easily develop software that would not permit someone's email address from being visible while that member is bidding on an item. But I don't think Ebay would ever do this because if in fact there was some information pertinent to an item up for bid and Ebay blocked their members from receiving the information, Ebay WOULD BE LIABLE, perhaps an accessory to potentially illegal sales activity. It's clear that Ebay's rule is designed to prevent devaluation of auction product because of false claims.

Now if I had posted a link to "gossip" about the camera, that WOULD constitute a "warning" of some type, but what I did was post a link directly to comments made by the person selling the camera.

If the person selling the camera simply had responded/updated their own self-generated topic post everything else becomes secondary. By NOT updating their own topic, they create an environment where it's OK to talk badly about a product and then sell it on ebay and cry foul when someone posts a link to their own comments.

[img]graemlins/thumbs_down.gif[/img]

ebay has a feature which makes bidders anonymous
to the public... it is called 'private bidding'
which is an option of the seller when making the
auction... usually performed on large estate items
worth fortunes or small 'personal' items in which
the seller/bidders may wish to keep the auction
discreet.

however, the fact that you did not know about the
ebay rule against emailing a bidder does not
release you from your responsibility to make
sure it isn't against policy.

again, regardless of whether you copy/pasted
a link or emailed WAR & PEACE verbatim, you are
not allowed to email bidders in conjunction with
the auction/seller... regardless of motive.

You asked about my motive, now you say motive is irrelevant.

Common sense follows all laws. I followed common sense. The fact that I didn't know about the rule and STILL did not say anything is simply an answer to YOUR question as to motive.

see if you can read what i posted prior to adding
your own incorrect implications.

i said:

Quote:

---

assuming your point is raised to ebay, how do you
intend on showing that your motive was NOT to
discourage bidding/purchasing??

---

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">this was not asking for your motive. i already
know your motive (no matter how hard you are
trying to side-step it).

i asked how you intended on showing evidence
that your action WAS NOT h.e.l.l-bent on showing
negativity for the seller.

can you do that?

You have implied that I have disingenuous motives, yet I always answer your questions honestly.

Now you post...." i already
know your motive (no matter how hard you are
trying to side-step it)".

It would appear you are saying I have something to hide. So you are not asking questions to get an understanding of the situation, but to get a conviction of some type. Look up disingenuous, and perhaps you don't need to accuse others of this so often in future when you seem to practice it yourself.

You claim to KNOW my intent, and that my intent was negative because I am "sidestepping" your questions.

My intent has never changed and it was never intended to harm anyone. Providing relevant, non-third party information to this particular situation is not malice. The person had COMPLETE POWER to update their own topic and put the issue to rest.

I think I've answered your accusations posed as questions, so kindly **** off.

assume what you will, alex... as i have made no
claim as to which properties your motive, imo,
is -- positive or negative.

you have yet to answer the question

and, no... i won't **** off... as this matter
goes beyond this board, thank you very much.