From: petrolcan on
In article <7tskk4F91qU1(a)mid.individual.net>, michael adams says...
>
> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.25e32b4850619d5c989bde(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> In article <7tsjm2F3tqU1(a)mid.individual.net>, michael adams says...
>
> > I can see nowhere in that policy where it states that paypal *will* hold
> > back payment for a new seller.
>
> So you're claiming that despite a new seller having insufficient funds in
> their account in the event of a dispute, Paypal won't always operate
> a 21 day hold.

That's exactly what I am saying.

> Despite the fact that is directly contrary to their stated policy.

I suggest that you go and look up what 'may' and 'occassionally' mean
before passing further comment.
From: Niel J Humphreys on
"Fran" <autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote in message
news:hlb4g6$7k1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Niel J Humphreys" <admin(a)sznzozwdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:hlagn5$1nif$1(a)energise.enta.net...
>> "michael adams" <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>> news:7trcufFitoU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Dodgy Geezer" <dodgy.geezer(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:iFXdn.64248$En7.22995(a)newsfe07.ams2...
>>>> michael adams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > As this is clearly feedback extortion - asking you to give him
>>>> > feedback before
>>>> > he'll even dispatch the goods.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> It appears that way to buyers.
>>>>
>>>> The guy understanably wants paying, not Paypal keeping hold of it
>>>> pending your approval.
>>>
>>> There's no "understandably" about it. Every seller offering Paypal
>>> knows before they list anything on eBay that Paypal won't clear the
>>> funds
>>> until either the buyer leaves feedback or 21 days have elapsed.
>>
>> Wrong, only new/low volume sellers in certain categories. Even then they
>> are told in a small paragraph that Paypal *may* hold onto the payment.
>>
>
> Correct. And adams is missing a conditional, too.


Yep and given his proven inability to entertain anything contrary to his own
interpretation or opinion I am not going to start arguing with him. We know
the facts, just grab some popcorn, sit back and watch him make himself look
ridiculous once again. ;o)

--



From: petrolcan on
In article <hled54$41e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...

> > Now I wonder what your new friend thinks ?
> >
> Has petrolcan has suddenly gained both a brain and a conscience, and thus
> stopped thinking TOG = GOD, then?

As I said previously, it was only a matter of time before you started
displaying your true colours again.
From: petrolcan on
In article <MPG.25e3e69c3649ffe7989726(a)news.virginmedia.com>, Phil
says...
>
> > Despite the fact that is directly contrary to their stated policy.
>
> You're wrong, get over it. Calling other people idiots because *you*
> can't understand things doesn't denigrate other people, seriously.
> Although resumably you're doing it on purpose just because you don't
> want to back down?

He obviously has read it properly now hence the reason of no further
relies from the halfwit.

Its what we have come to expect from mr. adams, no doubt he will do it
again.
From: michael adams on

"Phil" <phil(a)phil.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25e3e69c3649ffe7989726(a)news.virginmedia.com...

slid out from under his stone and made his mark for posterity thus -

> > Despite the fact that is directly contrary to their stated policy.
>
> You're wrong, get over it. Calling other people idiots because *you*
> can't understand things doesn't denigrate other people, seriously.
> Although resumably you're doing it on purpose just because you don't
> want to back down?
>
>
> --
> Phil


Dribble dribble dribble.

You almost managed a coherent paragraph there, as well.

Almost.


michael adams

....