From: Dr Zoidberg on
"Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hab41l$v9c$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:haaqmm$djr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> "The Older Gentleman" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1j72qsv.puqdn9mix9wiN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk...
>>> Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you see all the othere people queueing up to throw bread to him?
>>>>
>>>> No?
>>>>
>>>> That's because they think you are wrong.
>>>
>>> Point of order: except for the other half of the Fracker xenomorph.
>>>
>>
>> They aren't people :0)
>>
>
> Mr. Cook, I am now distinctly disappointed in you. I'd thought you able to
> debate without descending to this.

It's only a debate when both sides are actually using reason to discuss
something.
When one side is just repeating the same nonsense over and over again with
no evidence at all like Spacker , then it ceased to be a debate.

Oh , and spot the difference between an image search for xenomorph
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=xenomorph&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=9JnJSufwM9mrjAeO7qk3&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1and people :0)http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=people&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi--Alex"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"
From: petrolcan on
In article <fm3ic516k2n2t0rmtc7u7qeakiid6tsb8r(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Perhaps you can think of some other plausible reason why the group's
> >> opinion on box fraud has changed so dramatically?
> >
> >Compare and contrast the 2005 story that spacker is quoting:
> >
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/08/xbox_photo_auction/
> >
> >and my auction that spacker is adamant that I have ripped off the buyer
> >and comited fraud:
> >
> >http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260480739582
>
> What you did is more like this one, but it is the same modus operandi
> in both examples, because they both prey on the gullibility of buyers.
>
> http://forums.maxconsole.net/archive/index.php/t-14556.html
> http://www.hardforum.com/archive/index.php/t-985468.html
> "By bidding, you agree that you have read the entire auction and agree
> to all terms, conditions, and what you are receiving." (That sounds
> familiar ...)
>
> <http://reviews.ebay.co.uk/Common-eBay-scams-and-cons-Don-apos-t-get-robbed-on-eBay_W0QQugidZ10000000010187084>
> "The Empty Box Scam
> A foul form of crime in which the seller knowingly lists an empty box
> on eBay, but alludes to the fact it contains whatever item the box
> shows. This is a particular scam with regards to video game
> consoles/laptops and some gamers have paid hundreds of dollars only to
> receive and empty PS3 or Xbox box in the post. Also see ?Photo Scam?."

So, could you point me to the bit of my auction that "alludes to the
fact it contains whatever item the box shows"?

The simple fact is that all you are trying to do is discredit me for
your own personal agenda. I'd just like to point out that it hasn't
worked.
From: petrolcan on
In article <ft8ic5ltdrf3qjeg30ch8rok4epl7s4krh(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >In article <1j72yov.11p94zfwfvbrzN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>, The
> >Older Gentleman says...
> >>
> >> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Compare and contrast the 2005 story that spacker is quoting:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/08/xbox_photo_auction/
> >> >
> >> > and my auction that spacker is adamant that I have ripped off the buyer
> >> > and comited fraud:
> >> >
> >> > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260480739582
> >>
> >> Oh, I looked at your auction as soon as you posted the url. You did
> >> nothing wrong. You had no intent to rip anyone off, and you ripped
> >> nobody off.
> >
> >I know, I was just making sure that other readers had the correct facts.
>
> You mean the facts that you want them to have. I notice you have
> deliberately ignored several of my key points. What is your reason for
> witholding this information from them?

I'm happy to answer reasonable questions.
From: Fran on

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in
message news:hac5s1$9q$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> "Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:hab41l$v9c$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:haaqmm$djr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "The Older Gentleman" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1j72qsv.puqdn9mix9wiN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk...
>>>> Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you see all the othere people queueing up to throw bread to him?
>>>>>
>>>>> No?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because they think you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Point of order: except for the other half of the Fracker xenomorph.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They aren't people :0)
>>>
>>
>> Mr. Cook, I am now distinctly disappointed in you. I'd thought you able
>> to debate without descending to this.
>
> It's only a debate when both sides are actually using reason to discuss
> something.
> When one side is just repeating the same nonsense over and over again with
> no evidence at all like Spacker , then it ceased to be a debate.
>
> Oh , and spot the difference between an image search for xenomorph
> http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=xenomorph&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=9JnJSufwM9mrjAeO7qk3&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1and
> people
> :0)http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=people&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi--Alex"I
> laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

So, let's be clear on this. Are you saying that whoever "Fracker" is - do
you mean Spacker? - they are a xenomorph, and therefore not a person? And
precisely who else do you believe to be a non person?


From: Fran on

"petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2533b7128a50cc869898b9(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> In article <hab68p$i0b$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...
>>
>> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.25332bf086b10af89898b3(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> > In article <hab3eb$q0l$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...
>> >>
>> >> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.2532f1a2cb02d07e9898ab(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> >> > In article <haamk0$9vg$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:MPG.2532ec318d1f16859898a9(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> >> >> > In article <haaki4$ohh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran
>> >> >> > says...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > No, you lied when you called me a rip off seller. End of.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Have you refunded your buyer yet?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What difference does that make?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Think about it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Okay, if I say yes, you say well done and if I say no, you remain on
>> >> > the spacker bandwagon calling me a rip off seller.
>> >> >
>> >> > What do I win?
>> >>
>> >> Self respect.
>> >
>> > I've got it in abundence.
>>
>> So, you have refunded the buyer?
>
> As yet, no.
>

When do you plan to do so?