From: Fran on

"petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2533b67f3865cd639898b8(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> 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.

When will you refund your buyer?


From: petrolcan on
In article <hacalp$t6s$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...
>
> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message

> >> So, you have refunded the buyer?
> >
> > As yet, no.
> >
> When do you plan to do so?

Quite frankly, that is none of your business.
From: petrolcan on
In article <vkgjc59qs6936otfqck8mok9v8dhgclv9g(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >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.
>
> In the category, title, and the photo, which are the bits that a lot
> of people will use to form their buying decision. As you stated you
> knew there was a chance people won't read the description when you
> listed the empty box, what is your reason for using a misleading
> category, title and photo?

All answered before.

But once again you fail to answer my question so I'll ask it again

So, could you point me to the bit of my auction that "alludes to the
fact it contains whatever item the box shows"?
From: petrolcan on
In article <aigjc51k7ja4guiccabhk3nmfacefpbfik(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >> 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.
>
> As long as they don't prove my point, of course. Those you can't
> answer because then someone else might see them.

Ask and you shall receive.
From: petrolcan on
In article <iujjc511dffkadjgocg8co4m4526gj3juf(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >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.
> >>
> >> In the category, title, and the photo, which are the bits that a lot
> >> of people will use to form their buying decision. As you stated you
> >> knew there was a chance people won't read the description when you
> >> listed the empty box, what is your reason for using a misleading
> >> category, title and photo?
> >
> >All answered before.
> >
> >But once again you fail to answer my question so I'll ask it again
> >
> >So, could you point me to the bit of my auction that "alludes to the
> >fact it contains whatever item the box shows"?
>
> Category, title and photo. I already gave you the specific details of
> why those 3 were misleading, but you chose to ignore them for some
> mysterious reason.

I didn't ignore them at all. I'll say it one last time, the item
description makes it perfectly clear that it was only a box on sale. You
seem to be the only one that thinks differently.

> There was also the postal charge which was way in excess of what an
> empty box would cost to post, and more in line with the cost of a
> boxed camera.

See, I asked you to find me an slr camera with a postage charge of £3
and you came up with nothing. A boxed camera costs a lot more than £3 to
post but then you already know that.

> But your excuse that you always over charge for postage
> seems reasonable enough, so I will let you have that one.

I always overcharge for postage? I don't recall ever claiming to do
that.