From: petrolcan on
In article <ksjjc5dqrkrjq6e08hkocissjj9mn1vai6(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.
>
> They were posted last night, so even shitty ISP new servers will still
> have them.

I might have missed them, care to point them out?

> Now go and answer them.

Hah!
From: petrolcan on
In article <35ojc5t2g0njug6vfsaqkf40clqsoe1eee(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >> 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.
>
> What does the item description have to do with the category, title and
> photo? Why did you choose the last thing that people will look at, and
> the one thing that a lot of people will ignore, to state what is for
> sale?

The title says box, there is a picture of a box and the category I have
explained before. I really cannot make this any clearer than I already
have and as such will not answer again.

> >> 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.
>
> How do you explain these?
> <http://photography.shop.ebay.co.uk/Digital-Cameras-/31388/i.html?LH_FS=1&_nkw=slr+digital+camera&_catref=1&_fln=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m282>

That's too easy. The sellers are offering free postage. It doesn't mean
that the actual postage is free to the seller.

> >> 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.
>
> That was your stated reason for charging £3

It wasn't you know. I'd suggest that you should get your facts straight
but I fear I'd be asking just a little too much.

> for posting an empty box
> weighing, at a guess, about 150g. You refused to state the exact
> weight of the empty box for some mysterious reason.

You never asked for the weight of the box.
From: petrolcan on
In article <2gekc51sbpujvncvg9v1reeak0j0qlfgdo(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >> How is that any different to what the Xbox box sellers did? The title
> >> said box, and there was a photo of a box. They also listed it in the
> >> Xbox category rather than the empty box category, and left it for the
> >> description to tell people what they were buying.
> >
> >It is different in that I said in my description "Please note that this
> >auction is the box only, no documents, no leads, no software, no lens
> >and certainly no camera."
>
> The Xbox box sellers also had a comment like that in the description.
> Please note you are bidding on the box only, no console is included.
> (this is from memory, but backed up by comments people made in the
> relevant threads from this group).

Does your memory also recall that the xbox box sellers also listed all
that an xbox could do?

> >Here's the auction again:
> >
> >http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260480739582
> >
> >Now, if you really cannot see the difference, I cannot help explain any
> >more.
>
> Because there is no difference?

Yes, there is.

> >> Charging £3 to post an empty box does not mean that the seller will
> >> pay £3 to post it either. So what? Charging an appropriate amount to
> >> post a box containing what the buyer would expect to be in the empty
> >> box is part of the deception.
> >
> >So now you are saying that they would be expecting an empty box as per
> >description.
>
> They would expect the box to contain the item they are lead to believe
> will be inside it.

*sigh* The listing was quite clear.

> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> That was your stated reason for charging £3
> >> >
> >> >It wasn't you know. I'd suggest that you should get your facts straight
> >> >but I fear I'd be asking just a little too much.
> >>
> >> You said everyone over charges for postage and that buyers know they
> >> do. Nobody who didn't over charge for postage would make such a claim.
> >
> >You know full well I have never said such a thing. Why would you make
> >that up?

You failed to answer this one.

> >> >> for posting an empty box
> >> >> weighing, at a guess, about 150g. You refused to state the exact
> >> >> weight of the empty box for some mysterious reason.
> >> >
> >> >You never asked for the weight of the box.
> >>
> >> I said it must be a very heavy box, that was a cue for you to state
> >> its weight and thereby justify the £3 cost. What was your reason for
> >> not doing so?
> >
> >If you wanted to know then all you had to do was ask but I never refused
> >as you have stated.
> >
> >> Was my guess of 150g correct?
> >
> >For the box itself? No. The box itself weighs approx 185g. The box it
> >would be posted in weighs approx 220g. Total of just over 400g.
> >Total postage cost of £2.89.
>
> Post office website says £1.85, or £1.04 if you flatpack it. Are they
> pretending?

1st class recorded delivery. Go look it up.
From: petrolcan on
In article <bb5kc5966ofs4n7tsvhp19i3akunblamgf(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >The title says box, there is a picture of a box and the category I have
> >explained before. I really cannot make this any clearer than I already
> >have and as such will not answer again.
>
> How is that any different to what the Xbox box sellers did? The title
> said box, and there was a photo of a box. They also listed it in the
> Xbox category rather than the empty box category, and left it for the
> description to tell people what they were buying.

It is different in that I said in my description "Please note that this
auction is the box only, no documents, no leads, no software, no lens
and certainly no camera."

Here's the auction again:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260480739582

Now, if you really cannot see the difference, I cannot help explain any
more.

> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> How do you explain these?
> >> <http://photography.shop.ebay.co.uk/Digital-Cameras-/31388/i.html?LH_FS=1&_nkw=slr+digital+camera&_catref=1&_fln=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m282>
> >
> >That's too easy. The sellers are offering free postage. It doesn't mean
> >that the actual postage is free to the seller.
>
> Charging £3 to post an empty box does not mean that the seller will
> pay £3 to post it either. So what? Charging an appropriate amount to
> post a box containing what the buyer would expect to be in the empty
> box is part of the deception.

So now you are saying that they would be expecting an empty box as per
description.

> As is hinting that the empty box is
> worth at least £50 by using the phrase "no reserve" in the title.

I was hinting at no such thing, I put no reserve in most of my titles
when listing. I do this simply to let buyers know that it gets sold at
whatever price it finishes at, even if it is just the 99p start price.

> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> That was your stated reason for charging £3
> >
> >It wasn't you know. I'd suggest that you should get your facts straight
> >but I fear I'd be asking just a little too much.
>
> You said everyone over charges for postage and that buyers know they
> do. Nobody who didn't over charge for postage would make such a claim.

You know full well I have never said such a thing. Why would you make
that up?

> >> for posting an empty box
> >> weighing, at a guess, about 150g. You refused to state the exact
> >> weight of the empty box for some mysterious reason.
> >
> >You never asked for the weight of the box.
>
> I said it must be a very heavy box, that was a cue for you to state
> its weight and thereby justify the £3 cost. What was your reason for
> not doing so?

If you wanted to know then all you had to do was ask but I never refused
as you have stated.

> Was my guess of 150g correct?

For the box itself? No. The box itself weighs approx 185g. The box it
would be posted in weighs approx 220g. Total of just over 400g.
Total postage cost of £2.89.
From: Fran on

"petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.253461117d91519b9898cb(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
In article <2gekc51sbpujvncvg9v1reeak0j0qlfgdo(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >> How is that any different to what the Xbox box sellers did? The title
> >> said box, and there was a photo of a box. They also listed it in the
> >> Xbox category rather than the empty box category, and left it for the
> >> description to tell people what they were buying.
> >
> >It is different in that I said in my description "Please note that this
> >auction is the box only, no documents, no leads, no software, no lens
> >and certainly no camera."
>
> The Xbox box sellers also had a comment like that in the description.
> Please note you are bidding on the box only, no console is included.
> (this is from memory, but backed up by comments people made in the
> relevant threads from this group).

Does your memory also recall that the xbox box sellers also listed all
that an xbox could do?

> >Here's the auction again:
> >
> >http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260480739582
> >
> >Now, if you really cannot see the difference, I cannot help explain any
> >more.
>
> Because there is no difference?

Yes, there is.

> >> Charging �3 to post an empty box does not mean that the seller will
> >> pay �3 to post it either. So what? Charging an appropriate amount to
> >> post a box containing what the buyer would expect to be in the empty
> >> box is part of the deception.
> >
> >So now you are saying that they would be expecting an empty box as per
> >description.
>
> They would expect the box to contain the item they are lead to believe
> will be inside it.

*sigh* The listing was quite clear.

> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> That was your stated reason for charging �3
> >> >
> >> >It wasn't you know. I'd suggest that you should get your facts
> >> >straight
> >> >but I fear I'd be asking just a little too much.
> >>
> >> You said everyone over charges for postage and that buyers know they
> >> do. Nobody who didn't over charge for postage would make such a claim.
> >
> >You know full well I have never said such a thing. Why would you make
> >that up?

You failed to answer this one.

> >> >> for posting an empty box
> >> >> weighing, at a guess, about 150g. You refused to state the exact
> >> >> weight of the empty box for some mysterious reason.
> >> >
> >> >You never asked for the weight of the box.
> >>
> >> I said it must be a very heavy box, that was a cue for you to state
> >> its weight and thereby justify the �3 cost. What was your reason for
> >> not doing so?
> >
> >If you wanted to know then all you had to do was ask but I never refused
> >as you have stated.
> >
> >> Was my guess of 150g correct?
> >
> >For the box itself? No. The box itself weighs approx 185g. The box it
> >would be posted in weighs approx 220g. Total of just over 400g.
> >Total postage cost of �2.89.
>
> Post office website says �1.85, or �1.04 if you flatpack it. Are they
> pretending?

1st class recorded delivery. Go look it up.

===

Why on earth bother with Recorded Delivery for a widget that sold for a
fiver? Sheer stupidity.