Ebay is Unfair!

"Salty" wrote in message
...
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:19:26 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:

"Salty" wrote in message
...
Roberto Pirezzi wrote:

I'm done here.

We've know that for while. When did you find out?



Regards

Salty
So, you're another moron who supports cheats!

And here was me thinking you were pretty intelligent too! I'm proud to
admit I was wrong!!

Now, carry on, as you were. You insignificant little blister on the sole
of humanity. (that got lost in translation, I meant, you're the **** on
someones shoe).

Bottom line, I will not entertain ****ing jackass losers who support
cheats and frauds. Way I see it, you're a crook.

So, say what you want. You're a crock.

l2oberto

PS, you shouldnt take things seriously. I don't!
OK, Salty, let's try to guess about this one. Fourteen? An older
school-leaver? Resident of a home for the "exceptional"? The
prototype for the saying "Thick as two planks"?



Oh, I think that he is just a nice chap who is having a bad day.

Make that a year.

Hmmm.

Make that a life.

Regards

Salty

Actually, this is one of my better lives!

The other was not so good, I used to be an iceburg. Suffered major headaches
for years.

Like I said, don't take non-topical statements I make seriously or
personally, and we'll be fine.

The world is losing it's edge on the humour front. :-)

l2oberto

"Salty" wrote in message
...
Roberto Pirezzi wrote:
"Salty" wrote in message
...
Roberto Pirezzi wrote:

I'm done here.

We've know that for while. When did you find out?



Regards

Salty

So, you're another moron who supports cheats!


Well, I am a long way from a moron (exactly how far away are you?)

Not as far away as you!


I don't support cheats. I just have a realistic approach to life and
realise that they exist in every aspect of humanity and there is little I
can do about that other than be wary.

Errrr...if you are disagreeing with me (as per prior statement) then you
MUST support cheats.

How can you defend the actions of "postage price padding" when I made it
crystal clear it is a tactic I abhor! If you're disagreeing with me, then
you are agreeing with the "PPP's" and it's defenders and supporters.

I am well aware they exist, and I acknowledge you are also aware. Big
difference between being aware and saying it is fine for them to do it!

You can nit pick my replies all you like, but one thing you will find is a
consistancy on that specific topic that I refuse to be budged from. I find
no justification whatsoever for padding postage prices. I don't even use
eBay anymore, but i'll be damned if I want to see fees rise again to
compensate the trend of padding postage on next to nothing bid values. It
would mean any bargains I may choose to seek out at a later date are more
expensive.

Supporting it, doesn't mean it is right! even if by some strange notion, it
is a personal opinion that it is acceptable. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!

The only defence to the subject has always been "selfish greed" for the
desire of the product. Nobody seems to care about the false economy it
creates and ****-poor accountancy.

Why not just make every product FREE and charge us for "service". Isn't that
what pro-postage padding really means?

I just cannot accept the suggestion this activity has any real benefits in
either short, or long term. If people want to do it, so be it, but don't
start saying i'm wrong for saying it is not an acceptable practice!

l2oberto

Roberto Pirezzi wrote:


Salty
So, you're another moron who supports cheats!

Well, I am a long way from a moron (exactly how far away are you?)

Not as far away as you!

Will someone PLEASE stop making those whoosh bird mating calls?


I don't support cheats. I just have a realistic approach to life and
realise that they exist in every aspect of humanity and there is little I
can do about that other than be wary.

Errrr...if you are disagreeing with me (as per prior statement) then you
MUST support cheats.

Hmmmm. I think that I should add delusional to your ever increasing list
of character traits.


How about keeping it simple.

I disagree with you because I find you disagreeable.


Regards

Salty

"Salty" wrote in message
...
Roberto Pirezzi wrote:


Salty
So, you're another moron who supports cheats!

Well, I am a long way from a moron (exactly how far away are you?)

Not as far away as you!

Will someone PLEASE stop making those whoosh bird mating calls?


I don't support cheats. I just have a realistic approach to life and
realise that they exist in every aspect of humanity and there is little
I can do about that other than be wary.

Errrr...if you are disagreeing with me (as per prior statement) then you
MUST support cheats.

Hmmmm. I think that I should add delusional to your ever increasing list
of character traits.


How about keeping it simple.

I disagree with you because I find you disagreeable.


Regards

Salty

I see you are still very childish.

Disagree all you like. Doesn't change the fact I am right! That's all that
actually counts.

l2oberto

"Padraic Brown" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:11:44 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:


"Padraic Brown" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:06:55 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:13:02 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:

However, it's often the case that you are buying an item that is
unique or offered by only one seller and priced at £1 value and £19
shipping. In that case, you have to either decide to reward shady
ethics or do without the item.

It's quite possible many would do without the item, on the basis,
uniqueness
and general rareness generally has a certain expectation of "willing
to
pay
more". Paying £1 suggests the item may not be up to decent standards.

You are not paying £1; you are paying £20. The cost out-of-pocket is
what you are paying. The allocation of the item figure and the
shipping figure doesn't affect the buyer.

*sigh* The item is priced at £1. It's ridiculous low price suggests it
is
below acceptable standard.

Not at all. It is a fairly widespread practice to start an auction at
such a low amount in hopes of attracting attention. Such a high
postage cost, however, will tend to counteract that attractant. So, as
Tony said, the price _isn't_ £1 at all, but the £20 total.

You (and Tony) are mis-understanding me. I'm not concerned with starting
bid, I am referring to final bid, which is, in this example £1. It is
common
for seasoned buyers to avoid these auctions, on the simple basis, it just
doesn't look or feel right. I dare say, if I had ever made such purchases,
I
would be more out of pocket than the few quid I have currently lost since
the late 90's!

As I'm sure you're aware, the final bid is not really the bottom line!
If you're not taking into account the cost of postage -- whether it's
47p or £19 -- then you really don't have a grasp on the actual price
and therefore value of the item.

The cost of postage is determined by it's reasonable factor, and is usually
comparable with other sources. If it is not comparable with other sources,
then it is not an item I'd bid on anyway. I dont bid without choice.

Postage is IRRELEVANT to the value of an item. An item is worth x regardless
what Y is. Adding 3, 4 or 5 times the cost of actual postage onto it,
doesn't raise it's value (economically speaking, the reverse ends up being
true, but you play your cards, I'll play mine).


At the end of the day, if people like you feel sky high postal prices are
acceptable, then so be it. I strongly disagree,

Fine. And once again, it's not a question of "sky high postal prices"
but a matter of "total auction price". If I can get a £20 note for £1
plus £19 postage, then I come out ahead (cos I don't have to pay the
exchange rate).

That is the most ******** dumb stupid thing i've ever read.

You would pay £20 for a £20 note and think you've come out ahead? How would
you pay for it?

Trust me when I say this, NOBODY would WANT to buy a £20 note for £20.


and I will continue to
strongly disagree until people "GET IT". Defending a rip-off is
unacceptable.

No one is defending "rip-offs".

Yes you are. You are promoting the fact sellers can charge premium rates for
their postage, as long as the item is under priced. That equals rip-off.
People do not want to be paying actual value of items through postage! They
(and by they, I am talking people with some degree of common sense) want a
bargain. Why pay £1 + £19 when you can pay £10 + £3?


Professional businesses cannot show profit on an
item that is sold at a loss (or minimal profit is shown).

True, but all retailers know what a "loss leader" is. It's a low
prices something that attracts people to the store where, hopefully,
they will buy much more than they actually need. That's all the £1
start bid is -- it's a loss leader offered in the hopes that
continually higher bids will be placed.

Not really, a loss leader is always sold at a loss, it isn't sold on the
assumption it will somehow make a profit. The term "loss leader" simply
means to lose on one to gain overall. Such a gain cannot exist within the
context of loss leading, when the gain is on the loss. As I understand it,
such a practice is impossible to account for.

Tony already answered this one.

Incorrectly, or at least, with very little retail business knowledge.


It's basic auction psychology. If something is _worth_ £10 and the
opening bid is £9, chances are the first bidder will get it for £9
because the next bid will push the price over the top. No room for
bidding wars. On the other hand, if the opening bid is 10p, then
there's lots of room for wild and crazy bidding! There's a better
chance of selling the item for £11 or £12 that way.

We're not talking about auction psychology. If we were, then we'd both be
holding apples, and not one of us with a orange.

Well, if the bid is £1 (even with £20 postage) then this is exactly
what we're dealing with. Depending on the item of course! If it's only
worth a pound, then no one's going to bid at all.

i.e Psychology is true in the following instance:

A) 1p start bid, postal cost £1

B) £5 start bid, postal cost £1

A final bid = £7.40 + £1

B final bid = £5 + £1

A attracts attention, B doesn't.

Depends on the item. If the item is worth £50 and you start it at £5,
then it's all the same.

NO that is where you obviously lose money on auctions. If a item is WORTH
£50, you do NOT bid £50 for it, or at least you attempt to bid much LESS
than £50! - ideally, you'd be looking for a maximum of £30 to bid, that's
why sniping exists! Otherwise, it would be easier buying in a shop at full
price.


We're not talking about starting bids, we are talking about final bids,
and
the sky high postal costs.

Once again, if the item is worth the £20, then all's well!

If an item is worth £20, and the total you MUST pay is a minimum of £20, all
is far from well. All is pretty much doom!

I'll make you a deal to end this nonsense. You continue to buy items at full
value, and I'll buy them as cheap as possible. Agreed?


Income from
postage profit is a seperate income, and probabaly comes under service
income...

Not for Ebay auctions.

Actually, Yes.

Actually, no. The seller has several costs of doing business: stock
plus packing and postage plus Ebay fees. The buyer pays for all of
that and writes one cheque. The seller's income comes from sales made,
regardless of what he charges for postage. If he can get away with
charging more for postage than someone else, then bully for him!

The sellers income is made up of Sale + postage, which should be accounted
seperatley, and I have not come across any business who doesn't seperate
their incomes, to make expenses easier to calculate. i.e some sellers build
their costs into the item price (accounted for through auditing of value of
item in principle) others add it to postage costs, of which, costs come out
of that specific income. (or else you end up with expenses for the same
thing coming from 2 incomes).

play.com do not charge for postage on any of their products, therefore the
cost is built into the price, or it is written off as a loss.

amazon.co.uk DO charge postage on standard terms, which becomes a secondary
income with direct (and indirect) expenses. Where super saver FREE delivery
exists, this becomes a direct expense to the primary income. As the postal
methods differ, so do the expense values. It took Amazon a long time to
actually turn a profit. Just so you know.

They make up some of these expenses by padding out the contents of packaging
with external advertising materials.

It is not cut and dried.




Think paypal, and the little section for Postage Charge.

I have no use for Paypal and have never used it. If a seller won't
take a money order or cash, then he won't get my bid.

What exactly does that have to do with the previous point?

"It is wet in the sea". I live on dry land.


It's the same as paying 1p for litre of Diesel, and being charged by an
attendant 94.9p a litre to fill it. Customer cannot be given an accurate
invoice. (for example, some people can claim VAT and other taxes back).
VAT
on 1p? lol

It's really not as cut and dry as overall price.

There are probably laws in Britain against charging such a high
service price. In the end, it all evens out: the customer pays 96p for
that litre regardless of the "stated price" of 1p/l.

A new example, as that one doesnt seem to have got the point across.

The point is that the total price paid by the customer is 96p -- it
does not matter what goes into that price!

It matters a lot to some industries who can claim 80% of the duty paid on
fuel!!!


Cigarettes may cost £5 a pack. On a carton of 200 cigarettes, something
like
£32 (could be more, not checked recently) is Excise Duty. As the £32 is
not
an applicable duty on "service" charges, a retailer cannot sell cigarettes
for 1p and charge for the duty as a "service".

And where duty rebates are an option, it is impossible to claim them back,
if you havn't paid for them in the first place.

What's an "excise duty"? Is it a tax? Is it part of the £5 per pack
price? That's what, about £3.20 tax per pack? He can charge 1p for the
pack if he wants -- it'll get people into his shop for sure!, as £3.21
beats £5 any day.

He cannot sell them for 1p, as he cannot buy them that cheap! There is very
little profit on cigarettes (at retail level).

If he charges £3.21, he is making a loss.


It _all_ comes down to the final price, and whether that final price
is a good deal or not.

Also,
it might be hard to justify paying £20 for something that has no real
value
outside of personal desire.

A great deal of what I spend is for things that have no real value
outside of personal desire. My cable internet bill, for example.

Can you justify paying for your cable bill?

I rather think he just did: it's a matter of personal desire. He wants
to watch Coronation Street reruns, so he pays the cable bill. If he
wants a "£1" item off ebay that will cost him £19 to mail, then he'd
have to consider whether he desires a £20 item or not!

Or perhaps answering the question would help :-)

Already answered, friend! Cable tv is not a necessity. He says that
it's a "personal desire". He has weighed the options and has decided
that the price of the service is equal to the entertainment received.
Purchase justified.

i.e, a justification for paying for the internet is whether it forms an
essential part of your daily life. i.e, online shopping, staying in easy
contact with overseas relatives, school work etc.

Online shopping and staying in "easy" contact with overseas relations
is not essential either. The previous generation got on quite well
with neithe. They had the Sears and Roebuck Catalog and knew how to
address an envelope.

I never said it was essential. But if you are justifying something, a reason
generally comes into the equation.

How can a justification be "because I said so"?

The easiest way to lose a debate, is to fail on demonstrating points with
reference examples.


It really is as cut and dry as overall price -- for the consumer. We
don't care what the raw materials cost, shipping charges of same,
labour to make a finished product, or any of the various taxes and
fees involved (nor indeed the human cost (sweatshops and the like)).
We look at the price sticker on the item and make a decision whether
to buy or not based on that number. If it has to be mailed to me, then
the price of postage simply gets added on to that price sticker. If
the total price is OK, then we buy it; if it's too high, we leave it
be.

Padraic

If anyone is daft enough to pay £19 to have a £1 CD mailed then good luck,
that's all I can say. Personally, I'd rather pay £21 from a seller who has
ethics.

Of course! Why would anyone pay £20 for an item worth only £1!? Like I
said, you have to look at the _total_ price of the item and determine
if it's worthwhile! Ethics are really beside the point here.

Ethics matter far more than price. Would you buy a car from a car dealer who
you know is a crook who fiddles with the odometer, even if the price is
appealing? What determines true worth?

Let's say a CD is worth £10, and the average selling price over the past 6
months is £12. Would you rather pay £8 or £16? Why, then, is the average
price greater than it's worth?

l2oberto


Padraic

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:02:35 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:

You're still on about this!? Suit yourself. You lost out long ago.
Give it up already!

Padraic


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Roberto Pirezzi wrote:
"Salty" wrote in message
...
Roberto Pirezzi wrote:

Salty
So, you're another moron who supports cheats!
Well, I am a long way from a moron (exactly how far away are you?)
Not as far away as you!
Will someone PLEASE stop making those whoosh bird mating calls?

I don't support cheats. I just have a realistic approach to life and
realise that they exist in every aspect of humanity and there is little
I can do about that other than be wary.
Errrr...if you are disagreeing with me (as per prior statement) then you
MUST support cheats.
Hmmmm. I think that I should add delusional to your ever increasing list
of character traits.


How about keeping it simple.

I disagree with you because I find you disagreeable.


Regards

Salty

I see you are still very childish.

Yes, my inner child is thriving. Somehow you manage to bring it out -
something about you takes me back to schoolyard days.


Regards

Salty

"Padraic Brown" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:02:35 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:

You're still on about this!? Suit yourself. You lost out long ago.
Give it up already!

Padraic

Makes no difference. I buy bargains, therefore I win.

l2oberto



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Salty" wrote in message
...
Roberto Pirezzi wrote:
"Salty" wrote in message
...
Roberto Pirezzi wrote:

Salty
So, you're another moron who supports cheats!
Well, I am a long way from a moron (exactly how far away are you?)
Not as far away as you!
Will someone PLEASE stop making those whoosh bird mating calls?

I don't support cheats. I just have a realistic approach to life and
realise that they exist in every aspect of humanity and there is
little I can do about that other than be wary.
Errrr...if you are disagreeing with me (as per prior statement) then
you MUST support cheats.
Hmmmm. I think that I should add delusional to your ever increasing list
of character traits.


How about keeping it simple.

I disagree with you because I find you disagreeable.


Regards

Salty

I see you are still very childish.

Yes, my inner child is thriving. Somehow you manage to bring it out -
something about you takes me back to schoolyard days.


Regards

Salty

Yes, I can tell!

Seems you were very stupid as a child :-)

Nothing changes!!!

l2oberto

[Default] "Kim" went like:

Hi. My name is Kim and I was a powerseller on eBay. My account was canceled
for no apparent reason give, then an eBay representative wrote to me and
instructed me to fax certain documentation in then my account would be
reinstated. I did so but my account was not reinstated. Now I have no income
and it is due to eBay's unfair policies and business practices. They cancel
your account and don't even explain why --- meanwhile I have lost, no doubt
just like many others and owe Fed Ex fees, DHL fees which are due at the end
of the month--of which I could have paid had my bids and account not been
canceled. They, eBay gave no reason why but just exerted their "No ask..no
tell why your account is being suspended".

You might want to share your story at
http://www.cheatedbyebay.com You are not alone.

Ombudsman Superiour
--
Are you a business person cheated by Ebay?
Want to do something about it?
Visit http://www.cheatedbyebay.com