Author Topic: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care  (Read 41934 times)

Bazza

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #50 on: February 23, 2010, 11:16:13 PM »
No assumption Brum6y. I know that seller somewhat better than your good self. I've heard the story before and many just like it.

I'm sorry my comments don't fit with the 'story' you think this guy deserves.

cueperkins

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #51 on: February 23, 2010, 11:18:01 PM »
Lol...take that ri...I mean Bazza..aren't you a friendly kind a chappy eh?...BOHICA..mate....now flock off or I will taunt you a second time....you son of a silly person....I fart in your direction....lol...

Bazza

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #52 on: February 23, 2010, 11:20:44 PM »
Bazza are you the person who was Riff Raff?

No


But it suits me that you think I'm someone I'm not  ;D

Not very nice there Cupie.

Poddy

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #53 on: February 23, 2010, 11:27:55 PM »
OK Bazza.
The fact is that I was not sure, so I asked straight out without beatin around the bush :)

Roo

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 3994
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #54 on: February 23, 2010, 11:27:59 PM »
Crikey Cupie...you sounded just like a Paypal rep there..lol
 :lol:

But really...this whole saga is a snapshot of what many sellers...and some buyers... face each day on Ebay.

They stuff up...and leave the injured party holding the empty bag.

For some strange reason..they can't even tell the difference between an Aussie seller and a seller from a different Continent! Different rules apply to different sites.

Do they even give the staff any training?

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #55 on: February 23, 2010, 11:41:33 PM »
Bazza,

If I have presented anything here with errors in fact - I would ask you to contact me via PM and give details.

I would then seek to determine the accuracy with the resources I have available - including the evidence file I have accumulated.

Where it is shown that an error in fact has been presented, I will publish a correction.

cueperkins

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #56 on: February 23, 2010, 11:47:33 PM »
Thanks for the support there roo...I've learned to expect that...

Not very nice there Cupie

What goes around comes around bazza.....if you want to give shite, you can expect to get shite....know what I mean?


Bazza

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #57 on: February 23, 2010, 11:52:54 PM »
That's ok Poddy. Don't blame you for thinking that. Fact is I remember Riff Raff from threads ages ago and I have some similar views. Not popular views. I was a member here long before he left.

Cupie, I don't think I have given you shite?? I don't get that.

cueperkins

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #58 on: February 23, 2010, 11:59:31 PM »
No bazza...I'm not surprised you don't get that...it's all on me remember?.....just remember if you give it, you can expect to get it mate..it's the circle of life....lol..

Bazza

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #59 on: February 24, 2010, 12:09:26 AM »
Brum6y, I'm not saying that what you've presented isn't true. I'm saying I've read it before many times over for at least the last 5 years. Not word for word but close. I'm also not saying he is not telling the truth. What I'm saying is, he continues to get caught out by similar scammers. He was offered advice and wouldn't take it. As I said before, eBay is not for everybody. He is a scammers dream and should not be using PayPal. I do know how he runs his business and can afford to take these temporary losses but as you know who he is, I won't discuss that.

E....?

Roo

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 3994
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2010, 12:35:58 AM »
No assumption Brum6y. I know that seller somewhat better than your good self. I've heard the story before and many just like it.

I'm sorry my comments don't fit with the 'story' you think this guy deserves.

Sorry Bazza...but your assumption seemed to be that the seller was a shonk!  How on earth can you know the seller better than Brumby?  How can you make such an assumption?

The main problem seems to be that Paypal have totally neglected their duty of care in determining if the seller had posted the item and followed all their rules to be covered in a dispute.

They refunded the buyer without even checking if the seller had fulfilled everything that they required him to do, for a sale like this.

They even acknowledged their blunder....but still think they can just sweep it all under the carpet and say 'too bad...so sad'.


*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2010, 12:43:04 AM »
It is quite apparent, Bazza, that you do not appreciate the principles others are committed to as a part of who they are.

You are advocating that where an injustice is being perpetrated, the victim should just pack up and leave.

While I might not disagree on leaving eBay behind as a business decision, I hold this seller in high regard for standing his ground and having the persistence and resources to make eBay and Paypal accountable for the policies they publish as well as the fundamental expectations of a 'reasonable person' under the law.

Paypal clearly lie about investigating claims.  If they are not held accountable for their improper procedures, then they shall continue to abuse sellers unhindered.

In truth, I would simply like eBay and PayPal to follow the buyer and seller expectations they portray from their own marketing - but they clearly enjoy a distinct advantage ... the ability to ignore.

... and when someone isn't willing to be ignored, they still have a raft of alternatives they use to silence the problem.


The only way I can see any real progress being made is for a legal precedent to be set - however, Paypal would go out of their way to avoid that.

I believe it is the public interest to have a case taken to court, heard and a judgement handed down for the public record.

No settlements.
No 'gag' orders.
No hiding the truth.

I will concede one thing, though - it would devastate Paypal's bottom line.

Aside from the potential cost of litigation, there is the huge overhead involved in staffing the support areas properly, adequate staff training, a properly equipped and effective investigations unit and, amongst a whole lot of other things, a reserve fund to honour claims under both buyer and seller protection.

In short, to have them act as ethically as their marketing implies.  (Ouch!)


But, yeah, the easy answer is to walk away and let the other punters deal with that carp...

Let me guess .... that's the advice this seller hasn't taken ...?

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2010, 12:48:22 AM »
But such is not this seller's choice...

I'm really interested in how this story progresses ... it is so different to the average rubbish.



But that's principles for you.

Bazza

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #63 on: February 24, 2010, 12:54:02 AM »
Roo, I never said or indicated the seller was a shonk. I know only too well he isn't. What he is, is a fool to himself. A sucker for punishment.

But, yeah, the easy answer is to walk away and let the other punters deal with that carp...

Let me guess .... that's the advice this seller hasn't taken ...?


5 years Brum6y (that I know of) and nothing has changed. The same thing continues to happen to this guy.
Sure PayPal should be more accountable, I won't argue that. Yes, of course they should act ethically.  But please don't try and use the 'walk-away' guilt trip. It's called voting with your feet and there are a few here who have done just that.

Sometimes it just makes sense.

Poddy

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #64 on: February 24, 2010, 01:06:03 AM »
What is needed is more sellers with the amount of integrity that this seller has and the intestinal fortitude NOT to walk away but to stand up and be counted as a defender of justice.

It happens all too often these days that people just walk away and put things in the 'too hard basket'.




Bazza

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #65 on: February 24, 2010, 01:10:35 AM »
Agreed Poddy but it won't happen. Sometimes integrity and bravado can be confused with an inability to make necessary change.

Poddy

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2010, 01:18:40 AM »
Integrity in my opinion is an UNWILLINGNESS to compromise ones principals for the sake of detrimental change.

Do you see the difference Bazza?

I see the slant that you are trying to put on this issue and your viewpoint just does not hold water, much like a string bag  ;D

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2010, 01:23:05 AM »

5 years Brum6y (that I know of) and nothing has changed

Oh, but there are things that have changed because of this seller.  Since you know him better than I, it would seem an easy matter for you to find out some of these.

As for things 'making sense' - it is fortunate that we are different, since those differences which include differing values, knowledge, resources, experience, etc. allow alternative perspectives on a subject.

The common perspective on abuse from Paypal is 'voting with your feet' - a simple business decision that most people are forced to endure, no matter how much against the grain it goes.

But here is someone who is different.


Is understanding someone who is acting on their principles so difficult?

It would seem so....

Bazza

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2010, 01:36:42 AM »
Our ability to adapt to change is all important in business. Stubborn people don't adapt well and suffer for it, generally repeatedly.

Goodnight  ;D

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #69 on: February 24, 2010, 01:40:51 AM »
So if you catch a burglar stealing from your neighbour's house - don't call the police, just tell them to 'adapt to it'.

Interesting point on which to depart.



Is understanding someone who is acting on their principles so difficult?

It would seem so....


*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #70 on: February 24, 2010, 01:57:08 AM »
I was just thinking....

If I were Paypal, I'd be doing everything possible to make sure this guy's issues were properly investigated and arbitrated correctly.

It's obvious he is acting on principles and yet they continue to keep feeding him with case after case of improper handling.  They are just giving him more and more ammunition.


It will be an interesting day when the fan gets up to speed.......

Bazza

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #71 on: February 24, 2010, 10:33:57 AM »
Brum6y, your analogy has no bearing on my previous post. Apples/Oranges.

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #72 on: February 24, 2010, 06:44:23 PM »
Quite the contrary, Bazza - it is entirely relevant.

It is you who seem to be completely unable to appreciate that a person running a business could possibly operate on anything but the cold "business decision" approach.  

You seem determined to limit this seller's abilities and contain him within bounds that are obviously comfortable to you.  You have not given any credence to the possibility that this seller could step above this and be willing to endure the challenges involved in seeing 'the right thing being done'.

It might be construed as jealousy to be critical of such a person.  Someone who has the resources to enable the pursuit of such an arduous task.  Someone who has the strength of character to be undeterred.  Someone who has the principles to drive their efforts....

... but perhaps the most difficult for you to comprehend - is that someone would actually find it fulfilling to do so.

In my opinion, conducting business with no other focus than the bottom line is a hollow existence and PayPal would seem to be a textbook example.

So, if you want to limit this seller's capabilities - it will only happen within your thinking.  I am pretty confident he won't be obliging in adopting your outlook.


It is, therefore, no surprise that you only see apples and oranges but when I'm discussing fruit salad - you are going to miss out on a lot.

And so it is with my analogy...  It is far, far more relevant than I expected when I wrote it - and I have you to thank for the opportunity to explore it.


It is comforting to know the world is bigger than any one person's vision.  It allows this seller to champion a cause he believes in.  It allows me the privilege of enjoying fruit salad and (don't expect to limit the rest of the world on this) ...

... it allows you to pick the seeds out of your passionfruit.

Bazza

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #73 on: February 24, 2010, 08:19:39 PM »
Brum6y, this seller has been telling the same story (albeit with different buyers) for a very long time. Nothing has changed in the story you have relayed here. How do you think I recognised the seller? Sticking to your guns does not make even the slightest bit of difference to the way that PayPal handle disputes of this nature.

You seem determined to limit this seller's abilities and contain him within bounds that are obviously comfortable to you.

Just how comfortable do you think this seller is with all the dramas he suffers through his ebay transactions? ...and there are a lot of dramas. .....and he doesn't mind letting people know.

I remember the same seller complaining about his postage DSR when he was offering free postage. His buyers didn't want to pay for postal insurance because they were covered by PayPal. It was explained to him at the time that free postage and an 'after purchase slug' for insurance wasn't a good idea. Did he listen? No, wasn't interested in the opinions of others, just wanted to tell everyone how he was being victimised.

Being pro-active and making prudent business decisions can be a far cry from sticking to principles.

So, if you want to limit this seller's capabilities - it will only happen within your thinking.

This seller is only limited by his inability to think outside the box.

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #74 on: February 24, 2010, 09:24:55 PM »
Sticking to your guns does not make even the slightest bit of difference to the way that PayPal handle disputes of this nature.

Really?

From what little I have access to, there are some differences, if you care to look.  They aren't global front page headline material, but if that's your measure, then it's easy to write his efforts off.

Quote

Just how comfortable do you think this seller is with all the dramas he suffers through his ebay transactions?


I never said he was comfortable in what he was undertaking - I said you were comfortable by boxing him up.

Quote

I remember the same seller complaining ... ... ... ...


Well, hello Nick.**  Let's keep to the subject of the thread ... if we can, OK?

I've never claimed this seller was a saint, but I am focussing on the specific issues that he is pursuing in regard to PayPal's improper handling of the matter at hand.

Nothing you have said has done anything but question the wisdom of these efforts - I have seen no compromise of the matter itself.  Indeed you, yourself, have conceded in this thread that I have not presented any material with errors in fact.

I get it - as I am sure do many others reading this - you aren't a fan of this seller.

However, that is no basis to call into question what he is doing - yet you fail to do this by any other means.  Next thing we know, you'll be citing a report made to the "fashion police" that would question his suitability to appear in court.

Let's keep some relevance. (Oops... sorry Nick**)


Quote

This seller is only limited by his inability to think outside the box.


Normally, I would consider that statement to be a fine example of self-awareness - but in this case that would be somewhat of a paradox...



** Why I refer to Bazza as "Nick" (latter part of the post)

Bazza

  • Guest
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #75 on: February 24, 2010, 09:51:27 PM »
I get it - as I am sure do many others reading this - you aren't a fan of this seller.

I'm not a 'fan' and I'm not an enemy, I do however have an opinion which was offered to this guy a long time ago. Now he is still telling the same story 4 or 5 years later.

How's that working for him?

I'm unsure what the purpose of this thread was Brum6y, if not to create discussion regarding the seller in question.

Or is it just to point out how stupid PayPal have been in their dealings with the guy? If so, I agree.

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #76 on: February 28, 2010, 03:40:18 AM »

Or is it just to point out how stupid PayPal have been in their dealings with the guy? If so, I agree.


Not just to point this out, but to give specifics.  The detail! ... which will clarify exactly what PayPal are doing wrong; offer further directions for aggrieved sellers to persue in having matters resolved - properly; specifying the actual procedures executed thus exposing underlying operating principles; demonstrating behaviour which is the absolute opposite of their marketing.....

.... with the view to change all that.

I make no pretence that this thread will be anything more than another voice added to the chorus - but as that group swells, more issues are revealed and the disenchantment is unified, there will come a time when PayPal will need to act.

And, for the record, I do not seek PayPal's demise in any way, shape or form - just that they act professionally, ethically and with an appreciation of real-life business practices and innovation.

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #77 on: February 28, 2010, 04:02:06 AM »
Since there was some additional input into this thread, I had contacted the seller several days ago and asked if he would read it and comment.

He replied some six hours or more before the post above
- but I was at a different computer to the one running my email, so I didn't pick it up until some time later.  I will admit to being slow in bringing his response to this thread, but real life has a way of determining one's priorities.

I hope to do this in the next day or so...

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #78 on: March 02, 2010, 05:13:19 AM »
LET'S CLEAR THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS OUT OF THE WAY

It is interesting to note that there have been some efforts to detract from the story presented in this thread by directing attention upon the seller himself.

I would like to point out that discussions of this seller, his business or whether he chooses to follow advice handed out by others (or not) has little, if anything, to do with the topic of this thread.

In case some readers need reminding - It is an examination of the dispute process as handled by Paypal.

All that we need to know is that the seller involved in this story is one who has made every effort to abide by the requirements stipulated for operating within eBay and PayPal's scope.  Something which, I believe, has been made eminently clear here and remains unchallenged.

There is a simple way for each of us to understand what is relevant in this thread ... put yourself in the same position as this seller.  If any comment or criticism is directed your way and doesn't seem relevant, then, in all likelihood, it doesn't belong here.


Directions in discussions wander from innocent exploration of ideas to deliberately destructive efforts - with a range of motives I won't even begin to go into.  I have cited this before, but it is particularly relevant at this point ... start about half-way down this post at the point 'An illustration from the movie "Thank you for Smoking"'

So don't expect to score any points on the issues with PayPal by trying to convince anyone it's because of his choice of business models ... or ice-cream.

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #79 on: March 02, 2010, 06:10:20 AM »
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION - THE SELLER'S RESPONSE:

Nevertheless, some points were raised and I did invite our intrepid seller to comment ... so here is the email I received from him.

It is presented in its entirety, interspersed with some comment of my own...

thanks for the email.    thread is great ... interesting fellow Bazza and from reading the thread and his comments i can see he seems to think he knows me well.     

We noticed.

a few points on his comments, which he seems to make repeatedly.     

 business model:

 i have changed my business model 7 times in the last 5 years.    i have evolved my business significantly to ensure survival and would say that my business is successful and effectively what is enabling me to endure the content issues faced with PayPal. a look at my product range and store today would show him a completely different business to what i had 2 years ago, 1 year ago and 6 months ago.


Sounds like a person in business looking for the best return on his time and effort in line with his market's demands.  Seems an appropriate and responsive approach, evidenced by his business achievements - but this comment doesn't seem to fit...
Our ability to adapt to change is all important in business. Stubborn people don't adapt well and suffer for it, generally repeatedly.
It would seem the only suffering being experienced here is because Paypal weren't doing the right thing.


PayPal Payments:

 sell on eBay have no choice in payment method ... so comment regarding accepting PayPal is a mute point ... there is no choice.

 reversals, chargebacks and disputes - reasons:

2006 - Credit Card Fraud
2007 - Credit Card Fraud
2008 - INR / SNAD no seller protection and most from US and Italy.     
2009 - INR / SNAD seller protection but even with full online tracking found in favor of the buyer (highly probable without investigation at all)
2010 - INR / SNAD buyers using the system to win disputes based on PayPal's on lack of investigation


Not only a growing trend, it would seem to be evolving as well.

in each of the now close to 100 cases the buyers have won they have done so despite the best efforts made to follow the PayPal User Agreement.    but every time a dispute is awarded to a buyer it can be linked back to several factors.    first one and most glaring is the method of payment.    the INR's lost each and every payment was a credit card.    dispute found in the buyers favor because if they found in my favor the buyer could do a chargeback and that would cost PayPal so its easier to take the money from the seller.

A simple business decision - understandable.  Unethical, immoral and unprofessional, but understandable.

the method of dispute and loss is evolving with the business ... i.e. PayPal/eBay.    buyers are smarter and more equipped to take sellers to the cleaners than ever before.    they have the ability to abuse the feedback system to force refunds from sellers, they have the ability to open a dispute for a payment 10 mins after made and then threaten the seller, they can open a dispute and used forged documents without recourse, they can make claims based on fictious policy and win a dispute get the funds back and have PayPal tell the seller that its a matter between the buyer and seller and nothing to do with them.

PayPal should be accountable for their own errors, they should be required to offer sellers honest, unbiased and effective investigation that actually reviews the documentation and information supplied by the seller.

clearly the last two cases demonstrate that no matter what the seller does in respect to compliance with the PayPal User Agreement the company will always favor the buyer in the case of a credit card payment to protect itself against loss in the case of a chargeback or they will determine the best PR status of a dispute and award based on their own buyer protection policy platform ...  

no seller should ever receive an email stating we have granted your appeal in this case and apologize for any inconvenience caused.    WHAT TO DO NEXT ... contact the buyer and request the funds refunded to them be returned to you ....

Buyers are getting better at abusing the system.  PayPal are not discouraging it - they are, in fact, enabling it...

(Now... why is it I get the feeling this has been said before?  Because it HAS ...  ad nauseum, in fact!)

... and, even when forced to admit they acted in error, deny any and all financial responsibility (despite having caused it) and send the seller to take on the buyer directly. You might be lucky enough to get a 'sorry' over the phone.

I find that absolutely priceless.  (I reckon there's a legal precedent in there just begging to be set!)


most importantly the system needs to either be one rule for all or each country has its own unit of highly trained and qualified specialists to deal with the complexities and demands of meeting the constant changes in fraud detection and protection for the sellers forced to accept the payment method.

Here, we move away from focussing on this seller and back onto the topic of this discussion as it applies to ALL sellers.  He expresses a sentiment much the same as my own ... not for the demise of PayPal - just simply that they conscientiously perform "A Duty of Care".  It seems, however, this this is Paypal's "Mission Impossible".


Now where did I see that before........?

Philip.Cohen

  • Knight of the RT
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #80 on: March 30, 2010, 01:59:23 AM »
Brum6y,

Interesting case study. Sort of says it all about both these devious, unscrupulous, dysfunctional organizations. With respect to eBay transactions I would suspect that PayPal knows they are expected to “protect” eBay buyers: eBay being so desperate for same of late. Regardless of whether the goods sold are real or not, are delivered or not, the only thing that eBay is interested in is the highest possible FVF.

And, Poor old “Bazza”; are all you horrible people still picking on our resident eBay stooge (what ever happened to the Riff, or is Bazza his new alias?). After all, someone has to look after eBay’s interests on this forum because no one else will: gee, I wonder why that is so?

Then, maybe if eBay offered some of us the same remuneration we too might be tempted to abandon our principles and become eBay/PayPal lobbyists too. Then I doubt the remuneration can be that good because they never seem to find stooges that are capable of winning any meaningful debate.

I started skipping over Bazza’s nonsensical posts very early on in the thread, but I do admire your fortitude for continuing the pointless task of engaging with him.
“Today we’re dealing with phase two or phase three [he can’t even remember which one] of disruptive innovation. We’ve had the disruption, now we must disrupt our own disruption.”—John Donahoe (2007).

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #81 on: March 30, 2010, 03:59:43 AM »
I have no particular dislike for any poster - even when views differ.  Philip, you and I have had a couple of strong interactions in the past, yet we still acknowledge each other's efforts.

Sometimes it is debate on those very views which causes us to examine our own propositions, explore a subject more deeply and discover new aspects of a subject or possibly where the difference in views has originated.  I found that very situation here in this thread when responding to a casual dismissal of an analogy I gave.

However, my intent is to maintain focus on the core issue - encapsulated in the thread title - and feel obliged to address any 'side issues' or attempts to de-rail the presentation of this story.

In fact, this has been of such prime importance to me that I have deliberately avoided augmenting this thread with further examples of this seller's nightmares with PayPal.

I have given one, plus some hints that others exist - but I will make it quite clear that this seller has a number of cases currently in hand and they continue to present themselves.  

This thread is not isolated case for this seller.  Nor is it an isolated case in the world of eBay & PayPal.

It is just one example of a pandemic - where the effort has been made to present as complete detail as possible.  It has substance.  It is credible.  It is real.  It has been presented so that it can be clearly understood as to the exact nature of the problems sellers can encounter, to encourage their efforts and advocate their action, to let the world know what is going on and ....

to let sellers know ... they are not alone.

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #82 on: April 23, 2010, 08:00:40 PM »
THE WHEELS GRIND SLOWLY - BUT ARE MOST CERTAINLY STILL IN MOTION

Again, understanding that this story is but one small part of this seller's business, I have made a couple of low-key approaches for updates on how this story is progressing - and I have just now received their email....

As expected, this seller's business keeps them quite involved in a myriad of things both large and small ... including trade shows:

sorry for the delay in response.    i have been at the Canton Fair for the last 10 days and have not had time to think.


Also, as expected - since the matter has been escalated into the legal system - progress has not been dramatic, but it continues ... slowly and surely:

the status of the issue with the German boy has not changed much since last i updated you, the item is still being held by German customs, PayPal still have the money and i am waiting a court date in HK for the charges against him that i filed to be heard.      once this has been before the courts i will be able to get a court order against Hong Kong Post to have the item returned to me and also forward the outcome to the german police for action there.
 
i have spoken with them again and advised i would fly to Frankfurt to press charges in person if required.



'Due process' is the term, I believe.  Maddening and frustrating for the most part, but it is something to respect and observe.

In my personal experience, it has been made abundantly clear that, before you take the next step in any process, you must make sure you've crossed all your 't's and dotted all your 'i's - and when the legal system is involved, triple check all your lower case 'j's as well!

This includes allowing every opportunity for the party against whom you have issue, to address your concerns and provide satisfaction - even PayPal - whether you expect them to, or not.  If you don't, you're going to look like the bad guy if a judge asks you if you gave them a chance to fix things and you said 'Errrr... Not really'.

Indeed, one of the most powerful arguments you could offer (from my lay understanding) is that you have given the other party multiple opportunities and have exhausted the possibilities for the matter to be resolved under their processes.  Doing so is not only prudent and expected by the legal system, it is also a potential gold mine in uncovering specific details of actions, policies, etc. that may prove invaluable in proving your case (and our seller has picked up some real gems!).

I'm sure we are all aware how the legal system loves the details....


Anyway, getting back to our seller's journey ... with matters edging slowly through the official channels, we now await news from the courts.

*CountessA*

  • Administrator
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 31793
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #83 on: April 23, 2010, 11:21:08 PM »
Sometimes it can seem as though one is the Court Jester when waiting for legal due process to occur... slowly... over time...

.
"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is ...a part of the maine; ...any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde"

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #84 on: June 16, 2010, 06:26:23 AM »
THE WHEELS ARE STILL TURNING

Painful, isn't it.

I checked the tracking information for the laptop, but it is no longer available through the online facility. Apparently it is only kept up there for 3 months.

When I asked our seller for an update, the response was simply:

thanks for the email.    still working on the case with the german boy but have had 5 more since last we spoke.


I know I said I wanted to focus on the laptop issue in this thread and I shall endeavour to continue to do so, but since the timeline is rather sparse of detail at the moment and it is topical, I will divert your attention to the two examples the seller provided in the remainder of the email. It can be found here: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care: When is an iPhone not an iPhone?

No prizes if you come up with the answer before I give it....!!

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #85 on: December 19, 2010, 12:50:11 AM »
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!   

IT'S NOW ONE YEAR AFTER THE SALE!! ... AND THE WHEELS ARE STILL TURNING

It feels like I'm repeating myself - but since the legal process is somewhat glacial in its progress at times, I am posting this update as an assurance that the matter is still grinding its way along....................................

I have been keeping in touch with the seller every now and then asking about any progress, but have refrained from posting too much incidental material, preferring to keep a focus on the main subject.

However, I thought it might be of some interest to present a few of the things which the seller has passed on to me.  In the following, I give an approximate time - and the seller's comments, as I have previously:

August, 2010
give me a couple of days as i will have an update on the German Boy ... he is holidaying in Portugal at the moment but dont worry, i am on his case and keeping him well within my target.

Whilst I did not get an update, I was not overly surprised nor worried - but it's nice to see the holiday business in Portugal doing OK.

October, 2010
still going there no further result as waiting for the police to finalize their investigation still

December, 2010
the German boy is still where it was at this stage

 - but then the seller continues....

though the website is getting plenty of hits and he is now number one on google when searching his name ...

Website?

Yes, it seems the seller has organised one of those 'shame the scammer' type websites and, as my test confirmed, Google does indeed return this website as the top of the search results, when you plug in the German buyer's name.

The website gives a lot of information - unmistakeably identifying the person, with photos and a whole lot more, so the matter is certainly in the conscious thoughts of a few people.


I strongly suspect this matter will continue into the New Year.  I will be maintaining an interest in its progress and presenting updates when provided.

In the mean time, I have one or two other things provided by this seller that I think would be of interest, which I will post in other Paypal's "Mission Impossible" threads, as time permits.

HellWest'nCrooked

  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 4778
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #86 on: December 19, 2010, 08:43:55 AM »

It is a long story Brumby but still an interesting one!
Ain't no rhyme or reason
No complicated meaning

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #87 on: January 28, 2011, 06:19:36 PM »
AMIDST UNCERTAIN PROGRESS - ANOTHER ADMISSION!!!

A few days ago I received an email from our intrepid seller and while the precise legal status of this matter is still hazy, it seems the idea of 'celebrating' (wrong word, I know) the anniversary of this story is one that the seller also embraced.

The seller's subsequent email to the buyer evoked a reply that begins with this admission:

"I was already convicted for sozialwork!"

The seller was not sure what this meant ... and I had no idea.

I approached someone who had, I believe, quite appropriate credentials to offer an opinion on this statement.  They were familiar with this story and provided the following response:

I suspect the buyer in question meant to say "Sozialwerk", which would mean he's been convicted for cheating on Welfare.

(I did a bit of checking, because the term for "Welfare" with which I was familiar was "Sozialarbeit"... and even though "Sozialwerk" does not appear in my German dictionary, it is definitely the way the term's being used currently in Germany.)


A convicted welfare cheat...?  I can't say I am surprised.

That interpretation certainly reads very well in the context given and the explanation indicates the translator has direct knowledge of current language usage.

However, they then added this observation:

Anyway, in a nutshell, this buyer seems to be pleading for special consideration since he's apparently already in trouble. But all he's done, really, is expose himself as an habitual cheat - a thief who, without remorse, takes money or items not belonging to him, somehow comforted by offical forms or online paraphernalia into thinking this distances him from actually committing a crime.

A miserable, sneaky, unapologetic thief.



There is not much more I can add to that.

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #88 on: March 29, 2011, 02:55:15 AM »
NEWS!

It has become clear there are two quite distinct issues at hand in this case.  The first is the criminal action on the part of the buyer to intentionally defraud. The second is the disposition of funds of which the seller had been deprived.

On the matter of the criminal complaint against the buyer, that is still bring followed through.  Our intrepid seller feels it is important that prosecution be pursued so that a message is sent to those who feel eBay sellers are 'fair game' for fraud.  We await progress on that subject.

HOWEVER, on the matter of the funds involved, there has been a resolution!

<typing up next post - please be patient>

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #89 on: March 29, 2011, 04:53:05 AM »
SUCCESSFUL RESULT FOR SELLER!

Before I continue, you will no doubt not be surprised to hear that, as part of the settlement, the seller is bound by a confidentiality clause.  Now, while I have taken great care to (hopefully) keep the identity of the buyer and seller from being known, there are a number of people who are already familiar with the identity of the seller - since they are already aware of the story from other sources.

The other party involved here is PayPal - and they are very clearly identified.

As a result, anything I say here may be treading on thin ice, so I am going to try and be rather careful.  Part of this caution will involve me not quoting anything from the seller's communications with me as I have done in the past, as well as excluding specific details.


The Resolution occurred earlier this month and came out of the dispute process which involved the Seller, PayPal and the Australian Financial Ombudsman Service.  It would appear that PayPal has made payment to the seller for the sale amount plus the shipping cost of the item in question.  So, the seller is no longer out of pocket for the eBay transaction.

As for the effort in arriving at this result, they are philosophical and take their satisfaction from having achieved the desired outcome.

In regards to the total amount of funds PayPal have remitted to the seller, the seller has expressed some rather positive positive sentiments.  I must admit one particular statement quite surprised me, yet it quite clearly painted PayPal as being generous (Yes, I am serious).  This is even more notable when you consider the settlement involved a number of other items, with the total being an amount that I would regard as being quite significant.


It would seem the future for our seller should be a little less bumpy, since they have presented their credentials and business skills.  If I were PayPal, I would be assigning an account manager to make sure of it.

*FluffyDuckee*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 6443
  • Waves to everyone
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #90 on: March 29, 2011, 09:15:20 AM »
Well I'm glad the seller got a resolution.  But, obviously not without time, effort and pain.. For that I am sorry. 
:duckling:

Philip.Cohen

  • Knight of the RT
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #91 on: March 29, 2011, 10:51:43 AM »
This seller is to be congratulated. What a shame so much effort had to be expended to reach this undoubted just conclusion. No doubt this seller will be "flagged" by both PreyPal and the eBafia and he may well even get his own personal account manager—one that is not simply a computer algorithm. Unfortunately all this does absolutely nothing for every other eBafia/PreyPal user. Life will go on as it has before for everyone else serving under the yokes of these two most unethical and unscrupulous, fraud-facilitating, commercial entities.


“Bank customers of participating financial institutions will have the option to select a Visa account as the destination for funds when making a personal payment. By simply entering the recipient’s 16-digit Visa account, email address or mobile phone number, consumers can send funds directly from their bank account to a recipient’s Visa account.”—Visa (16 March 2011)

Draft Media Release re PayPal

“It is with great sadness that eBay’s Chief Headless Turkey, John Donahoe, announces the probable demise of eBay’s most ugly daughter, PayPal. Donahoe says that PayPal is expected to be soon stricken by particularly virulent strains of Visa/Mastercard simplified “online” payments processing, and these afflictions will be greatly aggravated by PayPal’s lack of any direct financial institutions support and a great deal of PayPal merchant dissatisfaction, particularly with respect to PayPal’s grossly unfair, “all responsibility avoiding” user agreement, most primitive risk management processes, and grossly unprofessional, buyer-biased and fraud-facilitating (indeed, effectively non existent) transactions mediation—to name just a few of the problems that PayPal “merchant” payees have to endure.

“Donahoe says that after such affliction PayPal’s health may be expected to deteriorate rapidly and, if ultimately not completely incapacitated, will most likely be kept alive only with the aid of the “life support” provided by eBay’s mandating the use of PayPal on what little there will eventually be left of the Donahoe-devastated eBay Marketplaces. There is no cure for this condition and the “eBafia Don” is particularly saddened by the inevitable presumption that it is unlikely that PayPal will be able to continue to underpin the eBay Marketplaces’ deteriorating revenues too far into the future.”

Yes, it’s a send-up but, still, it accurately describes PayPal’s unregulated, most unprofessional, “clunky” operation. Had the developers of the original “bankcard” concept ever behaved the way PayPal behaves, towards its payees in particular, credit/debit cards would never have gotten off the ground, and we would still be paying for all our purchases with bits of paper and little metal discs.

PayPal is not a “bank” and is not prudentially regulated as are the banks. PayPal has been forced down the throats of eBay merchants—much to the distaste of most of them. Without eBay’s mandating the use of PayPal it would still be little known (and conversely, without PayPal, the eBay Marketplace would be going down the toilet at an even faster rate than it presently is) and, regardless, PayPal is the most despised, unprofessional, unscrupulous, wire fraud-facilitating payments processor on the planet.

No thinking person should ever allow PayPal to draw funds directly from a bank account. PayPal should only be given access to funds via a retail bank-branded Visa/Mastercard credit card account: that is the only way to get any protection from PayPal’s fraud-facilitating practices and to get any effective transaction mediation—and then not from PayPal but from your retail bank via their real credit card transaction-mediation process.

All the payments processors that do not have the direct underlying risk-managing and real transaction-mediation support of the retail financial institutions (the “banks”) that are ultimately involved at either end of each transaction—as does have the likes of Visa/Mastercard—suffer all the same material handicaps that PayPal suffers. The “banks” may be disliked by some but they at least supply a “professional” payments processing service.

Undoubtedly, if and when the retail banks decide they want to take the final step (and probably the greater risk and extra work involved) and offer a simpler, “online” payments process, similar to that which PayPal offers, to the many amateur merchants who may otherwise not want (nor qualify for) a bank credit card “merchant” account, and the banks offer that service in their usual professional manner via the likes of Visa/Mastercard, the clunky PayPal will very quickly disappear into the history books—there is nothing surer than the sun will rise in the morning.

Enron / eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking.
“Today we’re dealing with phase two or phase three [he can’t even remember which one] of disruptive innovation. We’ve had the disruption, now we must disrupt our own disruption.”—John Donahoe (2007).

*CountessA*

  • Administrator
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 31793
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #92 on: March 29, 2011, 02:13:06 PM »
Brumby, your seller is to be congratulated for his tenacity. From what you've said, he's had to fight tooth, nail, claw, Uzi, frying pan, cannon and WMD to get justice in the form of his money returned to him.

Philip has pointed out that this represents a victory for this one seller rather than changing PayPal's practices. That is true. Sadly but inevitably it is true.

When a seller fights to get his/her money returned in a case of fraud such as this, it is always a one-off.

Brumby, do I understand correctly? The seller considers PayPal to be GENEROUS because PayPal was forced by the Financial Ombudsman to give him his funds? (I must have read this incorrectly. My head is spinning.)

I further understand that the seller is still not content with allowing the perpetrator, the lying cheating little weasel of a greasy-fingered buyer, to get away with his fraud, and that he is pursuing criminal charges - is that correct?

(If so, I applaud the seller wholeheartedly.)
"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is ...a part of the maine; ...any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde"

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #93 on: March 29, 2011, 04:02:02 PM »
While the process of resolution was obviously facilitated with the involvement of the Financial Ombudsman Services, there has not been any direct statement that PayPayl were forced, as such, to make the payout.  From what I understand of the process, the Ombudsman will hear the case presented by both sides and give multiple opportunities for a settlement to be negotiated along the way - before it flexes its muscle with legal orders.

The impression I got is that PayPal took one of those opportunities and made an offer that would simply end the matter... and that the seller saw the figure presented as one that would do just that.  Again, I am only presuming, but it would seem that, as an experienced business person, this seller might have been philosophical if something a little less was offered and accepted it as a reasonable compromise.  As such, this seasoned seller may use the word 'generous' where many other sellers might simply say 'I expected nothing less'.  JMHO

If it was a case of PayPal 'seeing the writing on the wall' rather than a formal order, then many will consider this a mere 'technicality' when it comes to the idea of PayPal being 'forced' to pay up... but it these technicalities that can give rise to significant problems including lawsuits for defamation.  I am no legal expert, but it would seem rather dangerous to try and defend a defamation lawsuit by attempting to prove that 'seeing the writing on the wall' is being 'forced' in the eyes of the law.  A formal order to 'pay up' is something quite different, but I the information I have indicates that no such order was issued.


Personally, I am not overly surprised in the settlement, since the dispute was based on amounts processed through the payment service (PayPal) and did not have anything directly to do with the goods themselves, other than as evidence, so cost price of goods, compensation of 'loss', etc. were irrelevant - just the payment amounts denied to the seller.


I am the first to admit that this - and any other - victory is a 'one-off' case-by-case exercise.  From my observations, precedent has little place, it would seem, in PayPal's dispute resolution process.

There is also a critical component in this seller's success which has not been concisely spelled out here which includes meticulous record-keeping and respect for due process.  These things (and more) have been raised elsewhere, but I shall endeavour to present a summary here a little bit later.

The purpose of this thread was to present one such case and provide as much detail as practicable so that others may know what actually happens, the frustrations, the effort and the persistence required to achieve success... and that time is measured by the calender, not the clock.


Forewarned and forearmed, it is hoped sellers will be encouraged to pursue matters, when these situations present themselves.

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #94 on: March 29, 2011, 04:23:09 PM »

I further understand that the seller is still not content with allowing the perpetrator, the lying cheating little weasel of a greasy-fingered buyer, to get away with his fraud, and that he is pursuing criminal charges - is that correct?


Yes.  The seller has made it quite clear that such actions are not to be dismissed simply because their funds have been returned.

I believe this is a matter of principle for the seller involved - as well as being a part of saving another seller from being ripped off by the buyer.

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #95 on: March 29, 2011, 04:28:37 PM »
Just one further point - there is no indication that PayPal have actually recovered the funds from the buyer and that the settlement paid to the seller is more than likely sourced from PayPal's own funds.  I have no idea whether PayPal will pursue the buyer for their loss or write it off as being uneconomical.

My thoughts: On one hand, it would seem responsible to do so, since it would reduce the incidence of fraud by the buying public becoming aware of such action .... but, on the other hand, such news might be seen as a discouragement for buying activity which would impact the bottom line.



Hmmm... feels like this line of thought is entering into familiar territory..........

Philip.Cohen

  • Knight of the RT
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #96 on: June 08, 2011, 06:54:53 PM »
If you want to understand how PayPal can tell a seller that the buyer has paid for the goods and a couple of days later (after the seller has promptly dispatched the goods) then tell the seller that the buyer has not paid, see the exchange of comments between “pbreit” and myself on the “Letters to the Editor” thread at:
http://letters.auctionbytes.com/cgi-bin/blog/blog.pl?/comments/2011/6/1306675412.html/3/26#1307495542

Apparently, if eBay is authorised to access funds from a buyer’s banking account (~30% of their transactions), they do that by direct debiting the buyer’s banking account (via their banker, GE Money Bank, Ugh!). This is by far the most cost-effective way of accessing buyers’ funds and so PreyPal would always prefer a banking account to be their first port of call.

Apparently, at the same time that they instigate that direct debit they also tell the seller that the buyer has paid, but, at that point in time, PreyPal has no way of knowing if there is sufficient funds in the buyer’s bank account to honor the direct debit and, if there is insufficient funds, a day or two later the direct debit will be reversed by the buyer’s bank. Obviously, if there is a backup source of funds PreyPal will then try that source; if there is still no funds …

Unlike with credit/debit card transactions, with direct debit transactions there is no immediate confirmation that funds are or are not available. And, unfortunately, a seller has no way of knowing how PreyPal is accessing a buyer’s funds and therefore has no way of knowing if indeed the buyer has the funds available to pay when PreyPal initially tells the seller that the buyer has paid. It is therefore not wise to dispatch anything of value within two days of PreyPal’s advice that the buyer has paid lest you receive another advice that the buyer has indeed not paid.

In such circumstances, if indeed there is insufficient funds, then the clunky PreyPal does not want to be out of pocket so they simply reverse their payment to the seller and the seller then loses both the goods and the money. Thereafter its up to the seller to put a great deal of effort into pursuing the clunky PreyPal for compensation for his loss which has been caused wholly by PreyPal’s negligence.

What a totally clunky, irresponsible, unprofessional, potentially fraud facilitating operation. No wonder PreyPal has such difficulty managing its financial risk.

Enron / eBay / PayPal / Donahoe: Dead Men Walking.
“Today we’re dealing with phase two or phase three [he can’t even remember which one] of disruptive innovation. We’ve had the disruption, now we must disrupt our own disruption.”—John Donahoe (2007).

*Brum6y*

  • Knights of the RT
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 18673
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #97 on: February 19, 2012, 11:41:38 PM »
CALLING TO ACCOUNT - THE LEGAL PURSUIT CONTINUES

As has been mentioned previously, our intrepid seller has held true to their principles not only in the conduct of their business, but all through the process of recovering their funds from PayPal - and it also continues with calling to account the person who initiated the fraud - the boy in Germany.

I have contacted the seller a couple of times since my last post and they have responded with a report similar to the one I received today:

thanks for the email.    german boy saga continues with lawyers and police.    made more difficult because i am out of country but working on it.

While some may question the ongoing effort - even after having recouped the financial loss - I find it somewhat commendable, for one simple reason.  The growing world of eCommerce requires a stronger sense of accountability from buyers and sellers as well as service providers such as payments and logistics.  Commensurate with this will be an appropriately developed legal framework, with the infrastructure to ensure enforcement.  This will not happen unless noises are made in pushing the available facilities to their limits and demonstrating their inadequacy.

Should our seller's efforts result in a successful prosecution, publication of that outcome would be a sight I long to see.  It sends a signal that, even with our current, limited measures, the perceived anonymity and sense of being 'untouchable' through remoteness will not save you from fraud.


On the subject of an account manager, here is part of what our seller has to say:

the account manager has made a significant difference to the manner in which the account is handled.    a lot less issues and when there are issues easily resolved.

So it would seem the efforts in discipline and persistence that our seller made from the outset have paid a dividend in a much reduced impact on business.  It would seem rather obvious to say, but they wouldn't have that benefit by simply taking the 'easy way out' as has been urged by some.


Further updates will be made, when information comes to hand.

*CountessA*

  • Administrator
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 31793
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #98 on: February 20, 2012, 11:33:24 AM »
Brumby, if the seller needs any help at all in communicating with authorities in Germany, please let him/her know I'm happy to be of assistance.
"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is ...a part of the maine; ...any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde"

*smee*

  • Action Group
  • Knight of the RT
  • *****
  • Posts: 40415
Re: Paypal's "Mission Impossible" - A Duty of Care
« Reply #99 on: February 20, 2012, 01:51:30 PM »
Dont mention the war