Coonr
|
posted on October 6, 2002 09:02:53 PM
I have not used anyones Paypal account in well over 6 months.
So you lied when you said you had used PayPal within the last 6 months?
|
kkaaz
|
posted on October 7, 2002 10:29:36 AM
coonr,
You are the one who is lying. I did not claim to use any Paypal accounts within 6 months.
Paypal is a piss poor company with horrible service.
That last time my wife’s account was used by anyone was Feb 2002. And a credit card was used for protection because Paypal does not offer buyers any protection unless they use a credit card. And it cost us nothing and I had full "chargeback" or "reversal" rights because the seller did not ship to the confirmed address with online tracking.
Just because Paypal would let me scam the seller does not mean I will.
And my account has not been used as of 2001 when Paypal broke their user agreement and changed the terms and tried to make them apply to my account without my permission. So I will not use
Get you facts correct and come back when you grow up.
Don’t try to hid the question at hand..
|
Coonr
|
posted on October 7, 2002 11:32:15 AM
So now you admit/claim you have no recent experience with PayPal?
|
kkaaz
|
posted on October 7, 2002 06:00:58 PM
[So now you admit/claim you have no recent experience with PayPal?]
I have no "recent" experince in car accidents either but that does not change the fact that they are bad. I don't need to hit someones car to know I don't want the trouble.
Paypal is no better then a year ago. I get plenty of feedback from customer and fellow ebayers who tell me about their Paypal problems.
My run in's with Paypal have added up to one frozen account which I was not given a reason for until several months later.
One Paypal account used against me to perform mail fruad and Paypal fully supported the fruadulent account used rather then helping me.
And one breach of contract where Paypal changed the user agreement in at least three places and tried to pass it off on me like it was not changed and claimed it was the origianal terms of use.
So my experince shows Paypal is no better of a service then the service which was used to fruad me almost a year ago.
And Damon has yet to answer the question at hand.
Come on Damon, Tell everyone how Paypal will/does stand behind a fruadulent user as long as they perform fraud within the limits of the terms of use.....
|
Coonr
|
posted on October 7, 2002 06:15:19 PM
...I was not given a reason for until several months later.
Now now kkaaz, that's not true and you know it.
|
uaru
|
posted on October 7, 2002 07:29:30 PM
kkaaz Paypal is no better then a year ago
In October 2001 PayPal had 10 million customers. In September 2002 PayPal had 20 million customers. PayPal might feel a little better about that, can't be sure.
As far as your case, PayPal is no better for you now than it was a year ago, you are right for once. In October 2001 PayPal held the seller liable in the event of a dispute when the seller shipped to a non-confirmed shipping address. In October 2002 PayPal holds the seller liable in the even of a dispute when the seller ships to a non-confirmed shipping address.
In October 2001 you were whining about losing your $350 dispute. In October 2002 you are still whining about losing that same $350 dispute. God help you if you ever have to deal with the issues getting over a divorce. 
|
GU1HToM
|
posted on October 8, 2002 06:29:35 AM
***sigh***
Ain't life grand to watch 2 adults type away at each other like they were throwing daggers at each other?
How many more threads do you 2 need to hijack before it stops?
This is getting old really fast.
At least keep it in the PAYPAL section of AW.
|
Coonr
|
posted on October 8, 2002 06:44:31 AM
kkaaz has a demonstrated history of hijacking any thread with PayPal as the subject. It is the only way he can continue his rant. He even hijacked one on eBay about the "weather".
|
kkaaz
|
posted on October 8, 2002 04:14:06 PM
uaru
[October 2001 PayPal held the seller liable in the event of a dispute when the seller shipped to a non-confirmed shipping address. In October 2002 PayPal holds the seller liable in the even of a dispute when the seller ships to a non-confirmed shipping address.]
Wrong. Proven fact. Read the terms from Oct 12,2001 and compare them to Jan 2002 on http://www.archive.org
It is a proven fact. Read them they way they were written word for word.
In October 2001, Paypal held a Seller liable for a "chargback" if the seller shipped to a non-confirmed adress or could not prove the address they shipped to was confirmed.
It says this in three places. Consumer protection/ sellers protection/confirmed address.
A chargeback can only be recieved if paid with credit card funds. Damon confirmed this.
You can not get a "chargeback" on Paypal funds. You can only get a "reversal"
PAYPAL WAS SHOWN THEIR MISTAKE (by me) so they re-wrote the terms for 2002 taking every single suguestion I made. They changed the term "chargeback" which is a specific payment to "reversal" which is all payment types because they realized they were wrong.
So in 2002, Paypal held a Seller liable for a "reversal" if the seller shipped to a non-confirmed adress or could not prove the address they shipped to was confirmed.
THis is according to the WAY THE TERMS SAY WORD FOR WORD.
Paypal saw the mistake they made in 2001 and fixed it in 2002.
So as of 2002, Paypal requires shipping to confirmed address for protection on any payment types and no longer just credit card payments.
I recived a "reversal" in 2001. I do not have to follow the terms of 2002 for an event in 2001.
And for Paypal to try and trick me which is what they tried to do, voids the contracts.. Paypal used the terms from 2002 against me and claimed they were from 2001. They are not allowed to do that and should not have tried.
|
kkaaz
|
posted on October 8, 2002 04:19:31 PM
[I was not given a reason for until several months later.
Now now kkaaz, that's not true and you know it.]
Coonr, Who do you think you are ? You are nothing but a paypal user. Or are you really an employee of Paypal and telling us all lies ?
My account was frozen months before my bogus reversal went against me. I did not contact Damon untill after the reversal.. That is when Damon claimed my account was froze becuase I tried to add one of my own credit cards on. That was MONTHS after the freeze.
Prior to that, I was never given a reason for the Freeze. They froze my account and all my own funds in it and demanded personal information faxed befor they would let me have my own money.
|
Coonr
|
posted on October 8, 2002 04:35:49 PM
You really ought to keep better notes, so you can keep your story straight. It keeps changing.
If you think I am a PayPal employee, you should drop a note and get me fired, as Damon has posted repeatedly that only two selected employees (He and Joanne) are allowed to post.
|
