 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Country Specific / Australian Mac Group / September 2008eBay plans to suck more money out of us!
No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. "From 21 May you must offer PayPal on all your listings as well as currently permitted payment methods. From 17 June you will only be able to offer PayPal on your listings and pay on pick up (i.e.paid for when picking up the item). Pay on pick up can only be offered in conjunction with PayPal. No other payment methods will be permitted."  Signaturergds, Pete ===== http://pw352.blogspot.com/ 'I'm not young enough to know everything' -Oscar Wilde > No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal > has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > picking up the item). Pay on pick up can only be offered in conjunction > with PayPal. No other payment methods will be permitted." I guess it's no surprise, Ebay owns PayPal All they need now is their own Courier Service Seems Rod was reading my messages or was it Ebay and took my opinion that Paypal was the only secure way they could move forward. >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal >> has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I guess it's no surprise, Ebay owns PayPal > All they need now is their own Courier Service > No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal > has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for when picking up the item). Pay on pick up can only be offered in > conjunction with PayPal. No other payment methods will be permitted." Old news but apparently they are also making changes to the feedback system according to something that I read in my inbox. http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/106521,ebay-friend-or-foe--part-1.aspx "Research by the company indicated that 'retaliatory' feedback by sellers was rife and discouraged buyers from coming back. Consequently, in May eBay will remove the ability to leave neutral or negative feedback for buyers in an effort to encourage more buying: a move that has sellers up in arms." >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal >> has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > will remove the ability to leave neutral or negative feedback for buyers in > an effort to encourage more buying: a move that has sellers up in arms." Why doesn't Ebay just prevent sellers from leaving feedback after the buyer has left feedback (perhaps allowing the seller a window of 48 hours to leave feedback after shipping the item)? The problem of retaliatory feedback would disappear immediately. > >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal > >> has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to leave feedback after shipping the item)? The problem of retaliatory > feedback would disappear immediately. That actually makes a lot of good sense. Because of this post, I'm seriously considering removing you from my killfile. If I do remove you, I will look forward to reading more of your ideas. Well done. >> >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal >> >> has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > seriously considering removing you from my killfile. If I do remove > you, I will look forward to reading more of your ideas. Well done. If you do remove me from your killfile, methinks you'll find that ALL of my posts make lots of good senses. Thanks for the kudos, but. > >> >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal > >> >> has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > If you do remove me from your killfile, methinks you'll find that ALL of > my posts make lots of good senses. Thanks for the kudos, but. OMG, this moron actually replied directly to my post after being told that he is in my killfile. Are you sure your aint fish, Springy or Chock, pray tell? >> > That actually makes a lot of good sense. Because of this post, I'm >> > seriously considering removing you from my killfile. If I do remove [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > OMG, this moron actually replied directly to my post after being told > that he is in my killfile. Are you sure your aint fish, Springy or OMG you are a moron because you "read' a reply to someone that was supposedly in your "killfile" Dick. > Chock, pray tell? > >> > That actually makes a lot of good sense. Because of this post, I'm > >> > seriously considering removing you from my killfile. If I do remove [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > Chock, pray tell? Hook, Line, Sinker, Rod, Reel, Outboard and whole friggin Boat, Michael. How stoopid are you? Whoooooooooshhhhhhhhh > That actually makes a lot of good sense. Because of this post, I'm > seriously considering removing you from my killfile. If I do remove > you, I will look forward to reading more of your ideas. Well done. Maybe your killfile works differently to mine, but if he was in your killfile, how come you read his post? Rifty Signatureriftynet - put a dot after rifty >>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and >>> PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > hours to leave feedback after shipping the item)? The problem of > retaliatory feedback would disappear immediately. IMHO they should just let people leave Feedback and have a right of reply. Let future buyers and sellers make up their own minds by reviewing the feedback for themselves. > Fred wrote >>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay >>> auctions, and PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. >>> "From 21 May you must offer PayPal on all your listings as well as >>> currently permitted payment methods. From 17 June you will only be >>> able to offer PayPal on your listings and pay on pick up (i.e.paid >>> for when picking up the item). Pay on pick up can only be offered in >>> conjunction with PayPal. No other payment methods will be permitted." >> Old news but apparently they are also making changes to the >> feedback system according to something that I read in my inbox. >> http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/106521,ebay-friend-or-foe--part-1.aspx >> "Research by the company indicated that 'retaliatory' feedback by >> sellers was rife and discouraged buyers from coming back. >> Consequently, in May eBay will remove the ability to leave >> neutral or negative feedback for buyers in an effort to >> encourage more buying: a move that has sellers up in arms." > Why doesn't Ebay just prevent sellers from leaving feedback > after the buyer has left feedback (perhaps allowing the seller > a window of 48 hours to leave feedback after shipping the item)? You do need to allow the seller to explain what happened, particularly when the buyer is being completely unreasonable, like ignoring what was said on the ad about the state of the item or the shipping cost etc. > The problem of retaliatory feedback would disappear immediately. Yes, but that would allow arsehole buyers to monster reasonable sellers. >> Fred wrote > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Yes, but that would allow arsehole buyers to monster reasonable sellers. I suppose Ebay could allow sellers a right of reply to negative feedback (but which replies didn't affect the buyer's pos/neg feedback ratio). > Rod Speed wrote >>> Fred wrote >>>>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay >>>>> auctions, and PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. >>>>> "From 21 May you must offer PayPal on all your listings as well as >>>>> currently permitted payment methods. From 17 June you will only be >>>>> able to offer PayPal on your listings and pay on pick up (i.e.paid >>>>> for when picking up the item). Pay on pick up can only be offered in >>>>> conjunction with PayPal. No other payment methods will be permitted." >>>> Old news but apparently they are also making changes to the >>>> feedback system according to something that I read in my inbox. >>>> http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/106521,ebay-friend-or-foe--part-1.aspx >>>> "Research by the company indicated that 'retaliatory' feedback by >>>> sellers was rife and discouraged buyers from coming back. >>>> Consequently, in May eBay will remove the ability to leave >>>> neutral or negative feedback for buyers in an effort to >>>> encourage more buying: a move that has sellers up in arms." >>> Why doesn't Ebay just prevent sellers from leaving feedback >>> after the buyer has left feedback (perhaps allowing the seller >>> a window of 48 hours to leave feedback after shipping the item)? >> You do need to allow the seller to explain what happened, particularly >> when the buyer is being completely unreasonable, like ignoring what >> was said on the ad about the state of the item or the shipping cost etc. >>> The problem of retaliatory feedback would disappear immediately. >> Yes, but that would allow arsehole buyers to monster reasonable sellers. > I suppose Ebay could allow sellers a right of reply to negative feedback I think that is the only reasonable approach, because some buyers are fools who dont read the original ad or who are complete arseholes etc. > (but which replies didn't affect the buyer's pos/neg feedback ratio). Yeah, that would be a reasonable approach. > >> Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote > >>>> lynx wrote [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Yeah, that would be a reasonable approach. Look, the word 'reasonable' and Rod Speed, all in the same post. > >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal > >> has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sellers should be required to leave feedback when marking items as sent or payment cleared. > Sellers should be required to leave feedback when marking items as > sent or payment cleared. I have a policy of not leaving feedback for sellers unless they leave feedback fo me first or they send me the goods prior to payment. It seems logical to me since I fulfill my part of the bargain first by providing the funds. >>>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and >>>> PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> hours to leave feedback after shipping the item)? The problem of >> retaliatory feedback would disappear immediately. > Sellers should be required to leave feedback when marking items as > sent or payment cleared. That isnt viable. If a buyer complains about the goods when they are received, or that they werent received, the seller cant put his side of the story. > > No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal > > has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > for when picking up the item). Pay on pick up can only be offered in > > conjunction with PayPal. No other payment methods will be permitted." So what is the difference between "cash on pick up" and "pay on pick up"? How can they force you to use pay-pal, rather than just force you to offer it as an option? MrT. >>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and >>> PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > up"? How can they force you to use pay-pal, rather than just force > you to offer it as an option? I just read an advisory page that states http://pages.ebay.com.au/useprotection/changes-sell.html "Buyers who don't have a PayPal account will now be able to pay you using Visa or MasterCard (with transactions processed by PayPal)." That means that buyers aren't being forced to become a PayPal member at this stage. Also "For pay on pick up, we recommend you accept cash or bank cheque after meeting the buyer and handing over the item." So obviously cash on pickup hasn't been banned. >>>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and >>>> PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >That means that buyers aren't being forced to become a PayPal member at this >stage. Not the problem. The seller then gets to pay the fee for CC payment. >Also >"For pay on pick up, we recommend you accept cash or bank cheque after >meeting the buyer and handing over the item." > >So obviously cash on pickup hasn't been banned. No, and if sellers have their wits about them they will "use" (aka recommend) this method to all buyers, even if they are 1000's of miles away. (nudge,.wink). > >>>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and > >>>> PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > No, and if sellers have their wits about them they will "use" (aka recommend) > this method to all buyers, even if they are 1000's of miles away. (nudge,.wink). If sellers have their wits about them, they'll add "Buyer must pay PayPal premium" to the conditions of their sales. >>>>>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and >>>>>> PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > If sellers have their wits about them, they'll add "Buyer must pay > PayPal premium" to the conditions of their sales. ebay banned that LONG ago. > r.ghand...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > ebay banned that LONG ago. Did they? I didn't know; I've only ever sold one thing on eBay, and it was a long time ago. If I were interested in eBay, here is what I would put:- "Pay on pick-up: delivery & pick-up will be at Marion post office; post office staff will act as the buyer's agent to take delivery. A fee for this service will be payable." That, along with suitably punitive "shipping and handling" charges for arseholes who want to use PayPal, should get the message through. > "Pay on pick-up: delivery & pick-up will be at Marion post office; > post office staff will act as the buyer's agent to take delivery. A > fee for this service will be payable." Does the Post Office offer such a service? > > "Pay on pick-up: delivery & pick-up will be at Marion post office; > > post office staff will act as the buyer's agent to take delivery. A > > fee for this service will be payable." > > Does the Post Office offer such a service? It's the same service the post office has always offered. > > Does the Post Office offer such a service? > > It's the same service the post office has always offered. What do they call it when I front the local Indians who have just taken over the Post Office franchise? What charges; i.e. competitive with Pay Pal? Thanks. > > > Does the Post Office offer such a service? > > > It's the same service the post office has always offered. > > What do they call it when I front the local Indians who have just > taken over the Post Office franchise? Parcel post. Whether the post office are acting as the seller's agent to effect delivery, or the buyer's agent to take delivery, depends on whether title has passed before the goods are posted. You've misunderstood me. I wasn't (intentionally) suggesting the post office would handle payment on behalf of a buyer. Even if they did, using it would breach eBay's new rules. I was only suggesting a form of words that I thought would imply to buyers that the seller wanted to ignore eBay's new rules. Sorry for any false hope I caused. Myself, I think eBay is rubbish since they hid bidders' names. It's just giving tacit approval to sellers to schill bid in their own auctions, which they have been gleefully doing in recent weeks. > Fred <bluser@gmail.com> wrote >>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay >>> auctions, and PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. >>> "From 21 May you must offer PayPal on all your listings as well as >>> currently permitted payment methods. From 17 June you will only be >>> able to offer PayPal on your listings and pay on pick up (i.e.paid >>> for when picking up the item). Pay on pick up can only be offered in >>> conjunction with PayPal. No other payment methods will be permitted." > So what is the difference between "cash on pick up" and "pay on pick up"? Some choose to pay using bank deposit when picking up. > How can they force you to use pay-pal, rather than just force you to offer it as an option? In the ultimate they cant if you are happy to lie about how it was paid for. > >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ah ha! They finally woke up to that one. Sellers had been 'protected' from negative feedback by the threat of retaliatory neg feedback. Signaturergds, Pete ===== http://pw352.blogspot.com/ 'I'm not young enough to know everything' -Oscar Wilde > >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal > >> has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Ah ha! They finally woke up to that one. Sellers had been 'protected' > from negative feedback by the threat of retaliatory neg feedback. Yes, but shonky sellers are more than compensated by the introduction of anonymous bidding, so they can shill bid in their own auctions. Which they enthuiastically are. Another bullshit change that eBay made on the pretext it was to make it "safer for buyers". > No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal has > to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > picking up the item). Pay on pick up can only be offered in conjunction > with PayPal. No other payment methods will be permitted." Simple solution, if you don't like it go elsewhere. >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Simple solution, if you don't like it go elsewhere. Yes, like www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than eBay. > SUPER THICK MASSIVE DICK >>> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Simple solution, if you don't like it go elsewhere. >Yes, like www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than eBay. MASSIVE DICK: http://www.southwestslutbags.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=3395 http://www.technotranceravesex.net/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=21536 SUPER THICK: http://www.southwestslutbags.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=3397 http://www.technotranceravesex.net/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=21538 IT'S HUGE: http://www.southwestslutbags.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=3393 http://www.technotranceravesex.net/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=21534 I'm here for you girls! If you're a horny mum or wife or girlfriend who isn't getting enough from your partner, drop me a line with some contact details and we'll get in touch. You can share in the enjoyment! SignatureSheik Yerbhouti - the popular ambassador to Australia of the Arab Royal States Anonymous I welcome you loving emails. Come and view my free image galleries at: http://www.southwestslutbags.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2941 http://www.technotranceravesex.net/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=20555 >>> Simple solution, if you don't like it go elsewhere. > >>Yes, like www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than eBay. > > MASSIVE DICK: Replied like a true eBay employee. > Yes, like www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than eBay. It would be nice if it didn't crash firefox everytime I looked at it. >> Yes, like www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than >> eBay. > > It would be nice if it didn't crash firefox everytime I looked at it. Get a better browser then. NO decent web browser should crash simply from trying to render some HTML SignatureKwyj. > > It would be nice if it didn't crash firefox everytime I looked at > > it. > > Get a better browser then. NO decent web browser should crash simply > from trying to render some HTML Worked ok on Firefox here. > Get a better browser then. NO decent web browser should crash simply from > trying to render some HTML You have checked the source have you and can absolutley assure me that it is just html? >>> Yes, like www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than >>> eBay. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Get a better browser then. NO decent web browser should crash simply from >trying to render some HTML Firefox crashes on the Aldi website. Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og >>>> Yes, like www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than >>>> eBay. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Firefox crashes on the Aldi website. Not for me, FF2 on Solaris, OpenSUSE, and Windows views the Aldi website quite happily, not to mention the Oztion site. PEBKAC, perhaps? :-) Cheers, Gary B-) > > Firefox crashes on the Aldi website. > > > Not for me, FF2 on Solaris, OpenSUSE, Works ok here in Sea Monkey, Open Suse 10.3 >>>> Yes, like www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than >>>> eBay. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Home page > http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og I've used each version of Firefox since version 1.0 and never had it crash the oztion or aldi websites since either of those websites existed. >>>> Yes, like www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than >>>> eBay. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Home page > http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og i have ff3 and both sites mentioned work perfectly with and without my own ad blocking software >> Yes, like www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than eBay. > > It would be nice if it didn't crash firefox everytime I looked at it. Doesn't crash here. Your Firefox install has become compromised. Or, you work for eBay. I'd hazard a guess and say the second. > No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal > has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > picking up the item). Pay on pick up can only be offered in conjunction > with PayPal. No other payment methods will be permitted." Complain to the ACCC about Ebay engaging in "exclusive dealing". The more people complain, the more likely it is that the ACCC will act. If few people complain, it's unlikely they'll do anything. Complain online here: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/54217#h2_38 Sylvia. > lynx wrote >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal has to be offered on all listings!.. >> "From 21 May you must offer PayPal on all your listings as well as >> currently permitted payment methods. From 17 June you will only be >> able to offer PayPal on your listings and pay on pick up (i.e.paid >> for when picking up the item). Pay on pick up can only be offered in >> conjunction with PayPal. No other payment methods will be permitted." > Complain to the ACCC about Ebay engaging in "exclusive dealing". Pointless, because it aint anything like exclusive dealing, stupid. > The more people complain, the more likely it is that the ACCC will act. Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant nudist fantasyland. > If few people complain, it's unlikely they'll do anything. They wont do a damned thing, regardless of how many 'complain', you watch. > Complain online here: > http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/54217#h2_38 The accc just files those where they belong. > The accc just files those where they belong. And your knowledge of that derives from.....? Sylvia. > > The accc just files those where they belong. > > And your knowledge of that derives from.....? > > Sylvia. His all knowing, all seeing eye. But unfortunately it`s blind, as it`s between his bum cheeks; > Rod Speed wrote >> The accc just files those where they belong. > And your knowledge of that derives from.....? It isnt hard to see what they take action about, stupid. >> Rod Speed wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It isnt hard to see what they take action about, stupid. Yeah, the ACCC filed *this* one in the federal court: "$3 million penalty for Fila's selective distribution policy for A.F.L.-licensed apparel The Federal Court today ordered penalties of $3 million against FILA Sport Oceania Pty Limited after finding that FILA's selective distribution policy for the supply of Australian Football League-licensed apparel to retailers was a breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974. ... Justice Heerey found that FILA had misused its market power and engaged in exclusive dealing in breach of sections 46 and 47 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 46 of the Act prohibits corporations with a substantial degree of power in a market from taking advantage of that power to eliminate or substantially damage a competitor or to deter and prevent a person from engaging in competitive conduct. Section 47 of the Act prohibits certain types of exclusive dealing". http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/513636/fromItemId/2332 Help the ACCC to help you: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/54217#h2_38 >>> Rod Speed wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > competitor or to deter and prevent a person from engaging in > competitive conduct. Pity ebay isnt doing anything like that. Its doing nothing to its competitor's auction systems. > Section 47 of the Act prohibits certain types of exclusive dealing". > http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/513636/fromItemId/2332 Which doesnt even mention what ebay is doing payment wise. > Help the ACCC to help you: > http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/54217#h2_38 Not even possible if ebay isnt in breach of the TPA. >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> The accc just files those where they belong. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Pity ebay isnt doing anything like that. Its doing nothing to its competitor's auction systems. Pity that Ebay and Paypal are related parties & thus treated as one 'body corporate'. In any case, third line forcing doesn't require the "lessening of competition" test (as of 2004). http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/716809 >> Section 47 of the Act prohibits certain types of exclusive dealing". >> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/513636/fromItemId/2332 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not even possible if ebay isnt in breach of the TPA. We shall see about that. There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take deposits" without a banking license. > >>>> Rod Speed wrote > >>>>> The accc just files those where they belong. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take deposits" > without a banking license. What the hell is a 'banking license'? > There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take deposits" > without a banking license. Here's a copy of their authority for you to peruse: http://www.apra.gov.au/ADI/upload/PayPal-auth-and-conditions-2006.pdf >> There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take deposits" >> without a banking license. > > Here's a copy of their authority for you to peruse: > > http://www.apra.gov.au/ADI/upload/PayPal-auth-and-conditions-2006.pdf Brilliant, thank you. That means a whole lot more compliance avenues are opened up. >>> There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take >>> deposits" without a banking license. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That means a whole lot more compliance avenues are opened up. It means you are accident-prone. And a lazy bugger, to boot! > r.ghandour@gmail.com wrote >>> There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take deposits" without a banking license. >> Here's a copy of their authority for you to peruse: >> http://www.apra.gov.au/ADI/upload/PayPal-auth-and-conditions-2006.pdf > Brilliant, thank you. Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > That means a whole lot more compliance avenues are opened up. Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. The conditions in that aint been breached, fuckwit. >> r.ghandour@gmail.com wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The conditions in that aint been breached, fuckwit. Hmmm... http://www.google.com.au/search?q=paypal+site%3Aapra.gov.au ...wonder why they haven't lodged a report since 2006 when every other ADI has > Rod Speed wrote >>> r.ghandour@gmail.com wrote >>>>> There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take deposits" without a banking license. >>>> Here's a copy of their authority for you to peruse: >>>> http://www.apra.gov.au/ADI/upload/PayPal-auth-and-conditions-2006.pdf >>> Brilliant, thank you. >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>> That means a whole lot more compliance avenues are opened up. >> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. >> The conditions in that aint been breached, fuckwit. > Hmmm... Desperately humming aint gunna save your bacon, fuckwit. > http://www.google.com.au/search?q=paypal+site%3Aapra.gov.au Doesnt say anything like that. > ...wonder why they haven't lodged a report since 2006 when every other ADI has Another pig ignorant bare faced lie. ... >> Hmmm... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Doesnt say anything like that. Did see any sign of a brain there either >> ...wonder why they haven't lodged a report since 2006 when every other ADI has > > Another pig ignorant bare faced lie. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Hmmm... >> Desperately humming aint gunna save your bacon, fuckwit. >>> http://www.google.com.au/search?q=paypal+site%3Aapra.gov.au >> Doesnt say anything like that. > Did see any sign of a brain there either Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>> ...wonder why they haven't lodged a report since 2006 when every other ADI has >> Another pig ignorant bare faced lie. >> There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take >> deposits" without a banking license. > > Here's a copy of their authority for you to peruse: > > http://www.apra.gov.au/ADI/upload/PayPal-auth-and-conditions-2006.pdf Spoilsport!! >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> The accc just files those where they belong. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > "lessening of competition" test (as of 2004). > http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/716809 On your own terms, that is not "third line forcing". If the coirporations are treated as one corporation, is is forcing its own product, not a third partie's product. There is a very great difference between the two animals, but you aren't to know that. >>> Section 47 of the Act prohibits certain types of exclusive dealing". >>> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/513636/fromItemId/2332 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take > deposits" without a banking license. Gee whizz!! I wonder why anyone bothers to deal with these anti-social bodies. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> The accc just files those where they belong. >>>>> And your knowledge of that derives from.....? >>>> It isnt hard to see what they take action about, stupid. >>> Yeah, the ACCC filed *this* one in the federal court: >>> "$3 million penalty for Fila's selective distribution policy for A.F.L.-licensed apparel >>> The Federal Court today ordered penalties of $3 million against FILA >>> Sport Oceania Pty Limited after finding that FILA's selective >>> distribution policy for the supply of Australian Football >>> League-licensed apparel to retailers was a breach of the Trade >>> Practices Act 1974. >>> Justice Heerey found that FILA had misused its market power and >>> engaged in exclusive dealing in breach of sections 46 and 47 of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> a competitor or to deter and prevent a person from engaging in >>> competitive conduct. >> Pity ebay isnt doing anything like that. Its doing nothing to its >> competitor's auction systems. > Pity that Ebay and Paypal are related parties & thus treated as one 'body corporate'. Irrelevant to whether ebay is doing anything to stop or even hinder the use of another competitor's auction system. > In any case, third line forcing doesn't require the "lessening of competition" test (as of 2004). > http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/716809 You aint established any 'forcing' in the sense that the act proscribes. >>> Section 47 of the Act prohibits certain types of exclusive dealing". >>> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/513636/fromItemId/2332 >> Which doesnt even mention what ebay is doing payment wise. >>> Help the ACCC to help you: >>> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/54217#h2_38 >> Not even possible if ebay isnt in breach of the TPA. > We shall see about that. We will indeed. Bet the ACCC wont do a damned thing, even try to monster ebay into reversing that policy change. They clearly didnt when the much earlier policy change banned the use of Western Union and that is a clear competitor of paypal's. > There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take deposits" without a banking license. Pig ignorant lie. Paypal doesnt take deposits, fuckwit. >> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Irrelevant to whether ebay is doing anything to stop or > even hinder the use of another competitor's auction system. That's your drug-crazed fantasy, speedy, never said they did >> In any case, third line forcing doesn't require the "lessening of competition" test (as of 2004). >> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/716809 > > You aint established any 'forcing' in the sense that the act proscribes. The Act is quite clear, did you read it? EBay will force exclusive dealing by requiring sellers to only take payments via Paypal, excluding direct deposit, direct credit cards, cheques and money orders. >>>> Section 47 of the Act prohibits certain types of exclusive dealing". >>>> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/513636/fromItemId/2332 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Pig ignorant lie. Paypal doesnt take deposits, fuckwit. Yes it does, fuckwit. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>>> The accc just files those where they belong. >>>>>>> And your knowledge of that derives from.....? >>>>>> It isnt hard to see what they take action about, stupid. >>>>> Yeah, the ACCC filed *this* one in the federal court: >>>>> "$3 million penalty for Fila's selective distribution policy for A.F.L.-licensed apparel >>>>> The Federal Court today ordered penalties of $3 million against FILA Sport Oceania Pty Limited after finding that >>>>> FILA's selective distribution policy for the supply of Australian Football League-licensed apparel to retailers >>>>> was a breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974. >>>>> Justice Heerey found that FILA had misused its market power and engaged in exclusive dealing in breach of sections >>>>> 46 and 47 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 46 of the Act prohibits corporations with a substantial degree >>>>> of power in a market from taking advantage of that power to eliminate or substantially damage a competitor or to >>>>> deter and prevent a person from engaging in competitive conduct. >>>> Pity ebay isnt doing anything like that. Its doing nothing to its competitor's auction systems. >>> Pity that Ebay and Paypal are related parties & thus treated as one 'body corporate'. >> Irrelevant to whether ebay is doing anything to stop or >> even hinder the use of another competitor's auction system. > That's your drug-crazed fantasy, Cant even manage its own lines, or anything else at all, either. > speedy, never said they did Never ever said you did. >>> In any case, third line forcing doesn't require the "lessening of competition" test (as of 2004). >>> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/716809 >> You aint established any 'forcing' in the sense that the act proscribes. > The Act is quite clear, No it aint. > did you read it? Yep. > EBay will force exclusive dealing by requiring sellers to only take payments via Paypal, excluding direct deposit, > direct credit cards, cheques and money orders. Pity about http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/719618/fromItemId/729974 Done like a f.cking dinner, as always. >>>>> Section 47 of the Act prohibits certain types of exclusive dealing". >>>>> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/513636/fromItemId/2332 No it doesnt. It ACTUALLY allows the ACCC to allow that if it chooses to. And it has chosen to do that. >>>> Which doesnt even mention what ebay is doing payment wise. >>>>> Help the ACCC to help you: >>>>> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/54217#h2_38 >>>> Not even possible if ebay isnt in breach of the TPA. >>> We shall see about that. We have, you're just plain wrong. As always. >> We will indeed. Bet the ACCC wont do a damned thing, >> even try to monster ebay into reversing that policy change. >> They clearly didnt when the much earlier policy change banned >> the use of Western Union and that is a clear competitor of paypal's. >>> There's also the question of whether Paypal can legally "take >>> deposits" without a banking license. >> Pig ignorant lie. Paypal doesnt take deposits, fuckwit. > Yes it does, No it doesnt, fuckwit. And its allowed to do that anyway, fuckwit. ... >> EBay will force exclusive dealing by requiring sellers to only take payments via Paypal, excluding direct deposit, >> direct credit cards, cheques and money orders. > > Pity about http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/719618/fromItemId/729974 > > Done like a f.cking dinner, as always. Yes indeed - and *thank* *you*. In the above submission (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/719618/fromItemId/729974), eBay claims that "There are no other feasible options for payment of Digital Items through the DDG service" Firstly, this was not the claim made by eBay in their notice to sellers (http://pages.ebay.com.au/useprotection/changes.html). So now we can potentially add "deceptive and misleading conduct". eBay is claiming that BPay, Paymate, Mastercard and Visa are unsafe payment methods....and on that basis, eBay want to force the use of Paypal by their customers. This is a different argument to the above and different to the arguments presented by all of the shills in this group. I note how the shills keep bringing up the issue that the ACCC will not pay any attention to this issue. Let's see if they pay attention when the Big four banks, Aussie post, Paymate, Mastercard and Visa become aware that eBay is saying that their payment methods are not safe. > ... > Rod Speed wrote >>> EBay will force exclusive dealing by requiring sellers to only take payments via Paypal, excluding direct deposit, >>> direct credit cards, cheques and money orders. >> Pity about >> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/719618/fromItemId/729974 >> Done like a f.cking dinner, as always. > Yes indeed - and *thank* *you*. > In the above submission > (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/719618/fromItemId/729974), > eBay claims that "There are no other feasible options for payment of Digital Items through the DDG service" Irrelevant to your bare faced lie about the NEW policy being in breach of the TPA. > Firstly, this was not the claim made by eBay in their notice to > sellers (http://pages.ebay.com.au/useprotection/changes.html). So now we can potentially add "deceptive and misleading > conduct". Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland. > eBay is claiming that BPay, Paymate, Mastercard and Visa are unsafe payment methods.... You're lying, as always. > and on that basis, eBay want to force the use of Paypal by their customers. You're lying, as always. > This is a different argument to the above Hardly surprising given that its about something different, fuckwit. > and different to the arguments presented by all of the shills in this group. You're lying, as always. > I note how the shills keep bringing up the issue that the ACCC will not pay any attention to this issue. You're lying, as always. > Let's see if they pay attention when the Big four banks, Aussie post, Paymate, Mastercard and Visa become aware that > eBay is saying that their payment methods are not safe. You're lying, as always. And ebay can say anything they like anyway. >> Rod Speed wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Irrelevant to your bare faced lie about the NEW policy being in breach of the TPA. The submission itself acknowledges that "it may be argued" that it may breach exclusive dealing provisions. Now if eBay's representatives lodge a (pre-emptive) submission acknowledging the potential breach of the TPA who should I believe, eBay's lawyers or a troll? >> Firstly, this was not the claim made by eBay in their notice to >> sellers (http://pages.ebay.com.au/useprotection/changes.html). So now we can potentially add "deceptive and misleading [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > And ebay can say anything they like anyway. And the ACCC can fine them. The penalties for breach of exclusive trading are severe: $10m or 10%, the greater of. In the case of Fila, the directors declared bankruptcy, so they are going after them personally. Watch what happens when the sleepy banks finally become aware of what eay is claimin. Even if they miss the significance of eBay getting their way with an exclusive dealing exemption they will not miss the opportunity to halt anyone who claims that their payment systems are unsafe. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> EBay will force exclusive dealing by requiring sellers to only take payments via Paypal, excluding direct deposit, >>>>> direct credit cards, cheques and money orders. >>>> Pity about >>>> http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/719618/fromItemId/729974 >>>> Done like a f.cking dinner, as always. >>> Yes indeed - and *thank* *you*. >>> In the above submission >>> (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/719618/fromItemId/729974), >>> eBay claims that "There are no other feasible options for payment of Digital Items through the DDG service" >> Irrelevant to your bare faced lie about the NEW policy being in breach of the TPA. > The submission itself acknowledges that "it may be argued" that it may breach exclusive dealing provisions. Which is NOTHING like YOUR stupid pig ignorant claim that it actually is in breach of the TPA. AND even if it is, even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp that the ACCC can allow that requirement ANYWAY. > Now if eBay's representatives lodge a (pre-emptive) submission acknowledging the potential breach of the TPA who > should I believe, They didnt do anything like that, liar. > eBay's lawyers or a troll? STILL nothing like YOUR original bare faced lie, liar. >>> Firstly, this was not the claim made by eBay in their notice to >>> sellers (http://pages.ebay.com.au/useprotection/changes.html). So now we can potentially add "deceptive and >>> misleading conduct". >> Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland. >>> eBay is claiming that BPay, Paymate, Mastercard and Visa are unsafe payment methods.... >> You're lying, as always. >>> and on that basis, eBay want to force the use of Paypal by their customers. >> You're lying, as always. >>> This is a different argument to the above >> Hardly surprising given that its about something different, fuckwit. >>> and different to the arguments presented by all of the shills in this group. >> You're lying, as always. >>> I note how the shills keep bringing up the issue that the ACCC will not pay any attention to this issue. >> You're lying, as always. >>> Let's see if they pay attention when the Big four banks, Aussie >>> post, Paymate, Mastercard and Visa become aware that eBay is saying that their payment methods are not safe. >> You're lying, as always. >> And ebay can say anything they like anyway. > And the ACCC can fine them. Wrong. A court can, IF they are actually found guilty of anything proscribed, fuckwit. > The penalties for breach of exclusive trading are severe: $10m or 10%, the greater of. Pity you aint even established that there is any exclusive trading, fuckwit. > In the case of Fila, the directors declared bankruptcy, so they are going after them personally. Taint gunna happen with ebay, you watch. > Watch what happens when the sleepy banks finally become aware of what eay is claimin. ebay aint claiming anything like your lie, liar. And the banks have no capacity what so ever to do anything about it even if ebay had done what you lied anyway. > Even if they miss the significance of eBay getting their way with an exclusive dealing exemption they will not miss > the opportunity to halt anyone who claims that their payment systems are unsafe. They dont get to do anything about that, fuckwit. You watch. Normally the problem in communications is to extract signal from noise. Starting with Speedy's reply, I did the opposite - I removed all of the *content* leaving the noise - and this is the result... >> Rod Speed wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ..., liar. > ..., fuckwit. Conclusion: Anyone know a good vet? Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> desperately attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always. > Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be > B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> desperately > attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament > and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always. terminal Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> desperately attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always. > Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant nudist fantasyland. And while you are at it, can you post some photos on line? (Don't mind Our Roddles, who is close to being declared a national living legend, along the likes of Shitlam, Keating, Our Dawn (Fraser) etc.) NOT. He means well, but ..........? Please don't feed the Roddles Troll! >> No more 'cash on pick up' will be allowed by eBay auctions, and PayPal >> has to be offered on all listings!.. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Complain to the ACCC about Ebay engaging in "exclusive dealing". What nonsense! Half the businesses in the country have limits on acceptable payment methods -- just check out how many say Diners' Club and/or AMEX cards are not accepted. Then there are all the small businesses that don't even have payment options other than cash! (Though some will also accept cheques if you're known to them.) >The more people complain, the more likely it is that the ACCC will act. >If few people complain, it's unlikely they'll do anything. > >Complain online here: > >http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/54217#h2_38 As an aside, I noticed someone mentioned an alternative auction house: "www.oztion.com.au -- no listing fees and cheaper fees than eBay." Out of complete ignorance, I was about to say "and no products", but thought I'd better check first. :-) As of now they're claiming 450,000+ lots on sale and 249,556 members -- so they're clearly one up on the average garage sale. Cheers, Phred. SignatureppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID > What nonsense! Half the businesses in the country have limits on > acceptable payment methods -- just check out how many say Diners' Club > and/or AMEX cards are not accepted. Then there are all the small > businesses that don't even have payment options other than cash! > (Though some will also accept cheques if you're known to them.) That's a quite different situation. If you want to do business with X, you must pay them in a way that they'll accept. The Ebay scenario is something else entirely. Essentially X wants to buy from Y, and Ebay is saying that X must pay Y using PayPal, or Ebay will not bring X and Y together so that they can do business. Sylvia. >> What nonsense! Half the businesses in the country have limits on >> acceptable payment methods -- just check out how many say Diners' [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > buy from Y, and Ebay is saying that X must pay Y using PayPal, or > Ebay will not bring X and Y together so that they can do business. Doesnt mean that its contrary to the TPA. >>> What nonsense! Half the businesses in the country have limits on >>> acceptable payment methods -- just check out how many say Diners' [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doesnt mean that its contrary to the TPA. See for yourself speedy boy: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/s47.html > Rod Speed wrote >>> Phred wrote >>>> What nonsense! Half the businesses in the country have limits on >>>> acceptable payment methods -- just check out how many say Diners' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> That's a quite different situation. If you want to do business with >>> X, you must pay them in a way that they'll accept. >>> The Ebay scenario is something else entirely. Essentially X wants to >>> buy from Y, and Ebay is saying that X must pay Y using PayPal, or >>> Ebay will not bring X and Y together so that they can do business. >> Doesnt mean that its contrary to the TPA. > See for yourself speedy boy: > http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/s47.html Seen for myself, fuckwit. http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/719618/fromItemId/729974 Done like a f.cking dinner, as always. >>> What nonsense! Half the businesses in the country have limits on >>> acceptable payment methods -- just check out how many say Diners' [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doesnt mean that its contrary to the TPA. I didn't argue that it was in that post. I was merely pointing out that Phred's reference to "half the businesses in the country" was not relevant to the point at hand. It's about making sure the chain of reasoning is sound, not just that the conclusion is the one one wants. Sylvia. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Phred wrote >>>> What nonsense! Half the businesses in the country have limits on >>>> acceptable payment methods -- just check out how many say Diners' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> That's a quite different situation. If you want to do business with >>> X, you must pay them in a way that they'll accept. >>> The Ebay scenario is something else entirely. Essentially X wants to >>> buy from Y, and Ebay is saying that X must pay Y using PayPal, or >>> Ebay will not bring X and Y together so that they can do business. >> Doesnt mean that its contrary to the TPA. > I didn't argue that it was in that post. I was merely pointing out that Phred's reference to "half the businesses in > the country" was not relevant to the point at hand. And you are just plain wrong when you make that claim. It isnt something else entirely, its got lots of similaritys to the ebay payment system. > It's about making sure the chain of reasoning is sound, Pity you've never ever been able to manage anything like that. > not just that the conclusion is the one one wants. Gone blind yet ? >> What nonsense! Half the businesses in the country have limits on >> acceptable payment methods -- just check out how many say Diners' Club [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >from Y, and Ebay is saying that X must pay Y using PayPal, or Ebay will >not bring X and Y together so that they can do business. Fair enough. I just assumed you paid the seller through eBay -- that is, the loot went to eBay and they passed it on after extracting their commission. If the transaction is direct from buyer to seller, I can see why eBay may be wanting to change things so they can be *sure* of getting their commission. There's also the issue of a convenient audit trail for these transactions so eBay can say "You *have* been paid" to a seller who tries to rort the system. (Or *haven't* been if it's a shonky buyer.) Of course, all of this is just hypothetical blathering on the part of someone who has never used eBay, and probably never will, so has no idea how the whole bloody system works, or is supposed to. YMMV. Cheers, Phred. SignatureppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID > Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote >>> What nonsense! Half the businesses in the country have limits on >>> acceptable payment methods -- just check out how many say Diners' >>> Club and/or AMEX cards are not accepted. Then there are all the >>> small businesses that don't even have payment options other than >>> cash! (Though some will also accept cheques if you're known to them.) >> That's a quite different situation. If you want to do business >> with X, you must pay them in a way that they'll accept. >> The Ebay scenario is something else entirely. Essentially X wants to >> buy from Y, and Ebay is saying that X must pay Y using PayPal, or >> Ebay will not bring X and Y together so that they can do business. > Fair enough. Nope, she's just plain wrong, as always. > I just assumed you paid the seller through eBay -- that is, the loot > went to eBay and they passed it on after extracting their commission. Nope, not even under the new arrangements, most obviously when cash is used at the time of pickup. > If the transaction is direct from buyer to seller, I can see why eBay may be > wanting to change things so they can be *sure* of getting their commission. They get that by charging up front for the listing etc. > There's also the issue of a convenient audit trail for these transactions > so eBay |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message