scammers on ebay

[Altimas]

I dont think any woman is asking to be raped if they wear skimpy clothes. Thats like saying a child is asking to be molested because their wearing a diaper.

[Migz]

Well techinically it is an X-mag. Can't you see the big X on the side of the marker. . Even thought it's being sold the as an X-mag the current amount on the auction kind of reflects that people know that it's not a real X-mag. It's still a nice automag.

[rkjunior303]

Well techinically it is an X-mag. Can't you see the big X on the side of the marker. . Even thought it's being sold the as an X-mag the current amount on the auction kind of reflects that people know that it's not a real X-mag. It's still a nice automag.

Did you even read this thread and/or eBay auction?

It't not for a mag, it's for a PICTURE of a mag. What the actual mag is, is secondary.

[Steelrat]

I dont think any woman is asking to be raped if they wear skimpy clothes. Thats like saying a child is asking to be molested because their wearing a diaper.

[Lohman446]

The point is blaming the victim

"He got scammed because he didn't read the fine print" - we would have a serious issue if a large corporation did this on a large level, somehow we make excuses when private individuals try the same sleazy tactics on e-bay. Sorry folks, what you are selling has to be in the title, you cannot "descript" your way out of it.

The example "she got raped because she wore that outfit" is also blaming the victim, or "he got mugged because he was on that part of town". Its trying to excuse the guily party of the crime / con. It does not mitigate the wrongness of what the person did - you cannot blame the victim. Thats his point, and while it is an example in the extreme, it is an often used example of where the victim is blamed, and should not be, for the anti-social act of the perpetrater (sp).

[Steelrat]

The point is blaming the victim

"He got scammed because he didn't read the fine print" - we would have a serious issue if a large corporation did this on a large level, somehow we make excuses when private individuals try the same sleazy tactics on e-bay. Sorry folks, what you are selling has to be in the title, you cannot "descript" your way out of it.

The example "she got raped because she wore that outfit" is also blaming the victim, or "he got mugged because he was on that part of town". Its trying to excuse the guily party of the crime / con. It does not mitigate the wrongness of what the person did - you cannot blame the victim. Thats his point, and while it is an example in the extreme, it is an often used example of where the victim is blamed, and should not be, for the anti-social act of the perpetrater (sp).

I'm glad you're here to back up my sarcasm with logical arguments

[ojhspyro89]

Aside from people being raped....

I like this sentence that was in the 3 sentence, or was it two, description

Buy this picture of this gun and you will have guranteed fun!

[rkjunior303]

"He got scammed because he didn't read the fine print" - we would have a serious issue if a large corporation did this on a large level, somehow we make excuses when private individuals try the same sleazy tactics on e-bay. Sorry folks, what you are selling has to be in the title, you cannot "descript" your way out of it.

I guess I see this from a different light, being on the opposite of the "fine print" when dealing with subscribers here at Nextel. When I was dealing with general public accounts, I saw MANY times people trying to get out of their contract because "they weren't aware" of a certain stipulation when in fact it was written in clear english on the back of the subscriber agreement in the "fine print." The fact of the matter was, they were locked into a LEGAL agreement but yet failed to read the entire agreement themselves. In that light, they put THEMSELVES into that situation by not doing what a normal 5th grader could do - read everything placed in front of them.

For that sheer stupidity, I have no sympathy.

[Lohman446]

I guess I see this from a different light, being on the opposite of the "fine print" when dealing with subscribers here at Nextel. When I was dealing with general public accounts, I saw MANY times people trying to get out of their contract because "they weren't aware" of a certain stipulation when in fact it was written in clear english on the back of the subscriber agreement in the "fine print." The fact of the matter was, they were locked into a LEGAL agreement but yet failed to read the entire agreement themselves. In that light, they put THEMSELVES into that situation by not doing what a normal 5th grader could do - read everything placed in front of them.

For that sheer stupidity, I have no sympathy.

I don't disagree with you here - but I would have a problem if the backside of that contract reversed the front side, or said "Free model XXIX phone is actually a picture" or some such. There's a difference between defining terms and contradicting the sales pitch and all information leading up to that point. I guess complaining about "fine print" was a term of speech here - I understand the need to define contractual terms - however, I have a problem with singular terms that would contradict the entire purpose of the contract.

[StellarRAD]

The funny part is I look and e-mail scammers all time, I noticed this guys post like 2 day ago and e-mailed him. He said, it doesn't matter he bought it from somone that said it was an xmag and he has offers so it's their fault.

You are aware you can pull your bid back within Ebay right?

Just use theie help and search for width draw a bid.

[rkjunior303]

I don't disagree with you here - but I would have a problem if the backside of that contract reversed the front side, or said "Free model XXIX phone is actually a picture" or some such. There's a difference between defining terms and contradicting the sales pitch and all information leading up to that point. I guess complaining about "fine print" was a term of speech here - I understand the need to define contractual terms - however, I have a problem with singular terms that would contradict the entire purpose of the contract.

even in sales, that can be the case though.

for example. a free phone. a free phone may be a free phone but on the back of the contract, if that commitment is broken, that free phone may now become a phone for MSRP. Ya know?

I do agree, that the description of the item has to match the "bulk" of the auction. I'm not saying it's right and I would wholeheartedly agree that I would fight this if I got stuck with such an auction... My arguement though, is not if the auction is right or wrong, it's actually not taking the time to read the description thoroughly enough to realize what exactly it is since it is very blatent in it's description. While the auction is deceiving, by the title, it is not trying to hide the fact it is only a picture in the "description" of the item.

[Jaan]

If everyone is so sure this is a scam, then place a $100,000 bid on it. That's what a lot of cyclists do when they see a bicycle that's clearly a scam. This one may be on the line though.

[Lohman446]

even in sales, that can be the case though.

for example. a free phone. a free phone may be a free phone but on the back of the contract, if that commitment is broken, that free phone may now become a phone for MSRP. Ya know?

I do agree, that the description of the item has to match the "bulk" of the auction. I'm not saying it's right and I would wholeheartedly agree that I would fight this if I got stuck with such an auction... My arguement though, is not if the auction is right or wrong, it's actually not taking the time to read the description thoroughly enough to realize what exactly it is since it is very blatent in it's description. While the auction is deceiving, by the title, it is not trying to hide the fact it is only a picture in the "description" of the item.

Yes, but in those free phone ideas there is never any representation that the phone is subject to contract requirements. Where I would argue, the sentences taken individually, with the title and no asterik, have an issue, look at the sentences individually. Not that I am quesitoning the fact that we are in agreement to a large degree, just for the discussion

Title: Automag Xmag Paintball Marker GUN

Never is there mention of picture in the title, or the subtitle in fact both represent these as being the actual marker or gun explicityly.

Subtitle: Automag paintball marker gun

Now, the first part of these sentences could be just description, remember we are in the description area. Howeever, I would argue that statement three, even if accepted as a true statement, is highly misleading to the buyer. Though I do recognize the argument that its a statement of fact.

This is the Automag Xmag. It is one of the best guns available and it is in great. Buying this gun would be a great idea because you could whoop up on your friends anytime and everytime

The last sentence attempts to refute the entire "contract" up to that point - simply unacceptable.

Simply, to me, this does not rise to the standard of contracts for phones and things... this is simply a scam.

[PyRo]

Well techinically it is an X-mag. Can't you see the big X on the side of the marker. . Even thought it's being sold the as an X-mag the current amount on the auction kind of reflects that people know that it's not a real X-mag. It's still a nice automag.

I bet this guy is the current high bidder.

[Vex]

The funny part is I look and e-mail scammers all time, I noticed this guys post like 2 day ago and e-mailed him. He said, it doesn't matter he bought it from somone that said it was an xmag and he has offers so it's their fault.

This should tell you that he is trying to scam the bidders. He apparantly was scammed himself with the same "X-Mag"; so he's going to turn right around, get even with the cruel world, and bludgeon his karma with a sledge hammer...duh!