Dave:
I think you have a legitimate concern about anonymous (no E-mail
address) postings. I, too, have wondered about this practice (in
particular a certain braggart who goes by the moniker "Ex-PPC Member").
You'll notice that not only do I always use my full name, but I have
posted personal information in the Biographies section. When I complain
about Mike's attitude, I'm doing it to his face. He knows my name. He
knows both my home and work E-mail addresses. He even
knows the town I live in! That probably isn't the smartest thing to do,
but that's how I am. I don't feel the need to remain anonymous. On the
other hand, I can certainly sympathize with "John Smith"---we don't know
anything about "Mike Davis", or have any assurance that he
won't try to retaliate outside of the MoHPC Forum!
As for Mike's feedback goes, Dave, you of all people should know that
feedback for a seller means nothing more than the seller held up his
part of the deal: goods were not misrepresented and delivered
acceptably. Feedback in no way comments on the
seller's attitude toward buyers, his prices (for goods or shipping), or
anything else! I, for one, refused to pay exorbitant money-transfer
fees and shipping fees (that is what drew Mike's wrath). I am not given
the opportunity to express his attitude in his eBay feedback. Yes, he
has had 700 satisfied customers. Maybe he has insulted 700 potential
customers who then didn't deal with him?
One of the last (and probably one of the final) deals I did on eBay (not
with Mike), involved product misrepresentation---it was bad (and I
should have known better). Once the seller received my money, I asked
him to leave me feedback (as my part of the deal was complete). He
refused; he said that he never leaves feedback until
after the buyer leaves him feedback!
Well, you can guess why! He was intimidating buyers into leaving him
positive feedback with the not-very-subtle threat of retaliatory
feedback. Well, that's what happened. I told it like it was, and he
left me negative feedback---even though he received my cash a few days
after the auction ended!
Now, I'm sure Mike doesn't have the same feedback practices, but did you
check before touting his feedback? Feedback says
nothing about character. From the E-mail I have
received, the number of people who have had negative experiences with
Mike (to the point that they swear-off dealing with him) seem to
outnumber his character-defenders in the Forum.
Anonymous character assassination is not acceptable, but I don't think
that's what is going on here. If you look back at the many examples of
legitimate arguments/debating-points that Mike has responded to as if
they were character assassinations, you can begin to
piece together an impression of Mike's personality.
But, most importantly, I'm tired of hearing a defense for Mike that is
not based on anything---in fact, a defense based on the assertion that
no wrongs have been proven. Well, I didn't like Mike's
attitude toward me---a potential buyer---and I'm willing to share my
record of it.
I'm going to include the whole E-mail exchange that I had with Mike, and
you decide for yourself. Dave, I don't think you should even
appear to be defending Mike unless you are really sure
that is what you want to portray.
----------BIG email exchange below!----------
Below is the very first time I ever communicated with
Mike. Note the date is October 31st, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Davis" <ipscone@halcyon.com>
To: "W. Bruce Maguire II" <maguire@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:07:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: 97 Card Reader Repair
Message-ID: <3BDFCD5C.28780.2CFBE31@localhost>
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20011031102242.00b3af00@dlemail.itg.ti.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)> Mike:
>
> I just wanted to thank you for the outstanding article you have in the
> Museum of HP Calculators on repairing the card reader on the 97! I,
> for one, am very glad that you took the time and effort to include so
> many clear pictures and descriptive test.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bruce.Thanks alot. I'm surprised by the number of people that are sending
me thankyou notes. I never would have expected that it would have
helped so many.Mike
> --
> +---------------------+
> | W. Bruce Maguire II |
> | maguire@ti.com |
> +---------------------+
----------------------------------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I think most people would say that I was very nice to Mike, right?
I'm sure lots of people have benefitted from his article and I wanted to
thank him.
Now, a short one week later I was interested in
purchasing something from Mike, and I asked him about accepting PayPal,
since his auction only stated "Money Order or BidPay" (and presumably
cashiers checks). Below is the beginning of the E-mail exchange:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Davis" <ipscone@home.com>
To: "W. B. Maguire II" <Maguire@AnalyticInvestments.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:24:56 -0800
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Question for seller -- Item #1293216191
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
X-Loop-Detect: 1> Mike:
>
> Hello:
>
> OK, I only participate in auctions that accept PayPal. I don't know
> how many other bidders out there are like me (and don't waste their
> time), but I decided to start notifying sellers.
>
> Thanks anyway,
> Bruce.Thanks for the notice but I don't accept paypal. Thanks for checking
though. That is a very good policy you have. I think, also, to
assume if a seller does not announce that they accept paypal, that
they probably don't, in most cases.Mike
>
> At 06:20 PM 11/6/01 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >>From: "Mike Davis" <ipscone@home.com>
> >>To: w.b.maguire@ieee.org
> >>Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:15:05 -0800
> >>Subject: Re: Question for seller -- Item #1293216191
> >>Priority: normal
> >>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
> >>X-Loop-Detect: 1
> >>
> >>No, sorry. I do not accept PayPal.
> >>
> >>Mike
> >>
> >> > Hello:
> >> >
> >> > Do you accept PayPal for payment?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Bruce.
> >> >
> >> > --------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Question from: buytxn
> >> > Title of item: HP-41C 67 97 Mag Cards for HP 41CX
> >> > Calculator Seller: mikesdavis Starts:
> >> > Nov-03-01 19:55:10 PST Ends: Nov-10-01
> >> > 19:55:10 PST Price:
> >> > Starts at $0.01 To view the item, go to:
> >> > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1293216191
----------------------------------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice and pleasant exchange, right? I then went on to press him as to
why this was his policy. Sellers really are at very little risk, since
they have cash-in-hand before they even think about mailing something.
This is a lopsided arrangement from the beginning! Since his acceptable
payment methods were going to prevent me from participating (in fact,
winning) his auction, I wanted him to know that. If sellers
know that they are losing business and still maintain
a "Money-Order/Cashiers-Check" only policy, then fine. I just want them
to know that they are sacrificing business. Below is
Mike's response:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Davis" <ipscone@home.com>
To: "W. B. Maguire II" <Maguire@AnalyticInvestments.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 13:34:09 -0800
Subject: Re: Question for seller -- Item #1293216191
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
X-Loop-Detect: 1> Mike:
>
> Yes, but the problem is, that BidPay costs _me_ more money (as the
> buyer) than PayPal costs _you_ (as the seller). I don't understand
> why sellers who have this objection---paying fees---don't just offer
> buyers the opportunity to use PayPal on the condition that the buyer
> will pay some or all of the PayPal fees.It is very easy to explain. Sellers say this in their auction and
bidders say the did not see it and whine about having to pay the fee.
That is why I stopped using PayPal.> I really wanted to bid on the 91 that you have up for auction, but I
> just calculated the BidPay fees if I were to win with a $200 bid. My
> BidPay fee would be $9.50! PayPal would charge less. Even if you use
> the most expensive PayPal rate---the standard rate (not the merchant
> rate)---the fee would be $6.10. Money orders and cashiers checks are
> completely out of the question, because they can easily eat up 30-60
> minutes of my time.I guess that leave you out of a lot of auctions then. You are
talking about a difference of $3. If that is too much for you,
imagine how the $6.10 is to me.Your fee is a percentage of the item you bid. The fee to me is a
percentage of the profit I make.So for you it is $9/200 or 4%. On the same item that I make $50
profit on it is 18%. Not counting the other 18% I have to pay eBay.
Their fee is 18% of the profit I make.But it really gets back to the fact that bidders whine when they have
to pay these fees. That is why they are using PayPal in the first
place; to avoid fees. But the reality is that bidders pay all the
fees on 99% of the auctions and sellers don't absorbe the fees. I
just choose not to get in an argument with bidders over these fees.
I just don't accept any payment means where I have to pay a fee.> Moreover, there is no rule that says the seller _shouldn't_ have to
> pay credit-card-associated fees. Regular retailers pay those CC fees.I am not a "regular retailer" and you can bet your money that they
are passing them onto the buyers, through higher prices. But this is
an auction and that cannot be factored into the cost, initially.> That is part of the cost of doing business for retail merchants. On
> eBay, on the other hand, the seller has the advantage that the fees
> can instead be paid by the buyer (and in that case PayPal is a much
> better deal) or the buyer and seller could split the costs.
>
> Also, why is the shipping charge $15.00? I wouldn't think that
> Priority Mail for this calc. would run more than about $7.00.The point is moot since you are not going to bid on it. But shipping
is what I charge that covers Priority mail, insurance, tracking,
boxes, packing material. I DO have a right to charge for the
materials that I have to buy to pack a package. And no, you can't
ship a 91 package for anywhere near $7.00, with insurance. It's over
$10 just to go to LA and that's on the same side of the coast as my
location. When it travels across the US it's more.> Bruce.
>
> p.s. As to your statement that PayPal is the only service that
> charges the seller, doesn't Billpoint do the same thing?I don't accept BillPoint either.
>
> >At 11:05 AM 11/8/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >That is easy to understand. They don't "want" to use PayPal to
> >receive payments because there is a charge associated with it (or at
> >the very least a minimum from credit cards). They probably use
> >PayPal to pay for auctions.
> >
> >That is how I will use it when and if I join again.
> >
> >Again, it is an unrealistic belief that sellers should pay fees for
> >receiving payments. No other online ePay charges for receiving
> >payments. Only PayPal does that.
> >
> >Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice his remarks:
"But it really gets back to the fact that bidders whine when they have
to pay these fees. That is why they are using PayPal in the first
place; to avoid fees. But the reality is that bidders pay all the
fees on 99% of the auctions and sellers don't absorbe the fees."
Was I "whining"? In Mike's eyes, everyone who hesitates to pay
exorbitant payment or shipping fees is a "whiner!"
And the following is priceless:
"The point is moot since you are not going to bid on it."
Here, Mike explains that since I'm not willing to pay his fees, he has
no need to rationalize them! And that is the key,
Dave. The only people who deal with Mike are the people
willing to deal with Mike, and they are the
only ones who are allowed to leave feedback.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Davis" <ipscone@home.com>
To: "W. B. Maguire II" <Maguire@AnalyticInvestments.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 15:51:53 -0800
Subject: Re: Question for seller -- Item #1293216191
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
X-Loop-Detect: 1I just found something very disturbing about sellers accepting PayPal.
If a dishonest bidder uses PayPal, he can wind up with the auction
item and his money back and there is nothing that the seller can do
about it.If the buyer uses a Credit Card, he can simply claim to the Credit
Card company that he never received the item and that the Credit Card
charge must be reversed and PayPal will oblige them and take the
money back out of my PayPal account.Companies that accept Credit Cards (as PayPal does) are required to
honor any chargeback requested by the Credit Card company.I know that PayPal has buyer assurance policies and protections but I
asked this very question and was given the negative answer I expected.
I will never accept PayPal from people that I do not know, as a result of this policy.If you use PayPal, as a seller, you should be aware of these also.
PayPal protects the bidder but does not protect the seller.Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I lost my patience for Mike's warped logic, and this was the last thing
I wrote to him. He responded that his feedback was his assurance
against fraud, and that he had the burden of dealing with zero-feedback
buyers. That was the end of it. Here was my final rant:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike:> I just found something very disturbing about sellers accepting PayPal.
> If a dishonest bidder uses PayPal, he can wind up with the auction
> item and his money back and there is nothing that the seller can do
> about it.Well, I'm sorry, but that's the straw that broke the camel's back! FYI,
I'm a nice, reasonable guy---who wrote you a nice E-mail letter of
gratitude, by-the-way, about your posts to the Museum of HP Calculators
(10/31/2001, subject: "97 Card Reader Repair"). But your attitude is
getting harder and harder to swallow---it is TOTALLY one-sided!Mike, have you EVER been a BUYER? The buyer accepts this risk on EVERY
transaction! I ALWAYS have to send my money to the seller, and the
seller has to receive it, BEFORE the seller will supposedly send my
goods. So, on EVERY transaction, I accept the risk that a dishonest
SELLER will never send any goods at all---or only defective goods---and
keep my payment. And there is nothing _I_ can do about it!! Among
other things, the seller can claim that the item worked when it was
shipped---too bad for me that it was broken when I received it! Or the
item pictured was not the one for sale; sorry no returns...What law says that YOUR GOODS are worth more than MY MONEY? Actually,
since the free market determined the price, BY DEFINITION my money is
worth exactly what your goods are worth. So, why is it that _I_ accept
the ENTIRE risk burden on EVERY transaction! You have the luxury of
NEVER risking ANYTHING by accepting only money orders and cashiers
checks (you have CASH in hand before you do ANYTHING)!If you are shocked that you---as the seller---may ever have to take a
risk on an eBay auction, then I suggest that you NEVER, EVER BE A BUYER.
Because you will suffer the same risks on EVERY transaction!You know, back in the "old" days---before eBay---I used to buy video
games from people on the USENET news groups. The standard practice was
for the seller to mail the goods IMMEDIATELY, as the buyer sent
cash/check/whatever immediately. That way, BOTH parties SHARED the
risk. eBay stinks, because it is so blatantly biased toward the sellers
(they know where their income comes from!). It has become standard
operating procedure (on eBay) that the seller have cash-in-hand before
even THINKING about sending the goods---thereby off-loading ALL THE RISK
onto the buyer.Nevertheless, after reading the eBay user agreement, I found two things
of interest. First, there appears to be a "Seller Protection" program
that appears to protect the seller from just the occurrence that you are
worried about (you have to be a verified business- or premier-member or
something...). Second, I found the following:NO SURCHARGES. Under Visa and MasterCard
regulations and the laws of several
states, including California, merchants
may not charge a fee to the buyer for
accepting credit card payments (often
called a "surcharge"). You agree that you
will not impose a surcharge or any other
fee for accepting PayPal as payment. This
restriction does not prevent you from
imposing a handling fee in connection with
the sale of goods or services, as long as
the handling fee does not operate as a
surcharge (in other words, the handling
fee for transactions paid through PayPal
may not be higher than the handling fee
for transactions paid through other payment
methods).So, I guess I will stop suggesting to sellers that they offer buyers the
opportunity to use PayPal, by having the buyer pay some (or all) the
PayPal fees. And, likewise, it appears that you should cancel your
plans to accept PayPal.Bruce.
p.s. As to your assertion:
"I guess that leave you out of a lot of auctions then."
No, actually, I'm pleasantly surprised at how many sellers of HP
calculators are accepting PayPal. I would say that AT LEAST 75% of the
auctions I look at accept PayPal. I just don't bother with the other
25%, unless the item is unique, then I send an E-mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike doesn't really care about anyone but Mike, he makes it pretty clear
that if there are any fees to be paid, he's not going to pay
them!. He also makes it clear that he doesn't care what
I think, he'll go about his business. I figured that
that was fair enough---he'd just go about it without my patronage!
Dave, if you are still with me after all that, obviously you can make up
your own mind about whether you would want to deal with Mike, and
whether accusations against him of poor "attitude" are justified.
Bruce.