On Jul 28, 2:12?pm, Chumly <[email protected]> wrote:
> suppose to be brand new phone, phone was refurb and stolen.E-mailed no
> reply. Bad Ebayer
Strange. I bought from him and had an excellent product and service.
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:28:05 -0500, Say What? <[email protected]> wrote:
>FoggyTown wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 2:12?pm, Chumly <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> suppose to be brand new phone, phone was refurb and stolen.E-mailed no
>>> reply. Bad Ebayer
>>
>> Strange. I bought from him and had an excellent product and service.
>
>Read Chumly's post and wondered WTF? Then saw yours and it piqued my
>curiosity so I looked at Stanp2323's feedback. Pretty impressive. 175
>positives and 3 negatives in the past month. 1500+ positives and 26
>negatives for the last six months.
>
>However, when you read the negatives, it becomes obvious that the folks
>posting them are clueless newbies, illiterate or morons. I only skimmed
>back about four months and found ONE, just ONE, negative that appeared
>as if it might have some merit. The rest of them? Waste of oxygen.
>
>I wonder where Chumly fits in this scheme of things. Certainly the 3
>negatives in the past month fell into the moronic class.
>
>Never bought anything from Stanp2323 but looking at his feedback, I
>wouldn't hesitate to make phone purchase. But then, I can and do read
>the listings.
>
You only take into account positive and negative feedback and have not looked back during the lifespan of his account. You don't take into account
mutually withdrawn feedback or neutral comments. The mutually withdrawn feedback is the result of the sellers retaliatory negative feedback to the
buyers if they leave negative feedback of any sort. The seller contacts the buyer and agrees to take it back his negative feedback if they will
withdraw theirs. In most cases that works because no one wants poor feedback. The feedback is still there as unclassified feedback. The neutral
feedback is the result of people too timid to post negative feedback for fear of reprisals from the seller. The negative speaks for itself. They
weren't afraid to take a negative feedback from the seller for stating the truth. Read everything not positive and it becomes clear there is a pattern
of selling garbage to people while claiming it is brand new.
I'm not surprised. He also screwed me.
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:28:05 -0500, Say What? <[email protected]> wrote:
>FoggyTown wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 2:12?pm, Chumly <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> suppose to be brand new phone, phone was refurb and stolen.E-mailed no
>>> reply. Bad Ebayer
>>
>> Strange. I bought from him and had an excellent product and service.
>
>Read Chumly's post and wondered WTF? Then saw yours and it piqued my
>curiosity so I looked at Stanp2323's feedback. Pretty impressive. 175
>positives and 3 negatives in the past month. 1500+ positives and 26
>negatives for the last six months.
>
>However, when you read the negatives, it becomes obvious that the folks
>posting them are clueless newbies, illiterate or morons. I only skimmed
>back about four months and found ONE, just ONE, negative that appeared
>as if it might have some merit. The rest of them? Waste of oxygen.
>
>I wonder where Chumly fits in this scheme of things. Certainly the 3
>negatives in the past month fell into the moronic class.
>
>Never bought anything from Stanp2323 but looking at his feedback, I
>wouldn't hesitate to make phone purchase. But then, I can and do read
>the listings.
>
[email protected] (Bond) writes:
> I'm not surprised. He also screwed me.
And apparently your only reason for posting is to bash this one ebay seller.
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=SFJIPg4AAADUnBTnFoOGAEmKRjxH1YHc&hl=en
Chumly <[email protected]> writes:
> suppose to be brand new phone, phone was refurb and stolen.E-mailed no
> reply. Bad Ebayer
Funny how there are so many posters, who have NO HISTORY of posting,
complain about that one seller who has a good rating on eBay.
It almost makes one think this is a one-man campaign to bad-mouth
someone. And that they keep creating fake ID's to do this.
Nyahhhh! Couldn't be.
No one is THAT much of a dick head to think that sock puppets are
undetectable....
FoggyTown wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2:12?pm, Chumly <[email protected]> wrote:
>> suppose to be brand new phone, phone was refurb and stolen.E-mailed no
>> reply. Bad Ebayer
>
> Strange. I bought from him and had an excellent product and service.
Read Chumly's post and wondered WTF? Then saw yours and it piqued my
curiosity so I looked at Stanp2323's feedback. Pretty impressive. 175
positives and 3 negatives in the past month. 1500+ positives and 26
negatives for the last six months.
However, when you read the negatives, it becomes obvious that the folks
posting them are clueless newbies, illiterate or morons. I only skimmed
back about four months and found ONE, just ONE, negative that appeared
as if it might have some merit. The rest of them? Waste of oxygen.
I wonder where Chumly fits in this scheme of things. Certainly the 3
negatives in the past month fell into the moronic class.
Never bought anything from Stanp2323 but looking at his feedback, I
wouldn't hesitate to make phone purchase. But then, I can and do read
the listings.