Slashdot Mirror
Attorney Sues eBay over Negative Feedback
Mephie writes "MSNBC is running a story on an attorney who is suing ebay over negative feedback a seller left about him. It sounds like a classic case of buyer leaves negative feedback for seller; seller responds accordingly. The plaintiff claims he'd not be filing the suit if he didn't feel ebay's policy needs revision, stating 'They can control content and for them to fail to do so is unconscionable.' Yeah. That's great."
fp's suck
About six months ago in London a guy sued his credit card company for declining a charge he made. He said the decline caused him to lose face at a business dinner and since he had available funds it was wrong.
Porbably won't get very far either.
I was informed last night that at the current rate U.S. law schools are turning out lawyers, by the year 2035 it is expected that there will be more lawyers than actual people.
Really, the only thing Americans can do avert this terrible trend is to stop electing lawyers to political office :-)
any chance there's a way to get the (former) PayPal to acknowledge that I paid them a year ago with my M/C, thereby removing the restrictions on it? After all, it's had a $0 balance since May 2002...
C|N>K
I bet it's the same guy who helped that person win the case against Micky D's when the idiot spilled hot coffee and got burned. Doh! :-)
We send eBay to labor camp to die of starvation!
--
̱ðÎÚìÍÀÌÙ!
As a company, you have to be pretty frigging dumb to sell something that can cause serious injury on contact with human skin, and have it be meant for immediate ingestion.
Simple reason -- many, if not *most* of the people that get coffee at McDonald's at the drive-through (as she did) purchase a coffee that they will drink at work when they get in.
You can always ask for it to have some cool water added.
I mean, it comes down to the fact that anyone should be expected to deal with hot beverages. I make hot cocoa that's too hot to drink frequently, and let it cool for a bit first. Soup -- same thing. Letting things that are too hot for you cool is simply something that anyone older than a very young child should be able to handle.
May we never see th
Not a troll :)
NAT (not a troll)
Just a difference in opinion but, lets look at the facts of the matter...
1) Yes, these crimes did happen in 1991, and in 1999, and probably many other places that are within the scope of these laws.
2) These lawyers are looking out for people's lives and human rights(and maybe other things, but that is beside the point).
3) The Bush Administration has already assasinated 8 people in afganistan (yes, assasinated) one of which was a US citizen who had not been charged of any crime, or brought before any court. 3 of which were afganistan civilians who had no ties to any terrorist network, and 4 of which may have been "high ranking al-Queda officials" (just how many of these high ranking officials are there anyway? 99% of al-queda is high ranking? gime a break)
4) None of these people were charged for any crime, and the latter 5 (us citizen/al-queda officials) were murdered during peace time (not part of the war in afganistan) These crimes also may fall under the relevant laws you quote in the news article.
5) [speculation] Given George W. Bush's and George Bush Sr.'s record, there is a very strong propensity of war crimes to happen at the fault of the Administration. [/speculation]
For the above reasons, I see no wrongdoing by these 100 lawyers and law professors.
thanks for listening...
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.