Re:More trouble for the buyer
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
He did try to ask for his money back, repeatedly. Did you even read the story? Good lord.
I used to think Britain was the land of the free. But if your libel laws are what you claim they are, then I think I'm moving to the US of A. Truth should be an absolute defense against any libel or defamation claim. I'm amazed at how little respect for the truth you display if you think it "serves him right" even if the buyer told the truth.
Funny how you simply assume the seller is telling the truth. If you read the reported story (especially quotes from him) and look at the original posting of the eBay auction, you'll see that there are many inconsistencies (i.e., the seller is lying in one of these two places). The seller has a -3 feedback rating, and this isn't the only buyer who has claimed to have been scammed by him. The pictures and other data are internally consistent with the blog posting -- i.e., not a bunch of random cell phone pictures scoured from the 'Net.
You throw that word "unverifiable" around as if it's the end of the argument. There are many ways to gain confidence in the soure of information. Here, the internal clues and external clues combine to give me pretty high confidence that the buyer is telling the truth. And you know, "hear-say" doesn't mean it's automatically not true or unverifiable, it just means that you have to use your critical thinking skills to figure out what is more likely true.
You call this extortion. In reality the seller sold a computer that was not accurately described, did not even work, shipped it two months late, and refused t a refund despite repeated requests and even lied about where he was to get out of it. The buyer is now posting the truth out there and asking, again, to have just his money back. It isn't extortion if all you do is tell the truth and ask for your money back so that a fraud can be undone..
Slashdot Mirror
He did try to ask for his money back, repeatedly. Did you even read the story? Good lord.
I used to think Britain was the land of the free. But if your libel laws are what you claim they are, then I think I'm moving to the US of A. Truth should be an absolute defense against any libel or defamation claim. I'm amazed at how little respect for the truth you display if you think it "serves him right" even if the buyer told the truth.
Funny how you simply assume the seller is telling the truth. If you read the reported story (especially quotes from him) and look at the original posting of the eBay auction, you'll see that there are many inconsistencies (i.e., the seller is lying in one of these two places). The seller has a -3 feedback rating, and this isn't the only buyer who has claimed to have been scammed by him. The pictures and other data are internally consistent with the blog posting -- i.e., not a bunch of random cell phone pictures scoured from the 'Net.
You throw that word "unverifiable" around as if it's the end of the argument. There are many ways to gain confidence in the soure of information. Here, the internal clues and external clues combine to give me pretty high confidence that the buyer is telling the truth. And you know, "hear-say" doesn't mean it's automatically not true or unverifiable, it just means that you have to use your critical thinking skills to figure out what is more likely true.
You call this extortion. In reality the seller sold a computer that was not accurately described, did not even work, shipped it two months late, and refused t a refund despite repeated requests and even lied about where he was to get out of it. The buyer is now posting the truth out there and asking, again, to have just his money back. It isn't extortion if all you do is tell the truth and ask for your money back so that a fraud can be undone..