[Top] [All Lists]

Re: (no subject)

Subject: Re: (no subject)
From: "K M" <>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:09:57 PDT

If what you said happened exactly as you state, then I think that there was 
nothing wrong whatsoever with what Parkdale did.  I have bought and sold a 
lot of things on eBay over the past year and a half. There is always a 
question about the legitimacy of the buyer, the seller, and the description 
of the product itself.

The bid retractors said this:

krustee (20)
        Retracted. Bids prior to 10/21/99, 10:58:21 PDT have been retracted.
        Explanation:     I believe damage exceeds what pictures show

steamer77 (0)
        Retracted. Bids prior to 10/21/99, 09:03:11 PDT have been retracted.
        Explanation:     the pictures of this item does not show all the 
defects of the car (0)
        Retracted. Bids prior to 10/21/99, 17:06:17 PDT have been retracted.
        Explanation:     desire manual trans - car has auto trans

Parkdale simply pointed out the truth to cathy10, an absolute beginner buyer 
as you can tell from her (0) after her name, that she should be aware of the 
retracted bids.  Well, she should and the information is available to anyone 
who looked.  So what did Parkdale do that was wrong?  Nothing really -- he 
simply told an inexperienced person that people had retracted -- common 
knowledge to anyone with much experience at eBay.  If you have any complaint 
whatsoever it would be with the people who apparently thought the pictures 
did not accurately represent the car.  If cathy10 wants the car, write to 
her, send her great pictures, and tell her that you will sell the car at her 
bid price minus the amount that eBay would have charged.  But to call this 
Parkdale person  a "miserable, malicious jerk" is so far beyond the pale 
that it really doesn't deserve the attention that it has received. Either 
that or I am living in some sort of alternative universe where people 
sharing honest and true information with those "out of the know" are 
credited rather than despised. Just my opinion -- now on to more important 
things like the '79 Honda CBX that I am in the middle of buying from some 
guy in Utah off the Net -- that is some bike. Kim

>OK, Let me try this again:
>During the course of the e-bay auction, bidders and retraction history
>is listed, however E-bay does not list the amount bid for each bidder
>but rather only shows the highest bid. If a reserve is placed by the
>seller, the auction is flagged so that all bidders know that there is a
>reserve and whether the reserve has been met.
>On the last day of the auction there had been 12 bids placed by 8
>different bidders. The e-mail address/id of all the bidders were listed
>- for all to see. No bid amounts were listed, just their e-mail address.
>It just so happened that cathy10 was the 5th bidder who bid an amount
>that was equal to the reserve of $7500 although even I did not know what
>the amount was that she bid until the auction was over. There were also
>several others who had bid it up to, I believe, around $8900.
>On the last day of the auction, all of the bidders who had bid the car
>over the reserve (who was cathy10) retracted their bids with the
>explanation that they did not feel the pictures of the car correctly
>showed any deficiencies. I did write to the bidders who retracted to
>clear up any misconceptions, however they never answered back. As I
>said, e-bay says there are people who just like to play but not pay. I
>suppose you could call it "Auction interruptus".
>So now we have a listing available to all to see that 2 bidders have
>retracted and their reasons for the retraction with cathy10 as the high
>bidder. "Parkdale", a non-bidder, then privately sends an e-mail to
>cathy10 and "warns" her that she should be aware that the bidders who
>outbid her had withdrawn and that she should look at the retraction
>history. This "warning" then caused cathy10 to also withdraw from the
>bidding leaving the remaining bidders far below the reserve.
>So in a nutshell, cathy10 would be the proud owner of 1509 except for
>parkdale's interference that caused her to get cold feet. I know this
>for a fact because it was cathy10 who sent me a copy of his e-mail and
>she explained that his "warning" did cause her concern.
>hope i made it clear - and Parkdale -- i now you're out their lurking,
>you are a miserable, malicious jerk.
>steve brodsky

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>