On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:22:56 -0500, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

And all this over ART GLASS? Puh-leeze. Your extravagant and non-
productive hobby does not deserve anyone's attention or sympathy.


Geese. And I though Ed Huntress was an arrogant ass at times..... looks
like you beat him to Best of Class.

Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

She is having a hard time
understanding your position. What makes your interests more important
than hers?

My interests are not important at all. I'm sure your wife is a fine and
virtuous woman. I have no disdain, only respect, for both of you and
your hobbies. Collecting useless stuff is a fine hobby. Most of us
have one or more such pursuits.

But your error is in pursuing your dispute at law, out of vengence, or
"the principle of the thing". Based on your description of the
situation, you have no reasonable hope of any economic recovery. All
you can do is harass the crook in an attempt to get even by inflicting
harm on him, not that it will do you any good. You are clinging to and
cherising this injustice. If you are honestly self-interested, you will
forget all this and move on.

What I do disdain is getting all uppity-righteous over silly possesions
like "art glass". Look, there's nothing wrong with collecting it, but
fer cryin out loud, is IT WORTH THE LEAST UPSET IN YOUR LIFE? NO.

I assume you'd feel the same way if a deal in which you had a real
interest had a similar outcome? If you bought, for example, a lathe
that was represented as new, but came to you a rusted piece of junk,
it's just a crummy lathe?

Yes, I would *feel* the same way. But I would hope that I would follow
the principles that I have learned over the years, that in civil
disputes, one must coldly assess the economic return from going to law
for a recovery. Usually when one is cheated, the scale is too small to
be worth legal action. Or the adversary is too well defended. The
rational man forgets it and moves on. The hot-tempered man swears
vengeance at any civil cost as you have done.

Frankly, I'm surprised at you, Richard. This is about unscrupulous
people screwing other people, not about art glass. I gather from
your comments that it would matter only if it involved you and your
interests.

No, you misunderstand. Learn to major in the majors and minor in the
minors. In life's scheme, this is a minor, and you should drop it.
Otherwise, you are straining at gnats. Unhealthy, and unhappy.

Lane writes:

In the middle of a
conversation with store owner and with a store full of patrons, he
says in a rather loud voice "I hear that you like to swindle people on
eBay. Do you do that here in your store too?"

This could amount to a criminal act of slander. All based on a breezy
newsgroup discussion that omits the other side. Why would you as a
stranger get involved in this man's quarrel, over a chintzy collectible of
all things?

Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

I'm going
to make their life as uncomfortable as I possibly can by asking people
that frequent eBay to boycott them. I'm going to hit them exactly
when it hurts, when they offer their next lot of live auctions. It
will be impossible for buyers to miss or ignore, and it will cost less
than $5 to pull off.

Very bad idea. This can do you no possible good, and invites great harm.
Only very bad judgment, or neurosis, could account for such action.

Rex B wrote:

My experience has been that only American Express will go to bat for the
cardholder. Amex apparently considers the cardholder as their customer.
MC/Visa will reverse a charge, but it takes more than a bloody glove to
make it stick. When it's your word against the business (who pays
MC/visa) you will lose. For MC/Visa, the business owner is their
customer, and money trumps fair play every time.

I have a USAA issued Mastercard, and was once screwed by a seller via
Paypal. I was attempting to purchase a TiVo upgrade as a gift for my
brother, and after a whole lot of research decided to go with some guy by
the name of "PVRJoe" who seemed to have nothing but good reviews, both on
eBay and in various Usenet groups. Despite that, I got screwed. An order
was made (not through eBay), payment was issued, and then all went
silent. I attempted contact via telephone and e-mail but got nothing. I
called the credit card company to file a chargeback, to which they said I
should go through Paypal's system first, and so I did. Paypal, of course,
did nothing. They "ruled in my favor" but said they couldn't collect.
Called back the credit card company, they sent me a form to fill out about
what happened. Sent it back, and a short while later was refunded my
money. It was the least hassle of the entire situation, actually. Papal
then sent me a nasty letter saying I should have used their complaint
system first (which as I stated I had already done) and then threatened to
cancel my account. Which would suit me fine, as I've experienced nothing
but misery from their services.

In this case, it wasn't my word against the guy who got my money. It was
my word against Paypal's, and yet I still was refunded the money ($250) I
spent. So I don't think it's fair to say that only American Express will
be on the side of the cardholder. In the end, it's more about the bank
that issues the card. USAA will most definitely take your side in these
matters. And really, the card company gets their money either way since
they take a chunk of the transaction every time it happens. In some cases
they take a percent of the sale as well as the chargeback, which basically
means the vendor pays them twice and gets nothing.

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
snip----


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName= AD
ME:B:EOAB:US:6

It looks as though the images are still present. I find some
things interesting he

1) Looking at the bid history, I see only one live bid from the auction
floor, but based on the amount that person bid, it was either
someone who had not checked it out carefully enough, or someone
who did not know the field.

2) A very interesting response to your complaint:

================================================== ====================
Fraudulent misrepresentation of item. Contact for full
details.

Buyer vordoinwa( 101) Mar-24-04 22:44 2218187309

Reply by myersfineart: Accurate representation of item Offered full refund
& buyer
declined. Oh well Mar-27-04 08:56
================================================== ====================

Based on that, you were offered a chance to return it for a
refund and you turned it down. However, you told us that you were
refused a refund. I think that if you have the e-mails saved, you have
some extra evidence of misrepresentation, here.

Best of luck,
DoN.

Yep! Everything saved except for Susan's original inquiry as to the
condition, but we have the response that says it is in good condition with
no repairs or other anomalies.

When they called, Susan was told they would make a refund on the purchase
price, but not the shipping. One way was $31, so sending it back meant a
loss of over $50 for something that was not represented honestly. When I
talked to Mary, I told her that because they didn't disclose the repair,
they were obligated to make full restitution. We would not have bid had we
known of the repair. She informed me that she was under no obligation to
disclose it because it wasn't a repair, something only a fool would have
believed. The conversation got somewhat up tempo, and was terminated.
Minutes later we received a call from Michael in which he said that he would
not take the piece back under any circumstances, which was my reward for not
agreeing with them that the repair was an inclusion. They have exaggerated
pretty much the entire thing, attempting to make me look like the problem,
including altering the photograph of the damaged area in question.
That's one reason I'd love to get this thing before a judge. Too damned
bad this country is so hell bent on defending crooks at the expense of
honest folks.

Thanks, DoN.

Harold

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
.. .
Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

I'm going
to make their life as uncomfortable as I possibly can by asking people
that frequent eBay to boycott them. I'm going to hit them exactly
when it hurts, when they offer their next lot of live auctions. It
will be impossible for buyers to miss or ignore, and it will cost less
than $5 to pull off.

Very bad idea. This can do you no possible good, and invites great harm.
Only very bad judgment, or neurosis, could account for such action.

That would be me! Neurosis. I don't seem to be able to come to terms
with thieves, liars and other vermin. What are they going to do to me, stop
me from using eBay? Wow! Now there's a loss. What ever would I do?
Where else can I go to get screwed out of hard earned money? I gather you
feel that losing my "rights" to following eBay is worth a great deal to me.
Certainly more important than the $1240 dollars my wife is out. Did I
mention we live on SS? Did I mention that amount of money represents
1/12th of our income? Maybe to you a thousand dollar screwing is
insignificant. To us, it's a different matter. We worked for our money,
Richard, it was not a gift to us. Did I mention that I was never
unemployed one day of my life once I started working after high school? Did
I mention I have never drawn so much as one thin dime of unemployment pay?
Did I mention that I worked 60 hour weeks routinely, because that's what
honest people do that want to get ahead and don't have an education from
which they can leverage their income. I'm at a loss to understand why you
feel it's better forgotten.

No possible good? If I can prevent even one person from paying too much
for a piece of junk from these people, please tell me how it can do no
possible good? My intention is to cause great harm. To their dishonest
business. If they think they can skin us and escape unscathed, I'll see to
it that it costs them as much as possible. I can do that by telling the
truth. They can't prosecute me for telling the truth, no matter how much it
harms their business, and that's exactly what I intend to do. It's not a
good idea to get crosswise with people like me, and I doubt I'm alone.

There is a very decent man that lurks on the list that is an attorney, and
he is advising me. I believe I'd be inclined to follow his
recommendations at this point. Out of respect for his choice to remain
anonymous, I shall not disclose his name,. but he knows who he is. He
informed me that he never posts, prefers to not get into ****ing contests
with idiots. Smart man!

Harold

On Wed, 5 May 2004 22:48:07 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
shouted from the rooftop:


"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...

2) A very interesting response to your complaint:

================================================== ====================
Fraudulent misrepresentation of item. Contact for full
details.

Buyer vordoinwa( 101) Mar-24-04 22:44 2218187309

Reply by myersfineart: Accurate representation of item Offered full refund
& buyer
declined. Oh well Mar-27-04 08:56
================================================== ====================

Based on that, you were offered a chance to return it for a
refund and you turned it down. However, you told us that you were
refused a refund. I think that if you have the e-mails saved, you have
some extra evidence of misrepresentation, here.


When they called, Susan was told they would make a refund on the purchase
price, but not the shipping. One way was $31, so sending it back meant a
loss of over $50 for something that was not represented honestly.

You should have taken the refund minus the shipping and chalked up the
$81 difference to experience.
I'm not on the sellers side, but they now have a good argument against
you.

-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

In article , Richard J Kinch
says...

What I do disdain is getting all uppity-righteous over silly possesions
like "art glass".

Hmm. Does this apply to other purchases as well? For example,
if I were to purchase a honda civic and there were a warranty
issue with it, I would expect the dealer to make good on it.
But what if I were to purchase a Lexus or a Mercedes? It
almost sounds as though you would advocate eating the repair
costs myself, simply becuause the extra cost of the fancier
car is just a silly luxury item.

The UCC does not make distinctions based on the catagory of
the purchase. Luxury vs essential. Where do you draw the line?
Food? Clothing? What's the clip level above (or below, depending
on your perspective) where complete honesty is required of a
seller?

What if he had bought a camera?
A bicycle?
An antique chair?
A car?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
.. .
Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

She is having a hard time
understanding your position. What makes your interests more important
than hers?

My interests are not important at all. I'm sure your wife is a fine and
virtuous woman. I have no disdain, only respect, for both of you and
your hobbies. Collecting useless stuff is a fine hobby. Most of us
have one or more such pursuits.

But your error is in pursuing your dispute at law, out of vengence, or
"the principle of the thing". Based on your description of the
situation, you have no reasonable hope of any economic recovery. All
you can do is harass the crook in an attempt to get even by inflicting
harm on him, not that it will do you any good. You are clinging to and
cherising this injustice. If you are honestly self-interested, you will
forget all this and move on.

What I do disdain is getting all uppity-righteous over silly possesions
like "art glass". Look, there's nothing wrong with collecting it, but
fer cryin out loud, is IT WORTH THE LEAST UPSET IN YOUR LIFE? NO.

I assume you'd feel the same way if a deal in which you had a real
interest had a similar outcome? If you bought, for example, a lathe
that was represented as new, but came to you a rusted piece of junk,
it's just a crummy lathe?

Yes, I would *feel* the same way. But I would hope that I would follow
the principles that I have learned over the years, that in civil
disputes, one must coldly assess the economic return from going to law
for a recovery. Usually when one is cheated, the scale is too small to
be worth legal action. Or the adversary is too well defended. The
rational man forgets it and moves on. The hot-tempered man swears
vengeance at any civil cost as you have done.

Frankly, I'm surprised at you, Richard. This is about unscrupulous
people screwing other people, not about art glass. I gather from
your comments that it would matter only if it involved you and your
interests.

No, you misunderstand. Learn to major in the majors and minor in the
minors. In life's scheme, this is a minor, and you should drop it.
Otherwise, you are straining at gnats. Unhealthy, and unhappy.

I recently had an insurance company attempt to cheat me on a damage claim to
my home. They wanted to pay me $700, which was unacceptable considering the
damage, and after I'd been paying their premiums for many years with nary a
claim.. Before I took it to small claims court, I paid $25.00 to have a
subpoena issued against the representative of the ins. company that was
located in an adjacent state. They had to hire a local lawyer to show up in
court, after unsuccessfully attempting to "quash" the subpoena. I had
several more independent appraisals done of the damage and stayed on top of
the situation and generally made their life miserable. We settled before
the next small claims court appearance for $4,000. I was out about $50.00
for the fees for issuance of two seperate subpoenas and some of my time on
my days off to be there when the home repair estimators showed up. Harold,
you might think about getting some accurate appraisals of the worth of this
item in it's present flawed condition and going this route. In my state
$4,000 is the limit in small claims court, so I did pretty well. And,
Kinch, there aren't any "major and minors". If you get blatantly screwed,
no matter what it concerns, you don't roll over for it.
The rational man makes every effort to remedy the situation. You can
believe that my adversary was well defended. Sic 'em, Harold.

Garrett Fulton




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article , Garrett Fulton says...

I recently had an insurance company attempt to cheat me on a damage claim to
my home. They wanted to pay me $700, which was unacceptable considering the
damage, and after I'd been paying their premiums for many years with nary a
claim.. Before I took it to small claims court, I paid $25.00 to have a
subpoena issued against the representative of the ins. company that was
located in an adjacent state. They had to hire a local lawyer to show up in
court, after unsuccessfully attempting to "quash" the subpoena. I had
several more independent appraisals done of the damage and stayed on top of
the situation and generally made their life miserable. ...

Great story - but I would comment that even though you did "win"
they are still your insurance company. No doubt after the dust
settled, they probably dropped your coverage. And included a
not in your file (which you could not see) to the effect that
'insured is recalcitrant and sticks up for himself. Suggest
that any other insurance company stay away from him!'

Insurance companies. Don't get me started....

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Tom wrote:

" Not a good scenario, Harold.
I know it's hindsight, but I'm surprised that nobody has
mentioned using eBay's Escrow service when buying expensive
items:"

EBay's Escrow service? Yeah, right! Hey, that'll work - just send in
another fox to guard the hen house!

Bob (like a rabbit, doesn't trust anything that may be a dog) Swinney



"Tom" wrote in message
...
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

Susan has had a recent very unhappy experience with a seller on eBay.
Big snip
Many thanks,

Harold




http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/escrow.html

Tom

jim rozen writes:

The UCC does not make distinctions based on the catagory of
the purchase. Luxury vs essential. Where do you draw the line?

There is no "line". Google "fallacy of the beard", 5990 hits.

But vengence over this tchotchke, that's gotta be over some line.

Garrett Fulton writes:

And, Kinch, there aren't any "major and minors". If you get blatantly
screwed, no matter what it concerns, you don't roll over for it.

"No matter what"? So your threshold for lawsuits is zero?

You were right to chase the insurance co. But you had prospects of winning
something above the costs of litigating. In this case, there is none.

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Lane writes:

In the middle of a
conversation with store owner and with a store full of patrons, he
says in a rather loud voice "I hear that you like to swindle people on
eBay. Do you do that here in your store too?"

This could amount to a criminal act of slander. All based on a breezy
newsgroup discussion that omits the other side. Why would you as a
stranger get involved in this man's quarrel, over a chintzy collectible of
all things?

You are correct. I wouldn't. But I believe that others would (present
company excepted). It was only a whimsical speculation. grin

BTW Richard, I caught your web page about making your own seltzer water etc.
Very interesting. I may try it.

Lane

Robert Swinney wrote:

Tom wrote:

" Not a good scenario, Harold.
I know it's hindsight, but I'm surprised that nobody has
mentioned using eBay's Escrow service when buying expensive
items:"

EBay's Escrow service? Yeah, right! Hey, that'll work - just send in
another fox to guard the hen house!

Bob (like a rabbit, doesn't trust anything that may be a dog) Swinney

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

Susan has had a recent very unhappy experience with a seller on eBay.
Big snip
Many thanks,

Harold

Your point being?

Tom

In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...

Yep! Everything saved except for Susan's original inquiry as to the
condition, but we have the response that says it is in good condition with
no repairs or other anomalies.

O.K.

I had printed copies of the auction last night, just in case you
had not. (My wife was somewhat puzzled as to why I did this, until I
explained the situation.

[ ... ]

agreeing with them that the repair was an inclusion. They have exaggerated
pretty much the entire thing, attempting to make me look like the problem,
including altering the photograph of the damaged area in question.
That's one reason I'd love to get this thing before a judge. Too damned
bad this country is so hell bent on defending crooks at the expense of
honest folks.

I hope that you *can* get it in front of a judge -- and a
properly unbiased one, at that.

Good Luck,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
.. .
Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

I'm going
to make their life as uncomfortable as I possibly can by asking people
that frequent eBay to boycott them. I'm going to hit them exactly
when it hurts, when they offer their next lot of live auctions. It
will be impossible for buyers to miss or ignore, and it will cost less
than $5 to pull off.

Very bad idea. This can do you no possible good, and invites great harm.
Only very bad judgment, or neurosis, could account for such action.

Bye Richard.

plonk

"Statics" wrote in message
news:uCAmc.12163$iy5.2214@okepread05...

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
.. .
Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

I'm going
to make their life as uncomfortable as I possibly can by asking people
that frequent eBay to boycott them. I'm going to hit them exactly
when it hurts, when they offer their next lot of live auctions. It
will be impossible for buyers to miss or ignore, and it will cost less
than $5 to pull off.

Very bad idea. This can do you no possible good, and invites great
harm.
Only very bad judgment, or neurosis, could account for such action.

Bye Richard.

plonk


Thanks, Statics! Need I tell you I'm about to do the same thing? This guy
has, from all appearances, a total lack of ethics. Or is he on the other
side? Sure makes you wonder.

For the life of me, I can't understand why decent people should turn the
other cheek where matters like this are concerned. All the crooks need is
the slightest of cooperation through no action on the part of the victims
and they continue the course. For us to let this one slide just makes no
sense to us.

One would have to question the motive of anyone that seems to be in support
of the crooks, and I certainly am suspicious in this case. Decent folks
don't encourage the criminals, they do what they can to stop them, often at
great expense. Sometimes it even costs more than the dollar value, but
there's more at stake here than money.

If you were near I'd buy you a drink!

Harold

Go get em Tiger.

If nothing else it has been intersting reading and educational to all.

Keep us informed as to the results.

Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

This guy has, from all appearances, a total lack of ethics. Or is he
on the other side? Sure makes you wonder.

If you will review my first reply to your original post, you will see
that "this guy" was offering advice intended to minimize your further
losses, both financial and psychological, that your insistence on
absolute justice will inflict upon your own head.

All litigation is fraught with emotional trials. It will consume you
and ruin your life for the duration, and there can be lasting effects.
It will bleed you white in the wallet, because while there are cheap
lawyers, lawyers that can actually win cases are very costly. If you
have never experienced it, then you should take the advice of those who
have. I have been a plaintiff in too many civil trials, and spent too
many $10s of thousands on lawyers, to suggest otherwise. I have been in
too many armed confrontations, and fired too many shots at the real
crooks, to have anything but an intense interest in the more vital
ethical issues of standing your ground. One has to learn to pick one's
fights, but you say "to let this one slide just makes no sense". Rob
Roy would have been dead in that tavern with that attitude.

You make a believable and convincing story of having being swindled,
although we haven't heard the other side, and it would be wrong to make
any judgments without it. But you apparently cannot step back and look
objectively at the fact that this is all over a silly trinket with
artificial value. That you were willing to pay big money for such a
thing doesn't change the absurdity of it all. It could have been Beanie
Babies, or before that Dutch tulips. All stupid stuff that people get
into stupid quarrels over. You sound like you're ready to commit libel
because of some tiny bubble speck of a flaw in the goods.

I'll leave the question of anyone fitting your estimate of a "total lack
of ethics" to a future judge, who teaches the ethical principle of
setting aside smaller disputes, not insisting on absolute justice in
this life, even to turning the other cheek or walking a 2nd mile or
handing over your cloak.

This does not "encourage the criminals" as you state, because you are
supposed to learn to avoid or manage this eBay risk in the future.
Leave the punishment of crooks and swindlers to the state, that is the
ethical basis to civilization vs vigilantism. If you seek raw revenge,
recovery from this wrong being impossible, you will regret it.

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
snip
You make a believable and convincing story of having being swindled,
although we haven't heard the other side, and it would be wrong to make
any judgments without it. But you apparently cannot step back and look
objectively at the fact that this is all over a silly trinket with
artificial value. That you were willing to pay big money for such a
thing doesn't change the absurdity of it all. It could have been Beanie
Babies, or before that Dutch tulips. All stupid stuff that people get
into stupid quarrels over. You sound like you're ready to commit libel
because of some tiny bubble speck of a flaw in the goods.

I've read and understood, for the most part, that which you are saying, and
while it makes sense, I am still of the opinion that to do nothing is to
endorse the criminal actions of the perpetrator. I can tell anyone that is
willing to listen what they have done, and how they have done it, and so
long as I tell it like it is, I am not liable for anything. Telling the
truth is not against the law. If the lousy *******s choose to take me to
court, I'll welcome their charges with open arms.

You have heard only my side of the argument, to that I will agree. Will
you give me your permission to send you a picture of the item that shows the
repair of which I speak? Also a copy of the email that they sent when we
asked specifically if there were any issues with the condition of the piece?
It would be easy enough for you to go to the link I posted to see the item
and their description. This is no tiny bubble speck of a flaw, this is a
repair of an item that renders it relatively valueless in the collecting
field. They intentionally withheld the condition of the piece, then when
they were challenged we were told that it wasn't a repair, that it was an
inclusion. The condition, regardless of what it may be, should have been
disclosed in the ad, and it wasn't. The various photos were carefully
composed to make sure it was not visible. When we inquired we were told
it was in good condition. That's called fraud. Fraud is a criminal
offense. I'm not sure, but it could even be a felony.

I'm not sure that you do or don't understand what art glass includes, but
this is a piece of fine art that is roughly 100 years old. Should you be
familiar, this is a piece of Webb cameo glass. That it might be your
choice in collectibles or not is not important, but that it is something
that my wife chooses to collect for her pleasure is, especially to me. I'm
lucky to have a wife that is supportive of me and the decisions I make, and
I enjoy returning the favor. For me to stand by and see her screwed out
of the money is what makes no sense, just like standing by and watching
someone rape her would make no sense. I have yet to exhaust my options,
and while this thing is eating me alive, I'll go to my grave early before
I'll forget the matter. Have you ever known any Greeks? Are you aware of
our dedication to matters?

I realize I won't change your position, and likely you are the one that is
in his right mind, but I'd certainly like you to see the listing and the
response we got from these people when we asked, and then get a look at what
they declined to disclose. If nothing else, you'll understand the level
of disappointment that a good and loving wife has experienced when what was,
to her, an item that she has waited to own for years, turns out to be
nothing more than scrap glass at a very high price. Please, do not deny
my wife her pleasure by demeaning her love and interest in her choice of
collecting. This is a fine woman that never demands anything and is a
caring and giving individual the is deserving of her one and only vice, her
art glass collecting.

May I send you the picture?

Harold

On Fri, 7 May 2004 01:36:09 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
shouted from the rooftop:


I have yet to exhaust my options,
and while this thing is eating me alive, I'll go to my grave early before
I'll forget the matter. Have you ever known any Greeks? Are you aware of
our dedication to matters?

Harold-

Richard is right: at the end of the day, it's a piece of glass, not
worth losing sleep over.

According to your earlier post, the seller _did_ offer to refund the
money, minus shipping, but you didn't accept that. Which you should
have because the whole matter would have died right there.
It looks like you shot yourself in the foot because now you will
either recover nothing or spend thousands to recover $1200 or wind up
being sued for libel.

-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

In article , Richard J Kinch
says...

All litigation is fraught with emotional trials. It will consume you
and ruin your life for the duration, and there can be lasting effects.
It will bleed you white in the wallet, because while there are cheap
lawyers, lawyers that can actually win cases are very costly.

Or they have gone out of business because they cannot collect the
fees owed them.....

While I don't agree with the principle you advocate (that
non-essential goods or services can be sold without ethics)
your legal advice has the ring of truth to it.

After thinking a bit about this, I would say that Harold
possibly should have accepted the refund, minus shipping,
and then attempted to recover the shipping later.

As far as libel and slander are concerned, as my attorney
on retainer tells me, "truth *is* an absolute defense."

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Jim sez: " As far as libel and slander are concerned, as my attorney
on retainer tells me, "truth *is* an absolute defense."

Yeah, but Jim, can you trust a lawyer you're sleeping with? sorta grin

Bob Swinney

Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:
"John Hofstad-Parkhill" wrote in message
...
snip-----

Frankly, I'd rather picket the guy.

It just seems a shame that the real, true & clear victims have no real
recourse. Something is broken.


This is why, whenever there is some doubt about the merchant's
reliability, or when it is something one of a kind like this
art glass, I try to use credit cards to pay for the item.
The credit card companies can make life really tough for
crooked businessmen, as they have all sorts of penalties
triggered by some number of reversed charges. I have had a
few situations, such as a motel that kicked my family out,
then tried to charge us for a 2 days stay. The credit card
co. reversed the charges after I wrote a letter explaining what
happened.


Jon

Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:
"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message
...

I hate to just jump on your misery, but why on earth are you buying art
glass on ebay?!!


No problem, Paul. Susan buys art glass from eBay because it is a source
for an otherwise scarcely available commodity. We almost never travel, so
she has almost no opportunity to see or buy things otherwise. Both of us
recognize the risk, and to quite honest, up until this issue, she's had
relatively good results. Two scary previous experiences that were readily
settled by the sellers, one even demanded returning our shipping fees. Not
all people, we've found, are crooks. Some make a mistake and are willing
to settle immediately.

Well, looking at Myers' feedback, you are the first unhappy eBay
customer he has had in 4 1/2 years! I note he says he has offered
a full refund. Did he actually make this offer? It seems pretty
unlikely that a real scumbag would have 1158 positive feedback
from 647 different buyers, and only one bad transaction listed.
The truly infamous Al Babin can't get 4 positive feedbacks in a
row before he gets a string of negatives and gets removed from
eBay. He rarely operates for more than 2 weeks before getting his
username pulled.

Jon

Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
snip

The various photos were carefully
composed to make sure it was not visible. When we inquired we were told
it was in good condition. That's called fraud. Fraud is a criminal
offense. I'm not sure, but it could even be a felony.

It varies from state to state, but at $1200, it would likely be
a felony in most states. but, with people stealing $30,000
cars every couple of minutes, the police are busy with a lot
of bigger stuff.

Sure, I'd like to see the photo of what they didn't show you.

Jon

Have you ever known any Greeks? Are you aware of
our dedication to matters?

Oh oh! Didn't pay attention to your last name, but I should have!
Glad **I** didn't sell you that piece!

(I will say that I have several items I've picked up, hoping to sell
for a profit, and after cleaning and inspecting them, did not put them
on eBay, because they were in such bad condition that it would be tantamount
to fraud.)

Jon

In article , Robert Swinney says...

Yeah, but Jim, can you trust a lawyer you're sleeping with? sorta grin

Trust? Who said anything about trust? We were talking lawyers
here....

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

I have yet to exhaust my options,
and while this thing is eating me alive, I'll go to my grave early
before I'll forget the matter. Have you ever known any Greeks?

I saw that fat wedding movie. Does that count?

Are you aware of our dedication to matters?

Plato (wasn't he Greek?) said that to be dedicated to one thing is to be
undedicated to all else, so that no one is truly dedicated. Not really, I
made that up. But dedication itself is only as virtuous as the object of
the dedication. The world is full of wrongly dedicated people.

jim rozen writes:

As far as libel and slander are concerned, as my attorney
on retainer tells me, "truth *is* an absolute defense."

So we routinely hear.

McDonalds *never* fills up the french fries like the photo on the menu.
Calling them crooks and swindlers for this misrepresentation would be hard
to defend as "truth". You can't cast a civil dispute over quality of goods
as a criminal fraud, without being guilty of libel. Every merchant is
greedy to some extent; we can't have them all being labeled criminals, at
least not in a civil society.

"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...


Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:
"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message
...

I hate to just jump on your misery, but why on earth are you buying art
glass on ebay?!!


No problem, Paul. Susan buys art glass from eBay because it is a
source
for an otherwise scarcely available commodity. We almost never travel,
so
she has almost no opportunity to see or buy things otherwise. Both of
us
recognize the risk, and to quite honest, up until this issue, she's had
relatively good results. Two scary previous experiences that were
readily
settled by the sellers, one even demanded returning our shipping fees.
Not
all people, we've found, are crooks. Some make a mistake and are
willing
to settle immediately.

Well, looking at Myers' feedback, you are the first unhappy eBay
customer he has had in 4 1/2 years! I note he says he has offered
a full refund. Did he actually make this offer? It seems pretty
unlikely that a real scumbag would have 1158 positive feedback
from 647 different buyers, and only one bad transaction listed.
The truly infamous Al Babin can't get 4 positive feedbacks in a
row before he gets a string of negatives and gets removed from
eBay. He rarely operates for more than 2 weeks before getting his
username pulled.

Jon


Yep, his incredible feedback is what gave Susan the confidence to bid,
especially when she got a reply from Mary that the item had no issues with
condition. It's all too hard to believe, right up until the time you see
the area in question on the vase. You also must have a firm understanding
of what defects do to both desirability and value in art glass. What might
be dismissed as "nothing" to the novice can have a profound effect on value
for those the sell and collect. That isn't making our task any easier
because we're the ones with the pictures of the repair, unlike his posted on
eBay, which show a perfect piece. Perhaps it might be a good idea for me
to post the picture of the repair for others to see? He accused us of
trick photography, but all we did is side light the area so it better
defined the repair, which I have already mentioned was determined to be a
repair, not an inclusion, by a certified, accredited appraiser that had
nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling lies. His reputation
would be on the line, and he is the author of published books, so being
right would be very important to him. We did not know this man until we
sought him for the appraisal. We were referred to him by the Antiques Mall
in Centralia. The bottom line on this issue is this: Whether it is a
repair or an inclusion, it SHOULD have been disclosed. All decent sellers
do so as a routine.

Regards the return, when I told Mary that we expected that they should
refund shipping charges because they had misrepresented the piece , she is
the one that got defensive, telling us she
had no obligation to disclose the anomaly, and their terms clearly state
that shipping would be at our expense. I brought to her attention the fact
that her terms also clearly state that they would disclose any anomalies
with the items they sell, and they hadn't done so, which lead us to bid on
an item that we, otherwise, would not have been interested in buying.
When she couldn't convince us that it was an inclusion, the discussion got
heated so we terminated the conversation. We received a follow-up phone
call from the owner,
Michael J. Myers, in which he told us that there was no way in hell
he would accept the item in return because we had upset his wife. In
other words, we can agree that it was an inclusion and they had no
obligation to disclose it, or he wouldn't accept it in return. He could
lie to us, but if we didn't agree with his assessment, then we must be
punished by being refused a refund.

*They lied about the refund* because he withdrew the offer to send us our
purchase price, minus shipping, which was over $50 both ways. He clearly
states that we "sealed our fate" in the exchange between us and eBay, which
I will gladly forward to anyone interested. It all boils down to this:
If they had been honest,
we wouldn't be where we are today. We wouldn't have bid, which is the very
reason we inquired before doing so. * They lied to us*, and they continue
to lie about how it has gone.

By the way, they did offer to accept it in return if we would discount the
amount by the $175 that eBay awarded Susan for all her trouble. In other
words, they would get the piece back, make a small amount for their trouble,
and we're out the several hundred miles of travel we had to do for the
appraisal, plus the time we have spent. The bad guys make a profit on
the heads of the victim? I'd rather die first.

EVERYONE that does business with these people should know and understand
that if they are unhappy and unwilling to eat a loss that is not at their
hand, they would be better off to not do business with them.

This brings to mind a guy that was selling certified items off eBay from the
Seattle area a while ago. One person complained and was ignored, yet when
the truth came to be known, everything that was being sold was fraudulently
represented by him, and he was the owner of the business doing all the
certification.

This is a quote from the email I received:

"I've followed the thread, ouch. Your comment about being Myer's first
ebay
"negative" reminded me of the Seattle Times story about Thesaurus Fine Arts,
beginning with their article in Jan. 2003. This outfit, owned by a
prominent Asian economist and professor, had a high-profile gallery in
Seattle and sold expensive "Chinese antiquities", authenticated by a
well-known lab in Hong Kong. Turned out nearly 100% of what they sold was
elaborate, entirely deliberate fakery, and that the gallery owner also owned
the "independent lab". He's now wanted for fraud but will never be
extradited back to Seattle."

Bad things happen when good people don't speak up, and often not everything
is as it appears.

Harold

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

I have attached links that will take you to two photos of the vase in
question. I apologize for how the .txt was posted. I, somehow, ended up
with all the MS crud in spite of the fact that I composed the message with
the note pad. I assume it was in how I made the attachment. I'm not very
good at this computer stuff, sort of keeps me off balance most of the time.

http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase-txt.txt
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase01.JPG
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase02.JPG

In case the text is tough to read, 01 shows the vase lit from the side with
light passing through.
The other, 02, was taken with overhead lighting.

Nothing was done to the photos or the piece to enhance or otherwise change
the image, or the repaired area Our entire argument is that the seller did
not disclose the area in question, which resulted in our bidding way beyond
the true value of the piece. Accident? Oversight? I think not. Not
when they wouldn't do what any honest dealer would and make good their screw
up. All indications are that they tried to profit through fraudulently
representing the vase. I can't imagine a judge wouldn't see it the same
way.

I welcome your comments.

Harold

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
snip----

After thinking a bit about this, I would say that Harold
possibly should have accepted the refund, minus shipping,
and then attempted to recover the shipping later.

Yep, looking back on it, I realize that may have been the best avenue to
pursue.

I hope you can appreciate the fact that had the tables been turned, we would
have stopped at nothing to make full and proper restitution to a buyer had
we been responsible for a similar circumstance. When you go through life
trying to do the right thing, it often comes as quite a surprise to you when
you are confronted by dishonest people. Certainly you're not equipped to
deal with them. For sure, we aren't. I'd have had a different approach
had I been aware that I was dealing with crooks. It was hard to assume
considering their great feedback.

As far as libel and slander are concerned, as my attorney
on retainer tells me, "truth *is* an absolute defense."

My point exactly. I'm going to go far out of my way to notify anyone on
eBay that bids on collectibles to be aware that these people have the
possibility of doing to ANY buyer exactly what they did to us. The best
part is for a few bucks I can get it in front of all of eBay. By
presenting the evidence in support of our claims, I can't see how I can be
prosecuted and have it stick. My hopes are that they haul me to court for
telling the truth. What better way to bring them to us? They must file
in the place that has jurisdiction. It is they that will have to be
inconvenienced, not us.

Our hopes are that they come to see the wisdom of doing the right thing, to
not screw the consumer under the guise of some ethereal claim that is
obviously a lie. It will cost them either a full refund for the
misrepresented vase, or every time they run one of their auctions the
bidders will see the evidence we have that screams of their dishonesty. If
nothing else, it will minimize the numbers that are willing to take a chance
on getting screwed the same way we were.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned. One can not be prosecuted for
telling the truth, no matter how damaging it may be to the offended party.
If a whore does not prefer to be known as such, she can change professions.

Harold

Greetings and salutations.
Well, I have to say that the photos seem to
give some strong foundation to your claims. I find it
interesting that the ONE view that would have shown the
defect up really well...a shot directly down on the TOP
of the vase...was not part of the handful of pictures in
the auction. However, there was a shot straight on
from the bottom of the piece.
My feeling would be that the views were
carefully choosen to beautify the item as much
as possible. Seems a bit questionable to me....
But then I am not trying to get $1000+ for
a little chunk of melted sand.
(and yes...I DO appreciate art glass...
just not the inflated prices of some of it).
Regards
Dave Mundt

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:22:56 -0500, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

And all this over ART GLASS? Puh-leeze. Your extravagant and non-
productive hobby does not deserve anyone's attention or sympathy.


Geese. And I though Ed Huntress was an arrogant ass at times..... looks
like you beat him to Best of Class.

Gunner



Yes... amen. Mr. Kinch struck me as an intelligent man until this latest.
Acouple of his posts lately have been in the troll category. This sounds
like one of them.

Mark

P.S. I know Mr. Vordos in person, and he is a decent sort... not given to
foolishness at all. His posts in the last few years have always been useful
and to the point.

"Richard J Kinch" wrote

McDonalds *never* fills up the french fries like the photo on the menu.
Calling them crooks and swindlers for this misrepresentation would be hard
to defend as "truth". You can't cast a civil dispute over quality of
goods
as a criminal fraud, without being guilty of libel. Every merchant is
greedy to some extent; we can't have them all being labeled criminals, at
least not in a civil society.

This sounds like pontificating and obfuscation to me. If you had just
pointed out that Mr. Vordos may lose more than he will gain in this matter,
perhaps that would have been a valid point. Especially now that we learn
that he was offered a full refund less the shipping. Instead, you ridiculed
him and (worse) his wife for having an "extravagant hobby" (quote: "And all
this over ART GLASS? Puh-leeze. Your extravagant and non-productive hobby
does not deserve anyone's attention or sympathy. " end quote). What gives
you the right to ridicule someone else's hobby? Do you know Harold's wife?
I do, and she was a very kind and gracious person when I met her. Your
comment about her hobby was boorish and ungentlemanly to say the least.


I also note that you have done precisely the same thing as Mr. Vordos
regarding your loss of $151 on ebay (re your first post on this thread. It
seems that Mr. Vordos is not the only one that gets emotional over this sort
of fraud. Clearly (from your link, http://www.truetex.com/ebayfraud.htm )
you spent FAR more than $151 pursuing your particular crook... evidently
your high minded principles don't apply when it's your money at stake....

For an intelligent man, you are remarkably deficient in civilized behavior.

Mark

M wrote:

"Richard J Kinch" wrote

McDonalds *never* fills up the french fries like the photo on the menu.
Calling them crooks and swindlers for this misrepresentation would be hard
to defend as "truth". You can't cast a civil dispute over quality of
goods
as a criminal fraud, without being guilty of libel. Every merchant is
greedy to some extent; we can't have them all being labeled criminals, at
least not in a civil society.

This sounds like pontificating and obfuscation to me. If you had just
pointed out that Mr. Vordos may lose more than he will gain in this matter,
perhaps that would have been a valid point. Especially now that we learn
that he was offered a full refund less the shipping. Instead, you ridiculed
him and (worse) his wife for having an "extravagant hobby" (quote: "And all
this over ART GLASS? Puh-leeze. Your extravagant and non-productive hobby
does not deserve anyone's attention or sympathy. " end quote). What gives
you the right to ridicule someone else's hobby? Do you know Harold's wife?
I do, and she was a very kind and gracious person when I met her. Your
comment about her hobby was boorish and ungentlemanly to say the least.

I also note that you have done precisely the same thing as Mr. Vordos
regarding your loss of $151 on ebay (re your first post on this thread. It
seems that Mr. Vordos is not the only one that gets emotional over this sort
of fraud. Clearly (from your link, http://www.truetex.com/ebayfraud.htm )
you spent FAR more than $151 pursuing your particular crook... evidently
your high minded principles don't apply when it's your money at stake....

For an intelligent man, you are remarkably deficient in civilized behavior.

Mark

Well put, Mark. I was just going to say 'what a jackass', or something akin.
Your reply has a nice polished touch.


michael

M writes:

What gives you the right to ridicule someone else's hobby?

I didn't. I ridiculed the crusade for justice, which is indeed
ridiculous, being founded on an exquisite piece of colored glass with
less utility than an empty soda bottle. Hmmm, maybe that's sounds like
I am ridiculing this hobby. But all collectibles are ridiculous, aren't
they? Google "tulip craze".

And it looks perfect from certain angles! But oh, the flaw is still
there! The enjoyment and the value is not in how the thing itself
looks, as if it were some genuine beauty, it is in the precious
perfection of it, and lost it is, lost.

So this is nothing more than a kind of silly baseball card type of
collecting, where the values are all determined as a kind of zero-sum
game (or negative, if you count the dealers' premiums). Now if this
game appeals to you and entertains you, then fine, enjoy it. But these
artificial and illusory values do not deserve the enforcement and
protection of the sword of civil justice, which has enough genuine
issues to try. No sane judge would rule on a basis of collectible
values.

Do you know Harold's
wife? I do, and she was a very kind and gracious person when I met
her. Your comment about her hobby was boorish and ungentlemanly to say
the least.

Don't confuse social interactions in real life, versus abstract,
critical discussions in newsgroups. If somebody presents a case and
asks for advice, then you can't complain that the truth hurt somebody's
feelings.

And it's a bit unfair to appeal to the lady's honor, as honorable as she
no doubt is. It doesn't matter whether she was the victim, or some guy,
or some lowlife. The advice is the same.

I admit to being harsh. I remember stepping on a few toes during the
Beanie Baby craze, and again during the surf-the-Web-for-money craze. I
was vilified for pointing out how silly and ultimately worthless it
would be. I was so cruel to all those stay-at-home-moms who just knew
they would finally be able to earn some extra income. So boorish and
ungentlemanly of me to point that out to them. And so few appreciated
it, even when it eventually was borne out. Anyone remember
alladvantage.com? I was puncturing the hopes of those charming women
who were buying diapers and Christmas gifts for their kids, treating
their husbands to dates out, and hugely helping to pay the bills.

I also note that you have done precisely the same thing as Mr. Vordos
regarding your loss of $151 on ebay (re your first post on this
thread. It seems that Mr. Vordos is not the only one that gets
emotional over this sort of fraud. Clearly (from your link,
http://www.truetex.com/ebayfraud.htm ) you spent FAR more than $151
pursuing your particular crook... evidently your high minded
principles don't apply when it's your money at stake....

Precisely? I wrote an essay to inform people of the arcane eBay fraud
protection program, and to advise people of how to best diagnose and
prosecute fraudulent situations. I resolved my own case to my
satisfaction. My money recovery was a wash, but I discovered useful new
information about doing business on eBay, formerly unpublicized, which
value I freely share (via that Web page) with others. It currently gets
about 600 readers/month, and I receive plenty of fan mail on it.

I also note that my adversary was NARUed on eBay subsequent to my
prosecution. The alleged "criminal" of this thread somehow remains
active on eBay, and indeed, has a near-perfect well-aged feedback
rating, which is phenomenal for somebody dealing in antiques and
collectibles.

Your criticism of "you same" only extends to the eBay buyer protection
apparatus that we both invoked. Given that there was next to no public
information on the true costs of that novel process (before my Web page,
and a few others like it now), I indulged it as much as a research
project as an attempt at recovery. So while it wouldn't be worth
repeating, I don't regret having done it.

The "you same" does *not* extend to hiring lawyers, starting lawsuits,
Internet picketing, etc. that the aggrieved Mr V has been considering.
If you read my page, written quite a few months ago, you'll see that
everything I advocate there clearly sets forth the other-cheek calculus
I have been advocating in his case. I have written off several major
losses (anywhere from $2500 to $25000 each) from frauds and bad debts
over my career, as has just about anybody in enterprise for business or
hobbies. If you pursue precision justice at the expense of work or
pleasure, you will end up with none of the three.