Idiot pays £450 for a photo of an Xbox on Ebay.

jassi_9

Stoke wrote: »

Well luckily you aren't the one who made the final decision. Let's hope you never fall for the same scam eh? You can sit in your ivory tower laughing and calling this buyer a 'derp', but the fact is the seller is a con-man. Nothing more. Like I said earlier, I'd like to gauge the reaction of people if this was a little old lady. I found it interesting that Flyonthewall said assuming the old lady didn't have any obvious health problems... like what? Alzheimers? Dementia? The seller couldn't give a flying !!!! you do realize that right? The seller didn't give a crap about the buyer which is why he received the jokey "Thanks very much note". Imagine if the buyer HAD been someone with the early to mid stages of Alzheimers, it could have quite easily sent them into a clinical depression or made them extremely ill. Clinical depression and Alzheimers has been known to cause patients to die. Merry Christmas to that family, and a Happy New Year! How much !!!! did the seller give? None. He was laughing and so are you... but it's okay because it wasn't an Alzheimers sufferer; the lad was just a scrotey little chav with a 4 year old. Thanks Dave for the big society. We're all in it together... not.

If the seller had an ounce of a conscience, he would have stopped the transaction before this 'joke' turned into a horrible reality for the buyer. Who cares if the buyer was a 'derp'? The seller was a con-man, plain and simple and you guys shouldn't be encouraging it or even condoning it!! I don't buy this 'joke' !!!!!!!!. It sounds like a great way to get out of admitting you're a filthy little scammer.
The seller deserved to be banned and in my opinion investigated by the police. If this really was a joke, the seller would have been quickly cleared but who knows how many people this has happened to. Like I said, the best thing for him/her is to spend Christmas behind bars. Would give them time to think about all the people they've ripped off.

I hope eBay recovered the funds from the seller as well. They've got into a habit recently of refunding people without necessarily pursuing the funds from the dodgy seller. If they didn't, they'll be back doing it again in a few weeks with a different item and a new identity.

The seller is not a con man if he wrote in his listing that it was a picture of a ps4

Did he write that?

If the answer is yes.....the buyer is a derp.

If it was a little old lady then the little old lady would have been brave and strong enough to use the internet to buy something WITHOUT asking for advice of a young relative or family memeber.......then she too would be a derp.

You are not going to save the world from its own stupidity and people won't let you save them from it either.

Flyonthewall

jassi_9 wrote: »

The seller is not a con man if he wrote in his listing that it was a picture of a ps4

Did he write that?

If the answer is yes.....the buyer is a derp.

If it was a little old lady then the little old lady would have been brave and strong enough to use the internet to buy something WITHOUT asking for advice of a young relative or family memeber.......then she too would be a derp.

You are not going to save the world from its own stupidity and people won't let you save them from it either.

Xbox One, not PS4. As a gamer I feel the need to correct that :P

Glad someone else agrees with me over the old lady (well, sort of, you worded it different lol). Just because people generally view the elderly as frail, innocent, sweet people who need protecting doesn't mean that's the case.

Plenty of old(er) people use the internet and buy off ebay. They know what they're doing so if they do something stupid then it shouldn't be viewed any differenty just because of their age.

RFW

jassi_9 wrote: »

The seller is not a con man if he wrote in his listing that it was a picture of a ps4

That is the definition of a con man. No one would pay £450 for a picture so the seller is relying on idiots to fall for it.

If there weren't gullible idiots around there wouldn't be any con artists.

I think I brought up the elderly people idea, I was trying to highlight that people need protecting even though they shouldn't. The con stories that get press are usually bogus workmen who prey on the elderly. I often hear those stories and wonder how anyone could fall for it but sadly people do.

Flyonthewall

RFW wrote: »

That is the definition of a con man. No one would pay £450 for a picture so the seller is relying on idiots to fall for it.

If there weren't gullible idiots around there wouldn't be any con artists.

I think I brought up the elderly people idea, I was trying to highlight that people need protecting even though they shouldn't. The con stories that get press are usually bogus workmen who prey on the elderly. I often hear those stories and wonder how anyone could fall for it but sadly people do.

Um, that's exactly what that news story is. He paid £450 for what he knew was a photo but hoped wasn't.

Someone asked me if I'd say the same if it were a little old lady. I can't remember who or whether it was before or after you mentioning about people being protected.

Indeed, there are many stories of people scamming the elderly. Far too many are scams that not only involve taking their money but ruining something else in the process (e.g. they start building something and leave it half done and dangerous). They're the worst kind of scammers. Probably a bit off topic though now lol.

RFW

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Um, that's exactly what that news story is. He paid £450 for what he knew was a photo but hoped wasn't.

I think I'm agreeing with you! The post I was responding to was saying the seller wasn't a conman because he was truthful in his description. I don't dispute the buyer was an idiot, I do dispute that the seller wasn't a conman.
Without a buyer the seller is another idiot with a listing that won't sell. The con is relying on an idiot to come along who either doesn't read all the description or chances his arm believing he's getting a good deal due to an error on the seller's part.

Flyonthewall

RFW wrote: »

I think I'm agreeing with you! The post I was responding to was saying the seller wasn't a conman because he was truthful in his description. I don't dispute the buyer was an idiot, I do dispute that the seller wasn't a conman.
Without a buyer the seller is another idiot with a listing that won't sell. The con is relying on an idiot to come along who either doesn't read all the description or chances his arm believing he's getting a good deal due to an error on the seller's part.

Fair enough, just the way it was worded

I agree.