Comment: Re:Good on him (Score 1) 124
You're aware that MC Hammer was bankrupt about 10 years ago and is a pastor for a church now, right? Or at least he was, until he started doing the "celebrity reality" tv circuit. Maybe he has money again?
You're aware that MC Hammer was bankrupt about 10 years ago and is a pastor for a church now, right? Or at least he was, until he started doing the "celebrity reality" tv circuit. Maybe he has money again?
Does it really surprise anyone? Amazon is the company that went and deleted people's books AFTER they were paid for and amazon will do what it takes to make a dollar. Libraries and Amazon really don't have the same mission (and shouldn't) so why is this any surprise.
Don't be stupid, he's already said he works for PayPal, which would pretty much break the first rule of shilling, wouldn't it? Or perhaps you don't actually know what the word "shill" means, but are simply repeating it as it's such a popular slashdot insult.
I've been unable to respond to this until now but I know exactly what a shill means. I also know that the wikipedia definition you list isn't the only definition. Try this second definition: http://www.yourdictionary.com/shill
The GP repeatedly said he/she was proud to work for EBay but would like to hear why people dislike the company. When people responded with their reasons he/she argued that they must be incorrect then listed several DIFFERENT so called "personal experiences" as the only experience the GP had had dealing with said company. Those are out and out lies, as far as I'm concerned, which is why I called the person a shill.
About two years ago my daughter broke my PS3 BluRay laser. She was shoving change in the disc slot. Otherwise, the PS3 worked. You could stream Netflix or home theater content. You could play games installed to the hard drive, access PSN, etc.
I listed it very clearly on eBay that what it could and couldn't do. Someone bought it from me, and then immediately disputed the purchase through PayPal. They said that I didn't make it clear it was out of warranty. If it was in warranty, I would have had it fixed/replaced. They apparently though they could buy a cheap broken PS3 on eBay and get a free replacement via Sony.
I showed my listing, that I shipped the PS3 and that the buyer received it. PayPal sided with me as the seller. So I don't accept the notion that PayPal always sides with the buyer, or that they don't have a dispute process since I've used it myself.
****
I've had to deal with dispute resolution with PayPal only once. My mother was the victim of a phishing attack and I tried to help her out. We contacted PayPal, and they got all her money back in 3 days and then went after the phishers.
I currently work in the customer service division at PayPal and I can tell you with absolute certainty that we do dispute resolution on non-eBay transactions.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/cps/general/PPDisputeResolution-outside
Now, there could be several mitigating factors, such as if you waited too long to dispute the transaction, or if you weren't willing to do your part to provide evidence. But that would be standard practices for any company. What you're really saying is that a vendor screwed you over, and somehow you think that is PayPal's fault.
I'm officially calling you a shill on this one. Get your story straight.
I don't have a huge beef with ebay or paypal, though I do think both charge higher fees than are necessary for a reasonable profit. Fortunately for ebay I don't get to define what is a reasonable profit for them, their shareholders do. I'll even say that you are likely correct that some people have misplaced their hatred. To say their customer service is "good" against all the naysayers, however, is ridiculous.
I've known plenty of bullies and they all amount to nothing if you don't give them the power they want. I spent my entire teenage years being "bullied" by your definition. At 14 years old I was under 5 feet tall and weighed 70 pounds and literally was the smallest person in my school. I've dealt with plenty of so-called bullies of all types, both kids and adults. Somehow I still hold the definition I hold because I refuse to let someone scare me or victimize me.
Maybe I'm special, but I somehow doubt it. I still say that in order to be bullied you have to allow it to happen. You choose to be a victim and let the assholes of the world bully you, or you choose not to be a victim and you realize that there will always be assholes and they generally have very little impact on your life in the long term.
The person (Natasha MacBryde) whose tribute site he defaced had committed suicide by throwing herself under a train. She had committed suicide because of online cyber bullying.
He defaced her family's memorial page with the altered train photo knowing that her family would see the connection between the altered train and the cause of her death. A reasonable person could be expected to know that would be grossly offensive to her family.
In the UK sending a message that is grossly offensive is considered an offence under the Communications Act 2003 section 127.
That is why the parody has legal significance.
Thank you. I knew the girl committed suicide by train but didn't have more detail than that.
A turtle that picks its shell up off the ground when it walks, rather than dragging its shell like a half-dead cyborg.
The fact it was Thomas the tank engine rather than Thomas the tank has legal significance when the person's face plastered on the front of it died by being run over by a passenger train.
What legal significance is there? Is it in poor taste? Absolutely. Is it funny? I thought so, at least the description. How does the parody have any legal impact at all?
Deliberately offending people is not the same as bullying people. The fact that so many these days think it is the same thing is where the problem starts with cases like this.
Bullying people provides something to the bully, generally some sort of social or financial gain. Calling people names or saying something in poor taste online provides neither of these in an "anonymous" environment. If he did it with his real name, perhaps you could argue it was intentional bullying but I'd probably still disagree. Yes his actions were intentional, but being deliberate doesn't make someone a bully. It does make them an asshole (I'm from the US, I prefer that to arsehole) but that's not illegal. For that matter, I don't think petty bullying that doesn't actually cause physical harm or threat of physical harm should be illegal either, though. In order to be bullied you must first think of yourself as a victim.
Emotional harm over the internet? Really? Get a grip on reality. Personal responsibility is sorely lacking (on both sides of cases like this) and it's time for that to stop. Grow up, grow a pair, and take responsibility for yourself and shit like this won't matter.
Or they change their opinion based on more information. Not all people are underhanded or double-dealing. Some people just learn from their (and others') mistakes.
Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.