Artisanal Clothing and accessories discussion (MA+, CCP, Layer-0, Paul Harnden, Taichi Murakami, Bor

[nahneun]

because your premise is your conclusion and you argue backwards. you said the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove the case. the automatic assumption here, then, is that the defendant is innocent until proven otherwise. that's fair, except when you try to justify your premise (and thus, conclusion) by creating more and more conditionals to maintain innocence (ie. usps is a ****** service and has been documented as such on google, so they messed up the shipping)

you still try to discredit everything he and i say regarding eugene despite having overwhelming evidence otherwise from not only us, but also other parties. you say i'm running a smear campaign against eugene. it's only a smear campaign if he is, in fact, innocent. i don't think you even know what a strawman argument is. regardless, it's clear you only see what you want to see and don't consider other possibilities. also, i'm just going to point out that all your arguments have been based on logical fallacies even though you accuse that of us. hopefully one day you'll realize this and grow from it. you work on hearsay, perfect coincidences, and lack of evidence to justify your arguments. i work with facts. one holds significantly more weight than the other. thanks for your time.

if you want to throw another red herring to try to direct the attention away from the scam and towards purported errors in logic, feel free to do so.

 

[oulipien]

I'm a little baffled, @nahneun , at why you basically invited newp in here to comment further?

 

[nahneun]

honestly, it's amusing to read his shortsighted responses.

 

[newp]

because your premise is your conclusion and you argue backwards. you said the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove the case. the automatic assumption here, then, is that the defendant is innocent until proven otherwise. that's fair, except when you try to justify your premise (and thus, conclusion) by creating more and more conditionals to maintain innocence (ie. usps is a ****** service and has been documented as such on google, so they messed up the shipping)

you still try to discredit everything he and i say regarding eugene despite having overwhelming evidence otherwise from not only us, but also other parties. you say i'm running a smear campaign against eugene. it's only a smear campaign if he is, in fact, innocent. i don't think you even know what a strawman argument is. regardless, it's clear you only see what you want to see and don't consider other possibilities. also, i'm just going to point out that all your arguments have been based on logical fallacies even though you accuse that of us. hopefully one day you'll realize this and grow from it. you work on hearsay, perfect coincidences, and lack of evidence to justify your arguments. i work with facts. one holds significantly more weight than the other. thanks for your time.

if you want to throw another red herring to try to direct the attention away from the scam and towards purported errors in logic, feel free to do so.

A silly attempt of strawman again, with contradicting yourself on top of it.
1. The defendant is innocent until proven otherwise — right.
2. It was proven parcel with tracking number provided by psidy was delivered to CA instead of IL. A friendly reminder you have to prove it was because of the seller. Prove seller has sent the parcel initially to CA or outrule all possibilities for us why it was delivered there. Can't wait for you to do it.

You work with facts, hmmm? I hope it's not your delusions, how about you post your so-called facts here in a nice arranged list, don't forget the evidence these 'facts' are based upon.

 

[dizzy]

I read the SZ thread. You (@newp) seem to be implying that USPS screwed up, but that's highly unlikely given what we know. It's possible that the sorting center sent it to the wrong place, but there's no way the local post office would then go out and deliver it to the wrong address, especially if it was signed for. Dude sells pieces, sends out bogus tracking numbers, and tries to stall until the claim period expires.

 

[psidy]

Newp's at it again. You've just attempted to shift the burden of proof and that is an illogical form of argument. Since the tracking number shows movement unbroken from Portugal to CA with absolutely no signs of postal error it is YOUR job to prove to us why YOU think that there was any kind of logistics error in the first place. Stop being so intellectually dishonest newp.

 

[nahneun]



A silly attempt of strawman again, with contradicting yourself on top of it. 
1. The defendant is innocent until proven otherwise — right.
2. It was proven parcel with tracking number provided by psidy was delivered to CA instead of IL. A friendly reminder you have to prove it was because of the seller. Prove seller has sent the parcel initially to CA or outrule all possibilities for us why it was delivered there. Can't wait for you to do it.

You work with facts, hmmm? I hope it's not your delusions, how about you post your so-called facts here in a nice arranged list, don't forget the evidence these 'facts' are based upon. 

This is so laughably stupid as a response that I'm flabbergasted that you think this is an argument. This is a literal false dichotomy you're trying to set up. You know this is the argumentum ad ignorantiam that you accused psidy of, yes? Regardless, I'll play along.

Here are the facts:
1. Seller provides A tracking address to buyer. I'll explain why I word it this way later.
2. Buyer never receives item and consults with seller.
3. Seller claims CTT (Portugal Post) red-flagged the parcel two days before July 11th along with 20 other parcels. (Time-stamp available in the screenshot psidy posted on SZ).
4. USPS claims item was successfully delivered July 8th. Let's play along with your logic and say that this cannot be proven because there is no visible proof. The only confirmation we have, at the moment, is that USPS did indeed successfully deliver a package to CA on some undisclosed date prior to psidy's posting on SZ.

From here, we have a few possibilities.
1. Buyer lied about his tracking number (again, playing along with your logic since we do not have any visible proof showing seller sending the specific tracking number to buyer)
This, of course, is not likely to be the case for two reasons and it is fair to assume that the tracking number seller sent to buyer was indeed the correct tracking number because:
a. Once buyer consults with seller about package, seller claims that the tracking number in question was redflagged by CTT and was never sent over to USPS. Regardless of whether or not the redflagging is true (and clearly, it is false because USPS had the package and it was sent to CA), it confirms the validity of the tracking number in question because seller confirms that it is indeed the correct tracking number by trying to provide reasonable explanation why the package is missing. Should human error be the cause and seller sent the wrong tracking number initially, seller would have realized his mistake at this point. If you really want to stretch it and say that seller made the mistake both times, seller can easily prove this was, in fact, the case by providing said receipt.
b. Buyer can easily screenshot initial conversation to show tracking number.

2. USPS made a mistake in shipping and shipped item to incorrect address.
a. Should this be the case, USPS would have found out once buyer called them to confirm. USPS claims delivery address was correct. If you need proof that USPS sent it to the wrong address, seller can easily provide that to immediately validate his innocence. However, given the red flag story, this is an unlikely scenario.

3. Seller sent parcel to the wrong address and mixed up buyers.
a. Plausible that he got his shipping address wrong and meant to send a different item to another buyer. However, again, the solution to this would be to talk to the third party and rectify the situation by having them forward the package over and compensating for the delivery costs. Again, this would go against the red-flag story, so also unlikely.

4. Seller deliberately sent parcel to different address.
a. Most likely situation given how the situation unraveled because it explains all actions and facts succinctly (Occam's Razor). Of course, not infallible.

The shipment from Japan is non-issue because it is not the item buyer paid for in the first place.

Let me know if you need to be logic bombed again.

 

[psidy]

 

[psidy]

Sorry for the not so great quality but here is a pic showing detailed movement of the package. Newp, what good reason do you have to suspect any mistakes were made within the shipping process? Do you have any evidence at all showing this to be even a possibility? Remember this was a registered package. USPS's most secure form of shipment requiring signature;

 

[newp]

This is so laughably stupid as a response that I'm flabbergasted that you think this is an argument. This is a literal false dichotomy you're trying to set up. You know this is the argumentum ad ignorantiam that you accused psidy of, yes? Regardless, I'll play along.

Here are the facts:
1. Seller provides A tracking address to buyer. I'll explain why I word it this way later.
2. Buyer never receives item and consults with seller.
3. Seller claims CTT (Portugal Post) red-flagged the parcel two days before July 11th along with 20 other parcels. (Time-stamp available in the screenshot psidy posted on SZ).
4. USPS claims item was successfully delivered July 8th. Let's play along with your logic and say that this cannot be proven because there is no visible proof. The only confirmation we have, at the moment, is that USPS did indeed successfully deliver a package to CA on some undisclosed date prior to psidy's posting on SZ.

From here, we have a few possibilities.
1. Buyer lied about his tracking number (again, playing along with your logic since we do not have any visible proof showing seller sending the specific tracking number to buyer)
This, of course, is not likely to be the case for two reasons and it is fair to assume that the tracking number seller sent to buyer was indeed the correct tracking number because:
a. Once buyer consults with seller about package, seller claims that the tracking number in question was redflagged by CTT and was never sent over to USPS. Regardless of whether or not the redflagging is true (and clearly, it is false because USPS had the package and it was sent to CA), it confirms the validity of the tracking number in question because seller confirms that it is indeed the correct tracking number by trying to provide reasonable explanation why the package is missing. Should human error be the cause and seller sent the wrong tracking number initially, seller would have realized his mistake at this point. If you really want to stretch it and say that seller made the mistake both times, seller can easily prove this was, in fact, the case by providing said receipt.
b. Buyer can easily screenshot initial conversation to show tracking number.

2. USPS made a mistake in shipping and shipped item to incorrect address.
a. Should this be the case, USPS would have found out once buyer called them to confirm. USPS claims delivery address was correct. If you need proof that USPS sent it to the wrong address, seller can easily provide that to immediately validate his innocence. However, given the red flag story, this is an unlikely scenario.

3. Seller sent parcel to the wrong address and mixed up buyers.
a. Plausible that he got his shipping address wrong and meant to send a different item to another buyer. However, again, the solution to this would be to talk to the third party and rectify the situation by having them forward the package over and compensating for the delivery costs. Again, this would go against the red-flag story, so also unlikely.

4. Seller deliberately sent parcel to different address.
a. Most likely situation given how the situation unraveled because it explains all actions and facts succinctly (Occam's Razor). Of course, not infallible.

The shipment from Japan is non-issue because it is not the item buyer paid for in the first place.

Let me know if you need to be logic bombed again.

1. is outruled and not necessary now. Just in case, I never asked about it, remember.
2. Can I see the proof USPS claims the delivery address was a correct one? They don't even know which address it exactly was since they can't read the handwriting on their scan, so they have sent me and psidy just the same scan.
3. Outruled since it's easily fixed indeed.
4. So this is your claim, right? It appears you have contact with the seller yourself. Would you please ask him if he still has a receipt from CTT? As I have mentioned several times it should have (probably) address of the buyer on it. It's in the best interest of the seller to provide it, and if you want to know the truth and not just to stain the seller's reputation, you will do it.
I might do it as well later, don't have any time for it now.

I read the SZ thread. You (@newp ) seem to be implying that USPS screwed up, but that's highly unlikely given what we know. It's possible that the sorting center sent it to the wrong place, but there's no way the local post office would then go out and deliver it to the wrong address, especially if it was signed for. Dude sells pieces, sends out bogus tracking numbers, and tries to stall until the claim period expires.

Are you informed of the current claim period just in case? It's 6 frigging months. Also yes, the possibility of USPS error exists. While you can't prove seller initially shipped the parcel there or you can't outrule any other possibility presumption of innocence is in place.

 

[nahneun]

Well, psidy just posted the tracking from USPS. Are you going to claim that psidy was lying about his home address at this point? The burden of proof is on the seller at this point to prove otherwise since the facts are against him. If wormwood wants to shut us all up, he can do so at any time.

Are you informed of the current claim period just in case? It's 6 frigging months. Also yes, the possibility of USPS error exists. While you can't prove seller initially shipped the parcel there or you can't outrule any other possibility presumption of innocence is in place.

That's not how presumption of innocence works. My argument presumes Eugene's innocence. It is not until all other reasonable outcomes are considered and reasonably disproven that possibility 4 is reached. Even in a court of law, it is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond absolute doubt. Else you can claim something ridiculous like aliens stole it to say it can't be disproven.

 

[psidy]

There's absolutely ZERO reason to suspect any postal error, ZERO. Your argument's bankrupt.

 

[newp]

Sorry for the not so great quality but here is a pic showing detailed movement of the package. Newp, what good reason do you have to suspect any mistakes were made within the shipping process? Do you have any evidence at all showing this to be even a possibility? Remember this was a registered package. USPS's most secure form of shipment requiring signature;

This is what I have got after a call.

 

[psidy]

After I drilled Eugene about the shipping receipt he made excuses then said he just sent a scan to grailed and paypal because he didn't think we'd reach an agreement on our own so I should take it to them. Then I come to find from another grailed member out he is trying to pass off the Japan number as the original. I will eventually have absolute proof. When CTT is done with their investigation, they will send me a copy of the original shipping receipt from customs. It just may take awhile.

 

[newp]

So we are all clear it has come to a proof which address was used when this parcel was initially sent. I have checked google and it appears it looks like this http://www.soj.pt/PDF/1LM.pdf and recipient shipping address is indeed listed on it.
Can anyone here contact seller and ask for it? In fact, I wonder why psidy hasn't done it yet.