The official thrift/discount store bragging thread

[kravman2011]

Long time lurker here. Some killer hauls lately. All I managed to find recently was a pair of Asics wrestling shoes for 5 bucks; they are perfect for Krav Maga class though, so I grabbed them.

 

[Brianpore]

Quote:

BNWT?

WOW - Thrift thread First!!!


Found in LA? Thought I might have a better shot on LI if he donated stuff after noticing a hole/stain and already tagged it before pictures.

 

[Randy]

The only problem with suing PayPal has to do with their Terms of Service fine print. In a nutshell, in exchange for the privilege of transacting using their tools, you agree that any formal dispute you have with PayPal will be facilitated through arbitration — and by an arbitrator and a venue of their choosing at that. But here's where it gets interesting: If you choose to bring a lawsuit instead of submitting to their arbitration process, you surrender your rights to use PayPal's payment systems. Forever. A Google search for "PayPal sucks" will shed more light on this and other fascinating business practices.

 

[capnwes]

The only problem with suing PayPal has to do with their Terms of Service fine print. In a nutshell, in exchange for the privilege of transacting using their tools, you agree that any formal dispute you have with PayPal will be facilitated through arbitration — and by an arbitrator and a venue of their choosing at that. But here's where it gets interesting: If you choose to bring a lawsuit instead of submitting to their arbitration process, you surrender your rights to use PayPal's payment systems. Forever. A Google search for "PayPal sucks" will shed more light on this and other fascinating business practices.

In the words of the great Macklemore

"I call that getting swindled and pimped, I call that getting tricked by a business"

 

[mexicutioner]

how many of these stories about PayPal supposedly ripping sellers off are actually stories about sellers who 1) chose not to follow PayPal's "here's how to sell safely" requirements, and did things such as sending to non-confirmed addresses, 2) got ripped off and weren't protected because they chose not to follow PayPal's guidelines, and 3) complained after the fact about PayPal screwing them?

if a seller chooses to send to a non-confirmed address or whatever, they're making a calculated risk: "i could turn down this sale because the buyer wants me to ship to a non-confirmed address. but i really don't want to lose this sale." if that's the case, PayPal is not at fault, the buyer is for refusing to use the safe selling guidelines. and i say this as someone who got scammed out of ~$1,000 in a single transaction about 8 years ago. learned my lesson, never had a problem since.

also: can't believe grown adults whine about arbitration clauses in contracts. if someone doesn't like a company's terms of service, they're free to a) find a company whose terms they like better, or b) start their own competitor company with better terms of service and take over the bad guy's market share. if someone doesn't like PayPal's TOS, they're free to use MoneyGram, checks sent via mail, meeting up locally to do a cash exchange, etc. if those are too inconvenient, see options 1 and 2. otherwise, use the service and NO WHINING.

edited for rant clarity

 

[pnutpug]



The only problem with suing PayPal has to do with their Terms of Service fine print. In a nutshell, in exchange for the privilege of transacting using their tools, you agree that any formal dispute you have with PayPal will be facilitated through arbitration — and by an arbitrator and a venue of their choosing at that. But here's where it gets interesting: If you choose to bring a lawsuit instead of submitting to their arbitration process, you surrender your rights to use PayPal's payment systems. Forever. A Google search for "PayPal sucks" will shed more light on this and other fascinating business practices.

Exactly right. That's why I opted out of the arbitration-only change in TOS when they gave, as they legally had to, the opportunity--I would never surrender my right to sue those bastards. That they required snail mail to opt out says everything you need to know about the stakes involved. That notable glitch had slipped my mind, so glad that someone brought it up. That same change bars you from participating in any class-action lawsuit against PP, but that may only be a theoretical loss of rights, given that a judge recently dismissed a class-action antitrust lawsuit against PP, which apparently has very good lawyers. That's the only reason I can imagine that they manage to get away with the things they get away with.

On a somewhat related note, anyone notice the recent change that makes it impossible to PP funds via a credit card or debit card without incurring fees? Now, they charge fees, and pretty steep ones, unless you give them direct access to your bank account, which eliminates the protections you would otherwise have via the chargeback system. That's for the gift route, which I use pretty much exclusively these days unless I buy something on eBay, which has become pretty rare. I think that the old system may well still be in place that allows you to use a debit or credit card if you're buying something, but I suspect that'll end soon enough.

 

[Evil Abed]

BNWT?

Yup

WOW - Thrift thread First!!!


Found in LA? Thought I might have a better shot on LI if he donated stuff after noticing a hole/stain and already tagged it before pictures.

Yup. Looking forward to hearing more about this one... Also, soon after this picture was taken, a crackhead (and/or bulk flipper) swooped in and picked it up. My apologies in advance if it was one of us.

I just realized the store it was found at is about a mile from where the above picture was shot.

 

[ATLjon]

I'm on the Put This On radar!

Made the listings once again.

 

[aglose]

Kopped the St. Andrews Loro piana jacket but couldn't find the pants checked women's section and men's and kids and women's capris. :/

 

[pnutpug]



how many of these stories about PayPal supposedly ripping sellers off are actually stories about sellers who 1) chose not to follow PayPal's "here's how to sell safely" requirements, and did things such as sending to non-confirmed addresses, 2) got ripped off and weren't protected because they chose not to follow PayPal's guidelines, and 3) complained after the fact about PayPal screwing them?

if a seller chooses to send to a non-confirmed address or whatever, they're making a calculated risk: "i could turn down this sale because the buyer wants me to ship to a non-confirmed address. but i really don't want to lose this sale." if that's the case, i don't see why PayPal is at fault. and i say this as someone who got scammed out of ~$1,000 in a single transaction about 8 years ago. learned my lesson, never had a problem since.

also: can't believe grown adults whine about arbitration clauses in contracts. if someone doesn't like a company's terms of service, they're free to a) find a company whose terms they like better, or b) start their own competitor company with better terms of service and take over the bad guy's market share. if someone doesn't like PayPal's TOS, they're free to use MoneyGram, checks sent via mail, meeting up locally to do a cash exchange, etc. if those are too inconvenient, see options 1 and 2. otherwise, use the service and NO WHINING.

You want a real-life PP rip-off story? I'll give you one.

Sold a pair of shoes to a guy a few years back for $75 or so. I got my money via PP, he got his shoes. Both parties were happy. Then, a month or two later, and completely out of the blue, PP gets in touch and demands that I give them the $75 because the transaction was fraudulent. What the...

So, I get back in touch with the guy who made the purchase who had already PM'd shortly after the transaction that he loved the shoes, he re-confirms that he's completely satisfied and so began the most down-the-rabbit-hole saga I have ever experienced with any company. They wouldn't say just what was fraudulent about the transaction, saying it was none of my business (really, they said it was a confidential matter even though they wanted me to pay), but they did threaten to report me to a credit agency if I didn't give them the money they demanded, and they were not at all nice about it. They hung their hat on the fact that I had mailed the shoes to an address other than the one on the PP account (that's how I learned about that), but still could not, would not, say how the transaction was fraudulent, given that both the buyer and the seller had no complaints, and I spoke to the buyer by telephone in addition to communicating via PMs. I still don't know why they went after me. Whatever it was, it was clear to me that PP was somehow getting the short end of the stick and trying to stick it to me with any excuse they could find, in this case the didn't-use-the-right-address trick. I spent more than three hours on the phone over the course of two days with one idiot after the other at PP until finally, and suddenly, they surrendered. To PP's credit, when I asked that they send me $25 as a token of goodwill, they did. But it was three hours of dealing with mush heads that I will never get back. If you want another horror story, I can give you one. The Reader's Digest version is, PP held $1,500 of my funds for more than three weeks for no good reason but with plenty of excuses that didn't hold water. I finally got my money back, but it was a nightmare, and all they did was lie and obfuscate and make excuses while I sweated making the mortgage payment. Again, if you want details, I've got 'em. In spades.

So, why would I continue dealing with PP after all of that? News flash: If you transact business on the Internet, you really have no other choice, and it totally sucks. You try buying something with a check or MoneyGram or whatever these days and see how that goes in an online transaction, and don't bother trying that at all on eBay (which owns PP) because guess what? At last check, you weren't even allowed to use the words "money order" in an eBay listing. I'll never understand how this passes anti-trust muster, but it does, most recently last month when yet another class-action got tossed. As for arbitration, any lawyer will tell you that you should never surrender your right to sue.

If anyone has a realistic alternative to PP, I'd love to know what it is. I avoid PP as much as possible, I transfer money out of my PP account as quickly as it comes in and I don't ship things until the transfer is complete and the money is in my bank account. Call all of this whining if you want. I call it learning the hard way.

 

[pnutpug]



In the words of the great Macklemore

"I call that getting swindled and pimped, I call that getting tricked by a business"

Beautiful, and so true.

 

[Orgetorix]



I'm on the Put This On radar!

Made the listings once again.

I thought for sure I'd made it in the roundup yesterday when an item I'd had sitting on a BINOBO for weeks suddenly got three offers from three different people within the space of 30 minutes. Wasn't PTO, though; not sure if I got linked somewhere else or what.

 

[Garasaki]

Kopped the St. Andrews Loro piana jacket but couldn't find the pants

checked women's section and men's and kids and women's capris. :/

It seems like the forum perspective on using suit coats as orphan sports jackets (if you will) is very negative. If the suit coat has a good fit, and you can put it in an outfit that looks good with non matching pants, what is the aversion?

School me on this.

 

[Fueco]

Quote:

I dislike that song immensely, but I did think it was funny hearing it while I was at a local Savers last week.

 

[capnwes]

It seems like the forum perspective on using suit coats as orphan sports jackets (if you will) is very negative. If the suit coat has a good fit, and you can put it in an outfit that looks good with non matching pants, what is the aversion?

School me on this.

That would be fine....but typically won't work well for a pinstripe jacket.

Read HERE but disregard the photo....was actually a suit (pants were cropped out)