Well. That's a nice change of pace.....

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:00 am

So, here's the guy I sued last year....

...and won.

Who still hasn't paid the judgement, by the way...the jerkoff arsewipe FOUGHT me in court, LOST, and STILL hasn't paid the judgement. REAL scummy scumbag.

So, his account was "dbajuniorswarehouse"....

I noticed a listing yesterday that looked like his, but it was under a new name....so I checked his OLD account....and lo and behold, he's NARU'd!

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d ... llFeedback

His feedback is ATROCIOUS.

Well, if his OLD account is NARU'd, he can't have a NEW account....

So, I reported him.

And today....

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d ... llFeedback

The system works!

Yay!

(to be honest, his "new" name wasn't very clever....)

You know what's funny, and a REALLY good example of why the OLD feedback rules didn't work....?

Before I had the misfortune of running across him two years ago, he had received ONE negative and TWO neutrals from THREE buyers, total.

Not even counting the negs which have evaporated from others also NARU'd, the guy received TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY EIGHT more negs/neutrals in the span of a year and a half.

Scary, huh?

IanAlexavier · Post by **IanAlexavier** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:12 am

WOW!! Thats pathetic! Its nice to give the guy a chance if he only has a few feedback.. but who are the people who kept buying from him when his negs surpassed his positives??

Im glad eBay is on to him.. thanks to a little assistance

maraxusofkeld · Post by **maraxusofkeld** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:49 pm

If the guy had that bad of feedback, why buy from at all?

Dr. Solar · Post by **Dr. Solar** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:12 pm

Nice to see the system work

h-comics · Post by **h-comics** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:02 pm

I give it a big

.

Jesse

robb77 · Post by **robb77** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:35 am

nice

Moe's Tavern · Post by **Moe's Tavern** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:57 pm

the correct spelling is judgment. there is no e in it.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:55 pm

Moe's Tavern wrote:the correct spelling is judgment. there is no e in it.

Really?

You think so....?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgement

*SQUEE* · Post by ***SQUEE*** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:42 am

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
Moe's Tavern wrote:the correct spelling is judgment. there is no e in it.
Really?

You think so....?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgement

It has begun!

whovianone · Post by **whovianone** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:39 am

*SQUEE* wrote:
ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
Moe's Tavern wrote:the correct spelling is judgment. there is no e in it.
Really?

You think so....?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgement
It has begun!

Maybe it's an unofficial new dialect. Remember that ebonics was not accepted for some time....

Let's call it, dooshonics?

(I kid, I kid.

)

Brother J · Post by **Brother J** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:48 am

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
Moe's Tavern wrote:the correct spelling is judgment. there is no e in it.
Really?

You think so....?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgement

I could be wrong, but it looks like that page is a re-direct to "judgment". It says "judgement" is some kind of variant, so I guess ZWH was using the "variant cover edition" of the word...

I'm just glad Moe's Tavern was here to correct that evil ZWH's atrocious use of the English language!

BloodOfHeroes · Post by **BloodOfHeroes** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:01 am

An Anglophile like ZWH should be expected to use the "variant" spelling.

Don't throw stones, folks. Especially when you haven't the facts.

BloodOfHeroes · Post by **BloodOfHeroes** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:02 am

moustache!!

Moe's Tavern · Post by **Moe's Tavern** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:51 pm

here's my link, which could beat up your puny nerd-link!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103064/