|
|
Titles
Jan 19, 2008 9:43:23 GMT -5
Post by instantpaydayloans on Jan 19, 2008 9:43:23 GMT -5
As a something awful regular, I can't condone Paypal.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 19, 2008 16:18:54 GMT -5
Post by Kira on Jan 19, 2008 16:18:54 GMT -5
Well, Paypal is the easiest solution to keeping your creditcard and stuff anonymous on the internet. It's also pretty quick and easy to setup/use.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 19, 2008 16:21:38 GMT -5
Post by instantpaydayloans on Jan 19, 2008 16:21:38 GMT -5
Whether it's easy or not, no Paypal. reason |
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 19, 2008 16:26:09 GMT -5
Post by Kira on Jan 19, 2008 16:26:09 GMT -5
Well, that may be the case. But they were promising relief to the victims, and offered no proof that they'd been giving it. Also, with a heavy influx of money into an account that has a 75% chance of being a scam, can you really blame them? I wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 19, 2008 16:33:21 GMT -5
Post by instantpaydayloans on Jan 19, 2008 16:33:21 GMT -5
75% chance, what are you basing that on?
Paypal's response was unreasonable, so I'll not support them.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 19, 2008 16:36:42 GMT -5
Post by Kira on Jan 19, 2008 16:36:42 GMT -5
All truth out, 75% was a random guess. But in all I've seen it's an alright one. Basically 3 out of every 4 "Donate for such effort" is going to be a scam. All, or some, of your money will not reach the intended target. That's just how human nature works.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 19, 2008 16:48:05 GMT -5
Post by instantpaydayloans on Jan 19, 2008 16:48:05 GMT -5
And how many of those scams are caused by a crooked organization? It's not the people giving the money who are doing something wrong. And bring hman nature into the equation, it's far to complicated to be discussed on it's own, let alone with something else.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 19, 2008 17:35:32 GMT -5
Post by Kira on Jan 19, 2008 17:35:32 GMT -5
Well, from what I gathered, in the end the money made it back to the Donators. I'm saying Paypal may or may not have done the right thing. The point is, they reacted accordingly to a possible scam. I'm not saying Paypal did the best thing, but they certainly took the right measures against a possible scam.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 23, 2008 9:54:13 GMT -5
Post by cosmiczombie on Jan 23, 2008 9:54:13 GMT -5
Well I think that Kira is right (God why am I saying this?) because human nature is to be greedy and they were using Paypal in a way that Paypal was not meant to be used so you can understand if they got suspicious.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 23, 2008 19:01:58 GMT -5
Post by Kira on Jan 23, 2008 19:01:58 GMT -5
Well, they may have been sincere (the person) but Paypal can't legally be expected to allow a possible scam on their system. If it turned out to be a scam, they could be sued for not doing anything about it.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 23, 2008 19:03:03 GMT -5
Post by cosmiczombie on Jan 23, 2008 19:03:03 GMT -5
Exactly they are just taking precautions.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 23, 2008 19:05:10 GMT -5
Post by Kira on Jan 23, 2008 19:05:10 GMT -5
And the precautions may or may not have saved them a loss of reputation as a clean site.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 23, 2008 19:11:40 GMT -5
Post by cosmiczombie on Jan 23, 2008 19:11:40 GMT -5
But they are such a frequently used site that would not hurt them so much.
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 23, 2008 19:16:24 GMT -5
Post by Kira on Jan 23, 2008 19:16:24 GMT -5
A scam would hurt them a lot. Especially one they didn't deal with. It's all about credibility, and if they let you lose money, where's their credibility?
|
|
|
|
Titles
Jan 23, 2008 19:17:39 GMT -5
Post by cosmiczombie on Jan 23, 2008 19:17:39 GMT -5
There is no doubt that they lost credibility but people still use them.
|
|
