... that I could have posted only a single negative feedback. I don't feel bad about having given this guy four of them (and so far, combined BB posts and emails are running just about 2-1 favorable, for whatever that's worth).

>> The point we are making, Jim, is that you were not
>> harmed in the least by the seller.

I disagree, JB. I was not harmed by the US Postal Service, no thanks to the seller.

>> You fully agreed to all that was discussed prior to you legally paying for
>> the goods and the method of shipment via the USPS.

I did NOT agree to the method of shipment (unprotected in a regular envelope) and would not have agreed to pay the fee if I'd known that was what he intended to do.

>> You even refused the offer when the seller wanted to adjust the shipping
>> charge from $5 to $3.50 on two of the chip shipments.

Yes, because it was conditioned on my agreeing to post positive feedback, which I considered somewhat like "feedback extortion".

>> This is what bothers those who feel you were "wrong" and "hearltess."

As I said in another post, I didn't put this information on the board here seeking validation of my decision to neg this seller. I'm comfortable with my decision to do so and if similar circumstances arise again in the future, will do so again.

>> In return, you feel a need for alert in a manner that could "harm" this
>> person's business because you were not careful enough and "assumed" and
>> "expected" how he would send the chips.

I have already received email from two other potential buyers, based on the feedback. One asked for the exchange of email; I sent it to her; she wrote back thanking me for warning her and saying that she will not do business with this seller.

As for the shipping, when I order ANYTHING from ANY seller, I assume that he, she or it will know how to ship the item in a way that will not unnecessarily expose it to potential harm, especially when I have paid TOP DOLLAR for shipping. It is not my job to educate every seller about how to conduct his business, nor do I have either the time or the inclination to do so.

>> Since you received the chips in good order ...

Pure fortuity.

>> ... and got exactly what you paid for ...

No, I didn't. I got the chips I paid for, but not the service.

>> ... you should not have left him four (4) negative feedbacks for the
>> sole reason of poor shipping that did not result in any loss to you.

We'll just have to disagree on that point.

>> You could have had the same results of calling our attention to this
>> seller by simply posting a message here.

As far as the people here are concerned, that's true. What about everyone on eBay who doesn't happen to read this board (such as the two buyers mentioned above)?

>> The slap in the face and the harm that can be caused
>> by your action was totally uncalled for...

Guess we'll have to disagree on that one, too.

>> ... not ony in my opinion, but in the opinion of others who stated
>> you were "heartless" and out of place in your action.

As I said above, overall response is more favorable than unfavorable.

>> Sorry to say this, Jim, but you very well know that in a court of law you
>> would not have had a leg to stand on by taking the action you did solely for
>> what you consider poor shipping that did not result in any damage to the
>> chips or harm to you.

John, you've completely lost sight of my purpose here (and the purpose of the eBay feedback system). None of this would have any place in a court of law at all. And if this guy sues me for posting negative feedback (which is the only way this could get into a court of law), do you really think he can "win"? And if so, win what? For what?

>> A simple explanation to the seller would have been
>> much better than a slap in the face.

Do you really believe that? The guy has four other negatives for essentially the same stuff already. None of it seems to have had any effect on him.

>> Any person reading his descriptions should notice his shipping fee is grossly >> out of line (as you noticed, but agreed to) ...

I'm not sure what you mean by that last comment, John. This problem arose because I DIDN'T notice the shipping charges and therefore did not "agree" to them, except in the legal sense that once I placed a bid, I was bound by the terms even though I hadn't noticed them.

>> ... and should avoid his auctions under those conditions.
>> There is no good reason for him to charge what he does.

Well, we do agree on that point! <g>

>> My purpose for this post, Jim, is to make a point that we should not post
>> negative feedback because we feel offended that others do not meet our
>> expectations and have not breached any agreement or caused us harm or loss.

Well, I disagree with that conclusion completely. Failure of a seller to meet a buyer's expectations in a commercial transaction is a perfectly good reason for the seller to state a complaint -- in the eBay context, the only effective way to do that is to post negative feedback. I remain of the opinion that this seller DID breach our implied agreement to ship the chips in a safe, professional manner.

I now recognize, thanks to the post by Peter Sanders, that there is almost certainly something else going on here, too (fee avoidance). Should have occurred to me when Robert Pardue posted his economic analysis of the transaction. The total cost was somewhat higher than would normally be the case, but the charge subject to eBay fees was considerably smaller than would be the case in a normal transaction.

----- jim o\-S