Taking PayPal as payment for guns

[TGO David]

Do payment as a gift or as money owed. Accept the risks and move on with it if you're so inclined.

[Guest nicemac]

thats your take on it I would disagree with you - sending cash is just that ,it has zero bearing on TOS

and the only thing you would use paypal for is for a recourse or help getting moneys refunded if you

got hosed over buy a seller and marked it as GOODS SOLD and believe me paypal does a shooddy job of that......Cash transactions do not

get the benefit of the paypal help if you get screwed .......but I have never been screwed by a gunner,even when I mailed a check

Classifying a transaction as a gift to avoid the fees associated with using the service is fraud, plain and simple. You can justify it as just being "my take on it" if you choose, but it is still fraud. If I had someone wanting to send me money and they suggested doing that, I would decline. The intent to defraud PayPal reveals their character.

“Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught.â€

J.C. Watts

"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."

Luke

[TGO David]

Or you could look at it as "Operating within the parameters given". If that reveals a character flaw, so be it.

[Guest nicemac]

You certainly don't have that attitude when it comes to YOUR terms of service here on TGO.

[TGO David]

You certainly don't have that attitude when it comes to YOUR terms of service here on TGO.

Nice. Feeling argumentative today? I'm not and am too busy for this ####. I voiced my opinion. As surely as you'll get smacked down by Paypal if they catch you, you'll get smacked down by me or a moderator here if we catch you violating our TOS. The point being, if you can live with the consequences in either situation, then the risk may be acceptable to you.

I'm glad I was able to connect point A to point B for you and complete the point I was making rather than you ponder it for yourself until you got it.

[Guest nicemac]

Believe me, I understood where you stood well before your response.

[TGO David]

Believe me, I understood where you stood well before your response.

If you understood my point from the outset, why did you feel the need to turn it into a strawman argument? Clearly I was not advocating anyone violate their TOS yet you felt compelled to try and draw a superficial parallel to our TOS and insinuate that the two matters are somehow similar.

Seems wasteful.

[Guest nicemac]

If I don't agree with a "terms of service" agreement, I wouldn't use the service. I wouldn't violate the contract (and that is what agreeing to a terms of service agreement is) and claim to be "operating within the parameters given…"

I am not going to argue with you (and wasn't). We apparently just have different ethical standards.

[Oh Shoot]

Classifying a transaction as a gift to avoid the fees associated with using the service is fraud, plain and simple. ....

Every time I've sent money as a "gift" a dialogue asks whether I or the recipient will pay the transaction fee.

- OS

[TGO David]

I am not going to argue with you (and wasn't). We apparently just have different ethical standards.

I wouldn't doubt that at all.

[TGO David]

Every time I've sent money as a "gift" a dialogue asks whether I or the recipient will pay the transaction fee.

- OS

Gifts are subject to fees. Payment for money owed is not.