Fraud alert! In relation to selling bikes.

slacker said:

The Slacker (who can be very cunning if it becomes necessary).

Just not cunning enough not to fall for one of the oldest tricks in the
book.

;-)

slacker said:

The other part of the scam is the "shipping cost" will be
significantly larger than the value of the bike. The scammer will
ask that the "shipping cost" is transferred via (someone like)
Western Union to an address (probably) in the U. S. of A.

Thanks for the heads up - but why is he charging you shipping for a bike
you are selling to him?

Tony

Tony Raven [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the heads up - but why is he charging you shipping for a bike
you are selling to him?

Apologies if the above was sarcasm on your part but...

This is one of the greatest scams.

a) You advertise a product for sale.
b) "Bob" contacts you and agrees to buy it.
c) "Bob" would like it shipped abroad, but agrees to pay the postage.
d) "Bob" has a contact ("Charles"😉 in the UK who owes him money so he
has agreed that "Charles" sends you a cheque (In your name) for the
money that he owes "Bob".
e) You are to deduct the agreed amount + the postage and use Western
Union to transfer the remainder to "Bob".
f) If you get this far without smelling a scam, you post the product to
"Bob", cash his cheque and transfer the appropriate some, wondering at
the trusting nature of some individuals and at how easy it would have
been to scam him.
g) The cheque bounces, you have paid "Bob" a considerable sum of money
_and_ he's been sent whatever it was you were selling for free!

Search for the P-P-P-Powerbook to read a very funny story of the guys
who got even!

Jon

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

g) The cheque bounces, you have paid "Bob" a considerable sum of money
_and_ he's been sent whatever it was you were selling for free!

The whole thing sounds crazy, as a seller gets funds *in* not *out*, but the
stupidest thing would be to count an uncleared cheque as "cash"!

Jon Senior said:

Tony Raven [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the heads up - but why is he charging you shipping for a bike
you are selling to him?

Apologies if the above was sarcasm on your part but...

This is one of the greatest scams.

I know that scam but it didn't seem to tally with the OP's comments
about the shipping charge,

Tony

Adrian Boliston said:

The whole thing sounds crazy, as a seller gets funds *in* not *out*,

That, of course, is why people (apparently) fall for it.

Quoted message said:

but the
stupidest thing would be to count an uncleared cheque as "cash"!

Well, AIUI, cheques can appear cleared initially and then subsequently
bounce. Ie "cleared funds" are only cleared on the assumption that the
cheque will not subsequently be found to be fraudulent. Not sure about
this but it's what I've heard.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Quoted message said:

Well, AIUI, cheques can appear cleared initially and then subsequently
bounce. Ie "cleared funds" are only cleared on the assumption that the
cheque will not subsequently be found to be fraudulent. Not sure about
this but it's what I've heard.

AFAIK you're right. The bank will (normally) even allow you to withdraw
all or some of the value of the cheque on the strength of the cheque[1] on
the understanding that you pay the fine if it bounces.

[1] Yes, I know that may not make sense, but it's one thirty in the morning
and I'm pleasantly drunk. I'm working on the assumption that anyone that
reads usenet is intelligent enough to know what I'm prattling on about, and
those that read this ng through cyclingforums are second class citizens so
no one cares if they can't understand :-P

Tony Raven [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Jon Senior said:

Tony Raven [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the heads up - but why is he charging you shipping for a bike
you are selling to him?

Apologies if the above was sarcasm on your part but...

This is one of the greatest scams.

I know that scam but it didn't seem to tally with the OP's comments
about the shipping charge,

I must confess, I just jumped to that conclusion based on what I'd seen
and read earlier. I assumed that the OP was was referring to the large
payment that would be made for a relatively small charge and the rest of
the post seemed to tie in with that particular scam!

Jon

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:> Well, AIUI, cheques can appear cleared initially and then subsequently
: > bounce. Ie "cleared funds" are only cleared on the assumption that the
: > cheque will not subsequently be found to be fraudulent. Not sure about
: > this but it's what I've heard.
:
: AFAIK you're right. The bank will (normally) even allow you to withdraw
: all or some of the value of the cheque on the strength of the cheque[1] on
: the understanding that you pay the fine if it bounces.
:
: [1] Yes, I know that may not make sense, but it's one thirty in the
morning
: and I'm pleasantly drunk. I'm working on the assumption that anyone that
: reads usenet is intelligent enough to know what I'm prattling on about,
and
: those that read this ng through cyclingforums are second class citizens so
: no one cares if they can't understand :-P

Aye, your prattle is about right :-). I sold something to an ebayer, cheque
cleared according to my internet banking, then a week later the bank
returned the cheque to me saying that it'd bounced. Took me 2 months to get
the money, but got it in the end.

Rob

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Well, AIUI, cheques can appear cleared initially and then
subsequently bounce. Ie "cleared funds" are only cleared on the
assumption that the cheque will not subsequently be found to be
fraudulent. Not sure about this but it's what I've heard.

AFAIK you're right. The bank will (normally) even allow you to
withdraw all or some of the value of the cheque on the strength of
the cheque[1] on the understanding that you pay the fine if it
bounces.

[1] Yes, I know that may not make sense, but it's one thirty in the
morning and I'm pleasantly drunk. I'm working on the assumption that
anyone that reads usenet is intelligent enough to know what I'm
prattling on about, and those that read this ng through cyclingforums
are second class citizens so no one cares if they can't understand :-P

Aiee I must be a right thick [censored]. I've read comments here about
cycling forums in the past but it didnt dawn on me till just now that
when I make a post to this NG it is being read by 'outsiders' who
dont subscribe to the Group but can make replies to it.

Is this a common practise and does it happen elsewhere on Usenet?

in message <[email hidden]>, taywood

(') said:

Mark Thompson said:

I'm working on the assumption that
anyone that reads usenet is intelligent enough to know what I'm
prattling on about, and those that read this ng through cyclingforums
are second class citizens so no one cares if they can't understand

Aiee I must be a right thick [censored]. I've read comments here about
cycling forums in the past but it didnt dawn on me till just now that
when I make a post to this NG it is being read by 'outsiders' who
dont subscribe to the Group but can make replies to it.

Is this a common practise and does it happen elsewhere on Usenet?

Gatewaying Usenet feeds into web forums is done in other areas as well.
It allows the freeloading scum who run the web forum to appear to have
lots of content and lively discussion, which in turn attracts readers
and inflates their advertising revenue.

Unfortunately there probably isn't much one can do about it, except to
be consistently offensive towards the owners of the forum until they
stop their thieving piracy - hence the title of this subthread. They
can switch of their Usenet feed, so it's up to those of us who object
to make it in their interests to do so.

Furthermore, of course, the people who actually _read_ web forums are
not worse than us - they're pretty much the same as us except younger.
Usenet is an ancient and arcane system and new net users on the whole
do not get introduced to, so the average Usenet user is older (and more
geeky) than the average Web user.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --

Simon Brooke said:

Gatewaying Usenet feeds into web forums is done in other areas as well.
It allows the freeloading scum who run the web forum to appear to have
lots of content and lively discussion, which in turn attracts readers
and inflates their advertising revenue.

Unfortunately there probably isn't much one can do about it, except to
be consistently offensive towards the owners of the forum until they
stop their thieving piracy - hence the title of this subthread. They
can switch of their Usenet feed, so it's up to those of us who object
to make it in their interests to do so.

Furthermore, of course, the people who actually _read_ web forums are
not worse than us - they're pretty much the same as us except younger.
Usenet is an ancient and arcane system and new net users on the whole
do not get introduced to, so the average Usenet user is older (and more
geeky) than the average Web user.

Apart from the copyright issue, I have mixed feelings about this. I
don't like the cyclingforums filching my urc posts to fill their pages
and the fact that it leads to non-sequiturs when a cyclingforum thread
spreads over into urc. OTOH for some reason I don't feel the same way
about Google lifting and reproducing my posts for anyone to search
because I use it myself quite often.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Apart from the copyright issue, I have mixed feelings about this. I
don't like the cyclingforums filching my urc posts to fill their pages
and the fact that it leads to non-sequiturs when a cyclingforum thread
spreads over into urc. OTOH for some reason I don't feel the same way
about Google lifting and reproducing my posts for anyone to search
because I use it myself quite often.

I can't really see the problem: as you've noted, google have done it for
years (dejanews before) and I consider that to be a service rather than
parasitic. If others wish to propagate usenet further and manage to use
advertising revenue to fund it, good luck to them. Obviously enough
people do like the web-based interface and it causes no real problems here.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 21:32:59 +0900, in <[email hidden]>,

James Annan said:

Tony Raven said:

Apart from the copyright issue, I have mixed feelings about this. I
don't like the cyclingforums filching my urc posts to fill their pages
and the fact that it leads to non-sequiturs when a cyclingforum thread
spreads over into urc. OTOH for some reason I don't feel the same way
about Google lifting and reproducing my posts for anyone to search
because I use it myself quite often.

I can't really see the problem: as you've noted, google have done it for
years (dejanews before) and I consider that to be a service rather than
parasitic. If others wish to propagate usenet further and manage to use
advertising revenue to fund it, good luck to them. Obviously enough
people do like the web-based interface and it causes no real problems here.

Google (and previously Deja) advertise a way to stop your posts from
being archived. Cyclingforums do not.

I wrote to google several months ago and suggested that they
implemented an opt-in: i.e. a header along the lines of
X-Google-Archive=YES, which could then be followed with
X-No-Archive=YES

They said good idea but it might take many years.

--
"Any accidents or injuries in the last two years, sir"?

"Yes. I broke my hand last month, punching a no-win-no-fee lawyer
in the mouth".

Quoted message said:

I can't really see the problem: as you've noted, google have done it
for years (dejanews before) and I consider that to be a service rather
than parasitic. If others wish to propagate usenet further and manage
to use advertising revenue to fund it, good luck to them. Obviously
enough people do like the web-based interface and it causes no real
problems here.

Just had a looksie at their site and to be fair they do try and make it
clear it is a simple usenet feed:

"This forum is a gateway to the uk.rec.cycling usenet newsgroup. Any posts
you make in this forum will be propagated to usenet.
Please read our USENET FAQ before using this section!"

I also liked the latest post bit by each of the groups - when I visited it
the latest post was in this thread :-)

James Annan said:

I can't really see the problem: as you've noted, google have done it for
years (dejanews before) and I consider that to be a service rather than
parasitic. If others wish to propagate usenet further and manage to use
advertising revenue to fund it, good luck to them. Obviously enough
people do like the web-based interface and it causes no real problems here.

No real problems due to the technology, no. Problems with the
contributors? I couldn't possibly comment ;-)

Guy

Julia Chapman [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Guy

Is there something you're not telling us Guy? Are there any side effects
from the HRT?

:-)

Jon

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

Gatewaying Usenet feeds into web forums is done in other areas as
well. It allows the freeloading scum who run the web forum to appear
to have lots of content and lively discussion, which in turn attracts
readers and inflates their advertising revenue.

Unfortunately there probably isn't much one can do about it, except
to be consistently offensive towards the owners of the forum until
they stop their thieving piracy - hence the title of this subthread.
They can switch of their Usenet feed, so it's up to those of us who
object to make it in their interests to do so.

Furthermore, of course, the people who actually _read_ web forums are
not worse than us - they're pretty much the same as us except
younger. Usenet is an ancient and arcane system and new net users on
the whole do not get introduced to, so the average Usenet user is
older (and more geeky) than the average Web user.

Apart from the copyright issue, I have mixed feelings about this. I
don't like the cyclingforums filching my urc posts to fill their pages
and the fact that it leads to non-sequiturs when a cyclingforum thread
spreads over into urc. OTOH for some reason I don't feel the same way
about Google lifting and reproducing my posts for anyone to search
because I use it myself quite often.

Google are not mis-representing and passing-off our content as their
own. moreover, Google honour X-no-archive, if you are stressed about
Google using your content.

Frankly, I wouldn't be nearly so pissy about cycleforums if posts
originating from there were not so frequently ill-formatted and totally
context-free. If they provided a competent user interface and a good
guide to netiquette so that people quoted an appropriate amount in a
conventional way with proper attribution, and responded after what they
were responding to, I could live with the advertising. A _good_
Web/Usenet gateway would be a valuable thing for those people who think
that the Web is all there is to the net.

I suppose I ought to write one.

[three hours later] I've now wasted the better part of a warm and sunny
Saturday hacking code and poring over RFCs. *And* I've missed the tide.
I _am_ mad, aren't I? Time to get a bike out.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; all in all you're just another click in the call
;; -- Minke Bouyed

It seems that your rant is their command:

Quoted message said:

Google are not mis-representing and passing-off our content as their
own.

<url:http://www.cyclingforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=171>
uk.rec.cycling archive
This forum is a gateway to the uk.rec.cycling usenet newsgroup. Any posts
you make in this forum will be propagated to usenet.
Please read our USENET FAQ before using this section!

From the faq: <url:http://www.cyclingforums.com/t74445.html>

Q: What is USENET?
A: For a short answer goto:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/defini...i213262,00.html
For the detailed answer goto: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-
is/part1/

Q: Why are they here?
A: cyclingforums.com provide a gateway to the selected cycling and
health/fitness related newsgroups.
Some people find it difficult to set up their news reader. Others do not
know the newsgroups exist.

Q: Can cyclingforums.com control the contents?
A: No, this is simply a gateway, most of the posts are not posted by
cyclingforums.com members. These posts are not moderated!

Quoted message said:

moreover, Google honour X-no-archive, if you are stressed about
Google using your content.

Q: How can I stop my newsgroup post from appearing on cyclingforums.com?
A: Our gateway will honor 'X-No-Archive: Yes' headers, read you[r] news
clients help files for info on how to add this setting.

Quoted message said:

If they provided a <snip> good
guide to netiquette

Q: What should I know before I post?
A: Newsgroup netiquette:
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/introduction.html