posted on April 27, 2001 08:22:13 AM new
<<<PAYPAL IN THE NEWS>>>
Please do not post personal stories in this thread. Please do post news and information concerning PayPal. If you know of an article, please post the source (Name, date, issue..) information. If it's online, please post the full link.
TO GET THINGS STARTED>>>
As per the California Better Business Bureau:
"PayPal acts as a third party between the recipient and the sender of an online money transaction. Our file experience shows that PayPal has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to a pattern of complaints alleging that the company requires too much personal information in order to withdraw funds and that the consumer is unable to reach a customer service representative. The company responds to all complaints brought to its attention by the Bureau"
"...But consumers are finding out the hard way that, while it may be quick and easy, PayPal lacks many of the protections of banks and credit card companies..."
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/online/paypal.html
Do a search on thier site for PayPal.
---------------------------------------------
c|net
When Internet convenience costs a bundle
""...PayPal had placed a temporary "hold" on his checking account for each instant payment. In addition, an equal amount had been electronically withdrawn by PayPal to pay the recipient...""
--------------------------------------------
Finextra.com
Customer complaints dog PayPal
"...Our file experience shows that X.com has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to a pattern of complaints alleging that accounts are being opened without the consumers consent and by third parties..."
posted on April 27, 2001 09:48:11 AM new
How about including dates on the links, there's a lot of very old stories out there, that are just that, old news.
posted on April 27, 2001 10:42:00 AM new
Hi loggia,
I can drop in some positive links if you like. I can also cover the BBB issue, the salon.com issue, and just about any post you throw up. (Many of the BBB issues were from first time users and we have cut complaints in half. The salon.com issue covers the gentleman posting in the forum. Cybersource is our processing vendor for validating credit cards to reduce fraud. We have made some policy adjustments that require the user sending in documentation if there card is rejected. Rejections occur because it may be a sign of potential credit card fraud).
And uaru is not a PayPal employee.
Where are the articles about the 20,000 users added per day? 7 million+ members? The nearaly 200 million in financing received to date? Our international expansion? Our business deals with Intuit? The fraud rings busted?
It is very easy to provide selective information on the net. I would hope that any reader of any forum would check multiple sources, not just one, before making an informed decision about the service.
posted on April 27, 2001 01:22:12 PM new
I think you're confusing me with the person who posted the thread. But I did post some articles on the problems with CyberSource...
posted on April 27, 2001 01:36:23 PM new
Hi loggia,
My apologies if it was mis-directed.
Cybersource is our processing vendor for credit cards. These checks prevent or spot potential credit card fraud. We do have a policy in place where users that are impacted through registration can have the issue resolved, but it does require documentation (also a fraud issue).
Last year, these policies were largely not in place, but we do have workarounds for many issues relative to rejected credit cards.
posted on April 27, 2001 02:11:39 PM new
My initial interest concerning PayPal stemmed from my own personal dissatisfaction with their business practices. With little effort, I found that many others had similar complaints. I started this thread hoping that other members could aid me in my research. I welcome posts (not that I have control) containing links to positive information as well. I would not want to pen a biased article nor would an editor at any reputable publication print it.
I had anticipated company spin as well. The Better Business Bureau reported PayPal as having an unsatisfactory rating after receiving 30 to 40 complaints a month. Paypaldom response: “Many of the BBB issues were from first time users and we have cut complaints in half.” Is PayPal now satisfied that they have only 15 to 20 complaints a month?
posted on April 27, 2001 02:44:14 PM newIs PayPal now satisfied that they have only 15 to 20 complaints a month?
Probably not, but it helps to put those numbers in perspective. PayPal is doing or did 150,000 to 200,000 transactions a day. Each one of those transactions has two customers, the buyer and seller. We're talking at least 4.5 million transactions a month. If you saw the Reuter's article I linked it mentioned PayPal's volume has doubled in the last 4 months, and it's complaint numbers according to Damon have been cut in half.
Loggia, I'm not Damon and I don't appreciate you hinting I'm some sort of shill, understand that.
posted on April 27, 2001 05:44:53 PM new
uaru, what exactly are you? I understand the motivations behind someone displeased with or working for the company spending so much time writing and responding to posts.
posted on April 27, 2001 06:26:50 PM newuaru, what exactly are you? I understand the motivations behind someone displeased with or working for the company spending so much time writing and responding to posts.
A fair question. I'm a guy that has played online since the speed limit was 300 baud. I ran a BBS for many years before the internet was what it is today. The evolution of the online world has amazed me and continues to amaze me. Sometimes a program comes along like PayPal that really makes big steps. I like mavericks, I like trail blazers, I admire the little guy that can take an idea and make it function. Will PayPal be the dominate player in the market they established? I don't know. Will the idea of emailing funds between individuals go away? No, I firmly believe it is an evolutional step in the history of currency from seashells to beads to coins to paper money to checks to credit cards to email funds.
Like I said I like mavericks. PayPal was able to take an idea and really make people take notice, others like ExchangePath, PayPlace, PayMe, etc tried to copy it and failed. Corporate giants like Wells Fargo, CitiGroup, First Data (Western Union), Yahoo, have had their collective butts kicked by an young upstart daring to try something that nobody else had made work. I enjoy watching a company that blazes a trail. Blazing the trail is much harder than those that follow down it when they realize someone's gamble and innovation is worth mimicking.
Damon's job is one I wouldn't have in a million years. Imagine a blind customer service rep that has to field questions that are done in public and remain visible. Questions from thousands of people that may or may not have a hidden agenda. I suppose some of the posts I make supporting Damon are out of pity. Nobody should be put in such a lion's den.
I don't work for PayPal in any way shape or form. I use PayPal and I've used the other services also mostly out of curiosity.
You do make a very valid point, those displeased over a transaction are going to be much more motivated to make posts than the average person that has had nothing but satisfactory service.
I have to say I understand your point of view here, and that I have also posted in support of PayPal in the past. The last couple of days have been a turning point for me, though.
I'm sure everybody will have their own opinion on this subject, but my opinion is that PayPal's customer service rep is a liability.
I have had a PayPal account for a while now, and have been debating whether or not to upgrade from a personal to a business account. After the latest exchange with their rep here on AW, I cannot justify in my mind trusting my finances with the company. Any business that considers the performance I have seen here as acceptable doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
Among the problems...
* Repeatedly answering question A as though it were question B.
* Ignoring questions (the hard ones) entirely.
* Regularly addressing the wrong person when regurgitating non-answers.
And as for these comments...
Questions from thousands of people that may or may not have a hidden agenda.
If that is so, isn't it just the slightest bit possible that the PayPal rep has a hidden agenda of his own?
Nobody should be put in such a lion's den.
I would think that it would be much less of a den if he would just answer questions honestly, without the constant spin. I'm sure the manner in which he interacts with customers here is not entirely up to him, but I have as hard a time finding any more sympathy for him than I do for the people who phone you at dinnertime and try to sell you stuff. Slavery was outlawed long ago- if you don't like the job, you find a new one.
So there you have it- PayPal's own rep has cost them a customer. I'm sure the loss of my business will not even be a blip on their radar screen, but I will be sure to let anybody who is interested know what I think of the company.
posted on April 27, 2001 08:47:14 PM new
I have a business account, and using it to transfer funds from buyers to my bank, from my bank to vendors, from bank to bank to transfer funds, and now debit payments directly from my account has made it a very attractive tool saving me both time and money. I'd pay more for less going to any other service.
The active bank account is an issue that is moot for me. There is no way I'm going to have checks mailed to me. I'd no more do that than I'd board a plane in LA and fly to Chicago to take the bus to NY. None of my regular income comes to me directly, they are all done by direct deposit, checks are expensive for the issuer, and a pain in the butt for me to deposit.
I've seen the dialog over bank account validations, they've been going on for 9 months and if I can think of several reason's for an active account on file since I'm not an employee I can speculate (Damon can't) , 1) validation of a customer by a second financial institution that remains current 2) a customer that will be able to take advantage of electronic transfers lowering cost and increasing profits 3) A place where in cases of fraud they could possibly have a court order to retrieve funds.
I honestly believe that Damon doesn't have an an authorized answer supplied for him. He'll anger some people that find the answer paramount to them and they in turn will become liabilities on message boards that's regretable but Damon would be an ex employee a few hours after he started making policy instead of reporting it. Maybe PayPal's making a mistake trying to answer on an anonymous message board, I don't know that any of the other payment services have found that a wise move.
I've got accounts with several other services, I believe all require an active account either as a means of withdrawing funds or as a requirement to have a limit high enough to actually benefit from the service. One service reqired my social security number, I really had no idea why, their's no interest involved, no FDIC involved, but I'm not principled enough to refuse a service to a bona fide company because of a requirement that I can easily supply. I'm too old to battle windmills I suppose.
I honestly believe that Damon doesn't have an an authorized answer supplied for him.
For me, this is the heart of the matter. If he doesn't have an answer, he should say just that. I am so tired of "spin" I could just spit. Tell me what the story is, and let me make a decison. Insisting that a nonsense "answer" that doesn't address the question is really a proper response is an insult to the intelligence of those who are asking for information.
The constant refrain of "I've already answered that question and I will not answer it again." when, in fact, he has actually been answering a different question is incredibly maddening. It doesn't take a careful reading of the posts here to see that there are many people who are frustrated by the evasiveness of the responses to their questions, so I know it's not just me.
The money in all those PayPal accounts belongs to the people asking the questions, not Damon- it is not his place to decide for the customer that he has indeed supplied the answers to the questions that were asked. Note that I did not say the answers they wanted to hear- I said the answers to the questions they asked.
It also makes one wonder... if they are willing to be evasive about one thing, what else are they going to try to sneak by their customers? I'm not one who generally subscribes to conspiracy theories, but were I more inclined, the words and actions of this company would be ideal for their cultivation.
posted on April 27, 2001 10:18:46 PM new
Hi mrpotatohead,
I have answered your questions. You may have changed the wording on the question to look for a different response, but you are not going to get a different response for the same question.
If you don't like the answer that I provide, the one that is correct and the one that is company policy, then don't accept it. That is your right.
The company has no ill-intent in keeping information current (and accurate) on our users and there are valid reasons for doing so, which I have covered to the strongest degree possible. Keeping records current is a component of many companies and it is done for a variety of reasons for these organizations, as well as our own.
While I appreciate your persistence in trying to get the answer you want, the answer you want is not there.
(And, yes, I am going to stop covering the same issue with you if I have answered the question time and time again. I do have other customers to assist and the information I provided was correct.)
posted on April 28, 2001 08:42:30 AM new
Gosh, damon- for someone who has claimed repeatedly that he was going to stop covering this issue, you are sure spending a lot of time covering it.
You said the answer provided was corrct? Maybe so, but it is not an answer to the question I asked.
PayPal Logic:
Customer: What is the state capital of California?
PayPal: 17
Customer: You did not answer my question.
PayPal: The answer I gave is correct, and I'm not going to answer any more questions.
posted on April 28, 2001 09:06:55 AM new
Damon: that's the rules
others: grumble
Damon: that's the rules
others: grumble
Damon: that's the rules
others: grumble
posted on April 28, 2001 07:16:21 PM new
I'll probably have my head handed to me, but here goes...
The problem with posting here is that:
1) no matter what you say, someone will accuse you of some agenda
2) no one seems to listen unless you are 100% on one side or another. There is no middle ground.
Months ago when I was pro-paypal, I was often accused of being an employee. Then after some folks I knew were damaged by poor paypal actions and I changed my view, I was accused of working for moneyzap, achex, c2it and payingfast, whenever I mentioned any of these companies in a positive light.
I guess I must be arguing with everyone here when I make this statement:
Paypal is not (yet) God's gift to the Internet. Neither are they Satan incarnate. They are a relatively young company with a good idea and a little too much arrogance. They seem to think that the way to succeed is to make up the rules as they go and pretend that everything that happens, even a mistake, was deliberate. I think we would all put a little more trust in them if they had the courage to admit that they made mistakes and are fixing them. Instead, they keep denying that mistakes were ever made. If no mistakes were made, nothing will get fixed. So folks miss the fact that account restrictions are rare, fraud complaints have gone way down, and I don't believe that bank accounts were accessed without permission more than a couple of times a while ago by mistake.
By denying their problems, paypal has lost the trust of a number of people. I don't think they are evil. I don't think they have any plans to raid everyone's account and run off to the Bahamas. I certainly don't think that they are in danger of going bankrupt and taking everyone's money.
What they are in danger of is losing the public's trust. Why don't they allow those with restricted accounts to speak directly to someone with authority to fix the problem? Why do they suddenly reverse position on things without a reasonable explanation, which leads to rumors and speculation that are even worse than the truth? (The withdrawal to mastercard, that led to the rumor that Mastercard was breaking ties with Paypal. The bank account verification, which still has people believing that paypal wants the right to withdraw funds from bank accounts to cover charge backs.) If paypal doesn't learn to regulate themselves, the government might step in and do it for them. This will lead to an even bigger loss of trust. (Hey, did you hear? Paypal was so bad that the government had to step in...)
In the meantime, trusted companies are coming forward with better rates, better protection and well thought out policies. C2it is launching a very aggressive plan. Others will soon follow.
To the folks bashing Damon, I have to say that he is the best friend anyone with a paypal problem has on the boards. If not for him, there would be far more problems. Remember that Damon is not allowed to say anything that his company won't let him say. To Damon I have to say, tell Paypal that their arrogance at ignoring their customers or lying to them by commission or omission is not helping their cause. We have been lied to by everyone including our President. By now we all appreciate the value of honest disclosure over dishonest denial.
posted on April 29, 2001 09:36:05 PM newPayPal is very poor at responding to criticism from its customers, the BBB, the media, etc...
Loggia & Yisgood,
Perhaps you could defend something in the BBB article offered earler in which it states:
The BBB's latest report on PayPal said that the unsatisfactory rating is due to "a pattern of complaints alleging that accounts are being opened without the consumers' consent and by third parties."
I'm guessing that people have complained to the BBB because someone sent them a PayPal payment when they didn't even have an account, thinking someone had signed them up for one. They weren't even customers and they weren't required to get an account and accept that payment. It would be no different than any buyer sending me a form of payment I didn't accept. If I request USPS Money Orders only and the buyer sends me a Western Union Money Order would a complaint to the BBB against Western Union be valid in your eyes?
Yes, PayPal will let you send funds to someone that doesn't have an account, so will Yahoo PayDirect, MoneyZap, C2it, eCount, eMoneyMail, not to mention a slew of companies that are no longer around such as PayMe, PayPlace, and ExchangePath. While they all practice the same product model only PayPal is singled out by the BBB for that.
In my eyes the complaints aren't valid, and the BBB and those complaining apparently don't even have a clue as to how the email payment services function.
posted on April 30, 2001 01:19:15 AM new
Hi mropotatohead,
This is going to be one of the rare times I actually step out on an issue.
My last posts to you, despite how you changed your phrasing or questions, were about the same issue:verification. To which, I responded accurately and honestly, but it wasn't the answer you were looking for.
I peruse several large forums daily and I answer up to several hundred emails daily, in addition to the actual posting that I have to do.This is a heavy workload and it is probably far more stressful than is apparent.
When I responded to your last inquiries, it was basically (from what I can glean from them) covering the same issue that I had covered probably 50 times in that post alone.The responses were to the same 3 posters asking-- or making accusations-- ( for the most part) about the same issue (verification) or implying that the company is dishonest in asking for bank account verification. The implication was that I am also dishonest for advising, fairly in-depth, about why it needs to stay current (for identification purposes). You brought up other services that you use or have offered identification for---ok, I can accept that. But if something changes (such as a change of address) you have to notify them. When you apply for a new credit card they review past information and current information. Keeping identification current is not a unique aspect to our service.
While I will admit I was probably short at the end of the exchanges, it was a result of basically being called a liar in a public forum. My job, for better or for worse, is one of the toughest in the company. Mistakes that I make are viewable not only to the community, but also to the employees that read the forums on their own accord. I think that you would be fairly surprised at how much employees appreciate what I do and how much they appreciate the feedback from the forums. I think the point that I try to provide customer service, more or less, in a real-time environment is lost at times. Users that come here don't have to have a delay to a basic inquiry and they can get other tips here that they might not see on the web site.
I take my job seriously, but I do have to draw the line at some point about responding to the same inquiry ,or accusations of being dishonest, by the same parties. It interferes with my ability to handle inquiries by other users (the same day I was answering you, I had to fend off, in 3 separate forums mind you, yisgood's post about accounts being restricted over one transaction and the account wasn't even restricted.)
I can only respond with policy and the why---I can't make you accept my answers, but they are accurate and honest.
If I missed something in one of your posts that is not related to the verification issue, I will be more than happy to respond and I apologize if I missed it.While you may find our exchange to be a liability, I can also point to thousands of users that have been helped over the past several months that understand, and appreciate, what I am trying to do here.
My agenda is simple--
1. Stop misinformation on the boards.
2. Handle customer inquiries.
3. Provide feedback on what issues users are having (good and bad).
4. Take user recommendations forward for consideration in product design.
5. Proactively advise customers on how not to run into issues with the service, other users, and to give tips on fraud.
posted on April 30, 2001 06:52:46 AM new
>>Yes, PayPal will let you send funds to someone that doesn't have an account, so will Yahoo PayDirect, MoneyZap, C2it, eCount, eMoneyMail, not to mention a slew of companies that are no longer around such as PayMe, PayPlace, and ExchangePath. While they all practice the same product model only PayPal is singled out by the BBB for that.
In my eyes the complaints aren't valid, and the BBB and those complaining apparently don't even have a clue as to how the email payment services function.<<
Like I said before, the cheerleaders think that PP can do no wrong and the bashers think it can do no right. Why don't YOU explain that if all the companies do this, why is PP the only one to have a bad rating? Why aren't folks complaining that Paydirect, Moneyzap, C2it, etc are all doing the same thing?
Your comment that the BBB has no clue makes as much sense as Damon's ridiculous comment that PP always emails sellers when there is a problem and all those folks who claim to have never gotten an email must have mistakenly erased it. Stop acting as if only PP is intelligent and everyone else is stupid. The BBB gets a lot of complaints and yes, many of them are silly. But the ones that get PP the bad rating are the ones where the customer has had an account restricted or funds locked and PP has not responded for weeks to months. Just check some of the other posts here where folks are having a countdown for how long they have waited. And notice that even Damon hasn't been able to help. This is the real issue. All the other services answer emails quickly and phone calls even quicker. Only PP ignores their customers for weeks and tells them that the person with authority to fix the problem doesnt have a phone. Months ago I was promised that PP was putting in a hotline for emergency problems. It seems to me that with all the millions in financing they have gotten and all the $5 referrals they have saved, thanks to rules that make it just about impossible to collect, they have enough money to buy the guy a telephone.
As for the silliness of accepting payments for someone without an account (or even worse, a closed account) I blame ALL of the companies that do this. Just like I dont want spam, I dont want anyone acting "for me" without my consent.
posted on April 30, 2001 06:54:05 AM new
Paypaldamon,
It’s unfortunate that posts in a public forum sometimes degrade to personal accusations. You need to clearly understand both sides of the situation. First, Paypal has knowingly placed you in an awkward position. For many of us, you are the only visible representative for a corporation that is clearly impersonal and unresponsive. Many of the complaints posted in this forum state as much. The pattern of complaints received by the BBB that garnered Paypal’s “unsatisfactory” rating further demonstrates this. Sure, your growing by leaps and bounds, but you are simultaneously alienating many of the honest folks that propelled this rapid growth. A counterclaim that the number of new complaints has been cut in half (assuming it is a true statement) may indicate a step in the right direction, but it does not signify that the problem is solved.
Your primary occupation is apparently to counter negative publicity. You must realize that many posters in these forums are frustrated by Paypal’s reluctance to often address issues unless they are made publicly. I am sure that you have offered genuine assistance to some. In my case, you replied to my first-ever post almost immediately. You requested my e-mail address so that you could investigate my problem. I did so and never heard from you. My particular problem was exacerbated by Paypal’s failure to respond to a simple customer request for information. I made the mistake of assuming all pertinent information would be covered in the Terms of Use. Had I been aware of some of Paypal’s business practices, however they may justify them, I would have utilized your services differently or not at all.
I understand that you have a very difficult job to do and you are obviously a dedicated, hard worker. My posts here are NEVER meant as a personal attack on you, and if they come acroos that way I'm very sorry and I'll try to prevent that in the future.
I believe in giving credit where credit is due. You seem to do an outstanding job in helping customers resolve issues when they can get no help from anyone else at PayPal. I know that the customers who post here looking for help in this regard appreciate it and I do as well. But the very fact that you even have to get involved with these issues speaks poorly of PayPal as a company. With very few (possible) exceptions, these issues should have been handled and resolved by the appropriate departments within PayPal long BEFORE they are even brought to your attention. With all due respect, PayPal's customer service SUCKS as evidenced by the people who have to seek your help in resolving what are in actuality minor issues.
Also with all due respect, you HAVE NOT answered many of the questions asked on these boards. You have responded (repeatedly), but you haven't provided plausible, logical answers. Surely you must know that we aren't idiots. We know that 2+2 doesn't add up to 137.
You could save yourself a lot of work and aggravation if you would just answer the questions when asked instead of putting yourself into the position of having to repeatedly defend and repeat non-answers.
I know that you have a boss and you are likely limited in what you can say about various issues. But you know what you have to go through as PayPal's designated rep on these boards and elsewhere. Maybe you could clue the boss in, encourage him/her to read these boards and see first-hand just how poorly the company comes across in the eyes of the public. Sure, PayPal is growing by leaps and bounds. But that will end as the market matures, probably sooner rather than later. It seems to me that a company with an eye to the future should try in every way possible to keep the confidence of long-time customers. IMO, lack of candor and obvious evasion of simple, legitimate questions is a bad route to take toward that end.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Apr 30, 2001 08:56 AM ]
"PayPal is very poor at responding to criticism from its customers, the BBB, the media, etc...
Loggia & Yisgood,
Perhaps you could defend something in the BBB article offered earler in which it states:
The BBB's latest report on PayPal said that the unsatisfactory rating is due to "a pattern of complaints alleging that accounts are being opened without the consumers' consent and by third parties."
The article also makes note of:
"Other complaints received by the BBB about the company include allegations that PayPal is too slow to respond to customer complaints
Although complaints to the BBB have said that PayPal froze accounts without notifying users, Sollitto said it was PayPal's policy to notify account holders when accounts were frozen"
According to c|net article:
"Most of the complaints claim PayPal is too slow to respond to questions and too quick to freeze accounts if it believes fraud has taken place, according to Erin McCool, a customer service representative for the San Jose, Calif., chapter of the BBB"
Apparently, complaints to the BBB mirror a lot of the complaints detailed in this forum. You may wish to read the whole article.
posted on April 30, 2001 10:24:33 AM newYou may wish to read the whole article.
yes I did read the complete article. I wanted to see if Yisgood could defend one issue the BBB had with PayPal. Instead he danced around it, which is what I expected.
posted on April 30, 2001 10:42:30 AM new
>>yes I did read the complete article. I wanted to see if Yisgood could defend one issue the BBB had with PayPal. Instead he danced around it, which is what I expected. <<
I did not "dance around it." I merely focused attention on the real problem. Don't try to pretend that 40 folks a month are complaining to the BBB about this one issue and for some reason, only about PP even though everyone is doing it. I think the practice of sending money to someone without an account is silly, but I have never attacked Paypal for this practice.
Uaru: the "debating" methods used by the cheerleaders and the bashers were outlined in a recent Dilbert newsletter:
The Induhvidual debating technique involves four steps:
1. Exaggerate your opponent's statement into an absurd absolute.
2. Make an inappropriate analogy.
3. Change the topic to something easier to defend.
4. Claim victory.
For example:
Me: Vegetables are good for you.
Induhvidual: That's ridiculous. If you ate a truckload of vegetables all at once you would die.
Me: No one eats a truckload all at once.
Induhvidual: Let me give you an analogy. If you tried to swim across the ocean, and you didn't know how to swim, and you had no arms or legs, you'd never make it. Surely you can agree with that.
Me: Um...that's different.
Induhvidual: Ha! So now you agree with me that swimming is good exercise!
The worst part is that not only will you be frustrated at your inability to make your point, you will be branded as the person who thinks swimming is bad exercise.
Basher: the BBB has given Paypal a bad rating several months ago for excessive complaints and poor customer service. PP has promised to fix this and here it is several months later and they still have a bad rating.
Cheerleader: Notice that ONE of these complaints is that they allow you to send money to non-existent accounts. Since all the services do this, there is nothing wrong with PP and the BBB is stupid and doesn't have a clue.
Note that basher ignores the fact that many of the complaints are probably unwarranted while cheerleader focuses on the one invlaid complaint and ignores the fact that many other complaints are probably valid. Basher blames PP for everything while cheerleader blames stupid users and the BBB for everything. Maybe the real problem is somewhere in the middle. But cheerleader has yet to answer why, if the only complaint is something that all the services do, it is ONLY PAYPAL that has a bad rating with the BBB and why in all these months, they haven't managed to explain this to the "clueless" BBB?
