Not at all, the way I see it...the buyer pays...the deal is not yet done simply because it is paid for. I have seen it...the buyer gets what they paid for then comes back and makes a stink about something and is loose with the negative...I see it often, like the example I posted... some stupid buyer might give a negative or at best neutral simply because shipping takes 2 weeks!! they didnt know what they were buying, didnt read the terms, didnt read period...or simply decided they didnt like what they bought after all. Certainly there is NOTHING wrong with waiting to give feedback about a BUYER until the sale process is complete and the buyer expresses satisfaction. Things might go wrong after payment is recieved and the seller (or the buyer) might have to make good... in fact a seller would be stupid not to...good way to be stung by a bad buyer...buyer beware...seller beware as well...crooks on both sides...
Nothing in the eBay user agreement says that the buyer has to do anything more than fulfill the contract and meet the seller's TOS. That's the same excuse all feedback withholding sellers use. "The deal isn't complete until the customer is satisfied". Nothing in the user agreement says the customer has to be satisfied. Common sense would dictate that everyone isn't going to be satisfied everytime.
I honestly could care less about what the ebay user agreement is, they allow crooked sellers and buyers to essentially run rampant even when 10 people are throwing up red flags...people selling copper ancient coins as gold being allowed to do so shows this. There is no real protection for buyer OR seller so its between the buyer and the seller always to work things out save for the most extreme cases of theft....and I do mean extreme because if selling copper as gold isnt extreme, I dont know what is. All you really have is the trust you are placing on a buyer or the seller. common decency dictates that the seller OR buyer who screws up deserves a chance to make it right before negatives are given...neither wants a negative mark...the seller will wait until all is complete in case the buyer is a flake and gives a negative for no reason which happens without doubt. I understand completely and obviously the great ebay gods do not force them to give feedback at all, let alone positive or negative ones right after the money changes hands so I guess they must think its just fine. I have never sold a thing on ebay...I have only bought and most people I buy from do not rate me until all is complete...I have had several problems with dealers who, when I pointed out the problem, made it right so there was no need to give a bad mark...of course there are those who think all should be perfect all the time, nobody makes mistakes, the goods should be there the next day and will go directly to negative if all is not perfect...I understand why they do it and I think characterizing a seller for doing it as somehow being less than honorable is a mistake.... But I also see that this is an issue with you...I understand because I also have issues with things that happen on ebay by both sellers, buyers, and ebay itself...I think buyers using a third party to snipe isnt right, I think sellers who are held to no standards isnt right, and I think that ebay not allowing me to warn other buyers they are about to buy copper as gold isnt right when they wont do anything about it themselves...but I know that its buyer and seller beware at all times and one must rely on the honesty of whom you deal with and take steps to protect yourself, that all you have there...nuff said.
me2...I just cant stand to hear other people do it...it makes no real sense, there is nothing wrong with it...its just something I hate...to be honest I hate hearing people crunch anything...or hearing people chewing food...:eating:
It's a picture of one of the guitarists in an L.A. hardcore band called Terror. If you're not sure what hardcore music sounds like, you can listen to a song for free here: www.myspace.com/terror I play guitar and do vocals in a hardcore band in Denver. If you want to hear my old band from Boston, you can do so here: www.myspace.com/insurgencyma And yes, that is me doing all the screaming.
I can't download audio, but I'll assume hardcore is similar to Death Metal. I asked because I was a working bassist for many years.
It's just streaming audio from Myspace, no downloading involved. Hardcore actually came out of the punk movement in the early 80's. Wikipedia has an OK entry for hardcore here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_punk. I don't really agree with all of it, but it gives you a general idea. Death metal, black metal, and gore/grind metal is too distinct from hardcore. Those types of metal focus on gurgled/growled/scathing vocals and ridiculously fast playing and complicated song structures. Hardcore is pretty simple (like punk), has screamed/yelled vocals, and usu. very short songs (under 2 mins.). And it's way more fun than metal! :whistle:
Jhonn, that link to your old band doesn't seem to go to a valid MySpace page. Do you have another one? How about any music from your Denver band and what are they called?
Oops, you're right. I left MA in Dec., so I'm guessing the guitarist cancelled the acct. Oh well. Maybe I'll link up an mp3 one of these days, but I'll have to find a digital copy of our EP (we only printed up 500 7" records, no CD's). Haven't recorded anything new in Denver, but we're looking to soon.
