i wasn't going to reply to this but i find it 
absurd how many people have replied without fully 
reading much of *anything* that has been posted, 
especially the "i can't believe you're siding 
with him just because he's nick! wah wah wah!" 
posts.  while nick does seem to have that suave, 
debonaire "hey there, you wanna come over tonight 
and look at my cels?" thing going for him, i find 
it ridiculous that it is the honest belief of 
some that others are jumping behind him because 
of who he is.  it's not like he said "hey look at 
me! i'm nick! i'm the seller!"... there was 
another side to the story in his post.

kinsagashi has contradicted her own story several 
times...

"what do you do when the seller insured 
the package for only 1/8 of the actual value of 
the merchandise?"

150 * 8 = 1200

"the actual value of the contents in my package 
totaled in the 4 digit dollar range (and that's 
been calculated off of the actual invoices the 
seller sent to me, so I'm not exaggerated)."

well nick is the actual seller and he states that 
the value was $750, so who's right?

"And as I said before, the seller only insured 
the package for less than one-eighth of that 
amount"

ok, so did he insure it for 1/8 of the mystery 
amount or *less than* 1/8 of the amount?

"'The insurance should have been for $1500.00.  
But it looks as if the postal employee took a 0 
off the insurance amount.'"

she says that these are the words of nick (as 
quoted by her), but these are his words on the 
final total:

"Now the insurance, yes it was insured for 
$150.00, but was supposed to be $750.00 (not 
$1500.00 as mentinoed in a previous post)."

now if what she says is true, 150 * 1/8=1200, 
then how can she openly say that nick insured 
$1500 worth of goods for $150, quite obviously to 
anyone (sick or not) 1/10 of the final total?  
and now she doesn't even care what number is 
right?  after having "fought" nick SO HARD?

"My claim was even for far less than 
whatever number Nick is going by these days 
(first he said it's $1500, now he says it's $750; 
it doesn't matter anyway since my claim is still 
far below either range)."

on top of the inconsistencies with the price or 
value of insurance to the goods, there are many 
many other fishy aspects to her posts...

- she will be "continuing to do business with 
this seller in the future." (why would you want 
to continue to do business with a seller who is 
such a "criminal"?)

- "he threatened to blacklist me for pressuring 
him to file the claim." (yes, because as they 
both have stated she has not been the best of 
customers in the past.)

- nick "has been irresponsible, unethical, and 
just about criminal." (criminal?  come on, this 
is a woman who had her words carefully planned 
out, not someone fanning themselves in bed 
from "sickness" which is being used to make 
people feel guilty.  i'm not saying that she's 
not sick, but she mentions it a million times a 
post, and that's a lot of typing.  you're not 
going to sit there sick and type that many words 
if they don't have an intended purpose.)

- and to further prove my point, she continues 
with "While there's not much you can really do 
when you've just been hospitalized (even carrying 
a conversation with this seller takes a lot out 
of me now)."  (not as much energy as carrying out 
an even longer conversation about her illness 
with the forum?)

- "After months of butting heads with this 
individual, however..." (she said she only waited 
a month to contact him about this, so she's 
openly admitting to having angered him before)


the whole thing is ridiculous.  people are saying 
that she has plenty of evidence to "stick it to" 
nick, but really she has nothing more than he 
does.  his story is more convincing not because 
he is well known but because he doesn't 
contradict himself, is straightforward and gives 
her past history.  her story is convincing to 
some because she makes her posts "extra-long" 
with words about "being sick," and "taking the 
high road" when really if you actually read her 
posts she's egging nick on to not remain 
anonymous.  and even in her third or fourth final 
post here, she is very ugly towards him and is 
still using words to pull people into her guilt 
trip ("I wouldn't be able to sell off the damaged 
items like Nick suggested while Nick himself... 
well, you'll have to ask him again."),  
insinuating still that nick has intentionally 
sold her damaged goods.


and it is very obvious that if the cels were 
worth so much that even damaged she could sell 
them for far more than she will recover with the 
insurance claim, but the question is will she not 
sell them because they're not really damaged?  
but it seems like she is still "greedy," as she 
stated before, because just getting the money 
from selling the cels wouldn't be enough for her, 
she has to have the insurance money also...

"But if the damaged cels ultimately stay with the 
postal service AND I can only get the $150 
amount, then it'll be interesting to see what 
happens next.  Obviously, I wouldn't be able to 
sell off the damaged items like Nick suggested."

"I'm sure that Nick would prefer avoid 
doing anything further, even if it's to resolve a 
serious mistake that he admitted to, while I feel 
justifiably queasy just thinking about asking him 
for any help."

i'm sure that nick would prefer to avoid any 
future dealings with someone who has so many 
times upset his business for no good reason, even 
if this time it might be justified.  he never 
admitted that the mistake was his but said 
directly that it was the postal worker's fault, 
not his own.  and of course the "justifiably 
queasy" is added to once again pull at the heart 
strings of those falling into the guilt trip trap.

so did people *really* jump behind nick because 
of his name?  and if they did, was it because 
they like him, or because he has been known as a 
reputable, honest dealer for many years now?  and 
while we're on the same subject, did people 
sympathize with Kinsagashi because she used her 
words carefully, playing on her sickness and very 
obviously emphasizing contradicting numbers in 
her posts?  if you refuse to do business with 
nick after reading all of these posts well then 
that's your business, but at least take into 
consideration the WHOLE story and not just the 
side that you sympathize for.