Confused and getting More Confused
 

Hi all, I'm getting more confused by the minute. While I understand and TOTALLY AGREE with the "giving and taking process", whereby the 'Giver' can pick anybody who replies, whether on Public Thread or by PM/whether first or last or in between. WHERE my CONFUSION starts is when the 'Giver' states "No PMs" or ANYBODY WHO PMs WONT BE CONSIDERED and then all of a sudden their 'stuff' is reserved for someone who hasnt replied on the public thread.

If they havent replied on the Public Thread AND the Giver has said no PMs etc, how can the stuff be reserved for them ? I find this most confusing !!!!!!!

Anybody Else Noticed This ?

This happened to me too in the past, but if an item is gone I don't really care who got it, and what way they responded to the thread.
If I'm giving I usually ask people to reply only on thread, because my pm box gets full really quick, so this way it's more convenient. However if someone asks for stuff in pm I won't bite their head off and if it's a genuine request I would consider them too. Maybe the posters who reply on thread don't feel this is fair sometimes.
Occasionally some people send pms when something is for collection only and they would really like it but can't collect and ask for sae or special collection arrangements. I believe everyone deserves a chance or an answer at least, so try to do this (though sometimes I fail, apologies to those who don't get answer from me).
What actually cofuses me more is when someone states it's collection only and then one askes if it could be posted and the answer is, 'sure, no problem'. And usually you don't dare to ask as some posters get mad if you do so.

regards,
p

confusion
 

it's a bit like a dance: takes time to learn the steps. You know the way people function differently in group situations; some are watchers, some are actors... I am learning bit by bit how it works, even after reading guidelines. I thought pms were a great idea as I was the new girl on the block and didn't fancy seeing myself out there in public view. Then I saw on another site that pms are a no-no. I didn't understand why some people on Jumbletown didn't want pms, but obviously if they are using the site often then their box would get full, so that makes sense. As for saying collection only and then agreeing to post: maybe I need to say collection preferred. Anyway, most of the stuff I have is now taken or promised for the moment, so hope I remember the rules for the next time. Thanks to all for the exchange.

cosnochta
 

Hi Cosnochta,

I've seen that happening and I can quite understand that, BUT if I've seen it, that means its happening on the 'public thread'. The mind still boggles !!!!

Confusion
 

I must really be 'old school'. If someone specifically requests "no PM's", no matter how much I wanted/need the item, I would never dream of sending a PM. Now I know some people do send PM's by accident BUT straight away they will reply on Public Thread and apologise as they didnt notice at first that it said 'No PM's. Anyway I was just wondering ..................

Not necessarily on the public forum. For example someone asks for an item on the thread and then when exchanging details in pm add that they would like the other item too if possible.

well over time ive got to know quite a few on her and have most of their mobile numbers from past giving. dont know about others but some text me and ask for somethings i have on , so as i know they will collect i say yes. thus the items are taken. also my private email is available so i answer those.

I agree with dollyk that giver prefer to give away them who collect from giver before, good to meet same people, which they know that they need it really. Some giver asked me to text them if I will need anything such like girls clothes BUT I am always too shy to ask them again.....

I dont think you should be shy, just ask, and if they have anything you need it saves going to the trouble of fotos and waiting on people to come.