Suggestion: Strange Loch-n-Load at 2.66 ref

Not saying that all of these people just decided to give up on selling. If you were to provide evidence that they no longer have the loch's in their bps this suggestion would be valid.

oki.

1st thing, plz organize that, i feel i'm in a maze.

2nd, have fun looking through the bps, there is also ADDED comments and SOLD.

1) i said what # trade I was refferring to and in which price range. Short of adding links, it's as organized as op

2) If you would take the time to actually look, i didn't add the trades where the op said it was SOLD or someone said "added for s. loch"

You can feel free to look through their BPs. Doesn't seem necessary to write "not in bp" for every sold.

I shall...god so much hate 0.o

Additionally, it really shouldn't be MY responsibility to find out if his proof is 100% accurate. It's like having a candidate running for president, but when you ask a question, he tells you to go find the answer for yourself.

When it's written SOLD AT 2.66 in my proof, that's probably because i did research to see if they were sold or not. If you don't trust me, then verify.

It really shouldn't be your responsibility, but mine, and I did my responsability.

I just asked a question because there was no proof for many of the trades that the item did in fact sell. I wasn't accusing you of doing anything wrong, merely asking a question. In fact, I found that 2 of your listings did not sell. (see comment further down)

Ok, so trade

#6 at 3 ref should not be considered, it did not sell, and it is still in the owner's bp

and trade

#5 at 2.33 ref should not be considered, it did not sell, and is still in the owner's bp

you relisted http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/17241540

why you says failed buyer ? I have bought a few

proof? (screenshot, link, etc.)

http://backpack.tf/classifieds/search/id/52c8eea14dd7b8d0718b4567

There's only 1 selling at 2.66 ref, all others are higher priced because they have strange parts