<< <i>If anyone of you get the finger pointed at you...you will suddenly agree with me 100%
No one should feel intimidated by my opinion unless you think I am speaking to you.
Some of you clearly feel I am. >>
If you're implying I was intimidated you are mistaken. I hardly feel intimidated. In fact, I find it rather pretentious of you to even assume such a thing. Even more so, the statement that you understood Joe's initial statements, while others could/did not was a bit misguided on your part. I didn't think you were speaking to me, however the way the statement came across, it implied that you were the smart one and everyone else needed lesson. Maybe a more careful, less coarse choice of words would have made all the difference; if that in fact was not your intention.
has anyone been served legal papers regarding the thread in question ?
i wonder why?
i feel bad for the real victim in this case, the enigmatic bidder go7390 who hasn't bid on ebay since the whole scandal erupted. kch1988 seems to be victimized by the whole affair as well.
i hope they are well ....i wonder if they are suffering from the rare spinal and gastro intentestinal disorder known as CRANIUMINRECTUMITIS. it is an awful condition that in the later stages, ones head becomes inextricably fused to the rectal walls. it seems that CAREW4ME is showing early symptoms of the disease and he is in my prayers.
<< <i>aknot (or is it "asknot"), does the truth really hurt that much? what else offends you? lets all be nice to asknot, he's easily offended. >>
No not offended. Just want to make sure what I read was what was meant. Truth? Please explain. As for what "offends" me? Not much, what "irks" me is a different matter. One thing that irks me are people that "appear" to think they are better then others and need to point it out on a message board.
<< <i>lets all be nice to asknot, he's easily offended >>
Itsawonderfullife I have NOT found this to be true about Jim - isn't the making of a statement like this in spirit with what we were talking about trying to prevent? Mike
"Carew...... I was always told if you dont understand something ask. Im sorry you had post a statement puffing out your chest stating that you understood exactly what was said the first time. While the rest of us "morons" stood around going "huh"?
When you get on your high horse do you mount from the left of the horse or the right? Or are you just always on it?"
Who banned sportsmoderator1 and made Stone-d king?
NO that statement would fall under "if the shoe fits." I later followed up with:
"At least that is the way your post came across to me. If there was some other "meaning" I did not see it and I do not mind eating crow when proven incorrect in my assumptions. "
aknot, i've searched and searched carew's post and can't find an attack on you. but when i look at your post, i find an attack on carew. i find that to be hypocritical. you and stone apparently do not. (blind leading the blind?) oh, well, now we know.
Again read my post, no here let me quote it for you:
"No you made a "general" remark that some people may not have understood JO's initial post and needed clarification, and that you understood it but could not understand why others did not."
I fall under the catagory of "some people". He made a GENERAL statement that INCLUDES everyone. Even you. Lets see do you sit back and watch while others "pick on" (talk down to, etc.) others and think its OK just because its not you?
Sorry, I do not.
Apparently you do not either because of your post to me.
So while you need a "tangible" object to "defend" I do not. I consider myself to be part of the "whole". So when a blanet statement is made yes It does "irk me". If you have something to say about someone talk directly to them. Like you and I. Dont throw something out that can pertain to everyone, just to get a reaction.
<< <i>you and stone apparently do not. (blind leading the blind?) oh, well, now we know. >>
Ya know, we must be from different idioms because your response is still cryptic. I was not trying to get in a war with anyone - just defending a friend who knows what he perceived - my response to you was the same - I think Jim aka Aknot is a really good guy - I rarely see you post here and again, I was in a defense thing. I would do the same for you. It's not in my normal mode to get into major debates or arguments - when I am wrong, I am the first to apologize both openly and 'privately'. So, again, in simple terms that I will comprehend: what does your previous and current statement mean?
Thanx CT - I never intended to make waves. Just a bad day I guess. M
OK, since you've suffered through the pains of at least one divorce, i'll make it real easy for you.
here's carew's phrase that you took issue with: "some people may not have understood"
"some" while GENERAL does not mean EVERYONE. ...only if the shoe fits (your words, not mine), so I guess the size is right?
"may" leaves room for the possibility that it's NOT you. again, it was you that reacted with a personal attack on Carew. it was you that took it to the next level, not Carew. of course, it could be that you are just overly sensitive.
maybe, if you felt he was directing his comment at you, you could have taken it up directly with carew in a PM. if, on the other hand you felt the need to fight EVERYONE'S battles even though EVERYONE wasn't harmed, well, maybe you should ask your wife.
<< <i>Ya know, we must be from different idioms because your response is still cryptic. I was not trying to get in a war with anyone - just defending a friend who knows what he perceived - my response to you was the same - I think Jim aka Aknot is a really good guy - I rarely see you post here and again, I was in a defense thing. I would do the same for you. It's not in my normal mode to get into major debates or arguments - when I am wrong, I am the first to apologize both openly and 'privately'. So, again, in simple terms that I will comprehend: what does your previous and current statement mean?
Thanx CT - I never intended to make waves. Just a bad day I guess. M >>
i'm under the impression that "itsawonderfullife" is somebodys 2nd account.
I did and she said keep going as it doesnt concern her.
Why are you repeating what i said:
"No you made a "general" remark that some people may not have understood JO's initial post and needed clarification, and that you understood it but could not understand why others did not."
Some is still part of the whole (which I am as are you). Hell a few is still part of the whole.
His opinion was that some people were to dense to get JOs first post. Just because I chose to "challenge" his "high and mighty" attitude does not mean I got it or not.
It means that it appears that he has a high and mighty attitude, which he HAD to strut. Hence the question about his horse.
So REGARDLESS if he was talking about 1 person or a million people he came across being the type of person that thinks they know it all and must let others know it also.
Joe, I am in total agreement with you on this and I cannot stress enough how I disagree with the quote above from CON40. First, there are too many Magnum PI wannabees on this board. Leave the investigating to e-bay, paypal, square-trade, law enforcement, etc. There are plenty of avenues to address these issues.
grilloj - relying on those authorities by themselves is often a waste - or worse.
Here's one example. A couple of years ago, I posted about one suspicious eBay seller who had very low feedback and had posted a fairly large number of very high-end HOFer cards (1961 Aaron PSA 9 and others). The actual owner of the PSA 9 Aaron, who had bought it recently from one of the major sports card auction houses, saw my post, looked at the card, determined it was the same serial number as the card he had in his possession, and emailed ebay to tell them this was fraud. eBay's response to him via email was to tell him that everything was OK and he should feel safe bidding on the card!
He took matters into his own hands and got the auction pulled.
Now, what would have happened without this board as a sounding point for suspicions of criminal behavior?
People educate themselves as to issues by talking to others. This board provides a fantastic place to do so with regard to sports cards. Very often, one person who posts a question about whether something looks fishy receives confirmation, because another board member has proof that it is crooked (ranging from people who find the original auction catalog the scan was stolen from to people who explain how to tell that that particular card is a fake).
I trust the collective judgment of the collectors on these boards greatly.
nickm. If that was the only sort of criminal activity that is exposed here that would be fine. But the goons aren't satisifed at that. They scour honest auction listings and catalogs for cards overgraded in their opinion, poor grammar, typos, odd looking scans, odd looking holders, non-exact delivery charges, self insurance, and scrutunizing their bidders and bidding patterns. When they discover something they don't agree with or understand its gets posted here for the jury to debate and reach their decision live. It's great entertainment unless your the guy who gave the auctioneer the cards the goons are picking apart. It's hard to tell on here the criminal activity from the guy guilty of only a spelling error.
They scour honest auction listings and catalogs for cards overgraded in their opinion, poor grammar, typos, odd looking scans, odd looking holders, non-exact delivery charges, self insurance, and scrutunizing their bidders and bidding patterns. When they discover something they don't agree with or understand its gets posted here for the jury to debate and reach their decision live.
hojo; I agree with you on these counts. Those who post rants of this nature exercise poor judgement and bad taste. But, it is not illegal in ANY way to make these remarks. It's just mean spirited. Unfortunately, you cannot legislate to prevent stupidity, bigotry and hate. I think there's a little thing called the First Amendment that makes this permissable.
so you are going to cite one specific example at the expense of ruining a seller's livelihood based on false information on this board?
grillo; You are still bemaoning the brutal demise of an honest seller thanks to accusatory and ignorant threads. I asked you yesterday, I ask you again, cite one example of a dealer's livelihood being ruined by reckless accusations on this board. At least NickM posted an actual experience where someone was helped. Let's have facts, not fantasies.
If I make a post to look at ebay auction whatever, becasue it has: "overgraded in their opinion, poor grammar, typos, odd looking scans, odd looking holders, non-exact delivery charges, self insurance, and scrutunizing their bidders and bidding patterns" And I post it as such would you not question my post? I know I have question a few post one most recently in regards to a serial numbered card. (cant find the post)
While it MAY happen, just like the "bad guys" on Ebay and such that we want to look out for and stay away from we have the responsibility to also "police" post that make no sense and or are way off target.
So "we" should not only "bash" the accuser (if accused justifiably) we must also "bash" the accusee if incorrect and attempt to point out why.
And ebay doesn't know what they are doing, nor do they care. Even fraudulent auctions bring them listing (and maybe final value) fees. Read the story on msnbc about Broadway Rick being caught shilling. The first time he was caught red-handed (bidding with one of his selling IDs, linked to his ebay store, on a card from another of his selling IDs, also linked to his ebay store), ebay COVERED IT UP, saying they found no evidence of a violation. The second time he was caught (and he was still using the same combination of IDs), they merely issued him a warning. They can keep issuing him warnings indefinitely. Broadway Rick brings ebay far too much money for them to want to suspend his account - and his shilling adds to their bottom line. Meg Whitman has the ethics of Ken Lay. The difference is that her company is profitable.
By the way, it was a board member who initially exposed that scam.
And another board member had crucial involvement in bringing down WIWAG.
When it comes to investigating questions like whether a card is trimmed, a scan has been altered, a card is a reprint, a seller has questionable bidders, or a Pop Report claim in an auction is accurate, the people here know what they are doing far more than the average law enforcement official. If you want the experts to handle things, these forums are where the expertise is.
hodo - funny auctions are funny. Joe was not even addressing our making fun of sellers who can't spell, put in scans that look like they were taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, give bizarre auction terms, or make ridiculous assertions about their cards. I think most of us appreciate the levity that comes from the shared humor. Besides, we often make fun of the players depicted more so than the auctions. Just take a look at the number of Don Mossi-related threads.
<< <i>When it comes to investigating questions like whether a card is trimmed, a scan has been altered, a card is a reprint, a seller has questionable bidders, or a Pop Report claim in an auction is accurate, the people here know what they are doing far more than the average law enforcement official. If you want the experts to handle things, these forums are where the expertise is. >>
Well said, Nick. Ebay, PayPal, et al aren't going to care as much, or be able to detect as much, while their pockets are being lined. If you bring an obvious case of fraud to their attention, fine...but in the case of the shilling thread, how would Ebay know this was going on, or why would they care? That's why it's important to raise the issue here to let everyone look at the facts, and form their own conclusions about future dealings with that dealer.
Comments
does the truth really hurt that much?
what else offends you?
lets all be nice to asknot, he's easily offended.
<< <i>If anyone of you get the finger pointed at you...you will suddenly agree with me 100%
No one should feel intimidated by my opinion unless you think I am speaking to you.
Some of you clearly feel I am. >>
If you're implying I was intimidated you are mistaken. I hardly feel intimidated. In fact, I find it rather pretentious of you to even assume such a thing. Even more so, the statement that you understood Joe's initial statements, while others could/did not was a bit misguided on your part. I didn't think you were speaking to me, however the way the statement came across, it implied that you were the smart one and everyone else needed lesson. Maybe a more careful, less coarse choice of words would have made all the difference; if that in fact was not your intention.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
Apparently something else is coming through loud and clear to PSA!
i wonder why?
i feel bad for the real victim in this case, the enigmatic bidder go7390 who hasn't bid on ebay since the whole scandal erupted. kch1988 seems to be victimized by the whole affair as well.
i hope they are well ....i wonder if they are suffering from the rare spinal and gastro intentestinal disorder known as CRANIUMINRECTUMITIS. it is an awful condition that in the later stages, ones head becomes inextricably fused to the rectal walls. it seems that CAREW4ME is showing early symptoms of the disease and he is in my prayers.
regards and well wishes,
MR. I.M. DARNSURE
<< <i>aknot (or is it "asknot"),
does the truth really hurt that much?
what else offends you?
lets all be nice to asknot, he's easily offended.
No not offended. Just want to make sure what I read was what was meant. Truth? Please explain. As for what "offends" me? Not much, what "irks" me is a different matter. One thing that irks me are people that "appear" to think they are better then others and need to point it out on a message board.
Any other questions?
<< <i>lets all be nice to asknot, he's easily offended >>
Itsawonderfullife
I have NOT found this to be true about Jim - isn't the making of a statement like this in spirit with what we were talking about trying to prevent?
Mike
"Carew...... I was always told if you dont understand something ask. Im sorry you had post a statement puffing out your chest stating that you understood exactly what was said the first time. While the rest of us "morons" stood around going "huh"?
When you get on your high horse do you mount from the left of the horse or the right? Or are you just always on it?"
Who banned sportsmoderator1 and made Stone-d king?
"At least that is the way your post came across to me. If there was some other "meaning" I did not see it and I do not mind eating crow when proven incorrect in my assumptions. "
Which if you need me to explain that I will.
<< <i>Who banned sportsmoderator1 and made Stone-d king? >>
Its
What's your point?
Mike
but when i look at your post, i find an attack on carew.
i find that to be hypocritical.
you and stone apparently do not. (blind leading the blind?) oh, well, now we know.
"if the shoe fits," my arse.
Again read my post, no here let me quote it for you:
"No you made a "general" remark that some people may not have understood JO's initial post and needed clarification, and that you understood it but could not understand why others did not."
I fall under the catagory of "some people". He made a GENERAL statement that INCLUDES everyone. Even you. Lets see do you sit back and watch while others "pick on" (talk down to, etc.) others and think its OK just because its not you?
Sorry, I do not.
Apparently you do not either because of your post to me.
So while you need a "tangible" object to "defend" I do not. I consider myself to be part of the "whole". So when a blanet statement is made yes It does "irk me". If you have something to say about someone talk directly to them. Like you and I. Dont throw something out that can pertain to everyone, just to get a reaction.
<< <i>you and stone apparently do not. (blind leading the blind?) oh, well, now we know. >>
Ya know, we must be from different idioms because your response is still cryptic. I was not trying to get in a war with anyone - just defending a friend who knows what he perceived - my response to you was the same - I think Jim aka Aknot is a really good guy - I rarely see you post here and again, I was in a defense thing. I would do the same for you. It's not in my normal mode to get into major debates or arguments - when I am wrong, I am the first to apologize both openly and 'privately'. So, again, in simple terms that I will comprehend: what does your previous and current statement mean?
Thanx CT - I never intended to make waves. Just a bad day I guess.
M
<< <i>Zip it. >>
Sorry I meant CURRENT wife not Ex-Wife.
here's carew's phrase that you took issue with: "some people may not have understood"
"some" while GENERAL does not mean EVERYONE.
...only if the shoe fits (your words, not mine), so I guess the size is right?
"may" leaves room for the possibility that it's NOT you.
again, it was you that reacted with a personal attack on Carew.
it was you that took it to the next level, not Carew.
of course, it could be that you are just overly sensitive.
maybe, if you felt he was directing his comment at you, you could have taken it up directly with carew in a PM.
if, on the other hand you felt the need to fight EVERYONE'S battles even though EVERYONE wasn't harmed, well,
maybe you should ask your wife.
<< <i>Ya know, we must be from different idioms because your response is still cryptic. I was not trying to get in a war with anyone - just defending a friend who knows what he perceived - my response to you was the same - I think Jim aka Aknot is a really good guy - I rarely see you post here and again, I was in a defense thing. I would do the same for you. It's not in my normal mode to get into major debates or arguments - when I am wrong, I am the first to apologize both openly and 'privately'. So, again, in simple terms that I will comprehend: what does your previous and current statement mean?
Thanx CT - I never intended to make waves. Just a bad day I guess.
M >>
i'm under the impression that "itsawonderfullife" is somebodys 2nd account.
Why are you repeating what i said:
"No you made a "general" remark that some people may not have understood JO's initial post and needed clarification, and that you understood it but could not understand why others did not."
Some is still part of the whole (which I am as are you). Hell a few is still part of the whole.
His opinion was that some people were to dense to get JOs first post. Just because I chose to "challenge" his "high and mighty" attitude does not mean I got it or not.
It means that it appears that he has a high and mighty attitude, which he HAD to strut. Hence the question about his horse.
So REGARDLESS if he was talking about 1 person or a million people he came across being the type of person that thinks they know it all and must let others know it also.
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
or is it? Joe, do you see what you started?
edited to add:
except when they play against the Dutch...
.............they can't seem to take their eyes off those wooden shoes.
<< <i>How do we know when someone wins? >>
When one of us lets it go......
Joe, I am in total agreement with you on this and I cannot stress enough how I disagree with the quote above from CON40. First, there are too many Magnum PI wannabees on this board. Leave the investigating to e-bay, paypal, square-trade, law enforcement, etc. There are plenty of avenues to address these issues.
grilloj - relying on those authorities by themselves is often a waste - or worse.
Here's one example. A couple of years ago, I posted about one suspicious eBay seller who had very low feedback and had posted a fairly large number of very high-end HOFer cards (1961 Aaron PSA 9 and others). The actual owner of the PSA 9 Aaron, who had bought it recently from one of the major sports card auction houses, saw my post, looked at the card, determined it was the same serial number as the card he had in his possession, and emailed ebay to tell them this was fraud. eBay's response to him via email was to tell him that everything was OK and he should feel safe bidding on the card!
He took matters into his own hands and got the auction pulled.
Now, what would have happened without this board as a sounding point for suspicions of criminal behavior?
People educate themselves as to issues by talking to others. This board provides a fantastic place to do so with regard to sports cards. Very often, one person who posts a question about whether something looks fishy receives confirmation, because another board member has proof that it is crooked (ranging from people who find the original auction catalog the scan was stolen from to people who explain how to tell that that particular card is a fake).
I trust the collective judgment of the collectors on these boards greatly.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
I agree with Stone193, carew4me, itsawonderfullife, CON40, and Joe. Not in that particular order.
I choose to leave the investigating to those who know what they're doing...they are more oftentimes right then wrong.
Silver Coins
e-bay ID: grilloj39
e-mail: grilloj39@gmail.com
hojo;
I agree with you on these counts. Those who post rants of this nature exercise poor judgement and bad taste. But, it is not illegal in ANY way to make these remarks. It's just mean spirited. Unfortunately, you cannot legislate to prevent stupidity, bigotry and hate. I think there's a little thing called the First Amendment that makes this permissable.
so you are going to cite one specific example at the expense of ruining a seller's livelihood based on false information on this board?
grillo;
You are still bemaoning the brutal demise of an honest seller thanks to accusatory and ignorant threads. I asked you yesterday, I ask you again, cite one example of a dealer's livelihood being ruined by reckless accusations on this board. At least NickM posted an actual experience where someone was helped. Let's have facts, not fantasies.
If I make a post to look at ebay auction whatever, becasue it has: "overgraded in their opinion, poor grammar, typos, odd looking scans, odd looking holders, non-exact delivery charges, self insurance, and scrutunizing their bidders and bidding patterns"
And I post it as such would you not question my post? I know I have question a few post one most recently in regards to a serial numbered card. (cant find the post)
While it MAY happen, just like the "bad guys" on Ebay and such that we want to look out for and stay away from we have the responsibility to also "police" post that make no sense and or are way off target.
So "we" should not only "bash" the accuser (if accused justifiably) we must also "bash" the accusee if incorrect and attempt to point out why.
And ebay doesn't know what they are doing, nor do they care. Even fraudulent auctions bring them listing (and maybe final value) fees.
Read the story on msnbc about Broadway Rick being caught shilling. The first time he was caught red-handed (bidding with one of his selling IDs, linked to his ebay store, on a card from another of his selling IDs, also linked to his ebay store), ebay COVERED IT UP, saying they found no evidence of a violation. The second time he was caught (and he was still using the same combination of IDs), they merely issued him a warning. They can keep issuing him warnings indefinitely. Broadway Rick brings ebay far too much money for them to want to suspend his account - and his shilling adds to their bottom line.
Meg Whitman has the ethics of Ken Lay. The difference is that her company is profitable.
By the way, it was a board member who initially exposed that scam.
And another board member had crucial involvement in bringing down WIWAG.
When it comes to investigating questions like whether a card is trimmed, a scan has been altered, a card is a reprint, a seller has questionable bidders, or a Pop Report claim in an auction is accurate, the people here know what they are doing far more than the average law enforcement official. If you want the experts to handle things, these forums are where the expertise is.
hodo - funny auctions are funny. Joe was not even addressing our making fun of sellers who can't spell, put in scans that look like they were taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, give bizarre auction terms, or make ridiculous assertions about their cards. I think most of us appreciate the levity that comes from the shared humor. Besides, we often make fun of the players depicted more so than the auctions. Just take a look at the number of Don Mossi-related threads.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>When it comes to investigating questions like whether a card is trimmed, a scan has been altered, a card is a reprint, a seller has questionable bidders, or a Pop Report claim in an auction is accurate, the people here know what they are doing far more than the average law enforcement official. If you want the experts to handle things, these forums are where the expertise is. >>
Well said, Nick. Ebay, PayPal, et al aren't going to care as much, or be able to detect as much, while their pockets are being lined. If you bring an obvious case of fraud to their attention, fine...but in the case of the shilling thread, how would Ebay know this was going on, or why would they care? That's why it's important to raise the issue here to let everyone look at the facts, and form their own conclusions about future dealings with that dealer.