LOL who here is responsible for this Wiki page?
BBN
Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭
Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin
#1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
0
Comments
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>Incredibly unfunny and I can only hope the idiot that did it pays for it big time. >>
Did you think the author was trying to be funny? Or was he trying to warn new collectors? For the record, I don't consider ICG to be a second tier sevice.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Looks like the author, hosting service for wiki, and every individual who views the page is begging for a trip to a Florida courtroom. >>
Except for the folks from RCC who were dismissed with prejudice from the proceedings.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
I agree that it's not funny. However, I find it odd that you take offense.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i> Incredibly unfunny and I can only hope the idiot that did it pays for it big time.
I agree that it's not funny. However, I find it odd that you take offense. >>
I had the same thought. Makes you wonder what relationship that he might have with one of the third tier services.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
these companies barely have enough money to stay in business
now days.
pci is dead, lets see which on that page is next!
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
1) Anybody can submit an article to the site and this article was created by an anonymous user coming from the IP address 65.197.143.150 on November 12, 2005
2) Wikipedia and its members take things that can cause problems to the site seriously so, if something could have sever legal implications, the community opts to remove it.
3) I added a warning and a request to remove the article.
On #3 above, if any of you would like to add comments as to why you think this should be deleted, please post them here or PM me and I'll build the case even further on Wikipedia.
<< <i>
<< <i> Incredibly unfunny and I can only hope the idiot that did it pays for it big time.
I agree that it's not funny. However, I find it odd that you take offense. >>
I had the same thought. Makes you wonder what relationship that he might have with one of the third tier services.
Bingo!
Why are people HERE getting all worked up?
I can understand if you have a tie to one of those grading services. I could understand if you run wikipedia or you were the one who put up the page.
For a normal user here, I can't understand why one would get their panties in an uproar over it.....???
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>As a pretty big contributor on Wikipedia, let me say these things: 1) Anybody can submit an article to the site and this article was created by an anonymous user coming from the IP address 65.197.143.150 on November 12, 2005 2) Wikipedia and its members take things that can cause problems to the site seriously so, if something could have sever legal implications, the community opts to remove it. 3) I added a warning and a request to remove the article. On #3 above, if any of you would like to add comments as to why you think this should be deleted, please post them here or PM me and I'll build the case even further on Wikipedia. >>
I don't see why it should be removed. Call a spade a spade. I don't understand why members here are offended unless they silently support these bogus TPGs. --Jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>As a pretty big contributor on Wikipedia, let me say these things: 1) Anybody can submit an article to the site and this article was created by an anonymous user coming from the IP address 65.197.143.150 on November 12, 2005 2) Wikipedia and its members take things that can cause problems to the site seriously so, if something could have sever legal implications, the community opts to remove it. 3) I added a warning and a request to remove the article. On #3 above, if any of you would like to add comments as to why you think this should be deleted, please post them here or PM me and I'll build the case even further on Wikipedia. >>
I don't see why it should be removed. Call a spade a spade. I don't understand why members here are offended unless they silently support these bogus TPGs. --Jerry >>
Because of its potential as libelous material
Dennis
Looking for PCGS AU58 Washington's, 32-63.
<< <i>Incredibly unfunny and I can only hope the idiot that did it pays for it big time. >>
hmm.....
<< <i>Incredibly unfunny and I can only hope the idiot that did it pays for it big time. >>
I think it's hilarious. Very funny and totally correct
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As a pretty big contributor on Wikipedia, let me say these things: 1) Anybody can submit an article to the site and this article was created by an anonymous user coming from the IP address 65.197.143.150 on November 12, 2005 2) Wikipedia and its members take things that can cause problems to the site seriously so, if something could have sever legal implications, the community opts to remove it. 3) I added a warning and a request to remove the article. On #3 above, if any of you would like to add comments as to why you think this should be deleted, please post them here or PM me and I'll build the case even further on Wikipedia. >>
I don't see why it should be removed. Call a spade a spade. I don't understand why members here are offended unless they silently support these bogus TPGs. --Jerry >>
Because of its potential as libelous material >>
I say we take back the world from the lawyers. Besides, I think that libel has to be untruthful.
Examples of absolute defenses include
* Truth of an allegedly libelous statement (in modern defamation): a person cannot be made to pay damages for a defamatory statement, if the person can show that the statement is true (even if the statement is damaging, and the person said it in bad faith).
<< <i>I have a feeling ACG or it's lawyers have seen that yet, or they would have taken legal action by now. >>
I'd guess that they have, indeed, seen it. It's been up for over two years, and they were offering a bounty for any negative published information. I'm sure somebody pointed it out to them.
Russ, NCNE
It now says:
"It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:
This page may be considered as libel for the grading services mentioned. Recent court case has proven this point
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days.Prod, concern: This page may be considered as libel for the grading services mentioned. Recent court case has proven this point This template was added 2007-12-17 17:36; five days from then is 2007-12-22 17:36."
<< <i>You guys need to check out the article. It has been altered because of this discussion. >>
Or we could just read this thread.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>As a pretty big contributor on Wikipedia, let me say these things:
1) Anybody can submit an article to the site and this article was created by an anonymous user coming from the IP address 65.197.143.150 on November 12, 2005
. >>
ALYRICA.COM from Oregon.
Read All About it, HERE
<< <i>
<< <i>You guys need to check out the article. It has been altered because of this discussion. >>
Or we could just read this thread.
Russ, NCNE >>
I was pointing out that the Wiki article that we are talking about was changed, on 12/17/07 due to this discussion. I haven't seen that mentioned until I said it.
<< <i>As a pretty big contributor on Wikipedia, let me say these things:
1) Anybody can submit an article to the site and this article was created by an anonymous user coming from the IP address 65.197.143.150 on November 12, 2005
2) Wikipedia and its members take things that can cause problems to the site seriously so, if something could have sever legal implications, the community opts to remove it.
3) I added a warning and a request to remove the article. >>
Russ, NCNE
It isn't like Wikipedia hasn't been through all this type of stuff before and knows how to handle it when brought to their attention by the appropriate folks....
And, if it had been there for 2 years, as someone stated, then it is just ridiculous to go to remove it now.
Kind of a "busybody" thing to do......imho.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i> These types of criticisms of shoddy businesses are perfectly legitimate and lawful and are not grounds for any kind of lawsuit by the offended party. >>
"accepted as true," or using ebay's policy as "proof" or even prices realized does not guarantee victory in court. The ANA had egg on its face with the Riverside Coin Company lawsuit, where the judge determined:
There are various, similar guides for the grading of United States coins, some of them widely accepted, but there is no single, official standard for grading accepted by, and binding on, all dealers and collectors of such coins. The grading of coins is a matter of judgment. Five experienced graders may grade the same coin five different grades.
Generally in proceedings of this nature a money-back guarantee is no defense to a charge of misrepresentation. But it assumes substantial significance in the numismatic field where honest differences of opinion frequently exist between buyer and seller as to the grade of the merchandise involved. Such a guarantee reflects the recognized uncertainty inherent in the matter of grading coins. This uncertainty allows a degree of legitimate "puffing" by sellers as to the grading of coins offered for sale. Such "puffing" may be offensive to purists but the record shows that the practice should be a matter of common knowledge among collectors.
"Whizzing" or polishing of coins is considered by some collectors to degrade a coin. For others it enhances the desirability of a coin. There is nothing illegal about "whizzing" or polishing. There is no unanimity of opinion as to the effect of such procedures on the grading of coins although increasing experience in collecting may tend to cause a collector to shun "whizzed" or polished coins. However, this is a matter of personal preference. Therefore, I find no misrepresentation involved in respondent's practice of "whizzing" or polishing coins.
Honest differences of opinion and judgment as to the grade and genuineness of the particular coins involved in this proceeding, including the effect of "whizzing" thereon, may account for differences in grade found by the various witnesses in this matter. Differences of that nature do not furnish the basis for a finding of misrepresentations, as alleged in the complaint, on the part of respondent.
Although it is likely that respondent on occasion may have sold counterfeit or altered coins, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding that respondent knowingly did so, or made a practice of so doing. Complainant has failed to sustain the burden of proving the falsity of the representations alleged.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
lousy grading.
<< <i>I don't see why it should be removed. Call a spade a spade. I don't understand why members here are offended unless they silently support these bogus TPGs. --Jerry
Because of its potential as libelous material >>
>>
By that standard, you should remove about one-fourth of Wikipedia. Every page that has a section entitled "criticism of ~" or "controversy" has, in your words, the "potential" to be libelous. You are simply wrong about what libel entails. As Wikipedia itself explains, "[t]ruth is an absolute defense in the United States" to claims of libel and slander, and "[s]tatements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements." Moreover, the plaintiff must prove that "the published information is false." Wikipedia link. Good luck with that, third world graders.
Accugrade in its lawsuit tried to get around that by bringing antitrust claims against a large group of defendants. I don't see how that strategy would work here. In any case, I don't see where the libel is. Is there anything on that page that the plaintiffs could prove to be false?
<< <i> In any case, I don't see where the libel is. Is there anything on that page that the plaintiffs could prove to be false? >>
The point is, the defendant must prove allegegly libelous statements are TRUE. Depositions, expert witnesses, discovery, legal fees...expect to pay $20,000+ for your right of "free speech"
<< <i>
<< <i> In any case, I don't see where the libel is. Is there anything on that page that the plaintiffs could prove to be false? >>
The point is, the defendant must prove allegegly libelous statements are TRUE. Depositions, expert witnesses, discovery, legal fees...expect to pay $20,000+ for your right of "free speech" >>
Wrong. Plaintiff must prove that the statements are false. Big difference.
<< <i>As a pretty big contributor on Wikipedia, let me say these things:
1) Anybody can submit an article to the site and this article was created by an anonymous user coming from the IP address 65.197.143.150 on November 12, 2005
2) Wikipedia and its members take things that can cause problems to the site seriously so, if something could have sever legal implications, the community opts to remove it.
3) I added a warning and a request to remove the article.
On #3 above, if any of you would like to add comments as to why you think this should be deleted, please post them here or PM me and I'll build the case even further on Wikipedia. >>
I have been collectiing coins, both raw and certified for over 40 years! I have never been able to add any coins to my collection graded by any of those companies. I'll continue to search for high quality coins wherever I can find them! I apologise if I couldn't have been of any further help in this matter! Sorry!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> In any case, I don't see where the libel is. Is there anything on that page that the plaintiffs could prove to be false? >>
The point is, the defendant must prove allegegly libelous statements are TRUE. Depositions, expert witnesses, discovery, legal fees...expect to pay $20,000+ for your right of "free speech" >>
Wrong. Plaintiff must prove that the statements are false. Big difference. >>
The primary defense to a defamation claim are that the statements are true
<< <i>
The primary defense to a defamation claim are that the statements are true >>
Right. But ultimately the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove their case (i.e., prove that the statements are false). All I can say to that is "good luck fellas."