Questionable flips?
ShootyBabitt
Posts: 970 ✭
0
ShootyBabitt
Posts: 970 ✭
ShootyBabitt
Posts: 970 ✭
Comments
Sure would be tough to fake a PSA hologram
I think the Brock flip was just printed O/C
serial number matches up and the seller offers 7-day money back & PayPal would back you up on a claim anyways.
worth the risk if ya want it.
While I appreciate many on these boards that identify or out bad buyers and sellers, there seems to be a mentality to point out things that may be completely legitimate and above board without any correction or retraction. In the "real world," such actions could easily be considered libelous.
Let's try to stick to facts, folks. At the very least, present such cases with conjecture rather than outright condemnation.
<< <i>Why shoot from the hip and trash a seller who may not have done or be doing anything wrong?
While I appreciate many on these boards that identify or out bad buyers and sellers, there seems to be a mentality to point out things that may be completely legitimate and above board without any correction or retraction. In the "real world," such actions could easily be considered libelous.
Let's try to stick to facts, folks. At the very least, present such cases with conjecture rather than outright condemnation. >>
You are right. I edited the title and my initial post.
Scott's just been on patrol lately, I think he is in the lecture mood.
<< <i>I think the original title and whatnot are fine.
Scott's just been on patrol lately, I think he is in the lecture mood. >>
Perhaps if you saw the original thread title and content before it was edited...
But then again, you haven't been snide or busting my chops, have you?
<< <i>I saw the title, I found nothing wrong with it. If I want to call someone out I will. If it's found out it's the opposite it's not them who is embarassed >>
You miss the point. The point is the damage could already be done. People read posts and may not go back to them. In the meantime, they've crossed someone off their list as the result of inaccurate or false information. This is what I've been trying to explain to you from the get-go. You obviously don't get it as you're another that has all of the answers even if you don't know the question. Have a nice life, Sport...
<< <i>
Let's try to stick to facts, folks. At the very least, present such cases with conjecture rather than outright condemnation. >>
Here are 3 made just today that I would be interested in seeing the facts that back up the statements;
1) Anyway, the drawback to this is that people are going to cost the USPS money by ordering these (and other supplies) that they have no intention of using for the designed purpose.
2) In debt? Someone needs to get their facts straight... While the USPS was set up to be a "break even" operation, they have profited nearly $1,000,000,000/year over the past 5 years.
3) It was that most have no idea, don't do any research and blindly accept whatever grades/LOA they see with the PSA, PSA/DNA or JSA name on them.
I don't want anybody to come across one of these threads seeing misspelled words and losing points on next week's spelling quiz.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Let's try to stick to facts, folks. At the very least, present such cases with conjecture rather than outright condemnation. >>
Here are 3 made just today that I would be interested in seeing the facts that back up the statements;
<< <i>1) Anyway, the drawback to this is that people are going to cost the USPS money by ordering these (and other supplies) that they have no intention of using for the designed purpose. >>
When an item is produced to be used for a service, the use of that service recoups the price of the product. As was stated by at least one person in the thread, their intent is to use the item for packing material, in which case, the USPS loses money
2) In debt? Someone needs to get their facts straight... While the USPS was set up to be a "break even" operation, they have profited nearly $1,000,000,000/year over the past 5 years. >>
The source was posted and quoted
<< <i>3) It was that most have no idea, don't do any research and blindly accept whatever grades/LOA they see with the PSA, PSA/DNA or JSA name on them. >>
I'll stand by that statement as factual. It referred to people not knowing who the staffs were and their qualifications. All one has to do is read these boards to understand this. Considering that most on these boards are far more informed than the general populace, I'm confident that the statement is far more accurate than you are considering
**Edit to repair bold statements and quotations.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Let's try to stick to facts, folks. At the very least, present such cases with conjecture rather than outright condemnation. >>
Here are 3 made just today that I would be interested in seeing the facts that back up the statements;
<< <i>1) Anyway, the drawback to this is that people are going to cost the USPS money by ordering these (and other supplies) that they have no intention of using for the designed purpose. >>
When an item is produced to be used for a service, the use of that service recoups the price of the product. As was stated by at least one person in the thread, their intent is to use the item for packing material, in which case, the USPS loses money
2) In debt? Someone needs to get their facts straight... While the USPS was set up to be a "break even" operation, they have profited nearly $1,000,000,000/year over the past 5 years. >>
The source was posted and quoted
<< <i>3) It was that most have no idea, don't do any research and blindly accept whatever grades/LOA they see with the PSA, PSA/DNA or JSA name on them. >>
I'll stand by that statement as factual. It referred to people not knowing who the staffs were and their qualifications. All one has to do is read these boards to understand this. Considering that most on these boards are far more informed than the general populace, I'm confident that the statement is far more accurate than you are considering
**Edit to repair bold statements and quotations. >>
You made it a point to post that you stick to what you have a very high knowledge of and ask others to do the same, I am just asking for your qualifications to be making such statements.
On the first answer you explain what loss is (thanks) but have 1 person as your basis of fact that people (assuming many) will abuse the item in question.
On the second answer, I provided info that could be taken to shoot down your post (if you trust our own govt. to be truthful) so based on your earlier statements in this thread I assume you will be making a retraction???
On the third you stand by it being factual because you choose it to be and not based on any true facts that can be shown. I only point out this because you have chosen to state that we must stick to the facts. Do I agree with there being truth in your statement? YES, but it is my opinion and not fact when I say that.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Let's try to stick to facts, folks. At the very least, present such cases with conjecture rather than outright condemnation. >>
Here are 3 made just today that I would be interested in seeing the facts that back up the statements;
<< <i>1) Anyway, the drawback to this is that people are going to cost the USPS money by ordering these (and other supplies) that they have no intention of using for the designed purpose. >>
When an item is produced to be used for a service, the use of that service recoups the price of the product. As was stated by at least one person in the thread, their intent is to use the item for packing material, in which case, the USPS loses money
2) In debt? Someone needs to get their facts straight... While the USPS was set up to be a "break even" operation, they have profited nearly $1,000,000,000/year over the past 5 years. >>
The source was posted and quoted
<< <i>3) It was that most have no idea, don't do any research and blindly accept whatever grades/LOA they see with the PSA, PSA/DNA or JSA name on them. >>
I'll stand by that statement as factual. It referred to people not knowing who the staffs were and their qualifications. All one has to do is read these boards to understand this. Considering that most on these boards are far more informed than the general populace, I'm confident that the statement is far more accurate than you are considering
**Edit to repair bold statements and quotations. >>
You made it a point to post that you stick to what you have a very high knowledge of and ask others to do the same, I am just asking for your qualifications to be making such statements.
On the first answer you explain what loss is (thanks) but have 1 person as your basis of fact that people (assuming many) will abuse the item in question.
On the second answer, I provided info that could be taken to shoot down your post (if you trust our own govt. to be truthful) so based on your earlier statements in this thread I assume you will be making a retraction???
On the third you stand by it being factual because you choose it to be and not based on any true facts that can be shown. I only point out this because you have chosen to state that we must stick to the facts. Do I agree with there being truth in your statement? YES, but it is my opinion and not fact when I say that. >>
Sorry, but if you want EVERYTHING documented, it won't happen. Not from me or anyone else. I will stand by anything I post and when I don't know or don't have what I consider a reliable source to cite, I won't venture a statement (this is primarily with regard to cards and card related topics - economics, politics, etc offer too much contradictory evidence as numbers and facts are often manipulated or distorted). With regard to the "USPS loss" issue, a second poster added he will use them for packing material, so that's two on a limited board in less than a day. I will stand by the statement that MANY will use these for purposes other than shipping Priority Mail.
I appreciate your efforts to set me straight, but I'm too pompous to worry about it.
<< <i>Ok... Bid deal someone won't purchase a card... I guarantee you less than 1/10 of 1/10 of 1% of the people here are the general populous on ebay. >>
That may be true Sean.
But, what if "you" were the seller?
I have about 1000 potential patients in my practice - yet if one were to badmouth me - and I felt it was unfounded? I wouldn't think - that's only a .1% of my patient load - I would be annoyed - and disappointed.
In no way is this an admonishment of you or any one on the boards - I'm just empathizing with the idea of "what" it takes to upset any person with respect to business.
Scott is on target with respect to people - at times - jumping to conclusions that could hurt an individual - even if in a minor way - this is a general statement - for I don't track this kind of stuff - and don't fancy myself a member of the thread police.
<< <i>
I appreciate your efforts to set me straight, but I'm too pompous to worry about it. >>
I believe this to be factual