Yeah keep spinning away Stan, the bottom line is you are a spineless liar. Next time you decide to out someone, and they come here,back your statements up. You did not say the guys name from the get go. And Storm did in fact furnish the proof. He clearly said that the 2 names both had MN in them and he guessed it could have been a coincidence. Because he could not be 100% correct at the time he had to put in a disclaimer.
Yes you are correct you didn't reply for around 24 hrs (You claim to have a life beyond these boards) when you did finally respond you claimed you would not furnish your proof and for the 19th time that is a problem, who cares if you were right all along? I sure as hell don't.
<< <i>this is the great drama I was hoping for! The funny thing is Stan you could have posted the info you had ASAP and the drama you wanted to prevent would have been over.
Steve is right in the fact that you created a lot of this mess by not posting for a week or so on the thread. >>
I was not posting for a week or so? Really, why make this stuff up? It was less than 24 hours in between my posts. Nice try, leathtech. >>
You are correct you said on the 8th you were not going to play along anymore... for some reason I thought it was much earlier in the week.
I still have to agree with Steve if you are going to come out and bash as seller do it full force and give us all the proof. If you don't the drama that you wanted to avoid will continue to go on.
Stan basically you did the right thing you just went about it in manor that made you look as bad as the scummy seller.
<< <i>I am posting this message for anyone who read the Pujols Bowman chrome post that was maliciously written against me.
You do not know the facts about this card or how I received it so I would appreciate you not trying to slander my reputation.
As for the Pujols card. You do not have your facts even close to accurate. I purchased this card just this past weekend at a local show from a guy.
-mnmiracle2004 >>
Ryan:
I suppose that you also purchased many other cards from the same person at the same show. This could be the only possible explanation for the volume of cards that you are offering that were originally bought by the person that you suggest you bought the Pujols card from.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
I will await you response. Please know that if you wish to dispute my suggestions, I will gladly point out more than a handful of cards that you have for sale that were purchased by the eBay id that is suspected to be your purchasing arm.
I'll leave the ball in your court.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with buying and selling for a profit. Almost eveyone here does it. While what you did with the Pujols card isn't illegal, and some here find it criminal, you have every right to offer it as you see fit just as others have a right to disagree with the ethical aspect of your desciption.
Anyway, I'd love to hear your explanation.
I think, while it might be painful, that owning up to the fact that the other account is your buyer account might be more of a manly approach than the lies perpetuated in your original post and the deceit that you are trying to lay off in this matter.
<< <i>Yeah keep spinning away Stan, the bottom line is you are a spineless liar. Next time you decide to out someone, and they come here,back your statements up. You did not say the guys name from the get go. And Storm did in fact furnish the proof. He clearly said that the 2 names both had MN in them and he guessed it could have been a coincidence. Because he could not be 100% correct at the time he had to put in a disclaimer.
Yes you are correct you didn't reply for around 24 hrs (You claim to have a life beyond these boards) when you did finally respond you claimed you would not furnish your proof and for the 19th time that is a problem, who cares if you were right all along? I sure as hell don't.
Steve >>
Steve,
You are the liar, and not to mention a two-faced backstabber. Just remember all the pms that you send just might not be all that private. Some of that info might just be passed on to me. I know what game you played behind my back. Gutless to say the least..
Did I not mention in the beginning that Ryan was from MN, and sold real estate for a living? Heck yes I did! Storm did not know the guy's name, or any of the info of what Ryan does for a living. None of that. Al storm done was ask who mn-sportscards was, so get a grip, Steve. You were proven wrong, and you look like a fool. Deal with it!
Ya Steve he's a great big liar for mistakenly saying you apologized, maybe we should shoot him for that atrosity??? after looking at your post with regard to that, a quik glance of way you quoted another poster kind of makes it look like you actually apologized. Talk about splitting hairs... two friggin days of drama, thanks.
He posted a thread, and outed a scammer. Why do you guys feel it's so important for him to hang for this? He never lied about the "Shady seller". The info he did provide at the time was good enough for me. And by that I mean it was obvious the seller was "shady". That's all anyone needed to know, and that's all he was saying.
Anyone that wants to hang him for being 'loyal' to his source should hide their shame. Because obviously that word means very little to you.
That makes no sense nightcrawler. His "source" was never outed or compromised in any way.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Ya Steve he's a great big liar for mistakenly saying you apologized, maybe we should shoot him for that atrosity??? after looking at your post with regard to that, a quik glance of way you quoted another poster kind of makes it look like you actually apologized. Talk about splitting hairs... two friggin days of drama, thanks.
He posted a thread, and outed a scammer. Why do you guys feel it's so important for him to hang for this? He never lied about the "Shady seller". The info he did provide at the time was good enough for me. And by that I mean it was obvious the seller was "shady". That's all anyone needed to know, and that's all he was saying.
Anyone that wants to hang him for being 'loyal' to his source should hide their shame. Because obviously that word means very little to you. >>
Thank you for the support, nightcrawler. I appreciate someone using logic and being fair, instead of having their judgement/actions clouded by a big old vendetta.
You are the liar, and not to mention a two-faced backstabber. Just remember all the pms that you send just might not be all that private. Some of that info might just be passed on to me. I know what game you played behind my back. Gutless to say the least..
Did I not mention in the beginning that Ryan was from MN, and sold real estate for a living? Heck yes I did! Storm did not know the guy's name, or any of the info of what Ryan does for a living. None of that. Al storm done was ask who mn-sportscards was, so get a grip, Steve. You were proven wrong, and you look like a fool. Deal with it! >>
Steve's a big boy and I'm sure that you two will continue this until the thread goes "poof" or one of you succumbs to exhaustion.
In any respect, I find it interesting that STM is so quick to condemn others and yet has such a stance when he gets questioned. Something a little hypocritical about that. Condemning language and others political or religious viewpoints because they differ from yours is fine, but then you call others names and toss around insults. Just a little two-faced in my book.
<< <i>That makes no sense nightcrawler. His "source" was never outed or compromised in any way. >>
Thankfully, but it seems that no one is happy about that.
<< <i>In any respect, I find it interesting that STM is so quick to condemn others and yet has such a stance when he gets questioned. Something a little hypocritical about that. Condemning language and others political or religious viewpoints because they differ from yours is fine, but then you call others names and toss around insults. Just a little two-faced in my book. >>
Scott, maybe true, but that was there and this is here. We don't need to drag crap from thread to thread. And this thread is about mnmiracle.
<< <i>That makes no sense nightcrawler. His "source" was never outed or compromised in any way. >>
Thankfully, but it seems that no one is happy about that. >>
Except no one has asked for the source or cared about the source and no source was needed to provide the correct eBay links.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Except no one has asked for the source or cared about the source and no source was needed to provide the correct eBay links. >>
Well maybe his source held the key until feedback on the original sale was finally left? I'm not sure how the others found this info. storm said he didn't know of the feedback being left. But then storm never did say where he got his info, did he?
I have absolutely NO malice towards you, and I KNEW you were telling the truth about this episode from the get go.
So, please, briefly explain here, not in a PM:
"How and why did you think that simply posting the original buyer's ID was going to involve your 'source'?"
I hate not being able to figure stuff out. Thanks.
(That question is really at the heart of why some folks are still on you about not being fully forthcoming in a rapid manner. They don't understand your motivation for holding back, anymore than I do.)
//////////////////////////////////////////
When I posted the mn-sportscards ID, I added the "I dunno" disclaimer as an element of fairplay. It was not a wholly genuine "I dunno."
As the most litigious person on the planet, I don't care if I get sued, but I do care if I harm somebody with mistaken or misinterpreted info. The info I posted was PUBLIC info. It would have been posted earlier, but the original thread with the roadmap in it got poofed, and I had to track down the original listing.
Neither STM - nor his "source" - played any role in my "revealing" the PUBLICLY available mn-sportscards ID.
Note to the dirtbag that is the subject of this drama:
If I or any of your critics here start having trouble with our EBAY business - fake bids, cancelled BINs, unwarranted NEGs, any other unusual problems - I may assume that you are the cause of those problems. The result will be VERY unpleasant.
Just move on and continue your FRAUDS until LE finally puts you where you belong.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Nightcrawler I stand behind my comments and I am POSITIVE that I can show a few lies that he made just in this very thread.
The other night you were not sure which one was shady or a liar. Your exact words were, probably both were.
My problem is and has been from the beginning of this thread is if anyone wants to out someone for any reason and the person that was outed comes here it is only fair to that person and the board in general to provide the proof that you claim you have. To hide behind nonsense is unfair to the person being outed regardless if he is a crook or not.
If we as a board do not demand proof when it is demanded then who is to say that someone will not slander someone for alterior motives.
Stan I agree I probably do look like a fool, but then again so do you. So get a grip on that.
As far as backstabbing you, prove it. What I say I say to your face. If did pm someone and it was regarding you it was simply because you were acting like the pompous no it all that you claim to be.
Like yesterday when you claimed I apologized to MN and I called you out on it you never did respond to it.
Prove I backstabbed you. come on I can take it. Or is it just more lies that seem to spill out of that mouth of yours?
<< <i>Nightcrawler I stand behind my comments and I am POSITIVE that I can show a few lies that he made just in this very thread.
The other night you were not sure which one was shady or a liar. Your exact words were, probably both were. >>
And I apologized for that.
<< <i>My problem is and has been from the beginning of this thread is if anyone wants to out someone for any reason and the person that was outed comes here it is only fair to that person and the board in general to provide the proof that you claim you have. To hide behind nonsense is unfair to the person being outed regardless if he is a crook or not.
If we as a board do not demand proof when it is demanded then who is to say that someone will not slander someone for alterior motives.
Steve >>
And if the proof you demand could have a negative effect on the person (source) trying to help. Does that mean anything?
And by the way, Stan has been accused of starting this whole thing for his own vendetta against mnmiracle... Congrats to anyone that does this, thumbs up for getting even.
<< <i>"And those who haven't followed it will be better off."
///////////////////////////////////////
One thing the story has done:
I am now seriously doubting the wisdom of encouraging PSA to slab as "AUTHENTIC," very many cards.
If crooks are going to play the arbitrage game on "authentic vs. possibly gradable," a new set of risks is created.
A review of the dirtbag's history shows that he knows that game. >>
This might have been the best thing to come from this whole thread... Storm I completely agree with you. Maybe if one wants a card slabed Authentic you have to agree to some type of small hologram or marking on the back of the card so the card just can't be cracked out and then resold.
Scott what Storm is saying (and people already do it now) they take a card that PSA has graded 'Authentic" they crack it out and then say in an auction that the card will slab at PSA knowing full well that it already has.
Thus making people think they may get a numerical grade when the best it possibly could get is an 'A' for authentic.
The price difference between a PSA 1 and "A' could be 100's of dollars for some cards.
Steve
edited to add: Some cards that have been graded "A' could appear to be 7's or 8's for that matter making the spread even wider.
<< <i>Scott what Storm is saying (and people already do it now) they take a card that PSA has graded 'Authentic" they crack it out and then say in an auction that the card will slab at PSA knowing full well that it already has.
Thus making people think they may get a numerical grade when the best it possibly could get is an 'A' for authentic.
The price difference between a PSA 1 and "A' could be 100's of dollars for some cards.
Steve
edited to add: Some cards that have been graded "A' could appear to be 7's or 8's for that matter making the spread even wider. >>
While PSA has seemed pretty reticent sometimes to slab stuff "AUTHENTIC," I have pushed to expand the use of the designation.
In rethinking the risks, I think the "A" should now be even more rarely used. And, as noted above, perhaps some kind of a "mark or hologram" should be placed directly on the card; as a warning to consumers and a deterent to fraudsters.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>you suggesting they MARK the card, wouldnt that defeat the MK qualifier ? lol.... >>
///////////////////////
It could be a tiny "mark," or a little seal that would leave residue if removed.
In any event, the owner of the card would have to agree to the process; it would not be forced on him. If he did not want the mark/seal, he simply could not get the card into an "A" slab.
I am aware that some scamsters have been exploiting the arbitrage for a long time. Their supply of new material needs to be MUCH limited, and PSA could easily accomplish that.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>"And those who haven't followed it will be better off."
///////////////////////////////////////
One thing the story has done:
I am now seriously doubting the wisdom of encouraging PSA to slab as "AUTHENTIC," very many cards.
If crooks are going to play the arbitrage game on "authentic vs. possibly gradable," a new set of risks is created.
A review of the dirtbag's history shows that he knows that game. >>
On the PCGS boards , this same issue is being played out. Some people are starting to play the same game. Unethical people can always find a way to practice their deceit. Are we going to be like that ? is the only true issue that should be of concern here.
The only thing that evil people need to succeed , is for good people to do nothing.
" In a time of universal deceit , telling the truth is a revolutionary act " --- George Orwell
<< <i>"And those who haven't followed it will be better off."
///////////////////////////////////////
One thing the story has done:
I am now seriously doubting the wisdom of encouraging PSA to slab as "AUTHENTIC," very many cards.
If crooks are going to play the arbitrage game on "authentic vs. possibly gradable," a new set of risks is created.
A review of the dirtbag's history shows that he knows that game. >>
On the PCGS boards , this same issue is being played out. Some people are starting to play the same game. Unethical people can always find a way to practice their deceit. Are we going to be like that ? is the only true issue that should be of concern here.
The only thing that evil people need to succeed , is for good people to do nothing. >>
<< <i>Stan I agree I probably do look like a fool, but then again so do you. So get a grip on that.
As far as backstabbing you, prove it. What I say I say to your face. If did pm someone and it was regarding you it was simply because you were acting like the pompous no it all that you claim to be.
Like yesterday when you claimed I apologized to MN and I called you out on it you never did respond to it.
Prove I backstabbed you. come on I can take it. Or is it just more lies that seem to spill out of that mouth of yours?
Steve >>
So I have to prove you backstabbed me? As if you don't know what you have said in pms to me(you were trying to buddy up/be friendly to me), and then in the same breath pm someone else and talk trash about me? So how can I prove that without posting pm's? Isn't that like me saying prove you don't steal? How can you, truly? It's a no win situation when people like you play gotcha games. It's no use in wasting anymore time with it.
After mnmiracle posted and was feeding you guys some big lie, you pretty much bought it, then started being friendly to him, while making negative comments about me. Saying my credibility was pretty much shot on here, I fed the board some story that was false, anything I said should be taken with a grain of salt, ect, ect... You were piling on me big time, because you bought into the guy. Sure, you can lie about it now, but I seen your words, and how you were being nice to Ryan, while trashing me. Don't try and deny it. Sure, you can talk tough now, because all of your words have been deleted for good, and you know I can't post them in this thread as proof.
You need to prove I lied about anything pertaining to this. Go ahead. As you said, I can take it. Now prove I lied, Steve. You know better.
I guess that I have been halfway following this thread. I kind of know how it got started, but I am amazed that this has taken on a life of its own.
I'd love to become a regular part of this board but I am a bit discouraged at the moment by the unending back-and-forth as well as the folks on the sidelines who are picking side and fueling the fire.
"...Are we going to be like that ? is the only true issue that should be of concern here. ..."
///////////////////////////////////////////////
As pressures to profit becomes greater, it is reasonable for companies to look for ways to increase revenues.
PCGS issuing "A" slabs is an example of a feature that was introduced "by popular demand." It has seemed like a GREAT idea for a long time.
I have also liked the "A" concept at PSA, and have wished more cards would qualify.
NOW, I have completely changed my mind.
Body-Bags and flips with NEG comments are a bummer, but the fraud issue has the potential to further weaken BOTH hobbies. Newbies, especially, are discouraged from entering the game if they are skeert of CROOKS ripping them off.
For many years, I spent wads each year on stamps. I stopped COLD when the "bad stuff" started happening; so did TONS of other folks who used to spend BIG bucks.
Hunting, fishing and skiing look like more appealing hobbies everyday. (But, even some of the vintage fishing-reels are being counterfeited by the Chi-Coms.)
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>And by the way, Stan has been accused of starting this whole thing for his own vendetta against mnmiracle.
Yeah ain't that ironic?
edited to take out 'Rat' lest I disparge Rats
Steve >>
And for the record, I done nothing because of a personal vendetta against the guy. I simply was looking on Ebay at Pujols cards, seen the situation, and knew that Ryan Hank was up to more shady dealings, based on me previous experience with him. I came here and posted about it, so to give a heads up for folks to be cautious if they dealt with him. How is that a bad thing? It's not!
People that are liked/popular on here post about shady/scamming Ebay buyers/sellers all of the time, and none of them take a beating for it like I have in this case. Sure, there will be some excuse to cover why I am so bad, and those folks were not, because that's how it always happens. I know the game. It will never change.
On this board, if you are liked, you can say just about anything without getting criticized or questioned for it. If you are one of what is considered the "outsiders", then you know it's just a matter of time before you take a bashing for nothing short of vendetta-based nonsense.
Just what I figured you like to accuse people and when confronted you bail out.
Keep saying the same crap over and over Stan sooner or later some one will stumble upon this thread and believe you.
I don't have to prove anything, you made the accusation not me.
As for proving you are a liar all anyone has to do is read this thread.
I'm wondering why you keep replying only to me, at least 4 other people have called you out on various things here but you continue to reply basically only to me.
Answer a few of the others for a while. I'm worn down again.
Storm asked you a few questions, Scot has too. The last time you relied to anyone other then me was when Leahtech mistakenly said it was a week or some nonsense. Like that was a big error on his part!
And FWIW no one cares if I back stabbed you. I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you can't provide the proof when asked (a recurring theme) don't shoot your mouth off.
Yeah I know you will reply I am a backstabber, who cares? Say it enough times and maybe someone will believe you huh Stan?
<< <i>Just what I figured you like to accuse people and when confronted you bail out.
Keep saying the same crap over and over Stan sooner or later some one will stumble upon this thread and believe you.
I don't have to prove anything, you made the accusation not me.
As for proving you are a liar all anyone has to do is read this thread.
I'm wondering why you keep replying only to me, at least 4 other people have called you out on various things here but you continue to reply basically only to me.
Answer a few of the others for a while. I'm worn down again.
Storm asked you a few questions, Scot has too. The last time you relied to anyone other then me was when Leahtech mistakenly said it was a week or some nonsense. Like that was a big error on his part!
And FWIW no one cares if I back stabbed you. I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you can't provide the proof when asked (a recurring theme) don't shoot your mouth off.
Yeah I know you will reply I am a backstabber, who cares? Say it enough times and maybe someone will believe you huh Stan?
Steve >>
Figures, that come with this evasive answer, and want to blame me for everything. This is a tactic to dodge, Steve. I know the game. You and the little pack that are your friends play it on here on a daily basis. Blast 500 questions at me, demand only answers that you want to hear, and refuse to answer any questions yourself.
<< <i>I am a bit discouraged at the moment by the unending back-and-forth
Hi Msohn I am too, maybe Stantheman can reply to the few other posters that have questions in to him.
With that I'm done, I've stated my point probably 19 times.
Stan can have the last word, maybe he will use it and reply to Storm.
Steve >>
What else needs to be said, that has not already been, Steve? Ryan Hank was outed as a scamming seller thanks to my post. Without that, his little game of deception would have continued unchecked. Now, everyone that has read this forum knows what the guy is about. That is a good thing for the hobby to be alerted to this kind of stuff.
As for storm;
If I posted everything in this public forum in the beginning, my source said that you guys would demand to know who told me the info, how I got it, ect.. By revealing my source's name, it could potentially cause him problems outside of this place. He did not want that garbage. He told me that I was better off talking to Ryan in private, and trying to get him to come clean on here. That is why I used small tidbits of personal info in the other thread that disappeared, by stating that I knew he worked in real estate, his name was Ryan, he lived in MN, ect.. I figured that would bring Ryan Hank to realize that I was onto him. Evidentally, Ryan did not think I could factually link him to those cards that he bought and sold with his alternate buying id, so that is why he came in here and lied about buying the card at a card show, while saying I maliciously lied and slandered him. That was so far from the truth, it was not even funny. You guys see that now.
<< <i>I'd love to become a regular part of this board but I am a bit discouraged at the moment by the unending back-and-forth as well as the folks on the sidelines who are picking side and fueling the fire. >>
<< <i>I am a bit discouraged at the moment by the unending back-and-forth
Hi Msohn I am too, maybe Stantheman can reply to the few other posters that have questions in to him.
With that I'm done, I've stated my point probably 19 times.
Stan can have the last word, maybe he will use it and reply to Storm.
Steve >>
What else needs to be said, that has not already been, Steve? Ryan Hank was outed as a scamming seller thanks to my post. Without that, his little game of deception would have continued unchecked. Now, everyone that has read this forum knows what the guy is about. That is a good thing for the hobby to be alerted to this kind of stuff.
As for storm;
If I posted everything in this public forum in the beginning, my source said that you guys would demand to know who told me the info, how I got it, ect.. By revealing my source's name, it could potentially cause him problems outside of this place. He did not want that garbage. He told me that I was better off talking to Ryan in private, and trying to get him to come clean on here. That is why I used small tidbits of personal info in the other thread that disappeared, by stating that I knew he worked in real estate, his name was Ryan, he lived in MN, ect.. I figured that would bring Ryan Hank to realize that I was onto him. Evidentally, Ryan did not think I could factually link him to those cards that he bought and sold with his alternate buying id, so that is why he came in here and lied about buying the card at a card show, while saying I maliciously lied and slandered him. That was so far from the truth, it was not even funny. You guys see that now. >>
Blah, Blah, Blah. I don't think anyone believes you, or if they do they just don't understand ebay. There is NO WAY providing the links would give up your source unless your source is the seller/dealer in question. That is what you were asked for proof....the links. Your insistence on this faulty line is funny. If my neighbor provided the links to me and I shared them, tell me how you could link that up with my neighbor? You couldn't.
However if your source contacted you about the auction/s, then the source must have known you had prior dealings with the buyer/seller. I imagine the only person that dwells on problems you had with this seller is you.....meaning you are likely your own source.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
If I posted everything in this public forum in the beginning, my source said that you guys would demand to know who told me the info, how I got it, ect.. "
<< <i>I am a bit discouraged at the moment by the unending back-and-forth
Hi Msohn I am too, maybe Stantheman can reply to the few other posters that have questions in to him.
With that I'm done, I've stated my point probably 19 times.
Stan can have the last word, maybe he will use it and reply to Storm.
Steve >>
What else needs to be said, that has not already been, Steve? Ryan Hank was outed as a scamming seller thanks to my post. Without that, his little game of deception would have continued unchecked. Now, everyone that has read this forum knows what the guy is about. That is a good thing for the hobby to be alerted to this kind of stuff.
As for storm;
If I posted everything in this public forum in the beginning, my source said that you guys would demand to know who told me the info, how I got it, ect.. By revealing my source's name, it could potentially cause him problems outside of this place. He did not want that garbage. He told me that I was better off talking to Ryan in private, and trying to get him to come clean on here. That is why I used small tidbits of personal info in the other thread that disappeared, by stating that I knew he worked in real estate, his name was Ryan, he lived in MN, ect.. I figured that would bring Ryan Hank to realize that I was onto him. Evidentally, Ryan did not think I could factually link him to those cards that he bought and sold with his alternate buying id, so that is why he came in here and lied about buying the card at a card show, while saying I maliciously lied and slandered him. That was so far from the truth, it was not even funny. You guys see that now. >>
Blah, Blah, Blah. I don't think anyone believes you, or if they do they just don't understand ebay. There is NO WAY providing the links would give up your source unless your source is the seller/dealer in question. That is what you were asked for proof....the links. Your insistence on this faulty line is funny. If my neighbor provided the links to me and I shared them, tell me how you could link that up with my neighbor? You couldn't.
However if your source contacted you about the auction/s, then the source must have known you had prior dealings with the buyer/seller. I imagine the only person that dwells on problems you had with this seller is you.....meaning you are likely your own source. >>
You, sir, are a moron. This is typical; I answer the question, and here comes more nonsense. I guess I will just stop answering questions, since you all don't want to know the truth, you just want to hear what you want to hear, and if that is not what I say, then there is some reason why I am so wrong.. It's pointless.
Take it away vendetta riden tools. I am done with this whole subject. Bash, trash, whatever helps you get your kicks.. Bottom line is that the guy was exactly who I said he was from day one. Think what you will, and just keep coming with the nonsense conspiracy theories. It only shows who has the vendettas with whom around here. It fuels this garbage on a daily basis.
<< <i>Blah, Blah, Blah. I don't think anyone believes you, or if they do they just don't understand ebay. There is NO WAY providing the links would give up your source unless your source is the seller/dealer in question. >>
Ya know the seller/dealer you're talking about is one of the most resectful I've seen. Why does he need to be watching out for someone that doesn't hold to the same values as him? What is the big deal with guys needing this info? And why does anyone else need to be at any risk from this lying scammer?
Comments
up. You did not say the guys name from the get go. And Storm did in fact furnish the proof. He clearly said that the 2 names both had MN in them and
he guessed it could have been a coincidence. Because he could not be 100% correct at the time he had to put in a disclaimer.
Yes you are correct you didn't reply for around 24 hrs (You claim to have a life beyond these boards) when you did finally respond you claimed you would not furnish your proof
and for the 19th time that is a problem, who cares if you were right all along? I sure as hell don't.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>this is the great drama I was hoping for! The funny thing is Stan you could have posted the info you had ASAP and the drama you wanted to prevent would have been over.
Steve is right in the fact that you created a lot of this mess by not posting for a week or so on the thread. >>
I was not posting for a week or so? Really, why make this stuff up? It was less than 24 hours in between my posts. Nice try, leathtech. >>
You are correct you said on the 8th you were not going to play along anymore... for some reason I thought it was much earlier in the week.
I still have to agree with Steve if you are going to come out and bash as seller do it full force and give us all the proof. If you don't the drama that you wanted to avoid will continue to go on.
Stan basically you did the right thing you just went about it in manor that made you look as bad as the scummy seller.
<< <i>I am posting this message for anyone who read the Pujols Bowman chrome post that was maliciously written against me.
You do not know the facts about this card or how I received it so I would appreciate you not trying to slander my reputation.
As for the Pujols card. You do not have your facts even close to accurate. I purchased this card just this past weekend at a local show from a guy.
-mnmiracle2004 >>
Ryan:
I suppose that you also purchased many other cards from the same person at the same show. This could be the only possible explanation for the volume of cards that you are offering that were originally bought by the person that you suggest you bought the Pujols card from.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
I will await you response. Please know that if you wish to dispute my suggestions, I will gladly point out more than a handful of cards that you have for sale that were purchased by the eBay id that is suspected to be your purchasing arm.
I'll leave the ball in your court.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with buying and selling for a profit. Almost eveyone here does it. While what you did with the Pujols card isn't illegal, and some here find it criminal, you have every right to offer it as you see fit just as others have a right to disagree with the ethical aspect of your desciption.
Anyway, I'd love to hear your explanation.
I think, while it might be painful, that owning up to the fact that the other account is your buyer account might be more of a manly approach than the lies perpetuated in your original post and the deceit that you are trying to lay off in this matter.
<< <i>Yeah keep spinning away Stan, the bottom line is you are a spineless liar. Next time you decide to out someone, and they come here,back your statements
up. You did not say the guys name from the get go. And Storm did in fact furnish the proof. He clearly said that the 2 names both had MN in them and
he guessed it could have been a coincidence. Because he could not be 100% correct at the time he had to put in a disclaimer.
Yes you are correct you didn't reply for around 24 hrs (You claim to have a life beyond these boards) when you did finally respond you claimed you would not furnish your proof
and for the 19th time that is a problem, who cares if you were right all along? I sure as hell don't.
Steve >>
Steve,
You are the liar, and not to mention a two-faced backstabber. Just remember all the pms that you send just might not be all that private.
Did I not mention in the beginning that Ryan was from MN, and sold real estate for a living? Heck yes I did! Storm did not know the guy's name, or any of the info of what Ryan does for a living. None of that. Al storm done was ask who mn-sportscards was, so get a grip, Steve. You were proven wrong, and you look like a fool. Deal with it!
He posted a thread, and outed a scammer. Why do you guys feel it's so important for him to hang for this? He never lied about the "Shady seller". The info he did provide at the time was good enough for me. And by that I mean it was obvious the seller was "shady". That's all anyone needed to know, and that's all he was saying.
Anyone that wants to hang him for being 'loyal' to his source should hide their shame. Because obviously that word means very little to you.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Ya Steve he's a great big liar for mistakenly saying you apologized, maybe we should shoot him for that atrosity??? after looking at your post with regard to that, a quik glance of way you quoted another poster kind of makes it look like you actually apologized. Talk about splitting hairs... two friggin days of drama, thanks.
He posted a thread, and outed a scammer. Why do you guys feel it's so important for him to hang for this? He never lied about the "Shady seller". The info he did provide at the time was good enough for me. And by that I mean it was obvious the seller was "shady". That's all anyone needed to know, and that's all he was saying.
Anyone that wants to hang him for being 'loyal' to his source should hide their shame. Because obviously that word means very little to you. >>
Thank you for the support, nightcrawler. I appreciate someone using logic and being fair, instead of having their judgement/actions clouded by a big old vendetta.
<< <i>Stan basically you did the right thing you just went about it in manor that made you look as bad as the scummy seller. >>
I disagree, I think the "pile on" caused this illusion. And Stan new it was coming, he always does.
<< <i>Steve,
You are the liar, and not to mention a two-faced backstabber. Just remember all the pms that you send just might not be all that private.
Did I not mention in the beginning that Ryan was from MN, and sold real estate for a living? Heck yes I did! Storm did not know the guy's name, or any of the info of what Ryan does for a living. None of that. Al storm done was ask who mn-sportscards was, so get a grip, Steve. You were proven wrong, and you look like a fool. Deal with it! >>
Steve's a big boy and I'm sure that you two will continue this until the thread goes "poof" or one of you succumbs to exhaustion.
In any respect, I find it interesting that STM is so quick to condemn others and yet has such a stance when he gets questioned. Something a little hypocritical about that. Condemning language and others political or religious viewpoints because they differ from yours is fine, but then you call others names and toss around insults. Just a little two-faced in my book.
Enjoy the hobby. It really is fun!!!
<< <i>That makes no sense nightcrawler. His "source" was never outed or compromised in any way. >>
Thankfully, but it seems that no one is happy about that.
<< <i>In any respect, I find it interesting that STM is so quick to condemn others and yet has such a stance when he gets questioned. Something a little hypocritical about that. Condemning language and others political or religious viewpoints because they differ from yours is fine, but then you call others names and toss around insults. Just a little two-faced in my book. >>
Scott, maybe true, but that was there and this is here. We don't need to drag crap from thread to thread. And this thread is about mnmiracle.
<< <i>
<< <i>That makes no sense nightcrawler. His "source" was never outed or compromised in any way. >>
Thankfully, but it seems that no one is happy about that. >>
Except no one has asked for the source or cared about the source and no source was needed to provide the correct eBay links.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Except no one has asked for the source or cared about the source and no source was needed to provide the correct eBay links. >>
Well maybe his source held the key until feedback on the original sale was finally left? I'm not sure how the others found this info. storm said he didn't know of the feedback being left. But then storm never did say where he got his info, did he?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Stan:
I have absolutely NO malice towards you, and I KNEW you were
telling the truth about this episode from the get go.
So, please, briefly explain here, not in a PM:
"How and why did you think that simply posting the original buyer's
ID was going to involve your 'source'?"
I hate not being able to figure stuff out. Thanks.
(That question is really at the heart of why some folks are still on you
about not being fully forthcoming in a rapid manner. They don't understand
your motivation for holding back, anymore than I do.)
//////////////////////////////////////////
When I posted the mn-sportscards ID, I added the "I dunno"
disclaimer as an element of fairplay. It was not a wholly genuine
"I dunno."
As the most litigious person on the planet, I don't care if I
get sued, but I do care if I harm somebody with mistaken or
misinterpreted info. The info I posted was PUBLIC info. It
would have been posted earlier, but the original thread with
the roadmap in it got poofed, and I had to track down the
original listing.
Neither STM - nor his "source" - played any role in my "revealing"
the PUBLICLY available mn-sportscards ID.
////////////////
///////////////////
/////////////////////
Note to the dirtbag that is the subject of this drama:
If I or any of your critics here start having trouble with our
EBAY business - fake bids, cancelled BINs, unwarranted NEGs,
any other unusual problems - I may assume that you are the
cause of those problems. The result will be VERY unpleasant.
Just move on and continue your FRAUDS until LE finally puts
you where you belong.
<< <i>"How and why did you think that simply posting the original buyer's
ID was going to involve your 'source'?" >>
storm, with all due respect, haven't we all figured it out by now?
Your post above relates to possible problems that may yet arise from this. Maybe the "source" is still in need of anonymity
The other night you were not sure which one was shady or a liar. Your exact words were, probably both were.
My problem is and has been from the beginning of this thread is if anyone wants to out someone for any reason
and the person that was outed comes here it is only fair to that person and the board in general to provide the proof that
you claim you have. To hide behind nonsense is unfair to the person being outed regardless if he is a crook or not.
If we as a board do not demand proof when it is demanded then who is to say that someone will not slander someone for alterior
motives.
Steve
As far as backstabbing you, prove it. What I say I say to your face. If did pm someone and it was regarding you it was simply
because you were acting like the pompous no it all that you claim to be.
Like yesterday when you claimed I apologized to MN and I called you out on it you never did respond to it.
Prove I backstabbed you. come on I can take it. Or is it just more lies that seem to spill out of that mouth of yours?
Steve
Your post above relates to possible problems that may yet arise from this. Maybe the "source" is still in need of anonymity."
///////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////
I have NO clue what info the "source" could possibly have had, which info
was not publicly available.
If I can get it, ANYBODY can get it.
Thus, the "source" brings no value-added. Thus, the "source" does not need
to be "protected" because he is NOT even in the mix.
I admit to being one-half stupid, but I still don't see why the original buyer's
ID being revealed IN ANY WAY puts the "source" at risk.
IF STM had simply said - very early on -
"...the first buyer was mn-sportscards, the current seller is mnmiracle2004,"
the response from the dirtbag would NEVER have been made; unless he is
one of those 60-Minutes psychos that thinks he can out-talk Mike Wallace.
<< <i>Nightcrawler I stand behind my comments and I am POSITIVE that I can show a few lies that he made just in this very thread.
The other night you were not sure which one was shady or a liar. Your exact words were, probably both were. >>
And I apologized for that.
<< <i>My problem is and has been from the beginning of this thread is if anyone wants to out someone for any reason
and the person that was outed comes here it is only fair to that person and the board in general to provide the proof that
you claim you have. To hide behind nonsense is unfair to the person being outed regardless if he is a crook or not.
If we as a board do not demand proof when it is demanded then who is to say that someone will not slander someone for alterior
motives.
Steve >>
And if the proof you demand could have a negative effect on the person (source) trying to help. Does that mean anything?
And by the way, Stan has been accused of starting this whole thing for his own vendetta against mnmiracle... Congrats to anyone that does this, thumbs up for getting even.
Then say that from the very beginning NOT AFTER the person comes here and demands your proof.
That reason was used only after MN came here. I can sympathize with that, no one wants to hurt an innocent.
Stan of course will say he said that from the beginning but those that have followed this from its inception
will know better.
Steve
Yeah ain't that ironic?
edited to take out 'Rat' lest I disparge Rats
Steve
<< <i>Stan of course will say he said that from the beginning but those that have followed this from its inception
will know better.
Steve >>
And those who haven't followed it will be better off.
Steve
///////////////////////////////////////
One thing the story has done:
I am now seriously doubting the wisdom of encouraging PSA
to slab as "AUTHENTIC," very many cards.
If crooks are going to play the arbitrage game on "authentic vs. possibly gradable,"
a new set of risks is created.
A review of the dirtbag's history shows that he knows that game.
<< <i>A review of the dirtbag's history shows that he knows that game. >>
I hope he's reading this and it's wrecking up his Football game, hah.
<< <i>"And those who haven't followed it will be better off."
///////////////////////////////////////
One thing the story has done:
I am now seriously doubting the wisdom of encouraging PSA
to slab as "AUTHENTIC," very many cards.
If crooks are going to play the arbitrage game on "authentic vs. possibly gradable,"
a new set of risks is created.
A review of the dirtbag's history shows that he knows that game. >>
This might have been the best thing to come from this whole thread... Storm I completely agree with you. Maybe if one wants a card slabed Authentic you have to agree to some type of small hologram or marking on the back of the card so the card just can't be cracked out and then resold.
they crack it out and then say in an auction that the card will slab at PSA knowing full well that it already has.
Thus making people think they may get a numerical grade when the best it possibly could get is an 'A' for authentic.
The price difference between a PSA 1 and "A' could be 100's of dollars for some cards.
Steve
edited to add: Some cards that have been graded "A' could appear to be 7's or 8's for that matter
making the spread even wider.
<< <i>Scott what Storm is saying (and people already do it now) they take a card that PSA has graded 'Authentic"
they crack it out and then say in an auction that the card will slab at PSA knowing full well that it already has.
Thus making people think they may get a numerical grade when the best it possibly could get is an 'A' for authentic.
The price difference between a PSA 1 and "A' could be 100's of dollars for some cards.
Steve
edited to add: Some cards that have been graded "A' could appear to be 7's or 8's for that matter
making the spread even wider. >>
/////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////
Yup.
While PSA has seemed pretty reticent sometimes to slab stuff "AUTHENTIC,"
I have pushed to expand the use of the designation.
In rethinking the risks, I think the "A" should now be even more rarely used. And,
as noted above, perhaps some kind of a "mark or hologram" should be placed
directly on the card; as a warning to consumers and a deterent to fraudsters.
<< <i>you suggesting they MARK the card, wouldnt that defeat the MK qualifier ? lol.... >>
///////////////////////
It could be a tiny "mark," or a little seal that would leave residue if removed.
In any event, the owner of the card would have to agree to the process; it
would not be forced on him. If he did not want the mark/seal, he simply
could not get the card into an "A" slab.
I am aware that some scamsters have been exploiting the arbitrage for a
long time. Their supply of new material needs to be MUCH limited, and
PSA could easily accomplish that.
<< <i>"And those who haven't followed it will be better off."
///////////////////////////////////////
One thing the story has done:
I am now seriously doubting the wisdom of encouraging PSA
to slab as "AUTHENTIC," very many cards.
If crooks are going to play the arbitrage game on "authentic vs. possibly gradable,"
a new set of risks is created.
A review of the dirtbag's history shows that he knows that game. >>
On the PCGS boards , this same issue is being played out. Some people are starting to play the same game. Unethical people can always find a way to practice their deceit. Are we going to be like that ? is the only true issue that should be of concern here.
The only thing that evil people need to succeed , is for good people to do nothing.
<< <i>
<< <i>"And those who haven't followed it will be better off."
///////////////////////////////////////
One thing the story has done:
I am now seriously doubting the wisdom of encouraging PSA
to slab as "AUTHENTIC," very many cards.
If crooks are going to play the arbitrage game on "authentic vs. possibly gradable,"
a new set of risks is created.
A review of the dirtbag's history shows that he knows that game. >>
On the PCGS boards , this same issue is being played out. Some people are starting to play the same game. Unethical people can always find a way to practice their deceit. Are we going to be like that ? is the only true issue that should be of concern here.
The only thing that evil people need to succeed , is for good people to do nothing. >>
how poetic......
<< <i>Stan I agree I probably do look like a fool, but then again so do you. So get a grip on that.
As far as backstabbing you, prove it. What I say I say to your face. If did pm someone and it was regarding you it was simply
because you were acting like the pompous no it all that you claim to be.
Like yesterday when you claimed I apologized to MN and I called you out on it you never did respond to it.
Prove I backstabbed you. come on I can take it. Or is it just more lies that seem to spill out of that mouth of yours?
Steve >>
So I have to prove you backstabbed me? As if you don't know what you have said in pms to me(you were trying to buddy up/be friendly to me), and then in the same breath pm someone else and talk trash about me? So how can I prove that without posting pm's? Isn't that like me saying prove you don't steal? How can you, truly? It's a no win situation when people like you play gotcha games. It's no use in wasting anymore time with it.
After mnmiracle posted and was feeding you guys some big lie, you pretty much bought it, then started being friendly to him, while making negative comments about me. Saying my credibility was pretty much shot on here, I fed the board some story that was false, anything I said should be taken with a grain of salt, ect, ect... You were piling on me big time, because you bought into the guy. Sure, you can lie about it now, but I seen your words, and how you were being nice to Ryan, while trashing me. Don't try and deny it. Sure, you can talk tough now, because all of your words have been deleted for good, and you know I can't post them in this thread as proof.
You need to prove I lied about anything pertaining to this. Go ahead. As you said, I can take it. Now prove I lied, Steve. You know better.
I guess that I have been halfway following this thread. I kind of know how it got started, but I am amazed that this has taken on a life of its own.
I'd love to become a regular part of this board but I am a bit discouraged at the moment by the unending back-and-forth as well as the folks on the sidelines who are picking side and fueling the fire.
///////////////////////////////////////////////
As pressures to profit becomes greater, it is reasonable for companies
to look for ways to increase revenues.
PCGS issuing "A" slabs is an example of a feature that was introduced
"by popular demand." It has seemed like a GREAT idea for a long time.
I have also liked the "A" concept at PSA, and have wished more cards
would qualify.
NOW, I have completely changed my mind.
Body-Bags and flips with NEG comments are a bummer, but the fraud
issue has the potential to further weaken BOTH hobbies. Newbies,
especially, are discouraged from entering the game if they are skeert
of CROOKS ripping them off.
For many years, I spent wads each year on stamps. I stopped COLD
when the "bad stuff" started happening; so did TONS of other folks
who used to spend BIG bucks.
Hunting, fishing and skiing look like more appealing hobbies everyday.
(But, even some of the vintage fishing-reels are being counterfeited by the
Chi-Coms.)
although it may not seem like it now, some good comes from all threads.....
<< <i>And by the way, Stan has been accused of starting this whole thing for his own vendetta against mnmiracle.
Yeah ain't that ironic?
edited to take out 'Rat' lest I disparge Rats
Steve >>
And for the record, I done nothing because of a personal vendetta against the guy. I simply was looking on Ebay at Pujols cards, seen the situation, and knew that Ryan Hank was up to more shady dealings, based on me previous experience with him. I came here and posted about it, so to give a heads up for folks to be cautious if they dealt with him. How is that a bad thing? It's not!
People that are liked/popular on here post about shady/scamming Ebay buyers/sellers all of the time, and none of them take a beating for it like I have in this case. Sure, there will be some excuse to cover why I am so bad, and those folks were not, because that's how it always happens. I know the game. It will never change.
On this board, if you are liked, you can say just about anything without getting criticized or questioned for it. If you are one of what is considered the "outsiders", then you know it's just a matter of time before you take a bashing for nothing short of vendetta-based nonsense.
Keep saying the same crap over and over Stan sooner or later some one will stumble upon this thread
and believe you.
I don't have to prove anything, you made the accusation not me.
As for proving you are a liar all anyone has to do is read this thread.
I'm wondering why you keep replying only to me, at least 4 other people have called you out
on various things here but you continue to reply basically only to me.
Answer a few of the others for a while. I'm worn down again.
Storm asked you a few questions, Scot has too. The last time you relied to anyone other then me
was when Leahtech mistakenly said it was a week or some nonsense. Like that was a big error on his part!
And FWIW no one cares if I back stabbed you. I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you can't provide the proof when asked (a recurring theme) don't shoot your mouth off.
Yeah I know you will reply I am a backstabber, who cares? Say it enough times and maybe someone will
believe you huh Stan?
Steve
<< <i>Just what I figured you like to accuse people and when confronted you bail out.
Keep saying the same crap over and over Stan sooner or later some one will stumble upon this thread
and believe you.
I don't have to prove anything, you made the accusation not me.
As for proving you are a liar all anyone has to do is read this thread.
I'm wondering why you keep replying only to me, at least 4 other people have called you out
on various things here but you continue to reply basically only to me.
Answer a few of the others for a while. I'm worn down again.
Storm asked you a few questions, Scot has too. The last time you relied to anyone other then me
was when Leahtech mistakenly said it was a week or some nonsense. Like that was a big error on his part!
And FWIW no one cares if I back stabbed you. I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you can't provide the proof when asked (a recurring theme) don't shoot your mouth off.
Yeah I know you will reply I am a backstabber, who cares? Say it enough times and maybe someone will
believe you huh Stan?
Steve >>
Figures, that come with this evasive answer, and want to blame me for everything. This is a tactic to dodge, Steve. I know the game. You and the little pack that are your friends play it on here on a daily basis. Blast 500 questions at me, demand only answers that you want to hear, and refuse to answer any questions yourself.
EDIT: Deleted a word
Hi Msohn I am too, maybe Stantheman can reply to the few other posters that have questions
in to him.
With that I'm done, I've stated my point probably 19 times.
Stan can have the last word, maybe he will use it and reply to Storm.
Steve
edited to add: Hint for Stan the questions posed by Storm are on page 6 of this thread.
<< <i>I am a bit discouraged at the moment by the unending back-and-forth
Hi Msohn I am too, maybe Stantheman can reply to the few other posters that have questions
in to him.
With that I'm done, I've stated my point probably 19 times.
Stan can have the last word, maybe he will use it and reply to Storm.
Steve >>
What else needs to be said, that has not already been, Steve? Ryan Hank was outed as a scamming seller thanks to my post. Without that, his little game of deception would have continued unchecked. Now, everyone that has read this forum knows what the guy is about. That is a good thing for the hobby to be alerted to this kind of stuff.
As for storm;
If I posted everything in this public forum in the beginning, my source said that you guys would demand to know who told me the info, how I got it, ect.. By revealing my source's name, it could potentially cause him problems outside of this place. He did not want that garbage. He told me that I was better off talking to Ryan in private, and trying to get him to come clean on here. That is why I used small tidbits of personal info in the other thread that disappeared, by stating that I knew he worked in real estate, his name was Ryan, he lived in MN, ect.. I figured that would bring Ryan Hank to realize that I was onto him. Evidentally, Ryan did not think I could factually link him to those cards that he bought and sold with his alternate buying id, so that is why he came in here and lied about buying the card at a card show, while saying I maliciously lied and slandered him. That was so far from the truth, it was not even funny. You guys see that now.
<< <i>I'd love to become a regular part of this board but I am a bit discouraged at the moment by the unending back-and-forth as well as the folks on the sidelines who are picking side and fueling the fire. >>
Don't be discouraged, now go grab your gas can.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am a bit discouraged at the moment by the unending back-and-forth
Hi Msohn I am too, maybe Stantheman can reply to the few other posters that have questions
in to him.
With that I'm done, I've stated my point probably 19 times.
Stan can have the last word, maybe he will use it and reply to Storm.
Steve >>
What else needs to be said, that has not already been, Steve? Ryan Hank was outed as a scamming seller thanks to my post. Without that, his little game of deception would have continued unchecked. Now, everyone that has read this forum knows what the guy is about. That is a good thing for the hobby to be alerted to this kind of stuff.
As for storm;
If I posted everything in this public forum in the beginning, my source said that you guys would demand to know who told me the info, how I got it, ect.. By revealing my source's name, it could potentially cause him problems outside of this place. He did not want that garbage. He told me that I was better off talking to Ryan in private, and trying to get him to come clean on here. That is why I used small tidbits of personal info in the other thread that disappeared, by stating that I knew he worked in real estate, his name was Ryan, he lived in MN, ect.. I figured that would bring Ryan Hank to realize that I was onto him. Evidentally, Ryan did not think I could factually link him to those cards that he bought and sold with his alternate buying id, so that is why he came in here and lied about buying the card at a card show, while saying I maliciously lied and slandered him. That was so far from the truth, it was not even funny. You guys see that now. >>
Blah, Blah, Blah. I don't think anyone believes you, or if they do they just don't understand ebay. There is NO WAY providing the links would give up your source unless your source is the seller/dealer in question. That is what you were asked for proof....the links. Your insistence on this faulty line is funny. If my neighbor provided the links to me and I shared them, tell me how you could link that up with my neighbor? You couldn't.
However if your source contacted you about the auction/s, then the source must have known you had prior dealings with the buyer/seller. I imagine the only person that dwells on problems you had with this seller is you.....meaning you are likely your own source.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
If I posted everything in this public forum in the beginning, my source said that you guys would demand to know who told me the info, how I got it, ect.. "
/////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////
OK.
While the "source" would NOT have been at risk, I see that you likely
had a good-faith - though in my view mistaken - belief to the contrary.
None but the most "trusting" would have failed to connect mn-sportscards WITH
mnmiracle2004, if that info was plainly revealed at the outset.
In any event, it's good that the dirtbag was exposed here. A few less victims
for IT to prey on.
.........
Except for posting the buyer's/seller's real name, there was NO info posted here
that is not easily availble on EBAY.
Folks who think ANYTHING on EBAY is "secret," have bought an empty crock.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I am a bit discouraged at the moment by the unending back-and-forth
Hi Msohn I am too, maybe Stantheman can reply to the few other posters that have questions
in to him.
With that I'm done, I've stated my point probably 19 times.
Stan can have the last word, maybe he will use it and reply to Storm.
Steve >>
What else needs to be said, that has not already been, Steve? Ryan Hank was outed as a scamming seller thanks to my post. Without that, his little game of deception would have continued unchecked. Now, everyone that has read this forum knows what the guy is about. That is a good thing for the hobby to be alerted to this kind of stuff.
As for storm;
If I posted everything in this public forum in the beginning, my source said that you guys would demand to know who told me the info, how I got it, ect.. By revealing my source's name, it could potentially cause him problems outside of this place. He did not want that garbage. He told me that I was better off talking to Ryan in private, and trying to get him to come clean on here. That is why I used small tidbits of personal info in the other thread that disappeared, by stating that I knew he worked in real estate, his name was Ryan, he lived in MN, ect.. I figured that would bring Ryan Hank to realize that I was onto him. Evidentally, Ryan did not think I could factually link him to those cards that he bought and sold with his alternate buying id, so that is why he came in here and lied about buying the card at a card show, while saying I maliciously lied and slandered him. That was so far from the truth, it was not even funny. You guys see that now. >>
Blah, Blah, Blah. I don't think anyone believes you, or if they do they just don't understand ebay. There is NO WAY providing the links would give up your source unless your source is the seller/dealer in question. That is what you were asked for proof....the links. Your insistence on this faulty line is funny. If my neighbor provided the links to me and I shared them, tell me how you could link that up with my neighbor? You couldn't.
However if your source contacted you about the auction/s, then the source must have known you had prior dealings with the buyer/seller. I imagine the only person that dwells on problems you had with this seller is you.....meaning you are likely your own source. >>
You, sir, are a moron. This is typical; I answer the question, and here comes more nonsense. I guess I will just stop answering questions, since you all don't want to know the truth, you just want to hear what you want to hear, and if that is not what I say, then there is some reason why I am so wrong.. It's pointless.
Take it away vendetta riden tools. I am done with this whole subject. Bash, trash, whatever helps you get your kicks.. Bottom line is that the guy was exactly who I said he was from day one. Think what you will, and just keep coming with the nonsense conspiracy theories. It only shows who has the vendettas with whom around here. It fuels this garbage on a daily basis.
<< <i>Blah, Blah, Blah. I don't think anyone believes you, or if they do they just don't understand ebay. There is NO WAY providing the links would give up your source unless your source is the seller/dealer in question. >>
Ya know the seller/dealer you're talking about is one of the most resectful I've seen. Why does he need to be watching out for someone that doesn't hold to the same values as him? What is the big deal with guys needing this info? And why does anyone else need to be at any risk from this lying scammer?
Edit to remove uncalled for remark.
Steve