Got an EOT on a card I know is not trimmed, who can I email to take a second look?... Updated

al032184 · May 6, 2010 8:31AM

I don't think it has shipped out yet, who can I talk to?
Thanks

digicat · May 6, 2010 8:41AM

Have you tried calling customer service?

al032184 · May 6, 2010 8:46AM

Not yet, I wanted to see if someone knew someone I could contact directly.

samspop · May 6, 2010 8:48AM

Call customer service. They can get the shipment stopped and set up the submission for review.

Good luck!!

yankeeno7 · May 6, 2010 12:00PM

5.00 plus return shipping and insurance on your next submission. When that one gets minimum size rejection, another 5.00 with shipping and insurance should do the trick.

al032184 · May 6, 2010 12:10PM

I called customer service, and the woman I spoke to said they would review the card before they shipped it. The only reason this is an issue to me is because it is a 55 Topps Jackie Robinson, that came from my Dad's collection, so I know it was not trimmed. It may be min. size or miscut, I don't know how to tell if it was, but it cannot be trimmed.
Anyway, thanks for the advice.

Edit: On a side note, these three other cards were CSA crackouts. CSA can eat my ass
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1985 TOPPS 9 MARIO LEMIEUX
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1981 TOPPS 216 JOE MONTANA
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1986 TOPPS 161 JERRY RICE
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1955 TOPPS 50 JACKIE ROBINSON
MINT 9 1993 FINEST 96 CAL RIPKEN JR. REFRACTOR

WinPitcher · May 6, 2010 10:32PM

Barry this was not min size rejection. This was EOT.

Hopefully upon review it gets holdered.

IMO they can be a little over zealous at times, especially when you had the CSA crackouts in there and they were trimmed.

Did your father get the card in the 80's? Or was it from his childhood?

If it was from the 80's it could have been trimmed.

Steve

al032184 · May 7, 2010 12:40AM

The Jackie was from his childhood, he had sold the best parts of his collection, star cards, Mantles, etc.., and this was one of the few he had kept. I know it wasn't min. size, what I was saying is I might understand the card getting a min. size, but they can't tell me it is trimmed, when I know it is not.
Who knows, hopefully they will change it upon review.
Thanks,
Alex

swartz1 · May 7, 2010 1:00AM

maybe it will go from min. size or EOT to a 9...

the good ole threads...

Mickey71 · May 7, 2010 2:42AM

All EOT get submitted a few times and usually end up okay. There are a few graders who give out the EOT like candy.

123Slider · May 7, 2010 4:20AM

It may have found guilty by association with the CSA cards

yankeeno7 · May 7, 2010 7:29AM

<< Barry this was not min size rejection. This was EOT.

Hopefully upon review it gets holdered.

IMO they can be a little over zealous at times, especially when you had the CSA crackouts in there and they were trimmed.

Did your father get the card in the 80's? Or was it from his childhood?

If it was from the 80's it could have been trimmed.

Steve >>

Steve,

My post was sarcastic. The reject so you resub business model

al032184 · May 12, 2010 8:55AM

I thought I would post this update, I want to thank you guys for the help, and PSA, I guess, for helping me out.

N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1985 TOPPS 9 MARIO LEMIEUX
MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 216 JOE MONTANA
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1986 TOPPS 161 JERRY RICE
EXCELLENT 5 1955 TOPPS 50 JACKIE ROBINSON
MINT 9 1993 FINEST 96 CAL RIPKEN JR. REFRACTOR

vladguerrero · May 12, 2010 9:14AM

so they did the Montana at the same time??

al032184 · May 12, 2010 9:34AM

When I called and voiced my concern, they said they would look over my sub again before they shipped it out. I made them aware that I just wanted them to check the Robinson, but they said they would just review the whole order.

digicat · May 12, 2010 9:55AM

EOT to PSA 9 on the 1981 Montana is a pretty huge difference!

drewsef · May 12, 2010 10:01AM

<< I thought I would post this update, I want to thank you guys for the help, and PSA, I guess, for helping me out.

N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1985 TOPPS 9 MARIO LEMIEUX
MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 216 JOE MONTANA
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1986 TOPPS 161 JERRY RICE
EXCELLENT 5 1955 TOPPS 50 JACKIE ROBINSON
MINT 9 1993 FINEST 96 CAL RIPKEN JR. REFRACTOR >>

That's a pretty pathetic way to thank PSA for doing what you paid once to be done twice and on their on free message board.

al032184 · May 12, 2010 10:10AM

I see it as they got it wrong the first time. Like I said, I know the Robinson was not trimmed.

Edit: I will add a sincere Thanks for dealing with me and correcting the problem.

hhmag70 · May 12, 2010 10:10AM

<< 

<< I thought I would post this update, I want to thank you guys for the help, and PSA, I guess, for helping me out.

N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1985 TOPPS 9 MARIO LEMIEUX
MINT 9 1981 TOPPS 216 JOE MONTANA
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1986 TOPPS 161 JERRY RICE
EXCELLENT 5 1955 TOPPS 50 JACKIE ROBINSON
MINT 9 1993 FINEST 96 CAL RIPKEN JR. REFRACTOR >>

That's a pretty pathetic way to thank PSA for doing what you paid once to be done twice and on their on free message board. >>

Or another way to look at it is if it was done right the first time they would not have had to look at it again!

digicat · May 12, 2010 10:45AM

<< That's a pretty pathetic way to thank PSA for doing what you paid once to be done twice and on their on free message board. >>

Or another way to look at it is if it was done right the first time they would not have had to look at it again! >>

Ding ding ding!

drewsef · May 12, 2010 11:06AM

<< 

<< That's a pretty pathetic way to thank PSA for doing what you paid once to be done twice and on their on free message board. >>

Or another way to look at it is if it was done right the first time they would not have had to look at it again! >>

Ding ding ding! >>

LOL, that is hilarious. So your saying that PSA's opinion this time is now solid and completely valid, while the previous opinion by PSA was wrong. You must have actually saw the cards in hand and have as much or more experience than PSA graders to make such a boast.

Say what you want but it is pathetic that a company provides excellent customer service(not sure what world you think you live in, but this is not the norm anymore), helps add more value to the customer's collectibles, goes above and beyond what they should do, all while the OP puts it out there on their free message board, and then can only say I guess for helping me out.

hhmag70 · May 12, 2010 11:31AM

<< 

<< 

<< That's a pretty pathetic way to thank PSA for doing what you paid once to be done twice and on their on free message board. >>

Or another way to look at it is if it was done right the first time they would not have had to look at it again! >>

Ding ding ding! >>

LOL, that is hilarious. So your saying that PSA's opinion this time is now solid and completely valid, while the previous opinion by PSA was wrong. You must have actually saw the cards in hand and have as much or more experience than PSA graders to make such a boast.

Say what you want but it is pathetic that a company provides excellent customer service(not sure what world you think you live in, but this is not the norm anymore), helps add more value to the customer's collectibles, goes above and beyond what they should do, all while the OP puts it out there on their free message board, and then can only say I guess for helping me out. >>

You call it excellent customer service, another way to look at this scenario; 2 graders looked at it the 1st time (that is what they claim) and got it wrong - and they were going to mail it back and it would have to be submitted again at cost to their customer (you at times), only being asked to recheck (for a 3rd time technically) they now say its fine. And so we as customers should be super thankful for them doing the job we (as customers) pay for and expect on the 1st attempt? Technically they did not help him out, they did the job he paid them to do. They missed 2 cards on the 1st attempt, which by their own addmission were fine and you believe he owes them?

hhmag70 · May 12, 2010 11:37AM

<< 

LOL, that is hilarious. So your saying that PSA's opinion this time is now solid and completely valid, while the previous opinion by PSA was wrong. You must have actually saw the cards in hand and have as much or more experience than PSA graders to make such a boast. >>

Not offering an opinion on the card itself, only the fact that a thank you for doing the job that they are paid to do is not in order.

drewsef · May 12, 2010 11:59AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< That's a pretty pathetic way to thank PSA for doing what you paid once to be done twice and on their on free message board. >>

Or another way to look at it is if it was done right the first time they would not have had to look at it again! >>

Ding ding ding! >>

LOL, that is hilarious. So your saying that PSA's opinion this time is now solid and completely valid, while the previous opinion by PSA was wrong. You must have actually saw the cards in hand and have as much or more experience than PSA graders to make such a boast.

Say what you want but it is pathetic that a company provides excellent customer service(not sure what world you think you live in, but this is not the norm anymore), helps add more value to the customer's collectibles, goes above and beyond what they should do, all while the OP puts it out there on their free message board, and then can only say I guess for helping me out. >>

You call it excellent customer service, another way to look at this scenario; 2 graders looked at it the 1st time (that is what they claim) and got it wrong - and they were going to mail it back and it would have to be submitted again at cost to their customer (you at times), only being asked to recheck (for a 3rd time technically) they now say its fine. And so we as customers should be super thankful for them doing the job we (as customers) pay for and expect on the 1st attempt? Technically they did not help him out, they did the job he paid them to do. They missed 2 cards on the 1st attempt, which by their own addmission were fine and you believe he owes them? >>

So you know which opinion was correct right? You skipped over that very important part. Of course you don't, your just assuming the second opinion is correct, which you have no clue about.

You can make it however you want, but if you don't like it, then don't submit. It is not an science, it is an art and is subjective by nature. I can't believe you or the original poster don't know this, and yet you continue to submit because of the value and guarantee that PSA adds is well worth it. To come on here and act as though PSA is not allowed to have a difference of opinion the next time they see a card is ridiculous, do you really feel PSA has the only perfect humans working for them? I'm sure you have never made a mistake at work or changed your opinion on something after another review.

I trust PSA's opinion on a card grade over yours, or anyone else here, and the vast majority here do so as well. Look at it this way, if you were a PSA grader, would you apply a conservative approach or liberal approach to grading cards that appear to be possibly trimmed?

And yes, PSA went past what they were paid for, admitted they saw it as trimmed at first(which you still have zero knowledge which opinion is actually correct) and provided excellent customer service and don't deserve to have the average at best laissez faire attitude.

hhmag70 · May 12, 2010 12:08PM

<< 

So you know which opinion was correct right? You skipped over that very important part. Of course you don't, your just assuming the second opinion is correct, which you have no clue about. >>

I could care less which version is correct, but the fact that they switched the grade, is an admission of a mistake, or worse that they will change things at request. I understand mistakes are made, I make them too, but I do not go through life expecting to be thanked for either correcting my mistake or doing my job.

al032184 · May 12, 2010 12:11PM

When you get an EOT, it is not an opinion or a grade, they are telling you that they will not grade it because it has been altered. I did not ask them to review my cards for the grades, if I don't agree with the grades, I will re-sub them and pay, like everyone else does.. and I will end up doing this with the Ripken, I will send it back to PSA along with a check, because I don't think it is a 9. I called them and requested they review the sub because they told me the Robinson was trimmed, when in fact, it wasn't. I didn't call the CS line and call them liars and such, I asked them to take another look. With the Montana, I believed it wasn't, but I am not a professional grader, so when they first said it was ungradeable, I did not have an issue with that. They reviewed the card, and issued it a grade, therefore correcting their mistake.

Edit: for stupid comment.

MULLINS5 · May 12, 2010 12:13PM

drewsef, the OP says that the card was never trimmed, so I trust that he knows the history on the card. If I were in his shoes I would have asked PSA to look at the card again, I mean, people can get things wrong and it looks like the PSA grader sided on caution as the other cards, being CSA crackouts, were trimmed. Nothing wrong with PSA on that and nothing wrong with the OP asking they look the card over again.

As for the "I guess" comment, I'm not sure what to think about that, and it is not my place to make judgment on the initial headache this may have caused the OP, but your continuously hounding him is really pathetic and unwarranted.

Glad everything worked out for the OP.

Patrick

grote15 · May 12, 2010 1:03PM

So does this mean any time I send in a card that I pulled from a pack and it comes back EOT, I can call PSA customer service and have them reconsider the grade?

I always thought we paid a fee to PSA to render an opinion on a card, and if that opinion did not sit well with the submitter, that said submitter would just have to re-sub and try again. With all due respect, how can PSA even be sure the pedigree the submitter is providing is true? This practice would seem to open up a can of worms, IMO..

drewsef · May 12, 2010 1:03PM

<< 

<< 

So you know which opinion was correct right? You skipped over that very important part. Of course you don't, your just assuming the second opinion is correct, which you have no clue about. >>

I could care less which version is correct, but the fact that they switched the grade, is an admission of a mistake, or worse that they will change things at request. I understand mistakes are made, I make them too, but I do not go through life expecting to be thanked for either correcting my mistake or doing my job. >>

I will try again.....PSA had already fully completed their job. After that, they have to do nothing else other than safely ship it back. Therefore, anything in addition is getting more than what the customer paid for, and from what I have read, they did everything in their ability to go above and beyond and did fully review the cards, and yes, admit mistakes which are all of benefit to their customer. Where do you feel that warrants a ho hum I guess comment, again, on their message boards that absolutely are a significant cost to them after the service they provided?

al032184, you posted this:

<< When you get an EOT, it is not an opinion or a grade, they are telling you that they will not grade it because it has been altered. >>

which is not true, it is part of the subjective process, and I would urge you to e-mail Joe if you don't believe me. Do you really believe that there is a person who can tell definitively every time whether a card is trimmed or not? Again, if you were a PSA grader and risked your job and were the one responsible on making a call on substantial liablities that you could at some point become accountable for, how would you make the call on possible EOT? Unless you get every one right and are that person who can tell 100%, then you are going to make some mistakes. And personally, I feel they are absolutely the best at making those and grading calls moreso than anyone else and sure you do as well. I just figure that they deserved more than a I guess comment after how you were treated.

digicat · May 12, 2010 1:25PM

<< So your saying that PSA's opinion this time is now solid and completely valid, while the previous opinion by PSA was wrong. >>

PSA seemed to think so, since the cards ended up slabbed.

drewsef · May 12, 2010 1:35PM

<< 

<< So your saying that PSA's opinion this time is now solid and completely valid, while the previous opinion by PSA was wrong. >>

PSA seemed to think so, since the cards ended up slabbed. >>

Have you saw the cards in hand and know for certain with expertise they are not trimmed and are properly slabbed now or is that just guesswork on your part?

MULLINS5 · May 12, 2010 2:46PM

The OP had very likely trimmed cards in the sub as there were CSA crackouts...PSA sided on caution and the OP asked them to reconsider...nothing, absolutley nothing wrong with that.

I swear, one thread the OP gets bashed for not being a PSA member and here another gets it for asking PSA to take a fresh look on a card he knows is not trimmed...I wonder why all the best members don't post here anymore.

Barfvader · May 12, 2010 9:08PM

<< The OP had very likely trimmed cards in the sub as there were CSA crackouts...PSA sided on caution and the OP asked them to reconsider...nothing, absolutley nothing wrong with that.

I swear, one thread the OP gets bashed for not being a PSA member and here another gets it for asking PSA to take a fresh look on a card he knows is not trimmed...I wonder why all the best members don't post here anymore. >>

Just look in the mirror and you'll see at least one reason.

vladguerrero · May 13, 2010 1:26AM

<< So does this mean any time I send in a card that I pulled from a pack and it comes back EOT, I can call PSA customer service and have them reconsider the grade? >>

only on trimmed csa cards (ie Montana) not cards wrongly graded (ie Robinson)...

digicat · May 13, 2010 1:37AM

<< PSA seemed to think so, since the cards ended up slabbed. >>

Have you saw the cards in hand and know for certain with expertise they are not trimmed and are properly slabbed now or is that just guesswork on your part? >>

The fact of the matter is that PSA changed their minds and slabbed the cards. I didn't have to guess on that one.

itzagoner · May 13, 2010 2:02AM

<< I wonder why all the best members don't post here anymore. >>

Patrick, you're a good guy and i'm willing to bet you have the best intentions in mind......i don't have a dog in this particular fight, but your statement bothers me terribly.

who is in charge of deciding and then declaring which members here are "best"? this is just an invitation to further conflict......those of us who still DO post here have a sense of belonging to a very devoted community and have been for a very long time, with or without this message board.....none of us are "best", however, we are all still committed.....think before you strike kiddo, there's a reason many have left, but that just made more room on the sofa.

good day. (borrowed from dutymon)

drewsef · May 13, 2010 2:06AM

<< 

<< PSA seemed to think so, since the cards ended up slabbed. >>

Have you saw the cards in hand and know for certain with expertise they are not trimmed and are properly slabbed now or is that just guesswork on your part? >>

The fact of the matter is that PSA changed their minds and slabbed the cards. I didn't have to guess on that one. >>

The fact of the matter is you won't actually answer the question, you have no clue which opinion PSA rendered is correct

digicat · May 13, 2010 2:44AM

<< The fact of the matter is that PSA changed their minds and slabbed the cards. I didn't have to guess on that one. >>

The fact of the matter is you won't actually answer the question, you have no clue which opinion PSA rendered is correct >>

On that note, you can't know for 100% that Joe Orlando exists either. We weren't present for his birth nor watch him on his to his current position at PSA. It's "possible" that he's a fictional person dreamed up in PSA's marketing department.

No I didn't see the cards in person. No, I don't know for 100% certain that the cards have not been trimmed and this is all part of an elaborate scam. I'm taking PSA's word for it in this, especially since they looked at the cards a second time knowing that EOT was the first verdict.

I'm not the one slabbing the cards, PSA is, and they changed their mind. Does that mean they can't be trusted? No, it means they can make mistakes.

MULLINS5 · May 13, 2010 3:42AM

<< 

<< I wonder why all the best members don't post here anymore. >>

Patrick, you're a good guy and i'm willing to bet you have the best intentions in mind......i don't have a dog in this particular fight, but your statement bothers me terribly.

who is in charge of deciding and then declaring which members here are "best"? this is just an invitation to further conflict......those of us who still DO post here have a sense of belonging to a very devoted community and have been for a very long time, with or without this message board.....none of us are "best", however, we are all still committed.....think before you strike kiddo, there's a reason many have left, but that just made more room on the sofa.

good day. (borrowed from dutymon)

>>

Definitely not my intention to say nobody good posts here anymore, so that was not worded correctly on my part and after reading the above quote apologize because there are still great people who do post here.

Mickey71 · May 13, 2010 4:27AM

This is my take on what's not PSA's opinion: recoloring-it either is or isn't...no opinion involved, min size-it either is or isn't...no opinion involved, OC-it either is or isn't =they should be measuring to see if the cards meet their own standards for centering...no opinion involved.

Color quality,Focus,Corners, Print Marks...this is all an opinion and while I don't always agree I except that they set the industry standard.

EOT---This should be supported by evidence, so in essence this is not an opinion. And here goes my problem with this. I'm a believer that EOT, unless it's blatantly ridiculous is almost impossible to tell and here is my reasoning:

1. All cards were cut with different sharpness of blades.
2. Some were cut with a new blade vertically and an old blade horizontally(there goes the rough cut..sharp edge theory to EOT)
3. Some cards were cut and then had to be hand pulled from the sheet ...fairly smooth edge until near the corner (the hanging chad---ask Al Gore)
4. Some cards were actually cut by hand.
5. Some cards from the same sheet in the same packs and boxes are different sizes (there goes anything to do with size matters) so what the heck really is a min. size card? or is it a smooth it over grade of we really don't know.
6. I COULD GO ALL DAY WITH THIS.

drewsef · May 13, 2010 5:07AM

<< 

<< The fact of the matter is that PSA changed their minds and slabbed the cards. I didn't have to guess on that one. >>

The fact of the matter is you won't actually answer the question, you have no clue which opinion PSA rendered is correct >>

On that note, you can't know for 100% that Joe Orlando exists either. We weren't present for his birth nor watch him on his to his current position at PSA. It's "possible" that he's a fictional person dreamed up in PSA's marketing department.

No I didn't see the cards in person. No, I don't know for 100% certain that the cards have not been trimmed and this is all part of an elaborate scam. I'm taking PSA's word for it in this, especially since they looked at the cards a second time knowing that EOT was the first verdict.

I'm not the one slabbing the cards, PSA is, and they changed their mind. Does that mean they can't be trusted? No, it means they can make mistakes. >>

I've been in Joe's office and saw and talked with him dozens of times, maybe he really isn't Joe Orlando and that is the elaborate scam.

drewsef · May 13, 2010 5:09AM

I would like to hear what the OP thinks about grote15's statement. That is the true heart of the matter. PSA goes way out of their way for the guy and he just thinks it's ho hum kind of treatment.

digicat · May 13, 2010 5:43AM

<< I've been in Joe's office and saw and talked with him dozens of times, maybe he really isn't Joe Orlando and that is the elaborate scam. >>

Every one of your senses can be deceived in some way, shape, or form. Reality is a conspiracy!

drewsef · May 13, 2010 5:45AM

<< 

<< I've been in Joe's office and saw and talked with him dozens of times, maybe he really isn't Joe Orlando and that is the elaborate scam. >>

Every one of your senses can be deceived in some way, shape, or form. Reality is a conspiracy!

>>

Does it count when you intentionally try to deceive your own senses?

digicat · May 13, 2010 6:00AM

<< Does it count when you intentionally try to deceive your own senses? >>

Being a co-conspirator in a larger conspiracy against yourself... kinda "Total Recall"-ish there... heh.

hhmag70 · May 13, 2010 6:19AM

<< I would like to hear what the OP thinks about grote15's statement. That is the true heart of the matter. PSA goes way out of their way for the guy and he just thinks it's ho hum kind of treatment. >>

I do not quite understand why the OP has to meet your expectations. You voiced your opinion, drop it and leave him alone.

Blacklabelsociety · May 13, 2010 9:01AM

<< This is my take on what's not PSA's opinion: recoloring-it either is or isn't...no opinion involved, min size-it either is or isn't...no opinion involved, OC-it either is or isn't =they should be measuring to see if the cards meet their own standards for centering...no opinion involved.

Color quality,Focus,Corners, Print Marks...this is all an opinion and while I don't always agree I except that they set the industry standard.

EOT---This should be supported by evidence, so in essence this is not an opinion. And here goes my problem with this. I'm a believer that EOT, unless it's blatantly ridiculous is almost impossible to tell and here is my reasoning:

1. All cards were cut with different sharpness of blades.
2. Some were cut with a new blade vertically and an old blade horizontally(there goes the rough cut..sharp edge theory to EOT)
3. Some cards were cut and then had to be hand pulled from the sheet ...fairly smooth edge until near the corner (the hanging chad---ask Al Gore)
4. Some cards were actually cut by hand.
5. Some cards from the same sheet in the same packs and boxes are different sizes (there goes anything to do with size matters) so what the heck really is a min. size card? or is it a smooth it over grade of we really don't know.
6. I COULD GO ALL DAY WITH THIS.

>>

well said

al032184 · May 13, 2010 9:16AM

So does this mean any time I send in a card that I pulled from a pack and it comes back EOT, I can call PSA customer service and have them reconsider the grade?

There is no one telling you that you cannot call them, what you do is not up to me. If I pulled a card, then submitted it and got an EOT, I would feel like I have been wrongly accused, so I would call and ask them to review the card, knowing it went from the pack to PSA through me.

I always thought we paid a fee to PSA to render an opinion on a card, and if that opinion did not sit well with the submitter, that said submitter would just have to re-sub and try again. With all due respect, how can PSA even be sure the pedigree the submitter is providing is true? This practice would seem to open up a can of worms, IMO..

This is exactly what we pay PSA for, but in this case, PSA told me there was evidence that the card had been trimmed, when, in fact, there was no evidence, because it had not been trimmed. When I get a grade I do not agree with, I re-sub, just as everyone else does. As to who PSA trust's, that is not up to me. For the record, I did not call them and TELL them to review the sub, nor did I TELL them to change the grades. I called, voiced my concerns, and asked them to take a second look.

As for the "ho hum 'I guess'" statement, I knew that they made a mistake, and when reviewed, they fixed the mistake. But I do not believe they went so far out of their way for me, they did what they should have done the first time around, they graded the card.

WinPitcher · May 13, 2010 9:50AM

Sometimes it's best not to post sensitive issues...........................

That way the crack pots can't come out of the woodwork.

Steve

Edited to add:

<< On that note, you can't know for 100% that Joe Orlando exists either. >>

I can as I have met him.

WinPitcher · May 13, 2010 9:52AM

Al

Actually they did go out of there way for you. They simply could have just mailed the sub back to you and have you re sub it.

I have no opinion as to your way of thanking them. It does not concern me.

If we continue having threads like this the next person may not be treated as well.

Just sayin..........................

Steve

drewsef · May 13, 2010 10:01AM

<< Sometimes it's best not to post sensitive issues...........................

That way the crack pots can't come out of the woodwork.

Steve

We got the last one here now for sure.

edited to add my beer mug, it disappeared

Got an EOT on a card I know is not trimmed, who can I email to take a second look?... Updated

Comments