Meeley Man

I reported all of them.

I know all the pertinent facts. Mike admitted to doing it (for 14 years). He tried to justify his doing it. And he has since said he's learned his lesson and will not do it anymore. Those are the facts. I didn't answer those questions, because it has no bearing on the topic at hand. You only ask them, in some vain attempt to find some new excuse to defend Mike with, over actions that we all know were wrong. As for why I'd concern myself with this, well, several reasons (none of which has to do with 'jealousy," which is likely why you asked those questions, to see if you could find something to support such a foolish claim). I do so, because since I sell OA as well (as an art rep, not a dealer), what he has done could stigmatize others. How many here, to defend Mike have said "he's not the only one doing what he did"? Already others are suffering for his folly. Then you have the manipulation of the market. How many people now can't be sure of art they've bought from him actually being worth what they paid? How has what he's done affected the price other reps and dealers charge? I always have tried to keep prices affordable, but even I need a base of FMV standards to work from. Mike's actions have damaged the credibility some now have of what FMV actually is. Then, of course, there is the simple fact that some people just don't take kind of seeing people, who claim to be "trust worthy" engaging in unethical practices. So, you see, there are plenty of reasons someone might pipe in on this, which has nothing to do with "jealousy." Oh, you mean like you have and how Mike's defenders have? Or are the rules different for you? And I didn't know the CGC boards were owned and run by you. Oh, they aren't? Then you have no right to tell anyone what they can post or how much. No, I think that's much more the tact Mike's defenders have taken. And, quite frankly, I don't care what you think of me personally. At least I know I've never done unethical business with folks in this hobby. That's what matters to me (and many others, I'm sure). I imagine that he isn't too worried about it. After all, it looks like he has nothing to fear from HA or the law in doing what he did. So, I don't think you have to worry yourself too much about how he's feeling about it. And it's so nice that you think he needs you to play defender for him. Of course, you aren't doing him any favors in being so, but then, I doubt those of you doing it think that far ahead. Really? Championing transparency and ethical business practices is "the wrong cause?" No wonder so many others think there so much shilling in the hobby. So, saying what he did was wrong, unethical, and immoral is now "slanderous?" Because that is all I've said. Maybe you are too close to all this. Maybe you need to stop posting on this, if you are going to blur what I've said, with comparisons to Hitler and Madoff others made. Its shows you haven't the critical thinking skills to properly discuss this. And again, your false assumptions to my motivations on why I've posted on this are quite amusing, even though I'm sure that's unintentional. After all, you are telling me not to comment because I "don't know Mike like you do," yet you have no compunction in assigning motivations to me, someone you don't know. So much so you can't even spell my user name correctly, when it is right in front of you. You better be careful. Spouting hypocrisy like that might give you a case of whiplash.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. And it's "Meeley Man" not "Mmeely." If you are going to use my name, you should spell it correctly, especially since it's right there for you to see. Yes, I have. I am currently. But again, irrelevant to the topic at hand. No, saying you are one the "most honest and trusted sellers" in a business, yet doing things you know fly in the face of that isn't right. Your attempt to downplay the violation of people's trust and the immorality and lack of ethics in what he did, truly is one of the scariest things I've seen people do to defend the indefensible. No, I'm claiming that what Mike did is immoral and unethical, which it obviously is. As for me, I've never done any unethical business practices on people. But then, ethics matter to me. Not so with others, it seems. I never compared him to Hitler or Madoff. I said shilling is wrong and it is always wrong. I said that what Mike did in this case is unethical and immoral. All of which are facts. Maybe instead of coming after me for things I never said, you should look inside yourself and see why you are defending actions that are, quite obviously, indefensible. I'm sorry you are letting your personal relationship with Mike cloud your better judgment, but nothing you've said here to me has changed the realities of the situation one iota.

Your "facts" change nothing. Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it: What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem. . "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front. No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple. No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much. If it's allowed, then you understand that you may be bidding "against the house." That's the way it goes. If you bid the most you're willing to pay, you won't have a problem. If you have to bid against the owner, then the owner is setting a price they want to sell the item for. So long as you know about it upfront, that's nothing different from a reserve or a simple negotiation. Are you aware that, in the earliest days of eBay, until about 2000, the seller was allowed to place a single bid on their own items...? Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's always wrong...? I am addressing the bold above. Part of the problem is that "the most I'm willing to pay" is not shaped in a vacuum but in the norms and trends apparent in the marketplace. If someone wants a SA Kirby FF they are not going to say "well, I'm willing to pay at most $200 and so that is that". They are more likely to say "well, given the market, how much should I expect to have to pay for this to have a chance". If the market is in part a fabrication or an exaggeration as a result of manipulation of the prices than "what I'm willing to pay" is not rooted in any informed reality. I'm guessing that the reason consignors and auction houses don't like declared reserves is because it shows weakness to the market. A declared reserve says "I'm not confident that this piece can sell for what I think its worth or what I want to get out of it". That is the message it sends to me. So what better to have than an undeclared reserve, a secret safety fuse to ensure the appearance of a sale while eliminating the risk of a loss. And hey, while your "agents" are at it, why not give the market a little push.

Your "facts" change nothing. Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it: What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem. . "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front. No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple. No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much. Both are forms of theft. Theft is wrong. Thus, shilling is wrong. Yes, if you choose to engage with them. Then when you are shilled it is on you. But that still does not mean the act of shilling isn't still unethical and immoral. Except it is different, because you know that a shill is not the same thing as a reserve or negotiation. And again, it doesn't detract from the immoral and unethical nature of what shilling is. Regardless of what the buyer might know. Yes, I did. It's why I didn't buy on eBay in those days, before that was changed. Let's see... Because it manipulates a market and artificially inflates prices, making things more expensive than they should (or need to) be. Because if one has no faith in the market to bring them a fair price, one shouldn't sell in the market. Because things like this are often hidden, just as in this case, and can cause harm to people financially. Because an honest businessperson is supposed to work above-board at all times and this is diametrically opposed to that standard. Because honesty and transparency in business matters. Are those reasons enough, or do you need more?

Your "facts" change nothing. Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it: What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem. . "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front. No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple.

Your "facts" change nothing. Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it: What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem. For being the guy, you're really serving him up a buffet across 4 different threads right now Well, when someone tries to present facts I'll address them. If he wants to go back to just insulting people, I'll resume the line.

Your "facts" change nothing. Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it: What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

His actions in this situation would strongly suggest otherwise. You are either ethical in how you do business, at all times, or you are not. Mike's actions in this case (which have been going on for 14 years this way), shows that the former is not the case. It doesn't matter that if in 98% of your business you are honest and trustworthy. That 2% when you aren't matters just as much as the rest. Doing ethical business isn't a matter of degrees. It is an absolute. You either do it all the time, or you don't.

Your "facts" change nothing. Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it: What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem.

Nothing there says what he did wasn't immoral. Nothing said there doesn't disprove his line of being "one of the most honest and trusted sellers" as now false. All it tells me, is that HA is as corrupt and immoral as Mike has shown himself to be in this. So, HA and Mike are both to not longer be trusted. Nothing more. Indeed. Don't let the facts get in the way. G'nite xxx

So, HA is just as corrupt as Mike is. Good to know. Still doesn't make what Mike did right. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong. And no site "rule" changes that. If you think it does, you are part of the problem. And this is like your fifth "G'Nite." So, either call it a night, or quit lying.

Nothing there says what he did wasn't immoral. Nothing said there doesn't disprove his line of being "one of the most honest and trusted sellers" as now false. All it tells me, is that HA is as corrupt and immoral as Mike has shown himself to be in this. So, HA and Mike are both to not longer be trusted. Nothing more.

I don't think those looking to sweep this under the rug for Mike have thought that hard about what they are doing and saying.

Let's not confuse being "wrong" and being "allowed".

Impressive and effortless (?) research. Wow. That's really altruistic of you you When I grow up I want to work vendettas like you. I think that is somewhat ott muley. Nexus may be misguided but I don't think he's deserving of the adage troll. G'nite. Talk tomorrow xxx You're a bit of a one trick pony ( or mule perhaps ) my friend. G'nite <3 What don't you understand about one trick. Sticks and trolls and all that. Free speech for Nexus ! G'nite xxx I don't think Nexus is going to feature you in his video if you keep trying to shut him down. G'nite xxx He's going to be really pissed with you, you know xxx

Impressive and effortless (?) research. Wow. That's really altruistic of you you When I grow up I want to work vendettas like you. I think that is somewhat ott muley. Nexus may be misguided but I don't think he's deserving of the adage troll. G'nite. Talk tomorrow xxx You're a bit of a one trick pony ( or mule perhaps ) my friend. G'nite <3 What don't you understand about one trick. Sticks and trolls and all that. Free speech for Nexus ! G'nite xxx I don't think Nexus is going to feature you in his video if you keep trying to shut him down. G'nite xxx

Your sign should read, more exactly, "please do not shoot the fish in the barrel" Just providing a public service, so folks don't have to waste their time with trolls like him.

Impressive and effortless (?) research. Wow. That's really altruistic of you you When I grow up I want to work vendettas like you. I think that is somewhat ott muley. Nexus may be misguided but I don't think he's deserving of the adage troll. G'nite. Talk tomorrow xxx You're a bit of a one trick pony ( or mule perhaps ) my friend. G'nite <3 What don't you understand about one trick. Sticks and trolls and all that. Free speech for Nexus ! G'nite xxx

Impressive and effortless (?) research. Wow. That's really altruistic of you you When I grow up I want to work vendettas like you. I think that is somewhat ott muley. Nexus may be misguided but I don't think he's deserving of the adage troll. G'nite. Talk tomorrow xxx You're a bit of a one trick pony ( or mule perhaps ) my friend. G'nite <3

Impressive and effortless (?) research. Wow. That's really altruistic of you you When I grow up I want to work vendettas like you. I think that is somewhat ott muley. Nexus may be misguided but I don't think he's deserving of the adage troll. G'nite. Talk tomorrow xxx I still don't agree. The guy is deserving of respect. Shutting down debate like this just because you are on the wrong side is childish. Troll along. G'nite xxx No, the troll here is you.

Impressive and effortless (?) research. Wow. That's really altruistic of you you When I grow up I want to work vendettas like you. I think that is somewhat ott muley. Nexus may be misguided but I don't think he's deserving of the adage troll. G'nite. Talk tomorrow xxx

Impressive and effortless (?) research. Wow. That's really altruistic of you you When I grow up I want to work vendettas like you.

so basically a CYA "nothing to see here, move along" with no substance. I can understand not wanting to publicly name the shill proxy bidders, but they should be named to the auction houses. otherwise, the apology is just empty words. no way to verify or audit what went on. Pretty much what I expected from HA. At least at this point. The only real pressure they (or Mike) will likely take seriously, that would get their notice and make them look to do more, would be to hit them where it would hurt... right in the wallet. But, knowing this "community" as I do, I don't see that happening, so this is about all you can expect to happen. It'll all blow over in a couple weeks and folks will go back to their usual buying patterns. That is what HA and Mike are banking on. And my experiences tell me they have valid reasoning to expect such.