VintageComics

That's what got Doug Schmell (Captain Tripps, Pedigree Comics) disbarred. I'm going to say this: We still haven't ruled out mental health. Period. And so while Chip is going into the HOS (and deservedly so) I disagree with the tact that some board members who love calling people names are using this as an opportunity to do so. And Lawyers are held to higher standards that pop culture salesmen. If they weren't we wouldn't have so many unscrupulous dealers still in business with board members knowingly buying from them.

Incorrect. The PL -- or threat of being put on it -- is what apparently prompted Chip to begin fulfilling his obligations. He is currently on it, and in theory, if everyone who nominated him for it agreed that said obligations were met and agreed to his removal, he would be removed. PL cases, in my recollection, almost never go to a vote -- they are between the parties involved. The HOS is a different story altogether. It is a community vote, and the person involved can only be removed by a community vote. And the voting is apparently not over, but judging by most people's comments, he'll be on it as soon as the voting period is over, and will likely stay on it. The only "joke" about either list is when people put making money or getting "cool books" ahead of dealing with reputable people and enabling those who don't deal reputably. If you don't understand what the two lists are or how they function, it's probably not best to make blanket statements about them. He's being a class clown, mostly. There was a lot of sarcasm in that post.

You know, I read a post from the bottom up and if I think it's Casey I play a little game and bet myself that it is. So far I'm batting pretty strong. It's not about what a person is capable of. It is about how people react in desperation. But thanks for the post and missing the point of mine!

If your career was to be a salesman up until this point then the next job is the next flip.

(no last words)

I want to address this specific point about Chip being a "multiple offender." I would agree, however, his offense seems to be that he ships late, has poor communication, BUT he will eventually deliver the books that were purchased. I have not heard from anyone that has paid for books and not received the goods (current transactions are still pending as he appears to be in the process of shipping). To me, that behavior is not HOS worthy. It's a nuisance and I wouldn't want to deal with it, but it is not the level of malice that I require for a HOS vote. I asked you once earlier today, before the flurry of discussion....where do you place the GoFundMe deception in this entire saga? And for that matter where do you place his disappearance after accepting funds in November followed by his claims of inability to contact anyone or ship anything due to losing his job, etc. but leaping on craigslist opportunities demonstrating both means and time that he denied having? Does serial lying in the midst of business dealings along with attempting to induce monetary donations under false pretenses move the needle at all? It would seem someone who only fulfills his obligations when the hammer is brought down on them and deceives and lies and hides until he's left with no other option is a pretty low bar for honest dealing. I didn't see your post about the GoFundMe fiasco. I participated in that charity thread and I was pissed after more information came out. I felt taken advantage of; however, I don't think his deception was intentional. I think he believed that paying off his paypal loan was part of his emergency. It should have been disclosed where all the money he was asking for would be going, but we also should have asked for a more itemized list from the get go. I thought it was on the shady side, but withholding information is not the same to me as actively providing false information. They're both bad, but the latter is worse. I don't see Chip as the master manipulator that seems to be the consensus. I don't give him that much credit. His tendency to wait until pressure is applied is also troubling, but not decisive for me. The fact is that he is now fulfilling his obligations when his fate is all but sealed on this forum. In other words, he's already been smashed by the hammer this time, but he is still following through. I think his behavior is poor and I wouldn't deal with him without significant safeguards in place, but I don't think his behavior is HOS worthy. I reserve the HOS for people like GoodsNewsComics. Adding my thoughts on the craigslist incident. I don't put much weight in the idea that his searching craigslist proves he had the time to ship his books. It literally takes 5 minutes to do a quick craigslist search and send an email. My emphasis earlier on the value of the hypothetical star wars lot is important here. If the lot was worth $300 and he would have to pay $150 plus driving to acquire it; that is far more damning to me than if the lot was worth $1000 and he could quickly flip it in which case clearing a quick $700 for someone in his current situation would make sense. How about this then - instead of assessing the value of the imaginative Star Wars lot, address the fact that he supposedly doesn't have access to a computer to let his customers know what's going on but does have the computer access to search for stuff on Craigslist. I can only wonder what his defense will be at the next message board or forum where he has problems. I was not aware that he was claiming he didn't have access to a computer. That's some BS on his part and clearly not true. But once again, even taking all of his behavior into consideration, I don't consider him a thief, and that's my criteria. I don't think he ever said he didn't have access to a computer. He sold his computer when he moved out of his last place but he still has a cell phone. You guys can all access the internet from your cell phone, right? On the topic of the HOS, I agree with you that I don't think he technically belongs on the HOS because I reserve that for actual, malice and thievery. Unfortunately, the PL exonerates people once they fulfill their obligations and since there is no other recourse than the HOS it's probably the best option for the community at this point. I want to touch on the topic of the Craigslist ad again because people keep bringing it up. This is not about whether or not the HOS is an option but rather about how board opinion can be emotionally charged, especially when you don't have the whole picture. 1st thing people brought up when Brock made his CL post was 'if he was broke, why would he be spending money on action figures?" My first instinct in the thread was that he wasn't buying for himself and that he was buying for a quick flip. People argued that he loved action figures and was addicted to them early in the thread but it didn't ring true to me based on what I knew about Chip. This was Brock's image from the craigslist contact email: At 8:31 pm, I received the following: ----------------------------------------------------- A few days later I saw this post in Facebook that I'd missed earlier, dated December 31, 2016 at 8:43 PM. Chip's FB post is literally 2 minutes after he contacted Brock. I believe Facebook shows edits so correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that Chip was not buying for his personal collection based on what he wrote. So it seems that the initial reaction of the crowd was wrong and that Chip was not buying the action figures because he was rewarding himself. He was buying because the carrot was too big to resist. When I was completely broke, separated from my ex, emotionally fragile and struggling to make ends meet I spent a lot of time looking for deals to make ends meet. The lure of the 'big score' is always present for some people. I do not have any problem with Chip reaching out for a deal on CL that was potentially going to make him multiples of the $150 outlay in the sense that if he wanted to find someone to lend him $150 to split $1000 it would have been the matter of a phone call to the right person. Therefore, the CL is a non-issue for me. -------------------------------------------- Yes, it did lure him out of hiding but every one of us would jump at a carrot if it was large enough regardless of the circumstances. Chip's choice to not respond to boardies but to respond to CL was made clear, but that to me is still an act of a person with depression who is not coping well with life circumstances. Not theft.

My understanding of 'peekthrough' is exactly what you call 'fanning of the pages' It's the inside pages peeking past the cover on the right edge and it happens to varying degrees. So when you say 'the pages are fanning so IMO the book was pressed' that is no different than someone else saying 'the peekthrough pages are a 'tell' that the book is pressed" And I've been maintaining all along that fanned / peekthrough / pages showing on the right side - WHATEVER you want to call it are not necessarily an indication of pressing. And is it possible that you are misunderstanding me as well? My emoticons were meant to lighten the book, not bring you down. Sorry if you were offended.

I searched for his account and couldn't find it. It may have been inactivated for not paying eBay and Paypal fees? I do remember he had a loan from Paypal that he hadn't paid off. I thought PP was separate from eBay now, but you could be correct about eBay fees. I always had a credit card on file, but I think you could use PP, too. Thanks, Buzz. I haven't used a credit card in over a decade, so yes, PP is an option.

Sha, I realize that I said I wasn't going to comment anymore but I felt it was worth reopening the discussion. No harm in it, unless someone wants to call me a liar. I searched for his account and couldn't find it. It may have been inactivated for not paying eBay and Paypal fees? I do remember he had a loan from Paypal that he hadn't paid off.

My entire position has not changed. I sincerely believe (and have stated from the beginning) that consequences are important for both the mentally ill and those that are not to protect people from being hurt in any way. So a HOS nomination seems to be the best way to proceed in this situation. From the start, the discussion about mental illness has been in response to the name calling and venom towards Chip, and my position has been that unless you know for certain that there is no problem with mental health, let's stop the name calling. That's a reasonable position and has been echoed by many board members, even some who have been waiting on Chip to ship in this most recent incident. That discussion on mental illness, which was just meant to be an attempt at keeping a level head by me evolved into a combination of discussions including i) "how do you know he's mentally ill" to which I gave my reasons for believing so (as coming from someone who has deals with mental illness personally, has interacted extensively with Chip for several years and has spoken with boardies who have interacted with Chip AND have watched his progress on Facebook along with his interactions among his friends and family) ii) Roy must be a douchnozzle (or insert word of choice) for supporting Chip, even though I'm a long time contributor here and have never defrauded anyone. I never supported Chip's lack of accountability. I only entertained that mental illness has not been ruled out. iii) Roy must not want him to be in the HOS since he's supporting him. Seriously, talk about going in circles, even though I have stated over and over that Chip needs to face consequences. So the discussion of mental health did take many twists and turns from it's initial motive. The discussions about consequences and about mental health can be mutually exclusive in the sense that the mental health discussion DOES NOT keep Chip from being punished. ChiSoxFan - one of the better thought out posts towards Chip in the discussion. Thank you for taking the time and the kind words you said about me.

Nobody is saying to allow unacceptable behavior. But in every case of mental illness, while acute remedies were applied for the safety of themselves and others, care was also given to understand that it was illness. And since the possibility of illness exists IMO, it's worth keeping it in the discussion. I can't believe I have to keep repeating the same, simple thing over and over. Does it make any difference whether he is mentally ill or not? If he is, you would be taking a big risk to deal with him. If he isn't, you would be taking an even bigger risk. Either way he is a liability. Having sympathy and understanding for a potential unproven condition may make you feel good about yourself, but it's totally irrelevant in as much it has been established that people have been shafted dealing with this guy. It does make a difference as to what his future holds. It doesn't matter as far as your future holds. I'm less risk adverse than most are and it serves me well.

I'm not doing it because I feel sorry for him. I'm doing it because I believe there is truth to me belief. And? Who has stated any differently? Put him in the HOS.

Nobody is saying to allow unacceptable behavior. But in every case of mental illness, while acute remedies were applied for the safety of themselves and others, care was also given to understand that it was illness. And since the possibility of illness exists IMO, it's worth keeping it in the discussion. I can't believe I have to keep repeating the same, simple thing over and over.

Two things. 1) I would personally refrain about publicly commenting on how Chip is using his daughter unless you have proof. You've done it multiple times and I think it's uncalled for. 2) As I've stated, I don't think Chip is premeditating his actions. If he was he'd have done well to run with the $10,000's he was handling this summer. Just my personal opinion. This guy in the wheel chair is obviously premeditating his fraud.

Yup, I know. I was there. I know lawyer man. And I'm erring on the side of caution for my conscience's sake. As I said, you can nominate someone to the HOS and I will agree with it to protect people from future problems. I would think at this point it would be on Chip to try to get himself off it and that would probably include professional information about whether mental health was a factor and if it was treated. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not taking his offenses lightly but I'm also not dismissing the possibility of mental illness.

You do realize that this is a very distinct possibility and is at the root of what mental health is? 'Right and wrong' is wide reaching. How about the fact that some people can be self-convinced in the moment that they are doing the best that they can do when they can actually do better? "Grow up and pull yourself up by your bootstraps" doesn't always work for people. Some sink even more.

No, they don't. Proof of mental illness? Yes. Possibility of mental illness, to be used as mitigation as if it were fact instead of assertion without confirmation or corroboration? No. You know what I mean. If there was reason to believe there was mental illness it would be investigated and if proof was found it would be weighed in the punishment. Right, and what they wouldn't do is take the word of the defendant and only the word of the defendant that it exists. I don't disagree with any of this. We still don't conclusively know whether there is or isn't mental illness involved. But I am siding with it being very possible. And since none of us can offer any proof except for Chip (although we do know he was checked into a hospital and he has told me that he is on regular treatment including medication and counseling) everyone has to make a decision based on how they feel. And I need to add that nobody should be ostracized for the decisions they choose to make as long it's reasonable.

I see versions 2 and 3 as the same thing. I believe he was going to get another loan in order to give him time to sort himself out. When I was down and out, I did pretty much the same thing. I was living off a line of credit that was maxed. I'd make the minimum payment and live off of what was available from it until the next payment came along. The difference between Chip and I was that I had a solid career as an automechanic which helped me to stave off bankruptcy for longer. I don't know what job options are like in Myrtle Beach but I didn't have that problem. I ended up getting into comics to make ends meet. I'd be willing to bet that most people's honesty is directly related to how they see their chances of survival. So far the only thing we differ on is whether mental illness is involved or not. Again, HOS nomination seems to be the way to go. I just disagree on the reason why.

No, they don't. Proof of mental illness? Yes. Possibility of mental illness, to be used as mitigation as if it were fact instead of assertion without confirmation or corroboration? No. You know what I mean. If there was reason to believe there was mental illness it would be investigated and if proof was found it would be weighed in the punishment.

I'd never harass Roy. I just wanted to summarize the GoFundMe issue and the ever changing reason for and potential use of the money since there may have been some confusion there. Swick was just being sarcastic because we had a bit of a back and forth about it before.

Nobody is making excuses or giving an alcoholic the bottle. You can discuss the punishment and also have a separate discussion about cause. Or maybe not.

I'll be honest, I don't know. Does that mean that someone can't ever be removed from the HOS? If so, that would make the decision even more difficult for me personally.

Yes, those were my books. For what it's worth, before putting those books up for auction I offered to back any sale of those books through Chip with my own money and reputation.

You're assuming it has never been done to me. After nearly 14 years of collecting comics since getting back into it and now being a full time dealer, I've lost money to people and I weigh the way I feel about it based on my perception of circumstances. I've lost money to people who I believe were thieves and I've done everything within my power to make sure they were punished including contacting local authorities. But I've also lost money to people who I believe were either poor at managing themselves or ran onto some bad luck. For example, there's a board member who owes me $500 since the mortgage crisis hit in 2008. He was in the job of selling mortgages. He lost his home, his marriage broke down and he's now rebuilding. I know he'll get it to me when the time is right. I'd forgotten about it until now. Punishable? I've already stated multiple times that both are punishable. I do agree that there needs to be consequences to correct bad behavior and to protect people from that behavior. They are just not punishable in the same way IMO. If I'm a judge I weight all the facts before me including past, recent and present behavior. If there is a possibility of mental illness, wouldn't that be weighed in a court of law and taken into consideration? We have a bunch of judges in this thread and many don't believe it's a factor and that is where we disagree. So yes, there needs to be consequences (punishment) but consequences need to fit the crime. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say not to put Chip on the HOS. People need to be aware. I'm just stating the reasons why I think this has all happened and I don't personally believe that there is predetermined malice.

I think part of the difficulty is that theft (and thieves) are not always or even mainly the simple purse snatching cut and run variety. There are many big thieves in the corporate world (some get caught thankfully) who are 90% law abiding but its the 10% law breaking behaviour, fraud, tax evasion, etc that does them in. They are still in the end thieves. I think you know that you and I see most things alike and I agree that theft has many faces. My main point is that I don't think in this case that Chip is taking the money and running. As I said earlier, he could have done that to several of us board members who were selling literally $10,000's of goods through Chip but he didn't. What Chip did in the past I can't comment on. If it's theft, it's theft through neglect at this point. Both are theft but even in the eyes of the law there is a difference between premeditated malice and simple neglect. I don't think it should be any different here.