joe_collector

That's because according to the rules initially set out for PL inclusion, you don't have a position. Since he first refused the transaction via PM, there was no transaction. End of story. Ocean just rubbed you all the wrong way, acting like a real spoon, so even though his position was understandable, your moral compass caused you to break with tradition and put him on the PL anyway. And believe, I think Ocean is a major spoon as well, but I am just looking at the sequence of events. To me, the buyer is more guilty than the seller, he just didn't have any reason to sound off and make you all mad.

I know, they're both still open. That's pretty basic, and no reason to repeat yourself. I seem to have to because some people seem to leave out relevant facts as if they simply do not exist. However, you should do it to prove whatever point you wish. According to the people on here, threads have only two states, OPEN and CLOSED. Is there a mysterious third one I'm missing??

Sounds like we've found our Cotton Mather.

1) Thread was inactive for 8 days. 2) Buyer inquired about book, and was told TWICE that it was being kept. 3) Buyer got angry and put BIN in thread, even after being told the books were not available. 4) Book was listed on eBay. 5) Ocean pizzed and moaned when nominated for PL.

Exactly, you are letting your distaste for Ocean and his irritating personality cloud your judgement of the facts. You shouldn't be able to railroad people on the PL just because you don't like them.

You can't sell what you no longer have or what you want to keep, so I don't see how a solution with a spoon-buyer like this could be resolved. Or don't you realize the buyer was trying to trap the seller? His tactics were pretty obvious. Personally, if Ocean gets the PL for this, the buyer should be on the PL too, as they were both equally guilty of poor salesmanship.

Quoting to make sure the sellers blame the right people.

I know, they're both still open. That's pretty basic, and no reason to repeat yourself.

You should watch what you say.

No, I am doing it because I think the verdict stinks and it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us. Imagine starting a sales thread and forgetting to close it - weeks later some dickwad strolls in and puts a BIN on several books you traded away or put back into storage, and after advising him the books are no longer available, the little pe-rick starts screaming that you belong on the PL. According to this judgement, any seller caught in this buyer trap (and it is a trap) should automatically be put on the PL.

Exactly, and I bet I could fill up the PL to bursting by doing a long search on still-active threads from the past few years, cherry picking "hot" books that have skyrocketed in price since then and hitting the on anything that was unsold. But should I do it just to prove a point...

Apparently a bunch of brainless pinheads. I guess I should say Apparently you're calling me a brainless pinhead. No, I just think you guys hate ocean so much that it clouded your view of the scenario as it unfolded. Try to think of the situation had someone like Kramerica been the seller instead of ocean - would he also be on the PL?

I think what happened here is your basic witch hunt due to ocean being such an ultra-spoon, and since he was so revilved, the PL addition went off without looking at the situation in an unbiased and even-handed way. Does anyone *really* believe that if a respected seller like greggy or FT or Kramerica or Jive or drbanner, etc. would have refused to sell someone a book from an inactive thread via PM, and then refused to honor the ignorant and unwelcome BIN, that they would be on the PL? According to this case, they would have to be, based on precedent, but no way it happens.

Apparently a bunch of brainless pinheads.

So let me get this straight, this dickwad buyer actually got ocean on the PL for his own stupid behavior? Really? Therein lies the crux. But did this actually get ocean put on the PL? If so, then the PL is officially a joke in my book. I assumed ocean got put there for his cross-listing practices.

After reading a bit in the General Discussion area, did ocean really get put on the PL due to a week-old BIN on a book the buyer was told was no longer available? Believe me, I think ocean is a real spoon for his cross-listing and general demeanor, but if this is true, then the PL is next to useless, as it can be manipulated at will.

So let me get this straight, this dickwad buyer actually got ocean on the PL for his own stupid behavior? Really?

How in the world can anything the buyer did be construed (by a rational person) as embracing "common sense"? You can be angry about the conduct of the seller (like cross-listing here, online, eBay, etc.), but the buyer seems to be a real nitwit.

So what are you going to do with that 191 smackers!? buy copies of Star Wars 42 Why? First comic book appearance of Boba Fett, and far more importantly, his First Cover Appearance.

Come on Silver Surfer 50 has a bigass Chromium cover, it was hyped like mad at the time, and represents a lot of what was bad about the rampant speculation of the era. Silver Surfer 34 is far more appealing, as it came out a year and a half earlier, at the start of 1990, doesn't sport a Chromium cover, and is the start of the CA Thanos saga.

But that black guy's reaction is pretty spot on.

Sure, but that's a user-setting that has to be enabled, and I don't see that anywhere on here. If anyone wants to use the "just like an eBay BIN" then 30-days is the absolute top limit.

Sounds like a few cases of malt liquor.

Nope, these have a maximum of 30-days before they expire.

Why would it say in the rules when sales threads expire? It's a very small part of the forum, and other than the seller guidelines, CGC is not sticking their nose in. But common sense dictates that if you see a thread a few weeks old and no activity since then, it's being a real jerkwad to stick a in there without PM'ing the seller first.