14 of spades

OK - we'll have to take this at face value. I think had he posted this to the thread, most of the pitchforks would have been put away.

I'm sorta thinking the same thing. They're only funny books but I take the sense of community here with some seriousness. I say everything I've said so far at an academic level. I'm not implying Batman has done anything right or wrong. Afterall, he can still come on and clear his name. I however, am of the position that his actions up to now can be interpreted as suspicious.

Personally, for someone to walk out on a deal as Yannis allegedly did, I'm guessing (pure speculation now) it wasn't a money transaction but a trade. Perhaps Batman gave Yannis a grail he was looking for. Again, just speculation, and I recognize it as such.

Well - bingo? You still don't get it. If X was guilty, why go through the trouble of painting a scarlet letter in X's sigline indicating that X was the other buyer in the first place? I do get it. What you are referring to is that he put it up in the first place. What I'm referring to is that he took it down. Why he took it down absolutely has nothing to do with what happened between Yannis and Matt. It's definitely not an admission of guilt on Bat-Man's part. I never said it was. But I was just pointing out your quote above can be interpreted in two opposing ways.

Fact: Batman has not declared he didn't know the book was already sold to another buyer.

Exactly. This explanation is just as plausible as the ones above. We don't know. Why doesn't Batman explain?

Well - bingo? You still don't get it. If X was guilty, why go through the trouble of painting a scarlet letter in X's sigline indicating that X was the other buyer in the first place? Exactly...because he didn't know about the previous transaction when he made the purchase. Clearly when he removed the book from his sig, he likely didn't want to draw additional attention to himself but from what I recall a few days ago, he was proud to show off his pre-Robin Tec collection within his sig. If he knew that there was an agreed transaction with another buyer previously, he wouldn't have displayed that very book with pride for all of us members to see. You have provided a plausible theory. But this isn't fact. It's also plausible he put it in his sig line because he was happy he acquired a grail, and didn't expect Matt (a relatively non-active forum member) to know about his sig line. Further, why hasn't BatMan used any of the last 24 hours to say he didn't know? If I was in BatMan's shoes, my first post would go like this: It was ME who bought the book. Matt, I'm so sorry - I didn't know you already had an agreement to buy it from Yannis. Yannis didn't tell me! For extra points, he could say: Matt, I'll return the book to Yannis so that you can buy it off of him. Again, I'm so sorry but I really didn't know.

Well - bingo? You still don't get it. If X was guilty, why go through the trouble of painting a scarlet letter in X's sigline indicating that X was the other buyer in the first place? I do get it. What you are referring to is that he put it up in the first place. What I'm referring to is that he took it down.

Well - bingo?

Removing the tec is like hiding evidence. If he didn't do anything wrong, what is he trying to hide?

If he really didn't know he was undercutting someone else, then why doesn't he say so? Friendly PMs to Matt doesn't explain this behavior. If he really didn't feel he did anything wrong, then why the need to remove the sig line? Why the silence?

It is my sense that believe Bat-Man knew he was undercutting someone else. His behavior has been secretive and guilt-ridden. If it was ME who inadvertently undercut someone else, I'd be all over this thread in a minute proclaiming that I didn't know, and I'd show the scan up close for everyone to see, confirming I was the "innocent" buyer. What I wouldn't do is remove the scan and pretend not to know about the thread by not posting. Think about it. His name is being dragged through the mud. If he bought it without guile, why wouldn't he defend his innocence? I sense Yannis told him someone else had already put down a down-payment (wouldn't you?), but Bat-Man just convinced Yannis to sell it to him.

+help+me+decide%26quot%3B+MCMiles&topic=0&Search=true#Post2665396'>Pattern Recognition I had no idea about that thread, what a joke. The threats are pretty pathetic, lawsuits, comic con throw downs, give me a frickin break. +1 The most infantile responses I have ever seen. He has the maturity of an elementary school child.

He got caught doing that right after he joined the boards as well - his excuse was that he had pressed the "wrong" button on the scanner - it was one of the incidents that led to the big blow-up & his first strike. So this is just a part of a greater pattern of behavior? Pretty sad. Can you give the Coles-notes version of this?

Umm... I read till about page 30 (not sure how I stayed on that long), then added my posts. Beating it to the ground? Well, a guy comes along and gives a theory that someone else was perpetrating fraud. Most folks usually give the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt, and therefore discussion ensues. Franky then comes along, then rather than behave in the way most innocent people do (which is adamantly proclaim their innocence), he just dilly-dallies for several posts. Only by page 57 does he give an explanation (same scan), but not before threats of legal action etc. It turns out his defense, itself, is a lie too (how ironic). It's a soap opera. People like watching soap operas. If you can explain why this is the case, then maybe you'll have your answer.

So he lied again? Try something harder. Find somewhere that he told the truth. Franky says he buys and sells comic books?

So he lied again? Or maybe he didn't KNOWINGLY lie. Perhaps he scanned the book again and used the image he created, but had a "Memento" type moment and forgot that he did all that...

So he lied again? Re-read the post you replied to - I just edited it. But the answer is yes.

Here. More lies to try to cover previous lies. Really bad. Who on earth would come on to the CGC boards and try to pass off faulty evidence pertaining to comics. If there were ever a lawsuit of any kind in the world relating to comics, the expert witnesses would all be from here.

? Am I missing something? Franky said he's guilty of using the SAME SCAN, not selling the SAME BOOK. What I'm saying is he didn't even use the SAME SCAN.

Same book? The scanner "shadow" is at the top on the first book, and at the bottom of the 2nd book. So, not the same scan.

Umm... No one is buying the "wrong scan" excuse right? He has the time to go and fiddle with the colors/properties of the scan, but he has no time to scan it again? BTW - the gif clearly shows one of the scans have shadows along the edges (by the technique used to image capture) whereas the other scan does not. So apparently, using the same scan can cause a "shadow" to appear.

RedHook was responsible for authoring perhaps the single best post I have ever read here. It was the thread investigating whether a particular book was a (I think) Green River pedigree. The post/thread was proposing why he felt a particular book was a GR, and it read like an autopsy/investigation. It's thoroughness and detail made it clear he was perhaps the only person in the entire world who could write up such a post. ...and then he threw a cup of urine on them? With RH, the argument always went to ELEVEN. Well... he never threw urine on me.

RedHook was responsible for authoring perhaps the single best post I have ever read here. It was the thread investigating whether a particular book was a (I think) Green River pedigree. The post/thread was proposing why he felt a particular book was a GR, and it read like an autopsy/investigation. It's thoroughness and detail made it clear he was perhaps the only person in the entire world who could write up such a post.

Rickdogg. He drops in once in a while - but the old Ebay vigilante days were fun.