PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[N/A]

You couldn't be further from the truth but hey make it personal. It is what you do.

 

So you are refuting the documented statement that you initiated the PL nomination process well in advance of the buyer?

 

Is that even allowed? I thought the affected party had to formally start the process, and 3rd-party witch hunts were not allowed?

 

Again, I am in no way supporting Ocean, just the integrity of the PL process for us all.

 

I'd hate to start a sales thread, misplace a book that was later BIN'd by a dickwad buyer I already told via PM that it was no longer available, and suddenly find myself on the PL list.

 

I has a PM with Jawn and Ocean. I was simply walking a noob through the process.

[N/A]

It seemed clear to me that Ocean was trying to bully Jawn. That's it.

[joe_collector]

[i was just trying to figure out where the short fuse came from with him from the community in general.

 

I used to hammer on him for posting sales threads on here, while also having the same book listed on eBay, a direct violation of the guidelines. That ticked me, and many others, off royally, and he would *keep* doing it.

 

But that doesn't automatically mean we pile on when some vindictive buyer nominates him for PL based on "hurt feelings" on not getting a book he was told was not available.

 

I would actually support a PL inclusion for his repeated cross-sales, but in this specific case, I actually think jawn was the bigger spoon.

[bababooey]

You couldn't be further from the truth but hey make it personal. It is what you do.

 

So you are refuting the documented statement that you initiated the PL nomination process well in advance of the buyer?

 

Is that even allowed? I thought the affected party had to formally start the process, and 3rd-party witch hunts were not allowed?

 

Again, I am in no way supporting Ocean, just the integrity of the PL process for us all.

 

I'd hate to start a sales thread, misplace a book that was later BIN'd by a dickwad buyer I already told via PM that it was no longer available, and suddenly find myself on the PL list.

In fairness to Branget, I think he saw some of the sales-derailing as it happened & reposted some stuff for jawn from a wrong thread. He's also stepped back from his role as judge, jury & executioner a few times in this thread. Plus he enjoys these discussions, which is something I'm guilty of.

 

The most annoying thing in reading back on this matter is all of the solarcadet garbage - people need to stop responding to him. I didn't agree with how HE got thrown into the HOS originally but that sympathy has dissipated.

[N/A]

[i was just trying to figure out where the short fuse came from with him from the community in general.

 

I used to hammer on him for posting sales threads on here, while also having the same book listed on eBay, a direct violation of the guidelines. That ticked me, and many others, off royally, and he would *keep* doing it.

 

But that doesn't automatically mean we pile on when some vindictive buyer nominates him for PL based on "hurt feelings" on not getting a book he was told was not available.

 

I would actually support a PL inclusion for his repeated cross-sales, but in this specific case, I actually think jawn was the bigger spoon.

 

Which is why this will never end.

[paperheart]

Now the PGM thread is getting just as weird . . . simple is always better. Always.

 

still trying to figure out why the grading contest books couldn't have gone in one thread

[N/A]

You couldn't be further from the truth but hey make it personal. It is what you do.

 

So you are refuting the documented statement that you initiated the PL nomination process well in advance of the buyer?

 

Is that even allowed? I thought the affected party had to formally start the process, and 3rd-party witch hunts were not allowed?

 

Again, I am in no way supporting Ocean, just the integrity of the PL process for us all.

 

I'd hate to start a sales thread, misplace a book that was later BIN'd by a dickwad buyer I already told via PM that it was no longer available, and suddenly find myself on the PL list.

In fairness to Branget, I think he saw some of the sales-derailing as it happened & reposted some stuff for jawn from a wrong thread. He's also stepped back from his role as judge, jury & executioner a few times in this thread. Plus he enjoys these discussions, which is something I'm guilty of.

 

The most annoying thing in reading back on this matter is all of the solarcadet garbage - people need to stop responding to him. I didn't agree with how HE got thrown into the HOS originally but that sympathy has dissipated.

 

Thanks

 

More often than not I am the lone defender. In this case I was helping out a noob and Rupp played the defender role.

[joe_collector]

[i was just trying to figure out where the short fuse came from with him from the community in general.

 

I used to hammer on him for posting sales threads on here, while also having the same book listed on eBay, a direct violation of the guidelines. That ticked me, and many others, off royally, and he would *keep* doing it.

 

But that doesn't automatically mean we pile on when some vindictive buyer nominates him for PL based on "hurt feelings" on not getting a book he was told was not available.

 

I would actually support a PL inclusion for his repeated cross-sales, but in this specific case, I actually think jawn was the bigger spoon.

 

Which is why this will never end.

 

But this is like falsifying evidence against a gang-banger you *know* is guilty of other crimes, so you justify the ethical lapse that way.

 

Does Ocean deserve to be on the PL? Sure, but not for this perceived transgression.

[N/A]

[i was just trying to figure out where the short fuse came from with him from the community in general.

 

I used to hammer on him for posting sales threads on here, while also having the same book listed on eBay, a direct violation of the guidelines. That ticked me, and many others, off royally, and he would *keep* doing it.

 

But that doesn't automatically mean we pile on when some vindictive buyer nominates him for PL based on "hurt feelings" on not getting a book he was told was not available.

 

I would actually support a PL inclusion for his repeated cross-sales, but in this specific case, I actually think jawn was the bigger spoon.

 

Which is why this will never end.

 

But this is like falsifying evidence against a gang-banger you *know* is guilty of other crimes, so you justify the ethical lapse that way.

 

Does Ocean deserve to be on the PL? Sure, but not for this perceived transgression.

 

We disagree.

 

The point we disagree on is the "buyer being told it was not for sale"

[joe_collector]

The point we disagree on is the "buyer being told it was not for sale"

 

I'd bet real money that if we ran a poll within the general public, whereby he/she is trying to buy a product from an individual, and the seller told them:

 

"I think I will keep it"

 

Does that mean:

 

a) the seller wants to keep it

b) the seller doesn't want to keep it

c) the seller wants more money

 

There is no question that a) would win the poll, as that's the most logical assumption based on the English language. Due to their own biases and experience, some would chose b) or c) but not in majority numbers.

 

I speak like this all the time:

 

"I think I'll go to the store"

 

"I think I'll go out for a drive and look for new houses on sale"

 

"I think I'll order pizza tonight"

 

I'm not negotiating, I'm stating what I am going to do starting with "I think".

[Iceman399]

So if I make a thread and post in it:

 

"I think I might keep it" in the first post.

 

I get a lot of interest in the book because it is priced below market, I have no obligation to sell it and can list it on ebay just a few hours later for 2x what I was asking?

Edited June 12, 2014 by iceman399

[joe_collector]

So if I make a thread and post in it:

 

"I think I might keep it" in the first post.

 

I get a lot of interest in the book because it is priced below market, I have no obligation to sell it and can list it on ebay just a few hours later for 2x what I was asking?

 

What?

 

That was never posted at the start, but a week later. Get with the program.

 

But yes, if a week later you replied to an offer in teh thread or via PM that "I think I will keep it" I would fully support your position that there was no transaction.

[N/A]

The point we disagree on is the "buyer being told it was not for sale"

 

I'd bet real money that if we ran a poll within the general public, whereby he/she is trying to buy a product from an individual, and the seller told them:

 

"I think I will keep it"

 

Does that mean:

 

a) the seller wants to keep it

b) the seller doesn't want to keep it

c) the seller wants more money

 

There is no question that a) would win the poll, as that's the most logical assumption based on the English language. Due to their own biases and experience, some would chose b) or c) but not in majority numbers.

 

I speak like this all the time:

 

"I think I'll go to the store"

 

"I think I'll go out for a drive and look for new houses on sale"

 

"I think I'll order pizza tonight"

 

I'm not negotiating, I'm stating what I am going to do starting with "I think".

 

 

Run your poll. I don't know if a majority even makes your case.

 

Reverse it.

 

I think I'll sell you the book. Am I?

[joe_collector]

I think I'll sell you the book. Am I?

 

Damn straight.

 

Seriously, is English your first language? Not a slam, but a lot of my friends are francophone and don't understand nuance like this.

 

But I'm about done here, as it appears that even though the charges are obviously trumped up, Ocean seems to have burned too many bridges and his railroading seems to be final.

 

But let's see when this situation crops up with a more reputable seller, if you ethical icons follow the exact same rules and precedent. Somehow I doubt you will.

[N/A]

I think I'll sell you the book. Am I?

 

Damn straight.

 

Seriously, is English your first language? Not a slam, but a lot of my friends are francophone and don't understand nuance like this.

 

Yes.

 

When I am thinking about something then I am considering it.

[joe_collector]

When I am thinking about something then I am considering it.

 

Sorry, but I don't know anyone who speaks like that.

[N/A]

When I am thinking about something then I am considering it.

 

Sorry, but I don't know anyone who speaks like that.

 

Then you don't get out much. Have your poll.

[N/A]

My Wife and I are currently thinking about moving.

[Iceman399]

So if I make a thread and post in it:

 

"I think I might keep it" in the first post.

 

I get a lot of interest in the book because it is priced below market, I have no obligation to sell it and can list it on ebay just a few hours later for 2x what I was asking?

 

What?

 

That was never posted at the start, but a week later. Get with the program.

 

But yes, if a week later you replied to an offer in teh thread or via PM that "I think I will keep it" I would fully support your position that there was no transaction.

 

When this first started it was a mess show. His "think" was very ambiguous and kept going back and forth with the would be buyer. If he had said think I am going to hold onto it and never lists it on ebay for a higher price, then there is significant cause for him. If he says sorry no longer available at that price then again significant cause for him. But that isn't how it played out. Do you really think a reputable seller will have an issue like this come up that they aren't willing to work with the buyer?

[VintageComics]

I think I'll sell you the book. Am I?

 

Damn straight.

 

Seriously, is English your first language? Not a slam, but a lot of my friends are francophone and don't understand nuance like this.

 

Yes.

 

When I am thinking about something then I am considering it.

 

You are not taking into account it's most commonly accepted, idiomatic use.