PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[hhwolfman]

I realize I am a noob. My thoughts don't count.I read all the threads posted on Hus. I taken notes on all the discussion here. Studied all the HOS rules. I am not a very serious person and posted a couple posts that aren't very serious. Just to make lite of the subject. But the whole thing boils down to rather he is on Probation or HOS. He still is a person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed canoe.

 

True words won't be said in this thread.

 

I didn't proof read my statement be.

 

I meant to say truer.

 

It is the forbidden hops I believe.

[jsilverjanet]

he didn't get off of anything. He's still on the PL.

Where he'll stay.

 

If I knew that for sure, I would be completely ok with that, but I am skeptical.

Can you imagine him stepping up and completing the transaction?

 

I thought He doesn't have to complete the transaction per se, the nominee can remove him as they see fit

[PovertyRow]

 

The shilling has been proven. I don't have the patience to go through the 20,000 posts in this thread to find his posts, but I'm fairly positive he admitted to it when called on it last year, claiming ignorance. Then immediately did it again.

Somebody with more of a stake is more than welcome to verify this. I wouldn't deal with him regardless of inclusion in the HOS (even tho I think he's deserving of it)

 

The shilling was not proven, not admitted to. One thing that rubs my rhubarb is when people say "I am fairly positive" or similar (like "I think" or "I am pretty sure" etc.

 

Would you like to be accused and convicted of something because another person was "fairly positive" or "thought" or was "pretty sure" you did something?

 

I have seen this kind of "testimony" many times here, and more often than not it turns out to be either false or about someone else.

 

This is why substantiated evidence as in posts, PMs etc. are asked for.

[CAHokie]

Yes, when I got shilled on Ebay on one of his listings it was much more likely it was done by some random comic book guy that hated him, then by his own shill.

[CAHokie]

he didn't get off of anything. He's still on the PL.

Where he'll stay.

 

If I knew that for sure, I would be completely ok with that, but I am skeptical.

Can you imagine him stepping up and completing the transaction?

 

Either I am very confused (highly possible), or are there not other alternatives? Could the following be plausible? (A bit silly, but possible)

 

 

H: Hey Bro, I really apologize for what happened with the IH. I was trying to make money for school and it didnt work out. I am sending you these Kool Books free of charge that I know you like to make up for wasting your time. Anyway, you can take me off the list and give me a second chance?

 

Nominator: Cool, thanks for the books man. Yeah, I will take you off right now.

[cloud cloddie]

 

The shilling has been proven. I don't have the patience to go through the 20,000 posts in this thread to find his posts, but I'm fairly positive he admitted to it when called on it last year, claiming ignorance. Then immediately did it again.

Somebody with more of a stake is more than welcome to verify this. I wouldn't deal with him regardless of inclusion in the HOS (even tho I think he's deserving of it)

 

The shilling was not proven, not admitted to. One thing that rubs my rhubarb is when people say "I am fairly positive" or similar (like "I think" or "I am pretty sure" etc.

 

Would you like to be accused and convicted of something because another person was "fairly positive" or "thought" or was "pretty sure" you did something?

 

I have seen this kind of "testimony" many times here, and more often than not it turns out to be either false or about someone else.

 

This is why substantiated evidence as in posts, PMs etc. are asked for.

 

Haha. Sure. Because judging by this thread, I'd only be accused and never convicted.

[PovertyRow]

 

The shilling has been proven. I don't have the patience to go through the 20,000 posts in this thread to find his posts, but I'm fairly positive he admitted to it when called on it last year, claiming ignorance. Then immediately did it again.

Somebody with more of a stake is more than welcome to verify this. I wouldn't deal with him regardless of inclusion in the HOS (even tho I think he's deserving of it)

 

The shilling was not proven, not admitted to. One thing that rubs my rhubarb is when people say "I am fairly positive" or similar (like "I think" or "I am pretty sure" etc.

 

Would you like to be accused and convicted of something because another person was "fairly positive" or "thought" or was "pretty sure" you did something?

 

I have seen this kind of "testimony" many times here, and more often than not it turns out to be either false or about someone else.

 

This is why substantiated evidence as in posts, PMs etc. are asked for.

 

Haha. Sure. Because judging by this thread, I'd only be accused and never convicted.

 

So you are saying you should be put on the list by someone saying they "are pretty sure" or "thought" or were "fairly positive" you did something? Are you even familiar with the process?

 

 

[thunsicker]

Hey Pov. I've kind of alluded to it twice now and not seen an answer. How is he in any way different then Red Rocks? The paranoid newbie in me says if you cheat an old timer like Designer Toast even in the slightest way it's HoS for you but if you cheat someone new it's PL. Or is it the subsequent meltdown that makes it HoS? It's kind of irrelevant as Red Rocks managed to get himself booted from the board as well, but where is the line drawn?

[hhwolfman]

 

The shilling has been proven. I don't have the patience to go through the 20,000 posts in this thread to find his posts, but I'm fairly positive he admitted to it when called on it last year, claiming ignorance. Then immediately did it again.

Somebody with more of a stake is more than welcome to verify this. I wouldn't deal with him regardless of inclusion in the HOS (even tho I think he's deserving of it)

 

The shilling was not proven, not admitted to. One thing that rubs my rhubarb is when people say "I am fairly positive" or similar (like "I think" or "I am pretty sure" etc.

 

Would you like to be accused and convicted of something because another person was "fairly positive" or "thought" or was "pretty sure" you did something?

 

I have seen this kind of "testimony" many times here, and more often than not it turns out to be either false or about someone else.

 

This is why substantiated evidence as in posts, PMs etc. are asked for.

 

This is just like a drug user. Problems keep arising, all the time and he keeps blaming something or someone else. I have been in court for over 18 months where the Judges keep using the same lack of evidence you just announced. Everyone in the court except for the judge knows what is going on. Witnesses have seen the proof first hand but the Judge still uses your same responses. Something drastic hast to happen and then it is to late.

[cloud cloddie]

 

The shilling has been proven. I don't have the patience to go through the 20,000 posts in this thread to find his posts, but I'm fairly positive he admitted to it when called on it last year, claiming ignorance. Then immediately did it again.

Somebody with more of a stake is more than welcome to verify this. I wouldn't deal with him regardless of inclusion in the HOS (even tho I think he's deserving of it)

 

The shilling was not proven, not admitted to. One thing that rubs my rhubarb is when people say "I am fairly positive" or similar (like "I think" or "I am pretty sure" etc.

 

Would you like to be accused and convicted of something because another person was "fairly positive" or "thought" or was "pretty sure" you did something?

 

I have seen this kind of "testimony" many times here, and more often than not it turns out to be either false or about someone else.

 

This is why substantiated evidence as in posts, PMs etc. are asked for.

 

Haha. Sure. Because judging by this thread, I'd only be accused and never convicted.

 

So you are saying you should be put on the list by someone saying they "are pretty sure" or "thought" or were "fairly positive" you did something? Are you even familiar with the process?

 

 

I wouldn't be put on the list, because I've done nothing that could even be perceived as PL or HOS worthy.

The hustruck discussion has been going on for a while. Besides from a few objections, I didn't see a big uproar before the poll started. Now, days and an overwhelming yes vote later, everybody voting yes is suddenly a mob and the doubts are more vocal.

And now the new mob has won.

We're not going to agree on this, and he's still on the PL list, so to me it's becoming a moot point. Put him on, don't put him on. I just think there's enough shady business on his part to merit more than PL

[jsilverjanet]

 

The shilling has been proven. I don't have the patience to go through the 20,000 posts in this thread to find his posts, but I'm fairly positive he admitted to it when called on it last year, claiming ignorance. Then immediately did it again.

Somebody with more of a stake is more than welcome to verify this. I wouldn't deal with him regardless of inclusion in the HOS (even tho I think he's deserving of it)

 

The shilling was not proven, not admitted to. One thing that rubs my rhubarb is when people say "I am fairly positive" or similar (like "I think" or "I am pretty sure" etc.

 

Would you like to be accused and convicted of something because another person was "fairly positive" or "thought" or was "pretty sure" you did something?

 

I have seen this kind of "testimony" many times here, and more often than not it turns out to be either false or about someone else.

 

This is why substantiated evidence as in posts, PMs etc. are asked for.

 

 

 

This is just like a drug user. Problems keep arising, all the time and he keeps blaming something or someone else. I have been in court for over 18 months where the Judges keep using the same lack of evidence you just announced. Everyone in the court except for the judge knows what is going on. Witnesses have seen the proof first hand but the Judge still uses your same responses. Something drastic hast to happen and then it is to late.

 

I would assume that the reason here is that they want to be sure that the wrong person isn't added to the list

[Beige]

Hey Pov. I've kind of alluded to it twice now and not seen an answer. How is he in any way different then Red Rocks? The paranoid newbie in me says if you cheat an old timer like Designer Toast even in the slightest way it's HoS for you but if you cheat someone new it's PL. Or is it the subsequent meltdown that makes it HoS? It's kind of irrelevant as Red Rocks managed to get himself booted from the board as well, but where is the line drawn?

 

There was more to it than that.

 

I was the purchaser of that Superman #1. Red Rocks took my money, refused to send the book (or give it to another boardie who was going to fly to Oregan for me and pick up) - delayed on the refund for a week, and then sold it to someone else - I am assuming someone who saw the book for sale here - for a much higher price.

$20,000 is a hell of a lot of cash to be sitting in some guys bank account who was looking more and more unhinged by the second.

Then his wife came on and threatened to sue everyone!

He was put on for a combination of all 3 events.

[jsilverjanet]

 

The shilling has been proven. I don't have the patience to go through the 20,000 posts in this thread to find his posts, but I'm fairly positive he admitted to it when called on it last year, claiming ignorance. Then immediately did it again.

Somebody with more of a stake is more than welcome to verify this. I wouldn't deal with him regardless of inclusion in the HOS (even tho I think he's deserving of it)

 

The shilling was not proven, not admitted to. One thing that rubs my rhubarb is when people say "I am fairly positive" or similar (like "I think" or "I am pretty sure" etc.

 

Would you like to be accused and convicted of something because another person was "fairly positive" or "thought" or was "pretty sure" you did something?

 

I have seen this kind of "testimony" many times here, and more often than not it turns out to be either false or about someone else.

 

This is why substantiated evidence as in posts, PMs etc. are asked for.

 

Haha. Sure. Because judging by this thread, I'd only be accused and never convicted.

 

So you are saying you should be put on the list by someone saying they "are pretty sure" or "thought" or were "fairly positive" you did something? Are you even familiar with the process?

 

 

I wouldn't be put on the list, because I've done nothing that could even be perceived as PL or HOS worthy.

The hustruck discussion has been going on for a while. Besides from a few objections, I didn't see a big uproar before the poll started. Now, days and an overwhelming yes vote later, everybody voting yes is suddenly a mob and the doubts are more vocal.

And now the new mob has won.

We're not going to agree on this, and he's still on the PL list, so to me it's becoming a moot point. Put him on, don't put him on. I just think there's enough shady business on his part to merit more than PL

 

I think both groups agree the PL isn't enough in some circumstances, there really needs to be another option

[CAHokie]

So the $ amount is the deciding factor?

 

I guess I am not going to get an answer about H being removed from the list anytime the nominator chooses too whether he gets the book or not.

[jsilverjanet]

Hey Pov. I've kind of alluded to it twice now and not seen an answer. How is he in any way different then Red Rocks? The paranoid newbie in me says if you cheat an old timer like Designer Toast even in the slightest way it's HoS for you but if you cheat someone new it's PL. Or is it the subsequent meltdown that makes it HoS? It's kind of irrelevant as Red Rocks managed to get himself booted from the board as well, but where is the line drawn?

 

There was more to it than that.

 

I was the purchaser of that Superman #1. Red Rocks took my money, refused to send the book (or give it to another boardie who was going to fly to Oregan for me and pick up) - delayed on the refund for a week, and then sold it to someone else - I am assuming someone who saw the book for sale here - for a much higher price.

$20,000 is a hell of a lot of cash to be sitting in some guys bank account who was looking more and more unhinged by the second.

Then his wife came on and threatened to sue everyone!

He was put on for a combination of all 3 events.

 

Did you have proof of this?

 

Based on what POV wrote earlier

 

These aren't HOS worthy

 

"Then his wife came on and threatened to sue everyone"

 

If he didn't complete the transaction, then it was PL just like HusTruck

[PovertyRow]

 

The shilling has been proven. I don't have the patience to go through the 20,000 posts in this thread to find his posts, but I'm fairly positive he admitted to it when called on it last year, claiming ignorance. Then immediately did it again.

Somebody with more of a stake is more than welcome to verify this. I wouldn't deal with him regardless of inclusion in the HOS (even tho I think he's deserving of it)

 

The shilling was not proven, not admitted to. One thing that rubs my rhubarb is when people say "I am fairly positive" or similar (like "I think" or "I am pretty sure" etc.

 

Would you like to be accused and convicted of something because another person was "fairly positive" or "thought" or was "pretty sure" you did something?

 

I have seen this kind of "testimony" many times here, and more often than not it turns out to be either false or about someone else.

 

This is why substantiated evidence as in posts, PMs etc. are asked for.

 

This is just like a drug user. Problems keep arising, all the time and he keeps blaming something or someone else. I have been in court for over 18 months where the Judges keep using the same lack of evidence you just announced. Everyone in the court except for the judge knows what is going on. Witnesses have seen the proof first hand but the Judge still uses your same responses. Something drastic hast to happen and then it is to late.

 

Thing is we have our own set of rules here. We require some form of substantiating real evidence, not conjecture. I am not defending anyone. I am defending the process. Yes, you can say I am doing the same thing: citing a lack of evidence. But if, as you say, witnesses have seen the proof first hand then that would come up here. Thing about these boards, there is little one on one talk. The vast, vast majority of communication is via PM, email, etc. All of which are easily reproduced.

 

PS - if you are a lawyer you should know the difference between "to late" and "too late". (sorry about that last little dig.)

 

[CAHokie]

Hey Pov. I've kind of alluded to it twice now and not seen an answer. How is he in any way different then Red Rocks? The paranoid newbie in me says if you cheat an old timer like Designer Toast even in the slightest way it's HoS for you but if you cheat someone new it's PL. Or is it the subsequent meltdown that makes it HoS? It's kind of irrelevant as Red Rocks managed to get himself booted from the board as well, but where is the line drawn?

 

There was more to it than that.

 

I was the purchaser of that Superman #1. Red Rocks took my money, refused to send the book (or give it to another boardie who was going to fly to Oregan for me and pick up) - delayed on the refund for a week, and then sold it to someone else - I am assuming someone who saw the book for sale here - for a much higher price.

$20,000 is a hell of a lot of cash to be sitting in some guys bank account who was looking more and more unhinged by the second.

Then his wife came on and threatened to sue everyone!

He was put on for a combination of all 3 events.

 

Did you have proof of this?

 

Based on what POV wrote earlier

 

These aren't HOS worthy

 

"Then his wife came on and threatened to sue everyone"

 

If he didn't complete the transaction, then it was PL just like HusTruck

 

You left out a huge difference between the two cases.....

[Beige]

Hey Pov. I've kind of alluded to it twice now and not seen an answer. How is he in any way different then Red Rocks? The paranoid newbie in me says if you cheat an old timer like Designer Toast even in the slightest way it's HoS for you but if you cheat someone new it's PL. Or is it the subsequent meltdown that makes it HoS? It's kind of irrelevant as Red Rocks managed to get himself booted from the board as well, but where is the line drawn?

 

There was more to it than that.

 

I was the purchaser of that Superman #1. Red Rocks took my money, refused to send the book (or give it to another boardie who was going to fly to Oregan for me and pick up) - delayed on the refund for a week, and then sold it to someone else - I am assuming someone who saw the book for sale here - for a much higher price.

$20,000 is a hell of a lot of cash to be sitting in some guys bank account who was looking more and more unhinged by the second.

Then his wife came on and threatened to sue everyone!

He was put on for a combination of all 3 events.

 

Did you have proof of this?

 

Based on what POV wrote earlier

 

These aren't HOS worthy

 

"Then his wife came on and threatened to sue everyone"

 

If he didn't complete the transaction, then it was PL just like HusTruck

 

 

I didn't vote to put him in the HOS.

I didn't nominate him either.

 

Perhaps you should ask the people that did?

[jsilverjanet]

Ok but you said those things right now, so those weren't part of the HOS nomination?

 

I'm confused or tired maybe I need to sleep

 

10k tomorrow for sure

[DavidTheDavid]

It seems that protocol for nominations, which is largely undefined, is one issue, while the threshold for HOS 'worthiness' is the other issue, also largely undefined.

 

As for HusTruck, he passes the Potter Stewart test: I know it when I see it. Or in his case, smell it.