PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[prez]

 

Yes, they should.

 

Presales happen ALL the time. The difference here is poor communication. Did he say he had it or did the buyer assume?

2nd was to cover his and he needs to make it right with 4comix.

 

it's a shame his original sales thread was locked then poofed. I'm certain that he didn't mention a presale (though sometimes sellers won't) but i do remember him specifically not listing the label (which was a concern).

 

Did anyone ask if he had it in hand? I don't remember if it was asked

 

And to me that is a great question. Was it assumed to be in hand?

 

What would a "common man" assume when he sees for sale ad on the internet? Likely not a presale, right?

[Spacy]

 

Yes, they should.

 

Presales happen ALL the time. The difference here is poor communication. Did he say he had it or did the buyer assume?

2nd was to cover his and he needs to make it right with 4comix.

 

it's a shame his original sales thread was locked then poofed. I'm certain that he didn't mention a presale (though sometimes sellers won't) but i do remember him specifically not listing the label (which was a concern).

 

Did anyone ask if he had it in hand? I don't remember if it was asked

 

And to me that is a great question. Was it assumed to be in hand?

 

What would a "common man" assume when he sees for sale ad on the internet? Likely not a presale, right?

 

Exactly

[Iceman399]

Do we have to start a new poll and nomination or can we just honor the previous one?

 

 

If everyone is worried about all the extraneous stuff being used to make this decision I suppose we can create a new one with the simple facts of this particular instance of fraud, along with him being caught in the lie, attempting to maintain it, and being exposed for lying in his attempt to maintain the original lie and that should be enough to get a "clean" vote.

 

I doubt, at this point, if mention of his previous activities would even be necessary given how clearly he was busted in the midst of this deceptive dealing.

 

Clear HOS to you, not even close for me.

 

He tried to sell a comic he did not own, OR have possession of. If you offer something for sale, it is absolutely implied that you own (or have a clear right to that item, or have been granted agency to sell that item (sell for a friend, consignment, etc). If you do not own that item and have attempted to sell and collect money for that item without disclosing things like (I've not yet paid for the item and I do not have possession of the item), you have committed fraud. You have intentionally misrepresented AND omitted relevant facts while attempting to make a sale.

 

That's the 1st fraud, the lie about the case is 2a. The picture of "the case" was fraud 2b is support of fraud 2a.

 

Given all the subsequent discussion there are most likely more, but no one really needs more at this point...at least they shouldn't.

 

Yes, they should.

 

Presales happen ALL the time. The difference here is poor communication. Did he say he had it or did the buyer assume?

2nd was to cover his and he needs to make it right with 4comix.

 

Poor communication? In what world is this just poor communication? I guess those Nigerian emails I get are just poor communications as well.

 

I have to agree. Jeff, that is one of the dumbest arguments I've heard in awhile - poor communication?!

 

Then please tell me the difference between this sale and a presales. If he had communicated how he was acquiring the book would we be here?

 

Poor communication.

 

I'm ALS on my phone in the NOLA airport so hard to keep up.

 

Ok I will play ball on my lunch. Hopefully the what if scenario works for you as well.

 

Presale - Hey I am presellig this con exclusive price is X. (Shoot I sold more than I could get my hands on). "Hey Steve, I couldn't grab you a copy at the con since I promised you this book I will get on for you at my charge"

 

Hustruck - Hey someone buy this. Shoot I am not gunna make money how can I get out of this. Oh I can lie about the books case etc etc etc. More lies and more fraud. Sweet I am done and good to go.

[HarveySwick]

Teach us Jeff. Explain to the members of the unruly mob carrying torches.

 

How can you simply dismiss HusTruck's actions as "poor communication" or "no different than a presale"?

 

(1) He started a sales thread intentionally hiding the label and certification number.

(2) Scared off the original eBay seller of the book so much with his shady attempts at payment, the seller cancelled the deal.

(3) Informed his buyer of the book that the book had a cracked case so he didn't feel comfortable selling him a book with a cracked case and didn't want to make the buyer wait for it to get back from CGC

(4) Used photos from a completely different book that had been used by another Boardie to further the fraudulent claims of a cracked case.

(5) Attempted to claim that the eBay seller gave him permission to use those photographs.

 

HOW?! How is that "poor communication" or "no different than a presale"?

 

Can't wait to hear your response.

[slym2none]

Do we have to start a new poll and nomination or can we just honor the previous one?

 

 

If everyone is worried about all the extraneous stuff being used to make this decision I suppose we can create a new one with the simple facts of this particular instance of fraud, along with him being caught in the lie, attempting to maintain it, and being exposed for lying in his attempt to maintain the original lie and that should be enough to get a "clean" vote.

 

I doubt, at this point, if mention of his previous activities would even be necessary given how clearly he was busted in the midst of this deceptive dealing.

 

Clear HOS to you, not even close for me.

 

He tried to sell a comic he did not own, OR have possession of. If you offer something for sale, it is absolutely implied that you own (or have a clear right to that item, or have been granted agency to sell that item (sell for a friend, consignment, etc). If you do not own that item and have attempted to sell and collect money for that item without disclosing things like (I've not yet paid for the item and I do not have possession of the item), you have committed fraud. You have intentionally misrepresented AND omitted relevant facts while attempting to make a sale.

 

That's the 1st fraud, the lie about the case is 2a. The picture of "the case" was fraud 2b is support of fraud 2a.

 

Given all the subsequent discussion there are most likely more, but no one really needs more at this point...at least they shouldn't.

 

Yes, they should.

 

Presales happen ALL the time. The difference here is poor communication. Did he say he had it or did the buyer assume?

2nd was to cover his and he needs to make it right with 4comix.

 

 

 

Wait? What? Presale?

 

Presales happen all the time when it's called a presale?

 

When someone offers a book for sale they are making the tacit claim that they own it to sell in the first place. It's a basic term of the agreement to sell.

 

Maybe you need to reread the texts with the pictures of the broken slab. He was crystal clear that the pictured book was the book he was selling and the reasons why he wasn't sending it to the buyer, all of which (from the statements to the photos) were fraudulent and false.

 

This isn't "poor" communication, this is intentionally deceitful communication. Nothing about it is honest in the least. "Poor Communication" implies some innocence on the part of Hustruck's words or some misunderstanding on 4Comix part. Like it's just a case of people not understanding each other. I challenge anyone to show me how Hustruck wasn't lying from day one. Omitting key details, inventing others entirely in his imagination, from stem to stern it's a boat made entirely of wildly_fanciful_statement.

 

Why do you think it matters that he was "covering his " with the lies?

 

It doesn't really matter WHY he lied in the middle of a transaction (and WHY he lied about owning a book, having the book in his possession, about the slab being damaged, etc) it matters simply THAT he lied and continued to lie, and then lied to cover the earlier lies.

 

If you want to protect the HOS from including people who don't belong there I can respect that. What I disagree with is the exclusion of anyone who has demonstrated this much deception and deceit in any transaction, completed or not, high dollar figure or not, entirely successful or not.

 

 

This is a real eye opener that someone in your profession cares so little for intent and motivation. It really saddens me. Perhaps prosecuting the hungry bread thief is next.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[BeachBum]

Hustruck did not indicate it was any kind of pre-sale. What he should have posted:

 

"Looking for a sucka to buy something from me that I do not own or already have a deal in place for so I can hopefully buy it cheaper than the money you just paid me and make a profit. Any takers?"

[comix4fun]

Do we have to start a new poll and nomination or can we just honor the previous one?

 

 

If everyone is worried about all the extraneous stuff being used to make this decision I suppose we can create a new one with the simple facts of this particular instance of fraud, along with him being caught in the lie, attempting to maintain it, and being exposed for lying in his attempt to maintain the original lie and that should be enough to get a "clean" vote.

 

I doubt, at this point, if mention of his previous activities would even be necessary given how clearly he was busted in the midst of this deceptive dealing.

 

Clear HOS to you, not even close for me.

 

He tried to sell a comic he did not own, OR have possession of. If you offer something for sale, it is absolutely implied that you own (or have a clear right to that item, or have been granted agency to sell that item (sell for a friend, consignment, etc). If you do not own that item and have attempted to sell and collect money for that item without disclosing things like (I've not yet paid for the item and I do not have possession of the item), you have committed fraud. You have intentionally misrepresented AND omitted relevant facts while attempting to make a sale.

 

That's the 1st fraud, the lie about the case is 2a. The picture of "the case" was fraud 2b is support of fraud 2a.

 

Given all the subsequent discussion there are most likely more, but no one really needs more at this point...at least they shouldn't.

 

Yes, they should.

 

Presales happen ALL the time. The difference here is poor communication. Did he say he had it or did the buyer assume?

2nd was to cover his and he needs to make it right with 4comix.

 

 

 

Wait? What? Presale?

 

Presales happen all the time when it's called a presale?

 

When someone offers a book for sale they are making the tacit claim that they own it to sell in the first place. It's a basic term of the agreement to sell.

 

Maybe you need to reread the texts with the pictures of the broken slab. He was crystal clear that the pictured book was the book he was selling and the reasons why he wasn't sending it to the buyer, all of which (from the statements to the photos) were fraudulent and false.

 

This isn't "poor" communication, this is intentionally deceitful communication. Nothing about it is honest in the least. "Poor Communication" implies some innocence on the part of Hustruck's words or some misunderstanding on 4Comix part. Like it's just a case of people not understanding each other. I challenge anyone to show me how Hustruck wasn't lying from day one. Omitting key details, inventing others entirely in his imagination, from stem to stern it's a boat made entirely of wildly_fanciful_statement.

 

Why do you think it matters that he was "covering his " with the lies?

 

It doesn't really matter WHY he lied in the middle of a transaction (and WHY he lied about owning a book, having the book in his possession, about the slab being damaged, etc) it matters simply THAT he lied and continued to lie, and then lied to cover the earlier lies.

 

If you want to protect the HOS from including people who don't belong there I can respect that. What I disagree with is the exclusion of anyone who has demonstrated this much deception and deceit in any transaction, completed or not, high dollar figure or not, entirely successful or not.

 

 

This is a real eye opener that someone in your profession cares so little for intent and motivation. It really saddens me. Perhaps prosecuting the hungry bread thief is next.

 

 

 

Come on, don't muddy this simple situation with allusions to criminal prosecution. He's a liar, he's shown himself to be a liar. Now he's Jean Valjean? Why not Robin Hood?

 

Intent? The intent was to deceive. He's extraordinarily bad at it, but that was his intent.

It matters little to none why he was doing it, what he was going to to subsequent, how he was going to spend the money.

 

Motivation? Was he going to use the money to feed orphans? Why read into why he's doing it at all? His go-to move was to lie and deceive. People deserve to know. Why does he deserve deference for motivations he has himself failed to reveal.

 

I prefer actual statements, made by the actual people, over assumptions of potential motivation and intent that no one has even dared claim to date.

 

Someone "in my profession" knows when he's looking at a liar, and when he's seen someone who has no problem lying in the midst of a deal, even when there's little to gain. The ones who lie with little to nothing to gain are the ones you really have to worry about. Someone who lies with almost nothing to gain is even less trustworthy than someone who needs to be tempted by a big "score" to compromise their ethics.

 

I am not talking about putting him in jail, I am talking about letting people know what he is, what HE'S REVEALED HIMSELF TO BE.

 

I don't see the downside of full and clear warning, in big bold letters, of exactly who he has shown himself to be. What he's shown himself to be overall, not simply in this transaction.

 

 

 

 

Too long for the airport but please show me where he lied to make money.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Good try...he lied in the midst of a business deal. Period. The fact that he stinks at an end game matters little to the person who made the deal with him and had a fraudulent set of statements used against him to deprive him of what he fully and rightfully expected as the completion of that deal.

 

He doesn't have to be monetarily successful at fraud to have committed it. It only matters that someone made a deal with him, relied on his statements, which turned out to be fraudulent, and that buyer has nothing to show for it because of those fraudulent statements.

 

The level of dishonesty he displayed in that deal, in those texts, and in his responses here when caught are incredibly revealing and troubling and to fail to put sufficient weight on those statements and those revelations because he didn't "make money" off of his deception seems to waste an opportunity to learn something about a person and use that knowledge to actually do what these lists are supposed to do.... give people the information they need to protect themselves.

[jaybuck43]

 

Here's the thing. I'm all for making sure that the nominations are correct and done in the right way. I think (and Justin, all respect to you, but this is why I was in no rush to write up a nomination earlier) that the nomination was rushed. We didn't have the PM's from 4comix etc. There was a mob calling for justice before all the evidence was in. It's the exact reason why I reached out to the seller on January 5 to find out what actually happened so that there was an actual evidence trail. NOW it's in.

 

We can see that 1) Hustruck/CGCboy stated he had the book in hand and that the pictures were images of the book. 2) Canceled the sale and SPECIFICALLY said that the images were images of the book broken (not as he later claimed and said it was LIKE the damage to the book) 3) I've posted from the seller that Hustruck NEVER had the book in hand and thus the story about damage (which he is still trying to pass off) is a complete fabrication. After being caught in this 4) Hustruck/CGCboy Doubled down on the lies and CONTINUED spouting off his righteous indignation. 5) He has still not admitted to anything.

 

So I think now, while I may still vote no personally, I'd feel more comfortable with a nomination because 1) the evidence is in and a conversation about the nomination has been had. 2) There is a real charge which is he a) agreed to sell a book and broke the sale b) lied about the situation to get out of the sale c) when caught in the lie (by Kaptain Komics (I think, it may have been someone else) posting the image having been lifted from another board post) he continued to state that he just used an image that simulated the issue, which itself was a lie and called out by me posting the material from the original seller stating he never had the book in hand and why he canceled the sale (i.e. not because a case was cracked) and thus the crack story is totally fabricated. Lies on top of lies, on top of a failed transaction should be enough for a nomination.

 

 

For the "Over lawyering" crowd. Listen, the complaint that many of us had was not Hustruck. It was the rush to add, the lack of material, and the looseness of the issue. The point Pov Jeff, myself and a few others raised was that much of the original nomination was non-germain information. It was why Hustruck/CGCboy was a tool, not what he did wrong that required a nomination. Sha and Crassus asked on at least 3 separate occasions for PMs to be posted and they weren't until last night. Now we know what really went down and can better act on it.

 

[slym2none]

Did the HOS get adopted by the Mods that I don't know about? It's still simply a warning. You aren't telling anyone they can or cannot deal with anyone else. One is more temporary and is tied to transaction that have some gray area that may be corrected. One is more permanent and is used when someone erases all doubt as to whether they can be trusted.

 

They are still both simply warnings.

 

IMHO, "CGCBoy" ( ) has done enough to "erase all doubt as to whether they can be trusted."

 

 

 

-slym

[revat]

Do we have to start a new poll and nomination or can we just honor the previous one?

 

 

If everyone is worried about all the extraneous stuff being used to make this decision I suppose we can create a new one with the simple facts of this particular instance of fraud, along with him being caught in the lie, attempting to maintain it, and being exposed for lying in his attempt to maintain the original lie and that should be enough to get a "clean" vote.

 

I doubt, at this point, if mention of his previous activities would even be necessary given how clearly he was busted in the midst of this deceptive dealing.

 

Clear HOS to you, not even close for me.

 

He tried to sell a comic he did not own, OR have possession of. If you offer something for sale, it is absolutely implied that you own (or have a clear right to that item, or have been granted agency to sell that item (sell for a friend, consignment, etc). If you do not own that item and have attempted to sell and collect money for that item without disclosing things like (I've not yet paid for the item and I do not have possession of the item), you have committed fraud. You have intentionally misrepresented AND omitted relevant facts while attempting to make a sale.

 

That's the 1st fraud, the lie about the case is 2a. The picture of "the case" was fraud 2b is support of fraud 2a.

 

Given all the subsequent discussion there are most likely more, but no one really needs more at this point...at least they shouldn't.

 

Yes, they should.

 

Presales happen ALL the time. The difference here is poor communication. Did he say he had it or did the buyer assume?

2nd was to cover his and he needs to make it right with 4comix.

 

Poor communication? In what world is this just poor communication? I guess those Nigerian emails I get are just poor communications as well.

 

I have to agree. Jeff, that is one of the dumbest arguments I've heard in awhile - poor communication?!

 

Then please tell me the difference between this sale and a presales. If he had communicated how he was acquiring the book would we be here?

 

Poor communication.

 

I'm ALS on my phone in the NOLA airport so hard to keep up.

 

With this reasoning you could blame anything and everything on poor communication.

 

The intentional omission of a material fact which was relied to up to induce a sale IS fraud. The damages IS the difference between the instagram purchaser's price AND the amount the original ebayer eventually sold it for. Those are the elements of fraud, and they are met.

 

The fact that HT was willing to sell immediately at a 'loss', and has super shady payment issues (both for buying and selling), and the all the other lies, just make things clearer that it was intentional vs accidental.

 

[wombat]

Personally I see no difference in this case in lying not to lose money and lying to gain money. From what was posted I think he tanked the deal to buy the ebay book on purpose to avoid losing money on the flip.

[comix4fun]

Agreed. I honestly thought you were making these arguments to keep the integrity of the lists intact. That is something that I could respect, even though I disagree with your reasoning. Now it appears you are grasping at straws, arguing just to argue, or completely unwilling or unable to see what is right in front of you.

 

I am still arguing for the integrity.

 

I see a liar. I see a shady seller with bad business practices, poor ethics, cutting corners with no experience.

 

What I don't see is a thief which is what I reserve the HOS for. I disagree that if he was smarter he would steal. I think if he was smarter he would have better business practices and not feel the pressure to cover his for bad decisions.

 

 

 

Why is it less of a transgression to lie in a deal to cover your for bad decisions than it is to lie in a deal to make money?

 

They are both selfish, dishonest, fraudulent actions. Whether it's to put money in your pocket or to prevent losing money from your pocket it's a choice he made to lie and to cheat.

 

He has poor business practices, so he makes up for it by lying to the people he contracts to deal with, even when there's no money to be made. Do you think adding in the opportunity to make money on top of that will provide MORE or LESS temptation for him to act in the same manner? He's already lied and cheated for nothing. Add cash incentive on top and which way do you see it going?

 

That's a pretty big personality revelation you want to discount because he didn't make off with cash at the end.

[CAHokie]

Congrats! After 3 days, thousands of posts by members and plenty of arguments you were able to put together evidence that would make the Supreme Court proud, yet it tells us exactly what 128 people already could figure out on their own. Of course you still are voting no. sigh..... If I didnt love this place so much, I would actually hope that 4Comix would remove him off the PL altogether to show the absurdity of it.

[comix4fun]

Here's the thing. I'm all for making sure that the nominations are correct and done in the right way. I think (and Justin, all respect to you, but this is why I was in no rush to write up a nomination earlier) that the nomination was rushed. We didn't have the PM's from 4comix etc. There was a mob calling for justice before all the evidence was in. It's the exact reason why I reached out to the seller on January 5 to find out what actually happened so that there was an actual evidence trail. NOW it's in.

 

We can see that 1) Hustruck/CGCboy stated he had the book in hand and that the pictures were images of the book. 2) Canceled the sale and SPECIFICALLY said that the images were images of the book broken (not as he later claimed and said it was LIKE the damage to the book) 3) I've posted from the seller that Hustruck NEVER had the book in hand and thus the story about damage (which he is still trying to pass off) is a complete fabrication. After being caught in this 4) Hustruck/CGCboy Doubled down on the lies and CONTINUED spouting off his righteous indignation. 5) He has still not admitted to anything.

 

So I think now, while I may still vote no personally, I'd feel more comfortable with a nomination because 1) the evidence is in and a conversation about the nomination has been had. 2) There is a real charge which is he a) agreed to sell a book and broke the sale b) lied about the situation to get out of the sale c) when caught in the lie (by Kaptain Komics (I think, it may have been someone else) posting the image having been lifted from another board post) he continued to state that he just used an image that simulated the issue, which itself was a lie and called out by me posting the material from the original seller stating he never had the book in hand and why he canceled the sale (i.e. not because a case was cracked) and thus the crack story is totally fabricated. Lies on top of lies, on top of a failed transaction should be enough for a nomination.

 

 

For the "Over lawyering" crowd. Listen, the complaint that many of us had was not Hustruck. It was the rush to add, the lack of material, and the looseness of the issue. The point Pov Jeff, myself and a few others raised was that much of the original nomination was non-germain information. It was why Hustruck/CGCboy was a tool, not what he did wrong that required a nomination. Sha and Crassus asked on at least 3 separate occasions for PMs to be posted and they weren't until last night. Now we know what really went down and can better act on it.

 

 

Agreed. It wasn't clearly stated and supported with a minimum of extraneous information the first time.

 

Knowing what we know now, and seeing the texts and pictures and responses, we have more than enough to vote now. The deceptions are laid plain and people can vote knowing everything including several statements by the accused.

[Griff]

I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I certainly wouldn't buy a book from him at this point. Hustruck it might be best if you just move along at this . point.

 

and I still cant find the link showing the pics of the case being from a different book "though I find it odd to take the pick at such an angle as to not show/verify the books in question. can someone send me a link

 

Griff

[HarveySwick]

HusTruck Evidence

 

Text messages from HusTruck to 4comix:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

do we need more?

 

eBay seller's response to Jay regarding cancelling the transaction to HusTruck

 

 

 

Thread from which HusTruck stole the image of a cracked slab.

 

4Comix's Probation List Nomination

 

Dscott's earlier Probation List Nomination

 

HusTruck changes his name after being added to the Probation List.

 

HusTruck had the book being sent to a friend instead of his buyer.

[skypinkblu]

Do we have to start a new poll and nomination or can we just honor the previous one?

 

 

If everyone is worried about all the extraneous stuff being used to make this decision I suppose we can create a new one with the simple facts of this particular instance of fraud, along with him being caught in the lie, attempting to maintain it, and being exposed for lying in his attempt to maintain the original lie and that should be enough to get a "clean" vote.

 

I doubt, at this point, if mention of his previous activities would even be necessary given how clearly he was busted in the midst of this deceptive dealing.

 

Yesterday, when I was doing all that typing, I kept thinking..."I wish Chris would show up"...I must have thought it at least 6 times...maybe that works like saying it aloud three times. I had not gotten to the point of talking to myself yet...but boy, were you missed...

[HarveySwick]

Teach us Jeff. Explain to the members of the unruly mob carrying torches.

 

How can you simply dismiss HusTruck's actions as "poor communication" or "no different than a presale"?

 

(1) He started a sales thread intentionally hiding the label and certification number.

(2) Scared off the original eBay seller of the book so much with his shady attempts at payment, the seller cancelled the deal.

(3) Informed his buyer of the book that the book had a cracked case so he didn't feel comfortable selling him a book with a cracked case and didn't want to make the buyer wait for it to get back from CGC

(4) Used photos from a completely different book that had been used by another Boardie to further the fraudulent claims of a cracked case.

(5) Attempted to claim that the eBay seller gave him permission to use those photographs.

 

HOW?! How is that "poor communication" or "no different than a presale"?

 

Can't wait to hear your response.

 

This is part of the problem. The only point applicable to the sale is #1. People don't like it but pics with no label or a blocked serial number is not uncommon. I assume any potential buyer could ask.

 

Terrific! Your opinion is that Point 1 is the only thing applicable to the sale. (thumbs u

 

And #2- 5 all go towards the actions of HusTruck and whether he should be considered for the HOS or not. Isn't that what the discussion is really about?

 

You still haven't explained your BS statements that HusTruck's actions are nothing more than "poor communication" or explained how his sales thread was "no different than a presale."

[comix4fun]

Teach us Jeff. Explain to the members of the unruly mob carrying torches.

 

How can you simply dismiss HusTruck's actions as "poor communication" or "no different than a presale"?

 

(1) He started a sales thread intentionally hiding the label and certification number.

(2) Scared off the original eBay seller of the book so much with his shady attempts at payment, the seller cancelled the deal.

(3) Informed his buyer of the book that the book had a cracked case so he didn't feel comfortable selling him a book with a cracked case and didn't want to make the buyer wait for it to get back from CGC

(4) Used photos from a completely different book that had been used by another Boardie to further the fraudulent claims of a cracked case.

(5) Attempted to claim that the eBay seller gave him permission to use those photographs.

 

HOW?! How is that "poor communication" or "no different than a presale"?

 

Can't wait to hear your response.

 

This is part of the problem. The only point applicable to the sale is #1. People don't like it but pics with no label or a blocked serial number is not uncommon. I assume any potential buyer could ask.

 

 

He told the buyer that he would send him pictures of the book's broken case to show him why he's not sending it to him. He claimed it was a picture of the very book he was selling to the buyer. Then he sent the picture of a book that was listed here on the forum by another seller that wasn't the book in question and was simply a lifted picture.

 

3, 4, and 5 are all deceptions and lies in the middle of this particular transaction. How in the world would those factors NOT be germane to this discussion?

 

Did you not know that the picture was stolen from another listing here in the boards and wasn't the 181 in question?

 

[CAHokie]

To be clear, I did ask about the picture not having the label in the thread. Did the thread get deleted? His response is that there were no board rules saying he had to show the label. I found the label on Instagram.