PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[VintageComics]

The hospital thing was because Swick called the cops when Chip posted in a thread about hurting himself.

 

Yup, I know. I was there.

 

I wouldn't necessarily equate being in a hospital for a few hours, given that it was pure procedure on the part of the authorities, with any diagnosis one way or the other.

 

Also, I struck through what he told you...objection...hearsay.

 

I know lawyer man. And I'm erring on the side of caution for my conscience's sake.

 

As I said, you can nominate someone to the HOS and I will agree with it to protect people from future problems. I would think at this point it would be on Chip to try to get himself off it and that would probably include professional information about whether mental health was a factor and if it was treated.

 

Do you see what I'm saying?

 

I'm not taking his offenses lightly but I'm also not dismissing the possibility of mental illness.

 

 

[Buzzetta]

I will be very surprised if Chip sticks around here if he is no longer "allowed" to buy and sell on these boards. If you look at the history, he seems to find some place new after getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[VintageComics]

Roy,

 

Maybe you didn't see this post. Maybe you're not responding to me. I don't want to harass or intimidate you, but do you think what Chip did is any different than what this guy did?

 

Two things.

 

1) I would personally refrain about publicly commenting on how Chip is using his daughter unless you have proof. You've done it multiple times and I think it's uncalled for.

 

2) As I've stated, I don't think Chip is premeditating his actions. If he was he'd have done well to run with the $10,000's he was handling this summer. Just my personal opinion. This guy in the wheel chair is obviously premeditating his fraud.

 

 

[VintageComics]

And in case you are wondering I have dealt with many cases of mental illness and in all of them, at no time, were actions that ran contrary to acceptable behavior acceptable.

Nobody is saying to allow unacceptable behavior.

 

But in every case of mental illness, while acute remedies were applied for the safety of themselves and others, care was also given to understand that it was illness.

 

And since the possibility of illness exists IMO, it's worth keeping it in the discussion.

 

I can't believe I have to keep repeating the same, simple thing over and over.

[JAM_NYC]

 

 

 

Honesty isn't a switch that turned on or off and it's not genuine or a signal of personal integrity when the truth is only shown after coercion is applied.

 

I'd be willing to bet that most people's honesty is directly related to how they see their chances of survival.

 

I'd be willing to bet that you're wrong about that, and I wish you wouldn't lower the entire species down to Chip Cataldo's level in your never ending crusade to excuse his 20+ year pattern of behavior.

 

Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. How we go about correcting those mistakes, and whether or not we learn anything from them, plays a big part in defining one's character, IMO.

[comix4fun]

Sigh....We may as well start making the argument that he is unable to distinguish between right and wrong.

 

You do realize that this is a very distinct possibility and is at the root of what mental health is?

 

 

Or, perhaps, someone who's taken the procrastinating and lazy path of least resistance for their entire adult life has figured out a way to explain away, and get cut slack for, their inability to maintain ethics and responsibility in their lives.

 

It's no longer their fault. They're sick.

 

To some people it's become a conditioned response. They get someone else to do the heavy lifting, to ease their own way down the road, by playing certain cards. As long as it keeps working, and people around him enable it, why change?

 

It works best on people who've actually suffered these types of illnesses in their families. They are most susceptible to this type of manipulation because they project their own person experiences onto the person they are dealing with. Given how many people have dealt with some type of true mental illness in their family it's a wide net the manipulator can cast with plenty of marks who see their own struggles in the words and phrases he uses against them.

 

People who've actually suffered with mental illness in someone close to them should be the MOST offended by the attempted manipulation.

 

Plenty of people struggle with day to day life. Plenty of people are underemployed or struggling with bills. Plenty of people have had personal tragedies to fight past. They don't all make it someone else's problem. They don't all expect everyone else to pick up the tab for their failures and difficulties. They don't all expect everyone else to wait and lose out on time and money while they decide when they are going to be responsible.

 

When someone lies and manipulates this much I believe exactly zero that comes out of their mouth. They have to prove it every step of the way. There's no deference granted. So the entire discussion over "mental illness" is moot because it's all coming from him and from his target audience he obviously hopes to continue manipulating.

 

 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

And in case you are wondering I have dealt with many cases of mental illness and in all of them, at no time, were actions that ran contrary to acceptable behavior acceptable.

Nobody is saying to allow unacceptable behavior.

 

But in every case of mental illness, while acute remedies were applied for the safety of themselves and others, care was also given to understand that it was illness.

 

And since the possibility of illness exists IMO, it's worth keeping it in the discussion.

 

I can't believe I have to keep repeating the same, simple thing over and over.

 

Does it make any difference whether he is mentally ill or not?

If he is, you would be taking a big risk to deal with him.

If he isn't, you would be taking an even bigger risk.

Either way he is a liability. Having sympathy and understanding for a potential unproven condition may make you feel good about yourself, but it's totally irrelevant in as much it has been established that people have been shafted dealing with this guy.

[comix4fun]

The hospital thing was because Swick called the cops when Chip posted in a thread about hurting himself.

 

Yup, I know. I was there.

 

I wouldn't necessarily equate being in a hospital for a few hours, given that it was pure procedure on the part of the authorities, with any diagnosis one way or the other.

 

Also, I struck through what he told you...objection...hearsay.

 

I know lawyer man. And I'm erring on the side of caution for my conscience's sake.

 

As I said, you can nominate someone to the HOS and I will agree with it to protect people from future problems. I would think at this point it would be on Chip to try to get himself off it and that would probably include professional information about whether mental health was a factor and if it was treated.

 

Do you see what I'm saying?

 

I'm not taking his offenses lightly but I'm also not dismissing the possibility of mental illness.

 

 

 

 

And, personally, I think you're getting played.

 

That's why I am being this direct with you, because I'd like to help you avoid that. At the end of the day it's your choice to make, but my gut and sense of people has rarely been wrong.

 

Regardless, it's not your duty to save him. As you said you're doing it "for conscience" sake. That's EXACTLY what manipulators count on, someone feeling too bad, too worried, or projecting too much of their own past into the situation to slam the door on them because (in their mind) there's a slim chance it's legit.

 

If he's got some mental difficulty preventing him from functioning as an honest member of society then, frankly, he should go deal with that and cease interactions that require him to act in an honest, ethical, upstanding way and he certainly should not be trusted with any items of value.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Regardless, it's not your duty to save him. As you said you're doing it "for conscience" sake. That's EXACTLY what manipulators count on, someone feeling too bad, too worried, or projecting too much of their own past into the situation to slam the door on them because (in their mind) there's a slim chance it's legit.

 

I'm not doing it because I feel sorry for him. I'm doing it because I believe there is truth to me belief.

 

 

If he's got some mental difficulty preventing him from functioning as an honest member of society then, frankly, he should go deal with that and cease interactions that require him to act in an honest, ethical, upstanding way and he certainly should not be trusted with any items of value.

 

 

And? Who has stated any differently? Put him in the HOS.

 

 

[VintageComics]

And in case you are wondering I have dealt with many cases of mental illness and in all of them, at no time, were actions that ran contrary to acceptable behavior acceptable.

Nobody is saying to allow unacceptable behavior.

 

But in every case of mental illness, while acute remedies were applied for the safety of themselves and others, care was also given to understand that it was illness.

 

And since the possibility of illness exists IMO, it's worth keeping it in the discussion.

 

I can't believe I have to keep repeating the same, simple thing over and over.

 

Does it make any difference whether he is mentally ill or not?

If he is, you would be taking a big risk to deal with him.

If he isn't, you would be taking an even bigger risk.

Either way he is a liability. Having sympathy and understanding for a potential unproven condition may make you feel good about yourself, but it's totally irrelevant in as much it has been established that people have been shafted dealing with this guy.

 

It does make a difference as to what his future holds. It doesn't matter as far as your future holds.

 

I'm less risk adverse than most are and it serves me well.

 

 

 

 

[ChiSoxFan]

This has been a very interesting read, to say the least. I've weighed upon commenting because pretty much everything that could be said on the matter has probably already been said, and then said again, so I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion that isn't a rehash. That said, being a part of the community here means being involved, and while I rarely wade into these discussions, I do feel the need to do so on occasion, especially when so many people are passionately involved in the discussion.

 

For the record, I voted for inclusion into the HOS. I did so for two reasons. The first is the criteria laid out in the thread dealing with the Probation List and HOS Rules. It states there "b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender." The bolded part is where there's irrefutable proof that Chip falls into this category.

 

The second reason, as pointed out by others already, is that this is the only recourse to protect newer members (or members who, by some chance, haven't been following this discussion) from potentially being out money in the future by standing as a buyer-beware warning, should Chip continue to post and try to sell here, if he makes clean on the current deals he's involved in and somehow is removed from the PL. As a wise Vulcan once said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, and in this case, protecting the greater community should be primary here. For me, it's as simple as that.

 

The discussion about mental heath issues bothers me because, while there exists the possibility that it may be a mitigating factor as to why Chip has done what he has done -- both now and/or over a longer period of time -- it's not really relevant to the primary reason why we're voting for the HOS. We're not a court, there is no one here who has medical experience to examine Chip to determine anything, and barring that, everything people have said about him -- whether through personal experience or simply opinions made through observation -- the truth of it being relevant cannot be 100% established. (We may think we know with 99% certainty and may be actually correct, but that's still not 100%). In any case, what we're discussing are the shades of grey involved, and while a fascinating discussion, they should not in this case muddle the case of whether Chip falls into the simple definition presented above of a HOS member. Clearly, as a multiple offender, he does.

 

I have the utmost respect for Roy, and think he is one of the nicest people I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. I admire his willingness to be the contrary voice. I know where he's coming from with his points, but I think the discussion of Chip's issues, whether he really suffers from a mental health issue or whether he's a con man of epic proportions -- or a little bit of both, or something in between -- are taking us aware from the simplicity of what we should be doing here. And I mean that with no disrespect to anyone who's commented so far -- but IMO, the mental health discussion is just noise at this point. Either his documented actions make him a HOS member and we vote him as such to protect the community at large or his actions don't. Everything else should be reserved for examination later down the road, if Chip ever attempted to get himself removed from that list. That would be when a discussion of how he got on there in the first place would be much better warranted, and much more relevant to the discussion and to the potential action that would be at hand.

 

For the record and full disclosure, I have dealt with Roy multiple times and cannot say enough good about our interactions. I don't believe I ever dealt with Chip. I did make a donation to his GoFundMe account before the details about how it was being used came out, and I did find myself feeling somewhat like I'd been scammed. I had told my wife initially that I'd made the donation as much for his daughter as I did for him, and while I felt taken at first, in the end, I made peace with my disappointment and hoped that whatever little I'd donated somehow made its way to her, and I told myself I would not let a bad experience trying to help keep me from doing so with others in the future.

 

FWIW, I had an experience here with a board member who was "well-respected" and very popular, with a lengthy track record of successful sales threads. I bought a good bit from him, and he and I had many PM conversations together. He ran into a hard time, and I sent him money to help him out of a jam, no strings attached, because I thought it was the right thing to do. Not much later, he was running sales threads, while books I'd bought from his previous threads had not been shipped to me yet, and in the end, I'd bought and paid for a handful of books that never arrived. He vanished pretty much from the boards, and my PM's to him went unread or unreplied to. I know he was dealing with personal issues himself, and I have no idea how much of that led to what happened, nor will I ever likely know the truth. I never nominated him for the PL because it seemed a moot point with his disappearance, but if he were to return to run sales threads again, I would definitely bring it up and do so. Again, the past history between this member and myself -- 99% of it very good, but that 1% very bad -- would be irrelevant to the PL nomination, and any mitigating factors he might have had would also be irrelevant to the facts of the case -- much like what we're discussing about this HOS nomination here.

 

My two cents.

[Columbia Comics]

Roy I'm gonna ship you a shovel. The one you're using to continue to dig has to be getting dull.

 

You said 3358 posts ago you were done. Geez man. I know you wanna crusade for Chip but no matter how much "mental illness" you bring up, youre not gonna win this one.

 

It's blatantly obvious how you feel. But if you insist, that horse needs another boot to the head.

 

SMH

 

I'm beginning to wonder about your mental state

[ChiSoxFan]

Roy I'm gonna ship you a shovel. The one you're using to continue to dig has to be getting dull.

 

You said 3358 posts ago you were done. Geez man. I know you wanna crusade for Chip but no matter how much "mental illness" you bring up, youre not gonna win this one.

 

It's blatantly obvious how you feel. But if you insist, that horse needs another boot to the head.

 

SMH

 

I'm beginning to wonder about your mental state

 

That's completely uncalled for.

[Columbia Comics]

Roy I'm gonna ship you a shovel. The one you're using to continue to dig has to be getting dull.

 

You said 3358 posts ago you were done. Geez man. I know you wanna crusade for Chip but no matter how much "mental illness" you bring up, youre not gonna win this one.

 

It's blatantly obvious how you feel. But if you insist, that horse needs another boot to the head.

 

SMH

 

I'm beginning to wonder about your mental state

 

That's completely uncalled for.

 

Disagree; why is my speculation any different than his?

 

What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing expecting a different result

[Wall-Crawler]

This has been a very interesting read, to say the least. I've weighed upon commenting because pretty much everything that could be said on the matter has probably already been said, and then said again, so I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion that isn't a rehash. That said, being a part of the community here means being involved, and while I rarely wade into these discussions, I do feel the need to do so on occasion, especially when so many people are passionately involved in the discussion.

 

For the record, I voted for inclusion into the HOS. I did so for two reasons. The first is the criteria laid out in the thread dealing with the Probation List and HOS Rules. It states there "b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender." The bolded part is where there's irrefutable proof that Chip falls into this category.

 

The second reason, as pointed out by others already, is that this is the only recourse to protect newer members (or members who, by some chance, haven't been following this discussion) from potentially being out money in the future by standing as a buyer-beware warning, should Chip continue to post and try to sell here, if he makes clean on the current deals he's involved in and somehow is removed from the PL. As a wise Vulcan once said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, and in this case, protecting the greater community should be primary here. For me, it's as simple as that.

 

The discussion about mental heath issues bothers me because, while there exists the possibility that it may be a mitigating factor as to why Chip has done what he has done -- both now and/or over a longer period of time -- it's not really relevant to the primary reason why we're voting for the HOS. We're not a court, there is no one here who has medical experience to examine Chip to determine anything, and barring that, everything people have said about him -- whether through personal experience or simply opinions made through observation -- the truth of it being relevant cannot be 100% established. (We may think we know with 99% certainty and may be actually correct, but that's still not 100%). In any case, what we're discussing are the shades of grey involved, and while a fascinating discussion, they should not in this case muddle the case of whether Chip falls into the simple definition presented above of a HOS member. Clearly, as a multiple offender, he does.

 

I have the utmost respect for Roy, and think he is one of the nicest people I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. I admire his willingness to be the contrary voice. I know where he's coming from with his points, but I think the discussion of Chip's issues, whether he really suffers from a mental health issue or whether he's a con man of epic proportions -- or a little bit of both, or something in between -- are taking us aware from the simplicity of what we should be doing here. And I mean that with no disrespect to anyone who's commented so far -- but IMO, the mental health discussion is just noise at this point. Either his documented actions make him a HOS member and we vote him as such to protect the community at large or his actions don't. Everything else should be reserved for examination later down the road, if Chip ever attempted to get himself removed from that list. That would be when a discussion of how he got on there in the first place would be much better warranted, and much more relevant to the discussion and to the potential action that would be at hand.

 

For the record and full disclosure, I have dealt with Roy multiple times and cannot say enough good about our interactions. I don't believe I ever dealt with Chip. I did make a donation to his GoFundMe account before the details about how it was being used came out, and I did find myself feeling somewhat like I'd been scammed. I had told my wife initially that I'd made the donation as much for his daughter as I did for him, and while I felt taken at first, in the end, I made peace with my disappointment and hoped that whatever little I'd donated somehow made its way to her, and I told myself I would not let a bad experience trying to help keep me from doing so with others in the future.

 

FWIW, I had an experience here with a board member who was "well-respected" and very popular, with a lengthy track record of successful sales threads. I bought a good bit from him, and he and I had many PM conversations together. He ran into a hard time, and I sent him money to help him out of a jam, no strings attached, because I thought it was the right thing to do. Not much later, he was running sales threads, while books I'd bought from his previous threads had not been shipped to me yet, and in the end, I'd bought and paid for a handful of books that never arrived. He vanished pretty much from the boards, and my PM's to him went unread or unreplied to. I know he was dealing with personal issues himself, and I have no idea how much of that led to what happened, nor will I ever likely know the truth. I never nominated him for the PL because it seemed a moot point with his disappearance, but if he were to return to run sales threads again, I would definitely bring it up and do so. Again, the past history between this member and myself -- 99% of it very good, but that 1% very bad -- would be irrelevant to the PL nomination, and any mitigating factors he might have had would also be irrelevant to the facts of the case -- much like what we're discussing about this HOS nomination here.

 

My two cents.

 

A very compassionate and well reasoned - Excellent post. I hope that this can close the book on the "discussion" and just let the process carry forward.

[HarveySwick]

This has been a very interesting read, to say the least. I've weighed upon commenting because pretty much everything that could be said on the matter has probably already been said, and then said again, so I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion that isn't a rehash. That said, being a part of the community here means being involved, and while I rarely wade into these discussions, I do feel the need to do so on occasion, especially when so many people are passionately involved in the discussion.

 

For the record, I voted for inclusion into the HOS. I did so for two reasons. The first is the criteria laid out in the thread dealing with the Probation List and HOS Rules. It states there "b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender." The bolded part is where there's irrefutable proof that Chip falls into this category.

 

The second reason, as pointed out by others already, is that this is the only recourse to protect newer members (or members who, by some chance, haven't been following this discussion) from potentially being out money in the future by standing as a buyer-beware warning, should Chip continue to post and try to sell here, if he makes clean on the current deals he's involved in and somehow is removed from the PL. As a wise Vulcan once said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, and in this case, protecting the greater community should be primary here. For me, it's as simple as that.

 

The discussion about mental heath issues bothers me because, while there exists the possibility that it may be a mitigating factor as to why Chip has done what he has done -- both now and/or over a longer period of time -- it's not really relevant to the primary reason why we're voting for the HOS. We're not a court, there is no one here who has medical experience to examine Chip to determine anything, and barring that, everything people have said about him -- whether through personal experience or simply opinions made through observation -- the truth of it being relevant cannot be 100% established. (We may think we know with 99% certainty and may be actually correct, but that's still not 100%). In any case, what we're discussing are the shades of grey involved, and while a fascinating discussion, they should not in this case muddle the case of whether Chip falls into the simple definition presented above of a HOS member. Clearly, as a multiple offender, he does.

 

I have the utmost respect for Roy, and think he is one of the nicest people I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. I admire his willingness to be the contrary voice. I know where he's coming from with his points, but I think the discussion of Chip's issues, whether he really suffers from a mental health issue or whether he's a con man of epic proportions -- or a little bit of both, or something in between -- are taking us aware from the simplicity of what we should be doing here. And I mean that with no disrespect to anyone who's commented so far -- but IMO, the mental health discussion is just noise at this point. Either his documented actions make him a HOS member and we vote him as such to protect the community at large or his actions don't. Everything else should be reserved for examination later down the road, if Chip ever attempted to get himself removed from that list. That would be when a discussion of how he got on there in the first place would be much better warranted, and much more relevant to the discussion and to the potential action that would be at hand.

 

For the record and full disclosure, I have dealt with Roy multiple times and cannot say enough good about our interactions. I don't believe I ever dealt with Chip. I did make a donation to his GoFundMe account before the details about how it was being used came out, and I did find myself feeling somewhat like I'd been scammed. I had told my wife initially that I'd made the donation as much for his daughter as I did for him, and while I felt taken at first, in the end, I made peace with my disappointment and hoped that whatever little I'd donated somehow made its way to her, and I told myself I would not let a bad experience trying to help keep me from doing so with others in the future.

 

FWIW, I had an experience here with a board member who was "well-respected" and very popular, with a lengthy track record of successful sales threads. I bought a good bit from him, and he and I had many PM conversations together. He ran into a hard time, and I sent him money to help him out of a jam, no strings attached, because I thought it was the right thing to do. Not much later, he was running sales threads, while books I'd bought from his previous threads had not been shipped to me yet, and in the end, I'd bought and paid for a handful of books that never arrived. He vanished pretty much from the boards, and my PM's to him went unread or unreplied to. I know he was dealing with personal issues himself, and I have no idea how much of that led to what happened, nor will I ever likely know the truth. I never nominated him for the PL because it seemed a moot point with his disappearance, but if he were to return to run sales threads again, I would definitely bring it up and do so. Again, the past history between this member and myself -- 99% of it very good, but that 1% very bad -- would be irrelevant to the PL nomination, and any mitigating factors he might have had would also be irrelevant to the facts of the case -- much like what we're discussing about this HOS nomination here.

 

My two cents.

 

 

And there it is.

[ChiSoxFan]

Roy I'm gonna ship you a shovel. The one you're using to continue to dig has to be getting dull.

 

You said 3358 posts ago you were done. Geez man. I know you wanna crusade for Chip but no matter how much "mental illness" you bring up, youre not gonna win this one.

 

It's blatantly obvious how you feel. But if you insist, that horse needs another boot to the head.

 

SMH

 

I'm beginning to wonder about your mental state

 

That's completely uncalled for.

 

Disagree; why is my speculation any different than his?

 

What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing expecting a different result

 

What's the definition of tact? A keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offense; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations. Your history on these boards suggest you might want to familiarize yourself with that.

 

Your speculation and Roy's -- and everyone else's -- is not relevant to the HOS vote. If you bother to read my lengthier post above, you'll see why I believe that.

 

Taking a personal potshot at someone doesn't advance your arguments, nor diminish his. It just makes you look like a tool.

[Junkdrawer]

Roy I'm gonna ship you a shovel. The one you're using to continue to dig has to be getting dull.

 

You said 3358 posts ago you were done. Geez man. I know you wanna crusade for Chip but no matter how much "mental illness" you bring up, youre not gonna win this one.

 

It's blatantly obvious how you feel. But if you insist, that horse needs another boot to the head.

 

SMH

 

I'm beginning to wonder about your mental state

Ah go on, tell him how you really feel.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

Roy I'm gonna ship you a shovel. The one you're using to continue to dig has to be getting dull.

 

You said 3358 posts ago you were done. Geez man. I know you wanna crusade for Chip but no matter how much "mental illness" you bring up, youre not gonna win this one.

 

It's blatantly obvious how you feel. But if you insist, that horse needs another boot to the head.

 

SMH

 

I'm beginning to wonder about your mental state

 

That's completely uncalled for.

 

I think it was tongue in cheek, at least that's how it came over to me, and I can see where he's coming from.

[ChiSoxFan]

Roy I'm gonna ship you a shovel. The one you're using to continue to dig has to be getting dull.

 

You said 3358 posts ago you were done. Geez man. I know you wanna crusade for Chip but no matter how much "mental illness" you bring up, youre not gonna win this one.

 

It's blatantly obvious how you feel. But if you insist, that horse needs another boot to the head.

 

SMH

 

I'm beginning to wonder about your mental state

 

That's completely uncalled for.

 

I think it was tongue in cheek, at least that's how it came over to me, and I can see where he's coming from.

 

If it was, then it's a different story -- it came across to me the exact opposite. A simple would have gotten that intent across (and on any message board, context and intent can be easily lost). I would imagine CC knows that.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by ChiSoxFan