Comic-Keys outed as Danny Dupcak by CBG

[goldust40]

That CPG thread made for very interesting reading indeed. From what I could gather regarding the situation between Keys and Tomega, it would seem that Hammer 2 has managed, like all great sociopaths, to twist things beautifully so that the people on the CPG boards perceive him as the victim. His use of semantics and language was also pretty good. Tomega, have you no recourse to recover half your money without going to the police?

 

It would also appear that the CPG's Poster of The Year was not exactly impressed with this board, claiming that the threads on here are mostly quotes and graemlins. It has to be said that this thread certainly did the Forum no favours, illustrating as it did how political and vindictive matters can become in the space of a few posts.

 

Said Poster however did reveal the extent of his naivete by actually asking if it was unethical to not disclose restoration on books. Ah well.

 

The section that infuriated me the most was definitely the reportage concerning Koos/Dupcak's attitude when he was threatened with action via ebay and squaretrade - he laughed it off, claiming that they can do nothing. Clever, clever boy - what a genius to notice that. Well done for spotting that with enough front and deceit, the odds would always be stacked in your favour - you are the seller, and generally once you've built up enough Positives and turnover ebay will always side with you. If a transaction falls through, they still get their fees.

 

I've noticed ebay seller Bluestar1212 take the same route after receiving a couple of deserved negs. This ploy could start a trend.

 

I was also curious about the amount of Negatives that Keys had received and had successfully managed to rescind. 114?? How was this information gleaned? And if it's true, it is clear that such a serial occurrence carries little weight with ebay. To have not been NARU'd despite this shows how many loopholes there are in the system.

 

His CPG thread mentioned the contretemps between Supa and Phantom as representative of this Forum. Gentlemen, I would suggest that this thread, whilst informative, could have been kept to a manageable length if certain Forumites hadn't pulled rank and then subsequently shot themselves in the foot. What a waste of cyberspace. Don't do it again!!!

 

Finally, I have to say that I loved the bit when Hammer accused certain CGC Forumites of initiating threads that contained physical threats and so on. Maybe the fine people at CPG could be sent a couple of threads where Hammer/Mr. Nice showed his true colours. That might change their opinion - it'd be a REAL EYE-OPENER.

[awe4one]

This has become sadly another example of mob mentality with no back-up info. Are we all so blind to the available facts that we automatically join in to a ruckus just because someone of "cred" is involved?

 

This was very well said and could apply to so many threads.....

 

Jim

[the_Greatest]

[drbanner]

Where's dr banner when you need a poll?

 

I love polls!!

 

 

[OldGuy]

he ain't Hammer and is entitled not to give out sensitive information if he so chooses.

 

True

 

You have to respect that.

 

Not true.

[goldust40]

Not true? Explanation, please.

[OldGuy]

Not true? Explanation, please.

 

I don't hide behind an alias. I've posted my personal info in my profile from day one. I've mentioned where (and when) I will be attending conventions, signings, etc.. I don't hide. As a result I give less (or in some cases no) respect to those that are willing to state opinions, but not willing to say who they are. It's not personal, how can it be when I don't know who the person is? I know all of the justifications for it, but I don't really have any respect for those justifications.

[Tomega]

Tomega, fascinating. Thank you for writing all that up. One question: was the amount Paypal refunded the entire amount or just a portion? From their note, it sounded like a portion.

 

Somehow none of this surprises me. I wonder how many previous negs he's been able to get removed? So was Paypal able to recover all your funds or were you arse out on part of it? It's really too bad he didn't agree to meet in person. Would love to have heard that story.

 

 

Tomega, have you no recourse to recover half your money without going to the police?

 

 

Comic-keys issued a partial reversal initially. It was for most of the total . Exactly why he did this was beyond me or if Paypal had taken out some fees. Regardless the credit was in limbo for several weeks until Paypal sent me this email and I received a full refund:

Our investigation has determined that the seller is at fault, and as a result we have attempted to recover your funds. $841.94 USD has been credited to your account. This is the maximum amount we were able to recover. Please allow up to 5 days for this adjustment to be reflected in your account.

 

I do not believe , nor do I think I implied, that he was trying to abscond with my money. He was , however, trying to get out a deal that would have probably made him look bad. I will take a look at the posts in another forum and post information on the true course of events as well as all his emails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[goldust40]

Not true? Explanation, please.

 

I don't hide behind an alias. I've posted my personal info in my profile from day one. I've mentioned where (and when) I will be attending conventions, signings, etc.. I don't hide. As a result I give less (or in some cases no) respect to those that are willing to state opinions, but not willing to say who they are. It's not personal, how can it be when I don't know who the person is? I know all of the justifications for it, but I don't really have any respect for those justifications.

 

I agree that ones' posts carry more weight when one dispenses with the cloak of anonymity. I never bothered to hide who I am, even though it's unlikely you'd have heard of me anyway (most of the Brit Forumites and Blazing Bob know me as I trade under the name Goldust Comics). (www.goldustcomics.com , my website which I've mentioned several times before, contains enough info.)

 

Not that you need to hear this, but I was referring to the distinction between wanting privacy rather than hiding information due to ulterior motives. There are degrees of this after all - you may have posted your name and occupation in your profile, but you have (correctly, I might add) not disclosed your address or email details, or a photo of yourself. All I know is your name's Brian.

 

I suppose it depends how controversial or wigged out your opinions are. Phantom's opinions never struck me as near the knuckle, which is fine - this is reflected in his need to maintain a lower profile. If he really went ballistic in a Hammerian way, then I'd back up what you say to the hilt.

 

Andy.

[OldGuy]

Not true? Explanation, please.

 

I don't hide behind an alias. I've posted my personal info in my profile from day one. I've mentioned where (and when) I will be attending conventions, signings, etc.. I don't hide. As a result I give less (or in some cases no) respect to those that are willing to state opinions, but not willing to say who they are. It's not personal, how can it be when I don't know who the person is? I know all of the justifications for it, but I don't really have any respect for those justifications.

 

you may have posted your name and occupation in your profile, but you have (correctly, I might add) not disclosed your address or email details, or a photo of yourself. All I know is your name's Brian.

 

I have posted my mailing address in the forum and my "About me" page has had my picture on it several times (not currently however). Hammer even used it (my picture) as his avatar at one point. My e-mail address is posted on my website (also in my sig). I hide nothing and it's pretty easy to find out what you may want to know about me. In most cases you can just ask.

 

I've also done a lot of business with a lot of the people here so even if I wanted to pretend like I was keeping info private, how private it is it when 20 or more active forum members have the info (or did at one point any way).

 

I'm not arguing with you, and I don't think you are with me. My point was I just don't have to (and really can't) respect anyone that is "no one".

[OldSchoolTerry]

I can definitely see your point of view, Old Guy. I don't necessarily disrespect anyone on here who won't give their personal info, as it's their right to remain anonymous. I choose to be fairly open as you do, by providing my real name, as I have nothing to hide. I definitely disrespect however, the posters who come on here and get into scuffles with others, either hiding behind their main user id's, which give no personal information, or hiding behind the shill accounts they have. In my own brief experience here, I've noticed that the posters who have their personal information in their profile are posters who never seem to engage in flame wars on here, and since they don't come on here to be confrontational, they have no reason to remain anonymous. Some names that come to mind are people like you, DarthDiesel, Greggy, and 4Gemworks.

[goldust40]

You're right Brian, I'm not trying to argue with you and I stand corrected. Shoulda tried harder to access stuff.

 

Re Hammer using your photo for his avatar - that's what you get for being on the level.....

[OldGuy]

I hear what you're saying. And just to clarify one point, just because someone doesn't provide personal information doesn't mean I disrespect them, it just means I don't give them much respect (usually). Is that making sense? I'm not saying that someone is "wrong" for not posting info, I'm just saying that their opinion doesn't carry much weight in my eyes, or as much weight as someone who discloses who they are anyway.

[OldGuy]

Re Hammer using your photo for his avatar - that's what you get for being on the level.....

 

I took it as a badge of honor though. It just proved to me that I'd gotten under his skin.

 

Honorable people (and there are many on this forum) wouldn't use my personal information to try and hurt me and dishonorable people can't help but do it. It makes it easier for me to tell the difference.

[lighthouse]

I hear what you're saying. And just to clarify one point, just because someone doesn't provide personal information doesn't mean I disrespect them, it just means I don't give them much respect (usually). Is that making sense? I'm not saying that someone is "wrong" for not posting info, I'm just saying that their opinion doesn't carry much weight in my eyes, or as much weight as someone who discloses who they are anyway.

 

 

[OldSchoolTerry]

I hear what you're saying. And just to clarify one point, just because someone doesn't provide personal information doesn't mean I disrespect them, it just means I don't give them much respect (usually). Is that making sense? I'm not saying that someone is "wrong" for not posting info, I'm just saying that their opinion doesn't carry much weight in my eyes, or as much weight as someone who discloses who they are anyway.

 

Thanks for clarifying that......

 

Seriously, I understand what you mean. There is a difference between not respecting someone too much as opposed to disrespecting them. I can understand that their opinions wouldn't carry as much weight with you, because they're not standing behind them fully, by not telling you who is giving the opinion.

[OldGuy]

I hear what you're saying. And just to clarify one point, just because someone doesn't provide personal information doesn't mean I disrespect them, it just means I don't give them much respect (usually). Is that making sense? I'm not saying that someone is "wrong" for not posting info, I'm just saying that their opinion doesn't carry much weight in my eyes, or as much weight as someone who discloses who they are anyway.

 

 

 

But you don't hide Light. We know where you live, where you work and anyone that's done business with you knows your name.

[Darthdiesel]

brick and mortar shop owners get as much respect as Rodney Dangerfield

[greggy]

I hear what you're saying. And just to clarify one point, just because someone doesn't provide personal information doesn't mean I disrespect them, it just means I don't give them much respect (usually). Is that making sense? I'm not saying that someone is "wrong" for not posting info, I'm just saying that their opinion doesn't carry much weight in my eyes, or as much weight as someone who discloses who they are anyway.

 

 

Sigh...do I have to out you to give you some "cred"?

[OldGuy]

I hear what you're saying. And just to clarify one point, just because someone doesn't provide personal information doesn't mean I disrespect them, it just means I don't give them much respect (usually). Is that making sense? I'm not saying that someone is "wrong" for not posting info, I'm just saying that their opinion doesn't carry much weight in my eyes, or as much weight as someone who discloses who they are anyway.

 

 

Sigh...do I have to out you to give you some "cred"?

 

He's an ego maniac with an inferiority complex.