• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

FF 50 shenanigans on Pedigree?

Started by LordRahl,

529 posts in this topic

Lebowski

Lebowski

Posted
Posted
Probably because Mark (unlike Kevin) came on here and told us that he is willing to deal with not only folks who screw him but also those who haven't yet, as evidenced by the quotes below.

 

I don't disagree with you that Mark's head was up his pooper making those remarks. But isn't someone like Kevin, who consigns with Doug, implicitly agreeing with Mark simply by doing business with Pedigree at all? Whether or not Kevin decides to publicly mouth off in a thread and people off is irrelevant to the fact that he is doing with business with Doug, thereby contributing to the person who is the target of all this ire in this thread.

 

Again, no dog in this fight, but it just didn't seem fair to admonish one person for doing business with Doug (though they throw around toolish remarks) and not another. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flaming_Telepath

Flaming_Telepath

Posted
Posted
Probably because Mark (unlike Kevin) came on here and told us that he is willing to deal with not only folks who screw him but also those who haven't yet, as evidenced by the quotes below.

 

I don't disagree with you that Mark's head was up his pooper making those remarks. But isn't someone like Kevin, who consigns with Doug, implicitly agreeing with Mark simply by doing business with Pedigree at all? Whether or not Kevin decides to publicly mouth off in a thread and people off is irrelevant to the fact that he is doing with business with Doug, thereby contributing to the person who is the target of all this ire in this thread.

 

Again, no dog in this fight, but it just didn't seem fair to admonish one person for doing business with Doug (though they throw around toolish remarks) and not another. :shrug:

 

I personally don't see the difference between the two. Neither is guilty of a heinous crime, but neither is helping their fellow collectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted

Why admonish anyone? If you don't want to do business with someone then don't, regardless of the reason. The information has been presented and individuals can decide for themselves with whom they spend their money.

 

If he chooses to do business with Doug, then it's his right. It doesn't make him a bad person. If I liked or disliked people based on with whom they did business and whether or not I cared for that retailer, then I wouldn't have anyone left to talk to.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeffro.

Jeffro.

Posted
Posted
Probably because Mark (unlike Kevin) came on here and told us that he is willing to deal with not only folks who screw him but also those who haven't yet, as evidenced by the quotes below.

 

I don't disagree with you that Mark's head was up his pooper making those remarks. But isn't someone like Kevin, who consigns with Doug, implicitly agreeing with Mark simply by doing business with Pedigree at all? Whether or not Kevin decides to publicly mouth off in a thread and people off is irrelevant to the fact that he is doing with business with Doug, thereby contributing to the person who is the target of all this ire in this thread.

 

Again, no dog in this fight, but it just didn't seem fair to admonish one person for doing business with Doug (though they throw around toolish remarks) and not another. :shrug:

 

Had Kevin also come on and posted like Mark, he's be getting the exact same treatment. Sometimes, it's better to say little than too much. Mark has stated his case quite well that he's willing to deal with Doug, solely because he has the sweet books and because he personally hasn't been screwed over yet. Also, incomprehensibly, he's willing to deal with Metro again if he ever gets a "sweet deal", DESPITE already being screwed by them.

 

It's statements like that, that are so difficult for some of us to understand.

 

I think I see where some of this came from though. Mark is a noob. He comes on here and sees a bunch of (to him) anonymous people bashing Doug and wants to (at least in some part) defend him based on his personal past dealings. However, what he doesn't know but what us old timers know, is the other side of the story regarding Pedigree. I guess I can understand that if I put myself in the shoes of a new poster.

 

If he chooses to do business with Doug, then it's his right. It doesn't make him a bad person.

 

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark 1

Mark 1

Posted
Posted
Why admonish anyone? If you don't want to do business with someone then don't, regardless of the reason. The information has been presented and individuals can decide for themselves with whom they spend their money.

 

If he chooses to do business with Doug, then it's his right. It doesn't make him a bad person. If I liked or disliked people based on with whom they did business and whether or not I cared for that retailer, then I wouldn't have anyone left to talk to.

 

 

Too true. I will admit that this bashing on me certainly stings. As I said I like this forum but being lambasted isn't fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lebowski

Lebowski

Posted
Posted
Why admonish anyone? If you don't want to do business with someone then don't, regardless of the reason. The information has been presented and individuals can decide for themselves with whom they spend their money.

 

 

I most certainly agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark 1

Mark 1

Posted
Posted
Probably because Mark (unlike Kevin) came on here and told us that he is willing to deal with not only folks who screw him but also those who haven't yet, as evidenced by the quotes below.

 

I don't disagree with you that Mark's head was up his pooper making those remarks. But isn't someone like Kevin, who consigns with Doug, implicitly agreeing with Mark simply by doing business with Pedigree at all? Whether or not Kevin decides to publicly mouth off in a thread and people off is irrelevant to the fact that he is doing with business with Doug, thereby contributing to the person who is the target of all this ire in this thread.

 

Again, no dog in this fight, but it just didn't seem fair to admonish one person for doing business with Doug (though they throw around toolish remarks) and not another. :shrug:

 

Had Kevin also come on and posted like Mark, he's be getting the exact same treatment. Sometimes, it's better to say little than too much. Mark has stated his case quite well that he's willing to deal with Doug, solely because he has the sweet books and because he personally hasn't been screwed over yet. Also, incomprehensibly, he's willing to deal with Metro again if he ever gets a "sweet deal", DESPITE already being screwed by them.

 

It's statements like that, that are so difficult for some of us to understand.

 

I think I see where some of this came from though. Mark is a noob. He comes on here and sees a bunch of (to him) anonymous people bashing Doug and wants to (at least in some part) defend him based on his personal past dealings. However, what he doesn't know but what us old timers know, is the other side of the story regarding Pedigree. I guess I can understand that if I put myself in the shoes of a new poster.

 

If he chooses to do business with Doug, then it's his right. It doesn't make him a bad person.

 

I agree.

 

Although I said I was done in this thread...it's hard not to look! doh!

 

This is 100% true. Like I also said earlier in my posts...I was playing devil's advocate here just because of the crazy piling on. I don't have the history some of you guys have with Doug and I guess I learned a lesson here.

 

It's better to not say anything at all because the masses will start to banish you.

 

I'm a pretty strong willed and stubborn person when I want to be. In this case, it's pointless to keep up the fight.

 

I agree that I might have come across as being foolish to say I would do biz with someone who screwed me like Metro. The fact of the matter is that it was only a minor infraction and not something that caused me a loss of much money. We're talking about a full grade lower than they said...but it does come across as foolish.

 

Being new again to the comic collecting world I guess I came into it with a fresh innocent mind and since joining here my eyes have opened up.

 

I appreciate all the comments (even the negative ones). I'm here on this forum to stay. I won't be driven away by some negative comments (even calling me a tool or ing tool). :frustrated:

 

Anyway, I have been warned about Doug's past and know what the risks are. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted
Why admonish anyone? If you don't want to do business with someone then don't, regardless of the reason. The information has been presented and individuals can decide for themselves with whom they spend their money.

 

If he chooses to do business with Doug, then it's his right. It doesn't make him a bad person. If I liked or disliked people based on with whom they did business and whether or not I cared for that retailer, then I wouldn't have anyone left to talk to.

 

 

Too true. I will admit that this bashing on me certainly stings. As I said I like this forum but being lambasted isn't fun.

1) Grow a thicker skin.

 

2) Take 75% of it with a grain of salt.

 

3) A lot of it isn't what you say, but how you react to it. However, don't use me as an example. I can go from mildly annoying to SOB in about two seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceX

DiceX

Posted
Posted
I can go from mildly annoying to SOB in about two seconds.

 

"Mildly"? hm

 

FU midwestern hilljack.

 

I can't tell if that's a compliment or not. I'm not good with acronyms. :cry:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
He comes on here and sees a bunch of (to him) anonymous people bashing Doug and wants to (at least in some part) defend him based on his personal past dealings. However, what he doesn't know but what us old timers know, is the other side of the story regarding Pedigree.

 

He knew it, he said he knew it earlier in the thread. I totally agree with you except that he did it out of ignorance of Doug's past...he did it because of the rampant exaggerations of Doug's actions. He's getting compared to the devil and Dupcak and called an ex-con, all of which exaggerate how he's operating in comics.

 

I can't morally judge him holding money out on his clients without more info...if that's as bad as it could have been, you'd think he WOULD have gone to jail. He was a personal injury attorney...it could be as bad as that client he held out on for two years had to sell their house to pay for medical bills, in which case he's clearly morally bankrupt, or it could be he disbursed $1 mil and held back $500K, I don't have any idea. That whole thing could be isolated to an ethical breach, or it could spill soundly into a moral and legal breach as well. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Transplant

Transplant

Posted
Posted

I can't morally judge him holding money out on his clients without more info...if that's as bad as it could have been, you'd think he WOULD have gone to jail. He was a personal injury attorney...it could be as bad as that client he held out on for two years had to sell their house to pay for medical bills, in which case he's clearly morally bankrupt, or it could be he disbursed $1 mil and held back $500K, I don't have any idea. That whole thing could be isolated to an ethical breach, or it could spill soundly into a moral and legal breach as well. (shrug)

Why not just listen to the lawyers who have posted on this topic time and time again? Nutshell: Commingling funds (mixing lawyer money with money held for clients) is the A-#1 way to get disbarred. You have a duty (fiduciary, legal, ethical, moral) to hold your client's money separate from your own. One example is receiving a settlement of 100k. That money goes into the client's trust account. From there, the lawyer is probably obligated to pay liens or bills agreed to by the client, subtract his fee (agreed to by the client) and then disburse the money to the client. Interest on the client's money either goes to IOLTA (Google it) or the client, not the lawyer. You can't withdraw the money as an interest-free loan to yourself, or delay paying what's owed.

 

Another example is collecting a retainer to be used for payment of hourly fees. You can't transfer that money until you earn it.

 

How wrong a violation it is, is NOT judged by the impact it has on the client. It's whether it was done at all. It is tantamount to embezzlement from your employer. Even if you pay it back, you still did it.

 

I'm not commenting specifically on Doug, the evidence is there already. But I can't stomach the cries of "Well, it's all relative. It depends on how bad he did it or how much money he borrowed or what the impact was to the client." It's ingrained in lawyers that commingling or stealing from your clients goes against all the trust that they have placed in you. It's not a sliding scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TempusFugitivus

TempusFugitivus

Posted
Posted

Being new again to the comic collecting world I guess I came into it with a fresh innocent mind and since joining here my eyes have opened up.

 

I appreciate all the comments (even the negative ones). I'm here on this forum to stay. I won't be driven away by some negative comments (even calling me a tool or ing tool). :frustrated:

 

Anyway, I have been warned about Doug's past and know what the risks are. Thank you.

 

Hi Mark,

Welcome to the Boards. I, for one, am glad that you are here. I will not deal with Pedigree myself but respect the right of anyone else to make their own decisions. That's what the bloody country is all about. And, aside from the sound and the fury and the general silliness, this place is quite wonderful: almost all good people and info that is unavailable anywhere else.

Cheers, John R

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted

That whole thing could be isolated to an ethical breach, or it could spill soundly into a moral and legal breach as well. (shrug) [/quot

 

That would be twenty three isolated cases,not counting the other ethical breechs he was found guilty of.

I compare him to Dupcak because they have both been caught in fraud, tried and found guilty by their peers. I'd say he worse. Dupcak has refunded money long after the fact to those who request it. He sent Harry(BurnedBoy) thousands of dollars for books he'd sold years earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing