APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[The-Collector]

Let's boil it down to its essence:

 

Tranny: "Will you take this much?"

 

Dan: "No, but I will take this much."

 

Tranny: "Done."

 

Deal done.

 

Dan agreed to it. Tranny agreed to it. It was a done deal.

 

Then, because someone else came along and posted in the thread, Dan changed his mind about the "doneness" of the deal. This is where his contradiction sits. He contradicted himself, first by doing the deal, then by UNdoing the deal.

 

This is a contradiction.

 

Had roulette not come along, there still would have been a sale. If Tranny had posted the take it emoticon before roulette, the book would be his.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting Dan has any selfish or greedy motives. I'm simply saying that he didn't follow his rule, by ACCEPTING AN OFFER before all the conditions were met, conditions he, himself, laid out. Tranny didn't meet the ORIGINAL terms...Dan should not have accepted the offer (by virtue of a counter) until he did.

 

Does that make sense...?

 

Following your template:

 

Tranny: will you take this much

 

Dan: no I'll take this much

 

You're assuming Dan knew the next PM was I'll take it, when it could have been more haggling or a no thank you. He did say he hadn't read the PM until after the buyer popped the BIN in the thread.

 

Doesn't matter if Dan read it or not, because the PM is timestamped. Once Dan made the counter, he was committed to it. He was saying "if you accept this price, we have a deal." Tranny accepted it, BEFORE roulette posted. Deal done.

I guess in my mind there has always been a step after what you're describing.

 

Where if I offer a price, you agree, I aknowledge the sale

 

Though I guess that doesn't conform to the letter of the law.

 

No, because in the eyes of the law, you already acknowledged the sale by saying "this sale is a done deal if you will accept this price, without further negotiation." And Tranny did.

 

:shrug:

 

 

I think in traditional negotiations in person effective communication of acceptance is necessary but in the case of written communication acceptance is effective from the time it is sent not from when it is received.

 

If you are willing to negotiate via written letter or email you should be prepared to deal with the fact that a contract will be formed as soon as the other side sends their acceptance.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, I can see the PMs flying right now...

 

[romanheart]

When I read 'I'll take it trumps all PMs', I wouldn't have thought that meant even negotiations already agreed to in a PM.

 

That's a severe literal interpretation to me. I agree to take it in a PM is just as equal as I will take it in a thread to me. I think the timestamp method is indeed the best. A contract is binding technically when money changes hands (even a $1 up front), but in either case money was not exchanged before the buyer decided who got it.

 

I appreciate SpiderDan is making amends for the hard feelings to Transplant for the confusion, and I feel sorry for Transplant too. If SD wants that strict interpretation to override an agreed upon sale in a PM with an 'I'll take it' in a thread, I suggest he explicitly indicate that can happen in his thread.

 

Transplant shouldn't worry though, there will be many chances to get a DD1 for a good price. They come up a lot. More $ saved for that next good deal for him.

[HighRadArt]

PLEASE....

 

Someone break out some memes. This Friday thread is so boring. oh yeah... ... I'll see your and raise you some

 

 

You know, you posted thousands of words against Symbiotic, in multiple times, and in multiple places...and rightfully so....and no one came along and said "blah blah blah blah blah shut up already, this is so boring blah blah blah" just because they disagreed with you about it.

 

And I know people disagreed with you about it, because we discussed it. And no one badmouthed you in the process, they simply didn't agree with the actions being taken, which included yours.

 

So why this....?

 

What positive contribution to the boards does this make...?

 

If you don't like a thread, why post in it...? And why post disrespectfully of those who take this subject seriously...?

Exposing a repeat shiller who was scamming members and creating multiple shill accounts. Oh, and drafting a lengthy, time intensive HOS nomination including links to preserve the record for the future.

 

Arguing with multiple people that your point is right while others is wrong and having the inability to just say "agree to disagree".

 

 

I didn't even mention you specifically. I meant everyone. I was just trying to make light of a situation that no one can change and nothing will come out of this. You admitted that you missed the Tuffy situation so I'm going to just assume you missed the discussion taking place over several days discussing this very issue - and it went no where.

 

I wasn't talking about me specifically. I was talking about everyone.

 

It doesn't matter what your reasoning is, and if the two situations aren't comparable, in your opinion...people didn't agree with you. They did not, however, speak disrespectfully to you about it, telling you to move on, stop being boring, and make with the memes already. And they did not say "you just think you're right and others are wrong, and can't agree to disagree."

 

You thought you were right. Others thought you were wrong. Does the amount of people who think you were right make it so...?

 

Just because it's been discussed before, with no apparent fruitfulness, means it's never going to...?

 

You're right. I'm sorry.

 

Either you don't want to be on ignore or you realize its not worth it.

[Hado]

Let's boil it down to its essence:

 

Tranny: "Will you take this much?"

 

Dan: "No, but I will take this much."

 

Tranny: "Done."

 

Deal done.

 

Dan agreed to it. Tranny agreed to it. It was a done deal.

 

Then, because someone else came along and posted in the thread, Dan changed his mind about the "doneness" of the deal. This is where his contradiction sits. He contradicted himself, first by doing the deal, then by UNdoing the deal.

 

This is a contradiction.

 

Had roulette not come along, there still would have been a sale. If Tranny had posted the take it emoticon before roulette, the book would be his.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting Dan has any selfish or greedy motives. I'm simply saying that he didn't follow his rule, by ACCEPTING AN OFFER before all the conditions were met, conditions he, himself, laid out. Tranny didn't meet the ORIGINAL terms...Dan should not have accepted the offer (by virtue of a counter) until he did.

 

Does that make sense...?

 

Following your template:

 

Tranny: will you take this much

 

Dan: no I'll take this much

 

You're assuming Dan knew the next PM was I'll take it, when it could have been more haggling or a no thank you. He did say he hadn't read the PM until after the buyer popped the BIN in the thread.

 

Doesn't matter if Dan read it or not, because the PM is timestamped. Once Dan made the counter, he was committed to it. He was saying "if you accept this price, we have a deal." Tranny accepted it, BEFORE roulette posted. Deal done.

I guess in my mind there has always been a step after what you're describing.

 

Where if I offer a price, you agree, I aknowledge the sale

 

Though I guess that doesn't conform to the letter of the law.

 

No, because in the eyes of the law, you already acknowledged the sale by saying "this sale is a done deal if you will accept this price, without further negotiation." And Tranny did.

 

:shrug:

 

I understand what you're saying.

 

The Law doesn't require the good ol' handshake to complete a deal.

[Jaydogrules]

Seller's rule specifically stated first "I'll take it" in thread consummates the deal. First buyer didn't post the sign, he opted to negotiate in PM's at his own peril, most likely to secure a lower sales price even though the seller ALSO said in his listing the price was firm.

 

it simply does not matter what happened in PM's, including whether or not they agreed to something in principal in PM. Why? BECAUSE THE SELLER CLEARLY STATED IN THE LISTING THAT THE FIRST "I'LL TAKE IT" IN THE THREAD TRUMPS "ALL PM'S". Sorry for the caps right there.

 

The first buyer clearly was aware that he needed to post the "I'll take it" in the thread to cinch the deal. How do we know this? Because he did so. But by then it was too late. Roulette posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread. No negotiating. No haggling. He accepted the seller's terms in full, and complied faithfully with the explicit terms of the listing.

 

The vagaries of contract law, this and that, time stamps in PMs etc, none of that is relevant. The seller stated his terms. He does not need to restate them in PMs. If he changed rules in PM people would be howling in protest even more so.

 

So let's cut the seller a break here. We can all feel sympathy for the buyer who ultimately missed out on the book, but again, he negotiated in PM at his own peril. All he had to do was say "I'll take it per PM" in the thread, if he did in fact intend on accepting dan's counter. Everyone is jumping on dan, but no one is questioning why the first prospective buyer didn't simply post the sign, since dan's listing said he needed to do that.

 

-J.

 

 

[bababooey]

Let's boil it down to its essence:

 

Tranny: "Will you take this much?"

 

Dan: "No, but I will take this much."

 

Tranny: "Done."

 

Deal done.

 

Dan agreed to it. Tranny agreed to it. It was a done deal.

 

Then, because someone else came along and posted in the thread, Dan changed his mind about the "doneness" of the deal. This is where his contradiction sits. He contradicted himself, first by doing the deal, then by UNdoing the deal.

 

This is a contradiction.

 

Had roulette not come along, there still would have been a sale. If Tranny had posted the take it emoticon before roulette, the book would be his.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting Dan has any selfish or greedy motives. I'm simply saying that he didn't follow his rule, by ACCEPTING AN OFFER before all the conditions were met, conditions he, himself, laid out. Tranny didn't meet the ORIGINAL terms...Dan should not have accepted the offer (by virtue of a counter) until he did.

 

Does that make sense...?

 

Following your template:

 

Tranny: will you take this much

 

Dan: no I'll take this much

 

You're assuming Dan knew the next PM was I'll take it, when it could have been more haggling or a no thank you. He did say he hadn't read the PM until after the buyer popped the BIN in the thread.

 

Doesn't matter if Dan read it or not, because the PM is timestamped. Once Dan made the counter, he was committed to it. He was saying "if you accept this price, we have a deal." Tranny accepted it, BEFORE roulette posted. Deal done.

I guess in my mind there has always been a step after what you're describing.

 

Where if I offer a price, you agree, I aknowledge the sale

 

Though I guess that doesn't conform to the letter of the law.

 

No, because in the eyes of the law, you already acknowledged the sale by saying "this sale is a done deal if you will accept this price, without further negotiation." And Tranny did.

 

:shrug:

 

This specific rule adds that third step - any book listed within that thread holds onto the original rules set forth by the seller. Actively negotiating or negotiating and reaching a deal are two different things for certain. I would expect that when someone uses this rule results under this rule are visible publicly posted evidence, as set forth by the rule. It's not about time stamps, it is about finalization (third step) & location (public thread)

 

There is no point in posting rules if none of them apply once a negotiation starts.

 

I don't disagree that it's a bad rule in general, I don't disagree that agreeing to something and then not following through doesn't look good - but this was the lesser of two evils in public view & I did my yammering in the discussion thread earlier.

 

[romanheart]

Seller's rule specifically stated first "I'll take it" in thread consummates the deal. First buyer didn't post the sign, he opted to negotiate in PM's at his own peril, mist likely to secure a lower sales price even though the seller ALSO said in his listing the price was firm.

 

it simply does not matter what happened in PM's, including whether or not they agreed to something in principal in PM. Why? BECAUSE THE SELLER CLEARLY STATED IN THE LISTING THAT THE FIRST "I'LL TAKE IT" IN THE THREAD TRUMPS "ALL PM'S". Sorry for the caps right there.

 

The first buyer clearly was aware that he needed to post the "I'll take it" in the thread to cinch the deal. How do we know this? Because he did so. But by then it was too late. Roulette posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread. No negotiating. No haggling. He accepted the seller's terms in full, and complied faithfully with the explicit terms of the listing.

 

The vagaries of contract law, this and that, time stamps in PMs etc, none of that is relevant. The seller stated his terms. He does not need to restate them in PMs. If he changed rules in PM people would be howling in protest even more so.

 

So let's cut the seller a break here. We can all feel sympathy for the buyer who ultimately missed out on the book, but again, he negotiated in PM at his own peril. All he had to do was say "I'll take it per PM" in the thread, if he did in fact intend on accepting dan's counter. Everyone is jumping on dan, but no one is questioning why the first prospective buyer didn't simply post the sign, since dan's listing said he needed to do that.

 

-J.

 

 

Not just a PM though. A PM that resulted in an agreement. It's not like back and forth before finally saying I'll take it in a PM.

[Jaydogrules]

Seller's rule specifically stated first "I'll take it" in thread consummates the deal. First buyer didn't post the sign, he opted to negotiate in PM's at his own peril, mist likely to secure a lower sales price even though the seller ALSO said in his listing the price was firm.

 

it simply does not matter what happened in PM's, including whether or not they agreed to something in principal in PM. Why? BECAUSE THE SELLER CLEARLY STATED IN THE LISTING THAT THE FIRST "I'LL TAKE IT" IN THE THREAD TRUMPS "ALL PM'S". Sorry for the caps right there.

 

The first buyer clearly was aware that he needed to post the "I'll take it" in the thread to cinch the deal. How do we know this? Because he did so. But by then it was too late. Roulette posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread. No negotiating. No haggling. He accepted the seller's terms in full, and complied faithfully with the explicit terms of the listing.

 

The vagaries of contract law, this and that, time stamps in PMs etc, none of that is relevant. The seller stated his terms. He does not need to restate them in PMs. If he changed rules in PM people would be howling in protest even more so.

 

So let's cut the seller a break here. We can all feel sympathy for the buyer who ultimately missed out on the book, but again, he negotiated in PM at his own peril. All he had to do was say "I'll take it per PM" in the thread, if he did in fact intend on accepting dan's counter. Everyone is jumping on dan, but no one is questioning why the first prospective buyer didn't simply post the sign, since dan's listing said he needed to do that.

 

-J.

 

 

Not just a PM though. A PM that resulted in an agreement. It's not like back and forth before finally saying I'll take it in a PM.

 

Does not matter. The buyer rolled the dice by trying to haggle and the earlier bird got the worm. "First 'I'll take it' in thread trumps ALL PMs"

 

-J.

[Prince Namor]

This whole thing is BS. I pray that the next time one of you fools are running a sales thread someone REALLY wants to buy a book, but has terms they have to work with. Then before they negotiate realize it could just be a huge waste of time, because even though they can have a negotiated deal, the seller can back out due to stipulation. I will say this again. They had a deal that was mutually agreed upon, sales thread rules be damned. Dan backed put of the deal, end of story. And last I checked he has to follow through with the deal, or he can go on the probation list. If he was going to pull this, he needs to state that he is unwilling to negotiate, being as even though he created terms and they were accepted, he did not honor his deal, even though the terms were agreed upon BEFORE anyone posted the takeit in the thread. Saying he didn't read it first is BS. You are selling a 3k book, which you sent over terms for and didn't read the pm? Right.

 

This.

 

 

[romanheart]

Seller's rule specifically stated first "I'll take it" in thread consummates the deal. First buyer didn't post the sign, he opted to negotiate in PM's at his own peril, mist likely to secure a lower sales price even though the seller ALSO said in his listing the price was firm.

 

it simply does not matter what happened in PM's, including whether or not they agreed to something in principal in PM. Why? BECAUSE THE SELLER CLEARLY STATED IN THE LISTING THAT THE FIRST "I'LL TAKE IT" IN THE THREAD TRUMPS "ALL PM'S". Sorry for the caps right there.

 

The first buyer clearly was aware that he needed to post the "I'll take it" in the thread to cinch the deal. How do we know this? Because he did so. But by then it was too late. Roulette posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread. No negotiating. No haggling. He accepted the seller's terms in full, and complied faithfully with the explicit terms of the listing.

 

The vagaries of contract law, this and that, time stamps in PMs etc, none of that is relevant. The seller stated his terms. He does not need to restate them in PMs. If he changed rules in PM people would be howling in protest even more so.

 

So let's cut the seller a break here. We can all feel sympathy for the buyer who ultimately missed out on the book, but again, he negotiated in PM at his own peril. All he had to do was say "I'll take it per PM" in the thread, if he did in fact intend on accepting dan's counter. Everyone is jumping on dan, but no one is questioning why the first prospective buyer didn't simply post the sign, since dan's listing said he needed to do that.

 

-J.

 

 

Not just a PM though. A PM that resulted in an agreement. It's not like back and forth before finally saying I'll take it in a PM.

 

Does not matter. The buyer rolled the dice by trying to haggle and the earlier bird got the worm. "First 'I'll take it' in thread trumps ALL PMs"

 

-J.

 

He negotiated and reached an agreement. Gambling ended when that agreement came.

 

"I'll take trumps PMs" is not the same as "I'll take it trumps PMs and agreements made in those PMs"

[kav]

Trolling: if you don't like someone, and you constantly respond negatively to their posts instead of just ignoring them, you are trolling.

If you constantly post negative comments about a person, you don't like them.

 

That should clarify things.

[Red_Hood]

Why even waste time posting an apology to a first world problem?

 

Boo~Hoo, I didn't get a comic book in a loosely-based sales area.

 

Don't feel bad if you sold it to someone else.

The other person will, and can, find another comic book to be sour about or pound their chest over.

 

It's laughable to see how internet-centric a person can become.

 

Easy resolution, open your front door and walk outside and then proceed to talk to a real life person in front of you.

 

Damn straight!

 

Who do these people think they are, talking about honor and ethics, and that how we handle the little things determines how we handle the big things??

 

Waste of time!

 

 

Are you being serious? Honor and ethics, this is such a petty issue that I wouldn't even think twice about it.

You're being way too dramatic on an internet "COMIC" site to make me even blink and reread your comment.

Book is sold, move along. First world problems are for people without money.

[universal soldier]

Seller's rule specifically stated first "I'll take it" in thread consummates the deal. First buyer didn't post the sign, he opted to negotiate in PM's at his own peril, mist likely to secure a lower sales price even though the seller ALSO said in his listing the price was firm.

 

it simply does not matter what happened in PM's, including whether or not they agreed to something in principal in PM. Why? BECAUSE THE SELLER CLEARLY STATED IN THE LISTING THAT THE FIRST "I'LL TAKE IT" IN THE THREAD TRUMPS "ALL PM'S". Sorry for the caps right there.

 

The first buyer clearly was aware that he needed to post the "I'll take it" in the thread to cinch the deal. How do we know this? Because he did so. But by then it was too late. Roulette posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread. No negotiating. No haggling. He accepted the seller's terms in full, and complied faithfully with the explicit terms of the listing.

 

The vagaries of contract law, this and that, time stamps in PMs etc, none of that is relevant. The seller stated his terms. He does not need to restate them in PMs. If he changed rules in PM people would be howling in protest even more so.

 

So let's cut the seller a break here. We can all feel sympathy for the buyer who ultimately missed out on the book, but again, he negotiated in PM at his own peril. All he had to do was say "I'll take it per PM" in the thread, if he did in fact intend on accepting dan's counter. Everyone is jumping on dan, but no one is questioning why the first prospective buyer didn't simply post the sign, since dan's listing said he needed to do that.

 

-J.

 

 

Not just a PM though. A PM that resulted in an agreement. It's not like back and forth before finally saying I'll take it in a PM.

 

Does not matter. The buyer rolled the dice by trying to haggle and the earlier bird got the worm. "First 'I'll take it' in thread trumps ALL PMs"

 

-J.

 

In that thread true, but that set of rules is not the norm. I don't think that many here disagree that according to the rules of that thread that transplant lost out.

[chrisco37]

Oh for goodness sakes.

 

This stuff is simple. If the parties involved are fair and gentlemanly. If any of the parties involved are not. Then screw them.

 

How about, "Hey, no problem seller. He can have it. It's all good".

 

That is exactly what I have stated on here. After posting the "take it" in a thread and being notified that a PM deal was reached and it was neglected to post something in the sales thread letting it be known.

 

I mean, seriously. It's only a comic book. It isn't a kidney or heart.

 

What comic book can you not live without? What comic book is worth a friend, or a reputation?

 

While I don't agree with many of your posts, I must say, you could not be more dead-on right that this post. :applause:

[wombat]

Seller's rule specifically stated first "I'll take it" in thread consummates the deal. First buyer didn't post the sign, he opted to negotiate in PM's at his own peril, mist likely to secure a lower sales price even though the seller ALSO said in his listing the price was firm.

 

it simply does not matter what happened in PM's, including whether or not they agreed to something in principal in PM. Why? BECAUSE THE SELLER CLEARLY STATED IN THE LISTING THAT THE FIRST "I'LL TAKE IT" IN THE THREAD TRUMPS "ALL PM'S". Sorry for the caps right there.

 

The first buyer clearly was aware that he needed to post the "I'll take it" in the thread to cinch the deal. How do we know this? Because he did so. But by then it was too late. Roulette posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread. No negotiating. No haggling. He accepted the seller's terms in full, and complied faithfully with the explicit terms of the listing.

 

The vagaries of contract law, this and that, time stamps in PMs etc, none of that is relevant. The seller stated his terms. He does not need to restate them in PMs. If he changed rules in PM people would be howling in protest even more so.

 

So let's cut the seller a break here. We can all feel sympathy for the buyer who ultimately missed out on the book, but again, he negotiated in PM at his own peril. All he had to do was say "I'll take it per PM" in the thread, if he did in fact intend on accepting dan's counter. Everyone is jumping on dan, but no one is questioning why the first prospective buyer didn't simply post the sign, since dan's listing said he needed to do that.

 

-J.

 

 

Not just a PM though. A PM that resulted in an agreement. It's not like back and forth before finally saying I'll take it in a PM.

 

Does not matter. The buyer rolled the dice by trying to haggle and the earlier bird got the worm. "First 'I'll take it' in thread trumps ALL PMs"

 

-J.

 

He negotiated and reached an agreement. Gambling ended when that agreement came.

 

"I'll take trumps PMs" is not the same as "I'll take it trumps PMs and agreements made in those PMs"

 

But he didn't say that. He said All PMs. He even capitalized it. To me its kind of hard to get around the word All.

[HarveySwick]

This whole thing is BS. I pray that the next time one of you fools are running a sales thread someone REALLY wants to buy a book, but has terms they have to work with. Then before they negotiate realize it could just be a huge waste of time, because even though they can have a negotiated deal, the seller can back out due to stipulation. I will say this again. They had a deal that was mutually agreed upon, sales thread rules be damned. Dan backed put of the deal, end of story. And last I checked he has to follow through with the deal, or he can go on the probation list. If he was going to pull this, he needs to state that he is unwilling to negotiate, being as even though he created terms and they were accepted, he did not honor his deal, even though the terms were agreed upon BEFORE anyone posted the takeit in the thread. Saying he didn't read it first is BS. You are selling a 3k book, which you sent over terms for and didn't read the pm? Right.

 

This.

 

I agree with everything above except the struck out part. He listed his rules no matter how they are in practice and he stuck by those rules. But everything else - (thumbs u I think a deal was consummated as well and it's a situation for both Transplant and roulette44.

[Prince Namor]

Why even waste time posting an apology to a first world problem?

 

Boo~Hoo, I didn't get a comic book in a loosely-based sales area.

 

Don't feel bad if you sold it to someone else.

The other person will, and can, find another comic book to be sour about or pound their chest over.

 

It's laughable to see how internet-centric a person can become.

 

Easy resolution, open your front door and walk outside and then proceed to talk to a real life person in front of you.

 

Damn straight!

 

Who do these people think they are, talking about honor and ethics, and that how we handle the little things determines how we handle the big things??

 

Waste of time!

 

 

Are you being serious? Honor and ethics, this is such a petty issue that I wouldn't even think twice about it.

You're being way too dramatic on an internet "COMIC" site to make me even blink and reread your comment.

Book is sold, move along. First world problems are for people without money.

 

First World or Third World, I'd rather have somebody think I talk too much than think I'm dishonest.

[RockMyAmadeus]

PLEASE....

 

Someone break out some memes. This Friday thread is so boring. oh yeah... ... I'll see your and raise you some

 

 

You know, you posted thousands of words against Symbiotic, in multiple times, and in multiple places...and rightfully so....and no one came along and said "blah blah blah blah blah shut up already, this is so boring blah blah blah" just because they disagreed with you about it.

 

And I know people disagreed with you about it, because we discussed it. And no one badmouthed you in the process, they simply didn't agree with the actions being taken, which included yours.

 

So why this....?

 

What positive contribution to the boards does this make...?

 

If you don't like a thread, why post in it...? And why post disrespectfully of those who take this subject seriously...?

Exposing a repeat shiller who was scamming members and creating multiple shill accounts. Oh, and drafting a lengthy, time intensive HOS nomination including links to preserve the record for the future.

 

Arguing with multiple people that your point is right while others is wrong and having the inability to just say "agree to disagree".

 

 

I didn't even mention you specifically. I meant everyone. I was just trying to make light of a situation that no one can change and nothing will come out of this. You admitted that you missed the Tuffy situation so I'm going to just assume you missed the discussion taking place over several days discussing this very issue - and it went no where.

 

I wasn't talking about me specifically. I was talking about everyone.

 

It doesn't matter what your reasoning is, and if the two situations aren't comparable, in your opinion...people didn't agree with you. They did not, however, speak disrespectfully to you about it, telling you to move on, stop being boring, and make with the memes already. And they did not say "you just think you're right and others are wrong, and can't agree to disagree."

 

You thought you were right. Others thought you were wrong. Does the amount of people who think you were right make it so...?

 

Just because it's been discussed before, with no apparent fruitfulness, means it's never going to...?

 

You're right. I'm sorry.

 

Either you don't want to be on ignore or you realize its not worth it.

 

I have little doubt it's the latter, but so what? Does HarveySwick care what I think? No, quite clearly, and that's perfectly fine. The point is made.

 

Why do you care?

 

Seriously, who am I to you?

 

I'm a nobody on the internet with an opinion. So why do you care so much what I do, to make multiple comments about it? Is it the first time someone has put you on ignore?

 

You took a low blow shot at me. I don't even know you, or anything about you, that I would take such a shot. I wouldn't if I DID know you. So why are you surprised? If you really want to apologize, apologize, publicly, like the original comment was.

 

Here, I'll go first: I'm sorry, genuinely sorry, if I have said things that have offended you in the past. Such was not my intention (as I said, I don't even know you.) It is not my intention to denigrate, put down, insult, or otherwise demean anyone, regardless of their behavior towards me.

 

I have been a condescending a-hole in the past, and not without good cause, but still....I have to answer for me, not everyone else. I am sorry if you felt personally offended by me, and I'll strive to be a better man. That doesn't mean that I'll shy away from speaking what I believe is the truth, but I will try to do it as inoffensively as I possibly can, refraining from letting my emotions rule my reason and logic.

 

Fair enough?

 

 

[VintageComics]

This whole thing is BS. I pray that the next time one of you fools are running a sales thread someone REALLY wants to buy a book, but has terms they have to work with. Then before they negotiate realize it could just be a huge waste of time, because even though they can have a negotiated deal, the seller can back out due to stipulation. I will say this again. They had a deal that was mutually agreed upon, sales thread rules be damned. Dan backed put of the deal, end of story. And last I checked he has to follow through with the deal, or he can go on the probation list. If he was going to pull this, he needs to state that he is unwilling to negotiate, being as even though he created terms and they were accepted, he did not honor his deal, even though the terms were agreed upon BEFORE anyone posted the takeit in the thread. Saying he didn't read it first is BS. You are selling a 3k book, which you sent over terms for and didn't read the pm? Right.

 

This.

 

 

Here we go again. Just when I think I'm out....

 

Dan clearly stated an in the thread trumped everything else.

 

Mike / Transplant stated in the other thread that he was boarding a plane. Dan wasn't around either. So neither marked the book sold, which was a requirement of the thread and in the meantime, the book sold.

 

If Dan wrote down in his rules "Nobody gets the book unless they post 'Beetlejuice' in the thread" then that would have trumped an

 

It's a silly rule, Beetlejuice or but it was a rule.

 

What people are arguing is emotion, spirit of the rules, who wants the book more, etc.

 

The rules don't take that into account. Only what actually happened.

 

I can't believe I just posted all that.

 

Now can't we all just agree to disagree and draft a clean set of rules explaining how the timestamp works and move on?