APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[Aces]

Dan: next time just PM your apology...

Transplant only accepts apologies IN the thread.

[Transplant]

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

If only there were someone, anyone, you could ask about whether what you "know" was correct or not. Or you could, you know, just keep conversing out of your anus.

[kav]

As HAL would say, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore.

[Jaydogrules]

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

If only there were someone, anyone, you could ask about whether what you "know" was correct or not. Or you could, you know, just keep conversing out of your anus.

 

Dude chill I followed the original sales thread from the beginning. And again, it doesn't matter what was said in any PMs between you and Dan regardless because your PM negotiations got "trumped" by roulette when he threw up the I'll take it in the thread first.

 

I actually still sympathized with you for your loss so no need to get snarky. But right is right.

 

-J.

[Park]

 

Sure, but that gets debunked in about five minutes.

 

I can have Arch or the mods access my PMs and verify you just made yours up.

 

Of course then you have to deal with the nutjobs who think the mods are conspiring against them.

 

 

Why even mess around with timestamps?

 

 

Some people don't make all of their purchases public for a variety of reasons.

 

True. Then he should have passed on the book because that was a requirement of the listing.

 

-J.

 

There wasn't a requirement that the buyer post publicly was there?

 

Yes there was. He said "first I'll take it in thread trumps PMs". Until or unless it was taken in the thread the book was fair game. That was very clear.

 

-J.

 

That doesn't mean the buyer hadto post publicly. It just means you may lose if you are negotiating via PM.

 

Which leads us back to the timestamp requirement being less ambiguous.

 

Which means we all would have found something better to do tonight.

 

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

 

Of course Mike knew that negotiations might lose him the book but nowhere publicly or privately was it stated that he had to publicly claim the book.

 

You are assuming that he posted it publicly because of that while I can assume that he posted publicly because he had an agreed upon deal via PM timestamp.

 

Or we could go with what he said in this thread which is that he thought he had the book because the PM was agreed to before the public take it by Roulette.

 

And we are on the same merry go round now as everyone else.

[Transplant]

But you're posting about what I "knew" and what I intended. With all due respect, dude, you have no clue. Stop acting like you know what I, Dan or anyone else actually in the transaction was thinking.

 

Your saying the same definitive statements over and over don't make them any more correct.

 

I reserve the right to champion the cause of truth and anti-stupidity (like always) but otw, I'm done with this thread.

[Park]

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

If only there were someone, anyone, you could ask about whether what you "know" was correct or not. Or you could, you know, just keep conversing out of your anus.

 

You beat me to it but I was nicer.

[Transplant]

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

If only there were someone, anyone, you could ask about whether what you "know" was correct or not. Or you could, you know, just keep conversing out of your anus.

 

You beat me to it but I was nicer.

Most people are nicer than me. But I win b/c mine was first.

[Jaydogrules]

 

Sure, but that gets debunked in about five minutes.

 

I can have Arch or the mods access my PMs and verify you just made yours up.

 

Of course then you have to deal with the nutjobs who think the mods are conspiring against them.

 

 

Why even mess around with timestamps?

 

 

Some people don't make all of their purchases public for a variety of reasons.

 

True. Then he should have passed on the book because that was a requirement of the listing.

 

-J.

 

There wasn't a requirement that the buyer post publicly was there?

 

Yes there was. He said "first I'll take it in thread trumps PMs". Until or unless it was taken in the thread the book was fair game. That was very clear.

 

-J.

 

That doesn't mean the buyer hadto post publicly. It just means you may lose if you are negotiating via PM.

 

Which leads us back to the timestamp requirement being less ambiguous.

 

Which means we all would have found something better to do tonight.

 

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

 

Of course Mike knew that negotiations might lose him the book but nowhere publicly or privately was it stated that he had to publicly claim the book.

 

You are assuming that he posted it publicly because of that while I can assume that he posted publicly because he had an agreed upon deal via PM timestamp.

 

Or we could go with what he said in this thread which is that he thought he had the book because the PM was agreed to before the public take it by Roulette.

 

And we are on the same merry go round now as everyone else.

 

I'm not assuming though I am reminding everyone, including mike, of what actually happened. If he "thought" he had the book based only on PM negotiations in a sales thread that specifically said "first I'll take it in thread trumps ALL PM's", then he should really take some accountability (if he hasn't already) for losing the book. I'm not trying to rub it in here but Dan was very clear what the requirements were.

 

-J.

[Park]

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

If only there were someone, anyone, you could ask about whether what you "know" was correct or not. Or you could, you know, just keep conversing out of your anus.

 

You beat me to it but I was nicer.

Most people are nicer than me. But I win b/c mine was first.

 

Define "first".

[Transplant]

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

If only there were someone, anyone, you could ask about whether what you "know" was correct or not. Or you could, you know, just keep conversing out of your anus.

 

You beat me to it but I was nicer.

Most people are nicer than me. But I win b/c mine was first.

 

Define "first".

I posted it in a PM.

[kav]

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

If only there were someone, anyone, you could ask about whether what you "know" was correct or not. Or you could, you know, just keep conversing out of your anus.

 

You beat me to it but I was nicer.

Most people are nicer than me. But I win b/c mine was first.

 

Define "first".

I posted it in a PM.

Remember the first person to take a step in a race doesn't win the race-they have to take all the steps before everyone else. The final step in this race was posting in the thread...

[Transplant]

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

If only there were someone, anyone, you could ask about whether what you "know" was correct or not. Or you could, you know, just keep conversing out of your anus.

 

You beat me to it but I was nicer.

Most people are nicer than me. But I win b/c mine was first.

 

Define "first".

I posted it in a PM.

Remember the first person to take a step in a race doesn't win the race-they have to take all the steps before everyone else. The final step in this race was posting in the thread...

Weren't you going to post less?

[PovertyRow]

A screen cap would verify the time and date. It can easily be verified.

 

Unfortunately with the introduction of PM Editing a long while back nothing is secure about a PM. I sent myself a PM, waited a few minutes and edited it. The same PM in both screen captures.

 

The first one was at 11:11. The second at 11:19. Note the PM changed, there is no sign of an "Edited" notice and the upper right date/time stamp remains the same as the original.

 

[kav]

Sorry.

Last comment in this thread-promise

[Jaydogrules]

I beg to differ. In this particular case he was negotiating with the seller in a PM in a listing where he knew an I'll take it in the thread would negate his negotiations. He says he agreed to a deal in PM but then did not "take it" in the thread until AFTER someone else already had. That tells me two things.: first: that he knew he has to formally "take it" in the thread to secure the book and second: that his PM negotiations had nothing to do with his wanting to keep the sale "private".

 

The buyer simply erred and lost out to another buyer that was ready willing and able to fully perform per the listing. Tough break but it happens.

 

-J.

If only there were someone, anyone, you could ask about whether what you "know" was correct or not. Or you could, you know, just keep conversing out of your anus.

 

You beat me to it but I was nicer.

Most people are nicer than me. But I win b/c mine was first.

 

Define "first".

I posted it in a PM.

Remember the first person to take a step in a race doesn't win the race-they have to take all the steps before everyone else. The final step in this race was posting in the thread...

 

Yes. Which he clearly understood since he ended up posting it in the thread, unfortunately AFTER someone else. Based on the publicly posted rules of the listing roulette got the book fair and square.

 

I understand mike is upset at losing the book and probably disturbed by this thread but the personal attacks are unnecessary. We all have lost out on books, but really, what's right is right.

 

-J.

[Aces]

A screen cap would verify the time and date. It can easily be verified.

 

Unfortunately with the introduction of PM Editing a long while back nothing is secure about a PM. I sent myself a PM, waited a few minutes and edited it. The same PM in both screen captures.

 

The first one was at 11:11. The second at 11:19. Note the PM changed, there is no sign of an "Edited" notice and the upper right date/time stamp remains the same as the original.

 

 

Well there goes any hope that the PM time stamp can be the fair judge.

[PovertyRow]

A screen cap would verify the time and date. It can easily be verified.

 

Unfortunately with the introduction of PM Editing a long while back nothing is secure about a PM. I sent myself a PM, waited a few minutes and edited it. The same PM in both screen captures.

 

The first one was at 11:11. The second at 11:19. Note the PM changed, there is no sign of an "Edited" notice and the upper right date/time stamp remains the same as the original.

 

 

Well there goes any hope that the PM time stamp can be the fair judge.

 

And also the CONTENTS! Kind of scary.

[Broke as a Joke]

Ridiculous that this thread is approaching 50 pages. The lesson I have learned...don't go to PM to save $40 or $50 dollars on a $3000 book when it was priced to move in the first place.

[Jaydogrules]

Ridiculous that this thread is approaching 50 pages. The lesson I have learned...don't go to PM to save $40 or $50 dollars on a $3000 book when it was priced to move in the first place.

 

 

-J.