The two most common excuses for buyers remorse

[CAHokie]

Baru, a few things you said stood out to me. Unless I am missreading you, it seems that you think of things as black and white and legal or illegal. You also pointed out you would never ask for a discount.

 

I believe that you wouldnt ask for a discount. Thats a good thing actually. What you dont realize is that sometimes people here will offer another member one because of their situation, asked or not. Its called doing something nice for another. I find it hard to believe as a retired LE that you think everything is either black or white. I would have thought within a few months in a big city or a maybe a few years in a rural area, you would realize that very few things are.

 

Are you telling me you never ran into a situation where legally it was one way but was wrong on a moral level??

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Best I can tell, he didn't like the use of the term "rooked," and then proceed to ventilate his anger over it.

 

Anger.

 

Childish.

 

[batman_fan]

Lucky is my buddy-I hope he changes his mind on this one.

 

I can understand that the original seller (OS) is miffed. However, the sale was legal. The sale was at a price the OS freely accepted. The OS doesn't have an issue until he see's that the buyer is selling it somewhere else. Until that point he looks at the sale as a "good" deal. The only change occurs because he feels he was lied to about the book. Is he mad at himself for buying into the story or mad because he didn't make the extra 2 bills? If it is the extra 2 bills then the "community" thing really doesn't exist for the seller. Yes, I can see it didn't exist for the buyer either.

 

I can't explain this in a way to get my point across any better. Thus, I will bow out of the thread as I do not wish to end up in a prolonged exchange that a MOD might view as something bad.

 

Thread like this are great, you get to see who the decent folks are and who the creamy, steamy piles are.

 

By inference I must be a creamy steamy pile. Funny, funny, man. As far as my ethics go I'm the one that seemed to start the dust up about collusion a few months ago. I view it as the other side of the same dirty coin that shill bidding is on. In both cases, I believe, auctions have been manipulated to produce a final price that isn't real. That means you can't trust what the value of the items in that hobby. Funny but more than half the people involved in that dust up didn't see an issue with collusion but they saw an issue with shill bidding. I find that weird. To me, ethically you are bent if you are doing either. In some states doing one and/or the other is illegal.

 

I never said I think it is OK to lie about how you obtain a book.

 

I would never ask another member of this board to part with a book/OA they had at a reduced price because of a story or due our friendship. To me that is taking advantage of our "relationship". What one party says is "networking" or being a part of a community I think of as something else. In essence, I look at it as I am using them to gain an advantage. That isn't how I deal with people.

 

I have never purchased a comic on this board nor sent a message via the eBay message system to someone saying something like "Hey, I post on the CGC Board. Wanna give me a break?" Not the way I operate. I don't look to take advantage of people's desires to look at themselves as good folk by doing another party they like a favor. I do go to conventions and enter into negotiations to obtain the items I want from vendors. I buy cars via negotiation too - don't you? I set a price in my head and don't go over it for an item. If the vendor wants to part for the item at that price or lower great. If not, I move on to another vendor. Someone at the show is going to want to move it at the price I want to buy it at because it is a realistic number. One that is good for them and for me. Not a number based upon me "using" my relationship with them to make my (not my community) collection better in my eyes.

 

In my book, you are definitely in the creamy, steamy, pile category. Just my take on how you come across in this exchange on this thread and definitely someone I would never want to have any sort of dealings with, professional or personal

[Lucky Baru]

In my book, you are definitely in the creamy, steamy, pile category. Just my take on how you come across in this exchange on this thread and definitely someone I would never want to have any sort of dealings with, professional or personal

 

Best I can tell, he didn't like the use of the term "rooked," and then proceed to ventilate his anger over it.

 

Anger.

 

Childish.

 

Both of the above seem to be attempts to get some type of reaction from me similar to what a defense attorney might try to impeach me by causing a huge reaction. Sorry to provide a no go on that. It would involve me being invested in either of your opinions. That isn't the case.

 

However, calling people names or attacking them personally in a discussion (neither of which I have done in this thread) indicate that you are defensive and that something I stated in my post you agreed with.

[jsilverjanet]

Baru, a few things you said stood out to me. Unless I am missreading you, it seems that you think of things as black and white and legal or illegal. You also pointed out you would never ask for a discount.

 

I believe that you wouldnt ask for a discount. Thats a good thing actually. What you dont realize is that sometimes people here will offer another member one because of their situation, asked or not. Its called doing something nice for another. I find it hard to believe as a retired LE that you think everything is either black or white. I would have thought within a few months in a big city or a maybe a few years in a rural area, you would realize that very few things are.

 

Are you telling me you never ran into a situation where legally it was one way but was wrong on a moral level??

 

he was a cop

[RockMyAmadeus]

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

In my book, you are definitely in the creamy, steamy, pile category. Just my take on how you come across in this exchange on this thread and definitely someone I would never want to have any sort of dealings with, professional or personal

 

Best I can tell, he didn't like the use of the term "rooked," and then proceed to ventilate his anger over it.

 

Anger.

 

Childish.

 

Both of the above seem to be attempts to get some type of reaction from me similar to what a defense attorney might try to impeach me by causing a huge reaction. Sorry to provide a no go on that. It would involve me being invested in either of your opinions. That isn't the case.

 

However, calling people names or attacking them personally in a discussion (neither of which I have done in this thread) indicate that you are defensive and that something I stated in my post you agreed with.

 

I disagree.

 

But feel free to go on and on and on about it like you did before.

 

You seem to enjoy it, so why not indulge yourself.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

 

Troublemaker.

[kav]

pop

[Lucky Baru]

Baru, a few things you said stood out to me. Unless I am missreading you, it seems that you think of things as black and white and legal or illegal. You also pointed out you would never ask for a discount.

 

I believe that you wouldnt ask for a discount. Thats a good thing actually. What you dont realize is that sometimes people here will offer another member one because of their situation, asked or not. Its called doing something nice for another. I find it hard to believe as a retired LE that you think everything is either black or white. I would have thought within a few months in a big city or a maybe a few years in a rural area, you would realize that very few things are.

 

Are you telling me you never ran into a situation where legally it was one way but was wrong on a moral level??

 

Sure. I made a couple of arrest in domestic violence cases that were legal but I didn't agree with making them. An example would be one that involved a woman who had been married to her husband for over 25 years. She hit him with a brick. During the course of the investigation they both advised she warned him that if he cheated on her again he would pay for it. He cheated and she struck him in the leg when she threw the brick at him. He had to be transported to the hospital due to the injury he sustained. It required that he get stitches to close the wound. The argument that occurred caused a 911 call and we were dispatched. I didn't agree with the arrest but since she 1) was the aggressor, 2) she caused bodily injury, and 3) those actions met the Commonwealth's elements for one of only a few crimes I legally had to make an arrest (as the revised statue stated "shall" in its verbiage) I made the arrest.

 

See even though you might see the gray areas of the above I couldn't in my professional life. I saw the black and white way in which a statue was written. There wasn't wiggle room for any other action. Thus, I followed the outcome that was set the moment the elements of the crime were met and law enforcement became involved. The statue bound my actions and the actions of the other officer at the scene.

[Lucky Baru]

In my book, you are definitely in the creamy, steamy, pile category. Just my take on how you come across in this exchange on this thread and definitely someone I would never want to have any sort of dealings with, professional or personal

 

Best I can tell, he didn't like the use of the term "rooked," and then proceed to ventilate his anger over it.

 

Anger.

 

Childish.

 

Both of the above seem to be attempts to get some type of reaction from me similar to what a defense attorney might try to impeach me by causing a huge reaction. Sorry to provide a no go on that. It would involve me being invested in either of your opinions. That isn't the case.

 

However, calling people names or attacking them personally in a discussion (neither of which I have done in this thread) indicate that you are defensive and that something I stated in my post you agreed with.

 

I disagree.

 

But feel free to go on and on and on about it like you did before.

 

You seem to enjoy it, so why not indulge yourself.

 

You are funny. I'll pass on taking the bait.

[slym2none]

As far as joeyposts transaction, it was of course legal. But not strange at all that he would be annoyed at being lied to and having his generosity taken advantage of. None of us would be happy about that happening and there's nothing that can be done about it. Except making the community aware so the next guy doesn't fall for the story.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[CAHokie]

Baru, lets drop it down to one of the most miniscule actions you took while on the job. How many times did you let a soccer mom late for a game (or equivelant) go with a warning but cite a gang member with an attitude later for doing the same thing? You used your descretion right? Thats not written in the law right? In your example there are no warnings.

[MetalPSI]

I think the biggest question now is what does Baru collect and why the hell is he here? I haven't seen many posts of his that really relates to collecting. Most of his posts are just inane arguing for the sake of it.

 

That and whining people call him names. Which to me is just calling it as I see it. Which can be seen as rude, and perhaps it is. Sorry, I'm a jerk. I'll deal with it.

[Lucky Baru]

Baru, a few things you said stood out to me. Unless I am missreading you, it seems that you think of things as black and white and legal or illegal. You also pointed out you would never ask for a discount.

 

I believe that you wouldnt ask for a discount. Thats a good thing actually. What you dont realize is that sometimes people here will offer another member one because of their situation, asked or not. Its called doing something nice for another. I find it hard to believe as a retired LE that you think everything is either black or white. I would have thought within a few months in a big city or a maybe a few years in a rural area, you would realize that very few things are.

 

Are you telling me you never ran into a situation where legally it was one way but was wrong on a moral level??

 

Not everything is black and white. Not even laws. You can say that laws are black and white in a particular moment in a particular location.

 

As far as joeyposts transaction, it was of course legal. But not strange at all that he would be annoyed at being lied to and having his generosity taken advantage of. None of us would be happy about that happening and there's nothing that can be done about it. Except making the community aware so the next guy doesn't fall for the story.

 

OK, have I stated anything different? Nope, just that I thought it was a legal transaction and neither party after the fact owned something to the other party.

[Lucky Baru]

I think the biggest question now is what does Baru collect and why the hell is he here? I haven't seen many posts of his that really relates to collecting. Most of his posts are just inane arguing for the sake of it.

 

That and whining people call him names. Which to me is just calling it as I see it. Which can be seen as rude, and perhaps it is. Sorry, I'm a jerk. I'll deal with it.

 

I collect copper comics, and OA art. Sometimes I even buy books outside of that age. Ya read the latest Comic Link thread? I posted pics of some of the books I bought. Glad the guy who has me on ignore is so invested in smearing me in thread after thread. Man, this is too funny.

[W16227]

STFU and eat cake birthday boy

 

Would now be a bad time to tell you I won your batman 181- well not really - the fish convinced the cat it was a good buy and gave him both my eBay and PayPal passwords.

 

Pretty good scam for one with gills- and the other without opposable thumbs........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vger7]

I think the biggest question now is what does Baru collect and why the hell is he here? I haven't seen many posts of his that really relates to collecting. Most of his posts are just inane arguing for the sake of it.

 

That and whining people call him names. Which to me is just calling it as I see it. Which can be seen as rude, and perhaps it is. Sorry, I'm a jerk. I'll deal with it.

 

This is irrelevant and just fans the flames. You know how fond of you I am and I don't share Baru's position but there's no reason to make it personal. This is an opportunity to teach and learn.

 

Baru... I too see it as black and white: Lying is bad. It's a very simple concept.

 

No one challenges the legality of the matter but it puts into question the character of the person who is lying. No body wants to deal with a person who lies for selfish gains.

[MetalPSI]

Sorry. Just can't believe that after how many people have expressed their viewpoint he insists on just being coy.

 

 

[Vger7]

Sorry. Just can't believe that after how many people have expressed their viewpoint he insists on just being coy.

 

 

If Baru is an officer, it's understandable why he would see things from a legal perspective. Our narrow views don't make others automatically bad.

 

Once a buyer purchases a book, I agree that it's his to do what he likes to do with it. Trash it, bend it, toss it... or flip it. But if he lied to get a discount with the full intent to flip it for more money... it's not a crime, but it does leave a bad taste in your mouth.

 

Perhaps Baru can't see this as bad social behavior. Maybe he's use to following rules and can't recognize bad taste. Being a good cop does not necessarily mean he can think outside of the law any more than we can understand the legal intricacies to the extent that he does.

 

Baru, if you can't see that lying is bad, perhaps you've been very fortunate not to have been burned by cheaters.