General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[Conan_Aficionado]

The argument can certainly be made that if an attempt wasn't made to circumvent someone's ignore rule none of this would have happened. That seems like the "launching point" for the whole mess to me.

 

The fact that the ignore was later removed doesn't change how the dynamics of the deal were played out from the beginning.

 

Seems to me that this particular point is being overplayed.

 

If I have someone on ignore, it's because I find them so annoying that I simply don't want to hear them speak, speak to them, or deal with them whatsoever. It's not like I have some deep seeded feeling that I must keep a book I once owned out of their hands. Is that really what "ignore" means to you all?

 

If I'm selling a book, Boardie A buys it, and after they receive it from me they hand it to Boardie B (who I have on ignore), why should I care? My purpose for ignoring Boardie B was fully served...that is, I didn't have to interact with them.

 

It's not exactly like it's an action 1 9.0 and you have no choice but to deal with the seller no matter how reprehensible you find him. Where is your dignity MAN!! It's a modern book and eventually another one will pop up and probably cheaper.

 

This response makes no sense in the context of my comment.

 

ok

[HarveySwick]

I just want to add this point because I don't think I ever said it.

 

Chris didn't see Spectre's thread with the BA12. I was driving home stuck in traffic and saw it. I texted Chris to tell him to run to the Boards and there was a BA12 Newsstand. He had just told me a few days earlier that he was looking for one.

 

I've done this often for people here. Friends and people I don't even really know. I like to help out members of this "community". If I know someone is looking for something and I see it, I'll send the a link. I've texted friends in California early in the morning on the East Coast and sometimes that's not always greeted with a smile.

 

After I texted him who was selling the book, he responded that Spectre had put him on ignore a while back. I then (apparently I shouldn't do this) offered to send an offer. I figured if I was on the hook for the money (I trusted Chris would pay me) what is the harm? Spectre makes a sale and Junkdrawer gets a book he really wanted. Win win.

 

Please stop painting this picture that it was a nefarious plot to get around some sort of Ignore function.

 

And yes, I f'ed up with my "would you throw in a Harbinger #1". Chris was going back and forth on the final counter offer and I even told him that if he didn't take it, I might! I told him that if he DID take it, I might ask to throw in the Harbinger as a package deal. He had no problem with that. I figured I'd either get "sure, that works" or a "get lost with that insulting offer on my absolute junk" and then I'd reply with:

 

"No problem. Figured I'd ask. And I'll go ahead and the BA12 at $1,625".

 

I had no idea there was another person possibly buying the book. I didn't feel any sort of rush. And I couldn't have just thrown out an "I'll take it" as soon as this amazing offer was thrown out as I had to confirm with Chris.

 

This was all going on while I was just getting home, trying to eat dinner while spending time with my daughter and getting her ready for bed.

 

I just wanted to clarify a few things I guess.

 

Regarding the public outing: I had a dealer offering a book. A short while later it was "sold via PM. Sorry" while at the SAME TIME he was contacting a friend saying the book was still available at a higher price. Who wouldn't think something shady was going on? I discussed in PM with several people who I trust in before posting anything and they agreed that I should at least post something. When the truth came out, the truth came out. I've apologized to Spectre several times since. There's not much more I can do or say.

[comix4fun]

Conclusions were made and pitchforks were drawn before anyone had heard from the seller. Regardless of what people believe (and whether they were right or half right is irrelevant). Conclusions were drawn with only one side of the story.

 

 

 

This part you are mostly right about. The only word we had from the seller was the dialogue and conversations he had with Swick and Junk.

 

When Swick posted his issues here. He posted a link within John's sales thread.

 

Maybe we can ask Swick or Junk if John responded privately, because he didn't publicly. He continued on, not responding to anything, as if he had not seen the link in the middle of his thread. The silence was deafening.

 

Swick and Junk's conclusion turned out to be false.

 

That's why I repeatedly posted the night it happened that this is something that the seller should address directly and immediately.

 

Drawing a final conclusion with the gap in information was impossible. That's why I agreed with Tranny that John could have just canceled the offer before it was accepted and sell to anyone he wanted. It was the "sold, unsold, sold" stuff was giving the implication of something being hinkie.

 

It turns out the "sold" was always "sold" and the "unsold" claim that made things look untoward was the false statement. My pitchforks are always going to be out when something like that happens.

[skypinkblu]

I just want to add this point because I don't think I ever said it.

 

Chris didn't see Spectre's thread with the BA12. I was driving home stuck in traffic and saw it. I texted Chris to tell him to run to the Boards and there was a BA12 Newsstand. He had just told me a few days earlier that he was looking for one.

 

I've done this often for people here. Friends and people I don't even really know. I like to help out members of this "community". If I know someone is looking for something and I see it, I'll send the a link. I've texted friends in California early in the morning on the East Coast and sometimes that's not always greeted with a smile.

 

After I texted him who was selling the book, he responded that Spectre had put him on ignore a while back. I then (apparently I shouldn't do this) offered to send an offer. I figured if I was on the hook for the money (I trusted Chris would pay me) what is the harm? Spectre makes a sale and Junkdrawer gets a book he really wanted. Win win.

 

Please stop painting this picture that it was a nefarious plot to get around some sort of Ignore function.

 

And yes, I f'ed up with my "would you throw in a Harbinger #1". Chris was going back and forth on the final counter offer and I even told him that if he didn't take it, I might! I told him that if he DID take it, I might ask to throw in the Harbinger as a package deal. He had no problem with that. I figured I'd either get "sure, that works" or a "get lost with that insulting offer on my absolute junk" and then I'd reply with:

 

"No problem. Figured I'd ask. And I'll go ahead and the BA12 at $1,625".

 

I had no idea there was another person possibly buying the book. I didn't feel any sort of rush. And I couldn't have just thrown out an "I'll take it" as soon as this amazing offer was thrown out as I had to confirm with Chris.

 

This was all going on while I was just getting home, trying to eat dinner while spending time with my daughter and getting her ready for bed.

 

I just wanted to clarify a few things I guess.

 

Regarding the public outing: I had a dealer offering a book. A short while later it was "sold via PM. Sorry" while at the SAME TIME he was contacting a friend saying the book was still available at a higher price. Who wouldn't think something shady was going on? I discussed in PM with several people who I trust in before posting anything and they agreed that I should at least post something. When the truth came out, the truth came out. I've apologized to Spectre several times since. There's not much more I can do or say.

 

 

 

Please don't text and drive.

 

That goes for ALL of you ...

[Conan_Aficionado]

Damn, Harvey just can't do no right.

[VintageComics]

In my opinion the main thing you did wrong was make it public before talking to John and trying to find a resolution about it.

 

The 'white lies' aren't as serious IMO as the premature public outing.

 

They are 'lies' but they weren't malicious. Both sides were acting in their own best interests, which were generally 'clean intentions'. John, making money and you helping out JD.

 

Transparency would have been best but let's be honest, almost everyone lies about something. I have buyers constantly tell me how they don't want their wives to know about their purchases.

 

As I've repeatedly said, I only took exception to outing your side of the story publicly without trying to work out your differences with John in private first. That's it.

 

And I like all of the people involved. I like JD and SOT and I like you too, Swick. Even if you are a little high strung sometimes I do appreciate everything you do for everyone here.

 

 

[HarveySwick]

It's not exactly like it's an action 1 9.0 and you have no choice but to deal with the seller no matter how reprehensible you find him. Where is your dignity MAN!! It's a modern book and eventually another one will pop up and probably cheaper.

 

Um, not really. It's a 9.8 newsstand edition. I've only seen two of them in two years. They're not exactly all over the place for sale.

[comix4fun]

Can you honestly say things would have turned out exactly the same way if John would have simply stated "Book is sold but I will pass your email address and your offer on to the new owner" or simply gave Greg Chris' contact info and didn't create the fiction of still owning the book?

 

There's an origin point in every conflict.

 

That may have been the actual origin point of the disagreement between seller and buyer but the pulling out of torches early was still unacceptable. No ifs ands or buts about it.

 

Who knows how it would have turned out? Maybe the potential buyer wouldn't have believed the seller that he was passing on info to the new owner.

 

What I do I know is that

 

a) the pitchforks were premature (Iraq anyone?)

b) both sides were hiding something (remember, buyer approached seller without transparency 1st)

c) transparency from all sides is best in every transaction.

 

But I don't want to waste a day going to back and forth on the minutia.

 

My primary concern from the very start of this topic was the lighting of torches and pulling of pitchforks without hearing both sides of the story 1st. It's unacceptable, even if the end justifies the means. Due process and all that...

 

 

 

Agreed on making a final conclusion. The statements made and the way it was being handled made it look like something that it wound up not being. That's why my pitchfork was out to get the seller to come in here and answer the simple questions. Provide his side and lay it out clear and simple. I think I posted 4 times about the deafening silence on the other side.

 

I know what it looked like but I never once concluded that was what it was. I knew there was some explanation coming and I really wanted to hear it first.

 

I'll never agree on the equivocation about Swick contacting John for Chris being the same as changing the owner of the book without factual basis. John couldn't switch off that ignore fast enough (less than 10 minutes) when there was a premium involved above asking price. His action of removing the ignore to do business with Junk destroys the claim that Swick was forcing John to do business with someone he otherwise would not.

 

My pitchfork is going to come out when I see something that's intentionally incorrect, and I will not use something like Swick contacting John for Chris as something exculpates anything and everything the seller says or does from that point on.

[retrothecollector]

I just want to add this point because I don't think I ever said it.

 

Chris didn't see Spectre's thread with the BA12. I was driving home stuck in traffic and saw it. I texted Chris to tell him to run to the Boards and there was a BA12 Newsstand. He had just told me a few days earlier that he was looking for one.

 

I've done this often for people here. Friends and people I don't even really know. I like to help out members of this "community". If I know someone is looking for something and I see it, I'll send the a link. I've texted friends in California early in the morning on the East Coast and sometimes that's not always greeted with a smile.

 

After I texted him who was selling the book, he responded that Spectre had put him on ignore a while back. I then (apparently I shouldn't do this) offered to send an offer. I figured if I was on the hook for the money (I trusted Chris would pay me) what is the harm? Spectre makes a sale and Junkdrawer gets a book he really wanted. Win win.

 

Please stop painting this picture that it was a nefarious plot to get around some sort of Ignore function.

 

And yes, I f'ed up with my "would you throw in a Harbinger #1". Chris was going back and forth on the final counter offer and I even told him that if he didn't take it, I might! I told him that if he DID take it, I might ask to throw in the Harbinger as a package deal. He had no problem with that. I figured I'd either get "sure, that works" or a "get lost with that insulting offer on my absolute junk" and then I'd reply with:

 

"No problem. Figured I'd ask. And I'll go ahead and the BA12 at $1,625".

 

I had no idea there was another person possibly buying the book. I didn't feel any sort of rush. And I couldn't have just thrown out an "I'll take it" as soon as this amazing offer was thrown out as I had to confirm with Chris.

 

This was all going on while I was just getting home, trying to eat dinner while spending time with my daughter and getting her ready for bed.

 

I just wanted to clarify a few things I guess.

 

Regarding the public outing: I had a dealer offering a book. A short while later it was "sold via PM. Sorry" while at the SAME TIME he was contacting a friend saying the book was still available at a higher price. Who wouldn't think something shady was going on? I discussed in PM with several people who I trust in before posting anything and they agreed that I should at least post something. When the truth came out, the truth came out. I've apologized to Spectre several times since. There's not much more I can do or say.

 

 

 

Please don't text and drive.

 

That goes for ALL of you ...

The more you know...

[Jeffro.]

Let's hire Ted Wells to get to the bottom of this

[HarveySwick]

Conclusions were made and pitchforks were drawn before anyone had heard from the seller. Regardless of what people believe (and whether they were right or half right is irrelevant). Conclusions were drawn with only one side of the story.

 

 

 

This part you are mostly right about. The only word we had from the seller was the dialogue and conversations he had with Swick and Junk.

 

When Swick posted his issues here. He posted a link within John's sales thread.

 

Maybe we can ask Swick or Junk if John responded privately, because he didn't publicly. He continued on, not responding to anything, as if he had not seen the link in the middle of his thread. The silence was deafening.

 

Swick and Junk's conclusion turned out to be false.

 

That's why I repeatedly posted the night it happened that this is something that the seller should address directly and immediately.

 

Drawing a final conclusion with the gap in information was impossible. That's why I agreed with Tranny that John could have just canceled the offer before it was accepted and sell to anyone he wanted. It was the "sold, unsold, sold" stuff was giving the implication of something being hinkie.

 

It turns out the "sold" was always "sold" and the "unsold" claim that made things look untoward was the false statement. My pitchforks are always going to be out when something like that happens.

 

Spectre and John were going back in forth in PM. I know Spectre knew about the General Discussion response because I wanted to make sure he saw it and posted in a link in his sales thread AND he responded to me in PM. He didn't address the situation in public here for a day.

[CAHokie]

I just want to add this point because I don't think I ever said it.

 

Chris didn't see Spectre's thread with the BA12. I was driving home stuck in traffic and saw it. I texted Chris to tell him to run to the Boards and there was a BA12 Newsstand. He had just told me a few days earlier that he was looking for one.

 

I've done this often for people here. Friends and people I don't even really know. I like to help out members of this "community". If I know someone is looking for something and I see it, I'll send the a link. I've texted friends in California early in the morning on the East Coast and sometimes that's not always greeted with a smile.

 

After I texted him who was selling the book, he responded that Spectre had put him on ignore a while back. I then (apparently I shouldn't do this) offered to send an offer. I figured if I was on the hook for the money (I trusted Chris would pay me) what is the harm? Spectre makes a sale and Junkdrawer gets a book he really wanted. Win win.

 

Please stop painting this picture that it was a nefarious plot to get around some sort of Ignore function.

 

And yes, I f'ed up with my "would you throw in a Harbinger #1". Chris was going back and forth on the final counter offer and I even told him that if he didn't take it, I might! I told him that if he DID take it, I might ask to throw in the Harbinger as a package deal. He had no problem with that. I figured I'd either get "sure, that works" or a "get lost with that insulting offer on my absolute junk" and then I'd reply with:

 

"No problem. Figured I'd ask. And I'll go ahead and the BA12 at $1,625".

 

I had no idea there was another person possibly buying the book. I didn't feel any sort of rush. And I couldn't have just thrown out an "I'll take it" as soon as this amazing offer was thrown out as I had to confirm with Chris.

 

This was all going on while I was just getting home, trying to eat dinner while spending time with my daughter and getting her ready for bed.

 

I just wanted to clarify a few things I guess.

 

Regarding the public outing: I had a dealer offering a book. A short while later it was "sold via PM. Sorry" while at the SAME TIME he was contacting a friend saying the book was still available at a higher price. Who wouldn't think something shady was going on? I discussed in PM with several people who I trust in before posting anything and they agreed that I should at least post something. When the truth came out, the truth came out. I've apologized to Spectre several times since. There's not much more I can do or say.

 

Which part was the point you hadn't said before?

[Conan_Aficionado]

It's not exactly like it's an action 1 9.0 and you have no choice but to deal with the seller no matter how reprehensible you find him. Where is your dignity MAN!! It's a modern book and eventually another one will pop up and probably cheaper.

 

Um, not really. It's a 9.8 newsstand edition. I've only seen two of them in two years. They're not exactly all over the place for sale.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2015 by Conan_Aficionado

[skypinkblu]

Damn, Harvey just can't do no right.

He does lots of stuff right. I don't want boarders smushed while driving.

 

It's a lot more important in my opinion than missing or getting a modern comic...but then again, I don't collect moderns, so this is all pretty much Greek to me, I'm still trying to figure out why people want it, .

[comix4fun]

The argument can certainly be made that if an attempt wasn't made to circumvent someone's ignore rule none of this would have happened. That seems like the "launching point" for the whole mess to me.

 

The fact that the ignore was later removed doesn't change how the dynamics of the deal were played out from the beginning.

 

Seems to me that this particular point is being overplayed.

 

If I have someone on ignore, it's because I find them so annoying that I simply don't want to hear them speak, speak to them, or deal with them whatsoever. It's not like I have some deep seeded feeling that I must keep a book I once owned out of their hands. Is that really what "ignore" means to you all?

 

If I'm selling a book, Boardie A buys it, and after they receive it from me they hand it to Boardie B (who I have on ignore), why should I care? My purpose for ignoring Boardie B was fully served...that is, I didn't have to interact with them.

 

It's not exactly like it's an action 1 9.0 and you have no choice but to deal with the seller no matter how reprehensible you find him. Where is your dignity MAN!! It's a modern book and eventually another one will pop up and probably cheaper.

 

 

You should also apply that logic to sellers that insta-drop their ignore on people when there's a few extra bucks to be made. If they are on ignore have some DIGNITY man leave them there.

[CAHokie]

Can you honestly say things would have turned out exactly the same way if John would have simply stated "Book is sold but I will pass your email address and your offer on to the new owner" or simply gave Greg Chris' contact info and didn't create the fiction of still owning the book?

 

There's an origin point in every conflict.

 

That may have been the actual origin point of the disagreement between seller and buyer but the pulling out of torches early was still unacceptable. No ifs ands or buts about it.

 

Who knows how it would have turned out? Maybe the potential buyer wouldn't have believed the seller that he was passing on info to the new owner.

 

What I do I know is that

 

a) the pitchforks were premature (Iraq anyone?)

b) both sides were hiding something (remember, buyer approached seller without transparency 1st)

c) transparency from all sides is best in every transaction.

 

But I don't want to waste a day going to back and forth on the minutia.

 

My primary concern from the very start of this topic was the lighting of torches and pulling of pitchforks without hearing both sides of the story 1st. It's unacceptable, even if the end justifies the means. Due process and all that...

 

 

You have articulated some great points but the Iraq part is

[Conan_Aficionado]

The argument can certainly be made that if an attempt wasn't made to circumvent someone's ignore rule none of this would have happened. That seems like the "launching point" for the whole mess to me.

 

The fact that the ignore was later removed doesn't change how the dynamics of the deal were played out from the beginning.

 

Seems to me that this particular point is being overplayed.

 

If I have someone on ignore, it's because I find them so annoying that I simply don't want to hear them speak, speak to them, or deal with them whatsoever. It's not like I have some deep seeded feeling that I must keep a book I once owned out of their hands. Is that really what "ignore" means to you all?

 

If I'm selling a book, Boardie A buys it, and after they receive it from me they hand it to Boardie B (who I have on ignore), why should I care? My purpose for ignoring Boardie B was fully served...that is, I didn't have to interact with them.

 

It's not exactly like it's an action 1 9.0 and you have no choice but to deal with the seller no matter how reprehensible you find him. Where is your dignity MAN!! It's a modern book and eventually another one will pop up and probably cheaper.

 

 

You should also apply that logic to sellers that insta-drop their ignore on people when there's a few extra bucks to be made. If they are on ignore have some DIGNITY man leave them there.

 

I suppose you say right...

[comix4fun]

The argument can certainly be made that if an attempt wasn't made to circumvent someone's ignore rule none of this would have happened. That seems like the "launching point" for the whole mess to me.

 

The fact that the ignore was later removed doesn't change how the dynamics of the deal were played out from the beginning.

 

Seems to me that this particular point is being overplayed.

 

If I have someone on ignore, it's because I find them so annoying that I simply don't want to hear them speak, speak to them, or deal with them whatsoever. It's not like I have some deep seeded feeling that I must keep a book I once owned out of their hands. Is that really what "ignore" means to you all?

 

If I'm selling a book, Boardie A buys it, and after they receive it from me they hand it to Boardie B (who I have on ignore), why should I care? My purpose for ignoring Boardie B was fully served...that is, I didn't have to interact with them.

 

It's not exactly like it's an action 1 9.0 and you have no choice but to deal with the seller no matter how reprehensible you find him. Where is your dignity MAN!! It's a modern book and eventually another one will pop up and probably cheaper.

 

 

You should also apply that logic to sellers that insta-drop their ignore on people when there's a few extra bucks to be made. If they are on ignore have some DIGNITY man leave them there.

 

I suppose you say right...

 

I'm not sure what that means....

[VintageComics]

Conclusions were made and pitchforks were drawn before anyone had heard from the seller. Regardless of what people believe (and whether they were right or half right is irrelevant). Conclusions were drawn with only one side of the story.

 

 

 

This part you are mostly right about. The only word we had from the seller was the dialogue and conversations he had with Swick and Junk.

 

When Swick posted his issues here. He posted a link within John's sales thread.

 

Maybe we can ask Swick or Junk if John responded privately, because he didn't publicly. He continued on, not responding to anything, as if he had not seen the link in the middle of his thread. The silence was deafening.

 

Swick and Junk's conclusion turned out to be false.

 

That's why I repeatedly posted the night it happened that this is something that the seller should address directly and immediately.

 

Drawing a final conclusion with the gap in information was impossible. That's why I agreed with Tranny that John could have just canceled the offer before it was accepted and sell to anyone he wanted. It was the "sold, unsold, sold" stuff was giving the implication of something being hinkie.

 

It turns out the "sold" was always "sold" and the "unsold" claim that made things look untoward was the false statement. My pitchforks are always going to be out when something like that happens.

 

This all translates to me to:

 

Ready, Fire, Aim. The end justified the means. Iraq mentality all over again. etc.

 

Yes, John should have posted here and resolved it for everyone after the conversation was started but it shouldn't have been posted here before John was given an opportunity to do so privately in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[retrothecollector]

Damn, Harvey just can't do no right.

He does lots of stuff right. I don't want boarders smushed while driving.

 

It's a lot more important in my opinion than missing or getting a modern comic...but then again, I don't collect moderns, so this is all pretty much Greek to me, I'm still trying to figure out why people want it, .

I blame The Walking Dead