General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[HarveySwick]

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.

 

 

I know you keep saying I acted immaturely and you think I'm a spazz. I can't do anything to argue against that BUT I'll say this. I felt like I was being screwed over for more money and a seller was pulling some pretty shady moves to squeeze some extra $ out of a book. He at first claimed he knew a newsstand copy commanded a premium (despite not differentiating in the thread) then he later on said he did not know they commanded a premium.

 

To me it looked like he realized - I can get more money for this book than I originally thought - and cancelled the offer he made to me and created a false "sale" to get out of it. I wouldn't have thought this if he hadn't PMed Junkdrawer saying the book was still available at a premium.

 

In fact, I've said from the start - if Spectre had simply replied to me stating "you know what, I made a mistake. I didn't realize the value of the newsstand copy and I offered it too low. I need to rescind my offer" --> I wouldn't have ANY problem with that and it would have been the end of it.

 

It was just telling me the book was sold...when it really wasn't "sold" that seemed shady.

 

I discussed with several people in PM to get their opinions of the situation BEFORE posting publicly. When numerous people I trust said to post it, I did.

 

If I see someone here seemingly scamming the members of this community and they have an active sales thread, I want to make sure the community is aware before they start throwing money at the person. It didn't really affect any sales anyway because... you know... cool books.

 

In the end, it was all cleared up. John had his "buyer" come forward. Torches were put out. Case closed. But this was not rushed to the public.

[greggy]

Iraq?

Roy's Canadian so he's inherently, a fool.

[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...

 

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

 

I guess you've never seen "In the Heat of the Night"

 

[Buzzetta]

Just took a break to have lunch, back to writing.... and text #3 to Harvey about him being a bad person incoming.

[VintageComics]

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've had people on ignore for many reasons.

 

a) I think the person is a d-bag online and doesn't deserve to be heard

b) I find the person has an annoying posting style (lots of videos that bog down my internet connection) but I don't dislike them as people

c) People might be dishonest and I don't want to deal with them

d) I disagree with a person's views and just don't want to argue

 

etc, etc.

 

So having someone on ignore may not always have to do with business dealings

[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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought Swick just posted that he and Junk spoke to him each independently before the discussion went off over here? Doesn't matter though. I can see what you're saying.

 

I don't have much use, personally, for posting my problems in transactions here. If there's something I can't fix on my own then maybe, but I make sure all the gaps are closed first. People have the darnedest ability to squirt through even the smallest gap.

 

When I have a problem with a transaction you won't hear about it here unless I believe it's ongoing and there's a warning needed or if no resolution is forthcoming. Most things have a resolution if you work at it hard enough.

 

 

[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....

 

I guess you've never seen "In the Heat of the Night"

 

 

Goodness...not for 20 years at least.

 

I've got to watch that again. One of the great movies of that era.

[HarveySwick]

And I've learned a lesson. Don't post anything publicly.

[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...

 

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

 

I guess you've never seen "In the Heat of the Night"

 

 

Goodness...not for 20 years at least.

 

I've got to watch that again. One of the great movies of that era.

 

Did you get the theme there, falsely accused and redemption at the end.

[EC ed]

And I've learned a lesson. Don't post anything publicly.

 

And, stop lowballing.

 

And that goes for all of you.

[VintageComics]

When I have a problem with a transaction you won't hear about it here unless I believe it's ongoing and there's a warning needed or if no resolution is forthcoming. Most things have a resolution if you work at it hard enough.

 

 

I'm in full agreement here. (thumbs u (the nice kind)

[ashsaytr]

Iraq?

Roy's Canadian so he's inherently, a fool.

thanks! I appreciate that!

[VintageComics]

Iraq?

Roy's Canadian so he's inherently, a fool.

thanks! I appreciate that!

 

greggy is co-fool.

 

 

[HarveySwick]

And I've learned a lesson. Don't post anything publicly.

 

And, stop lowballing.

 

And that goes for all of you.

 

BA12 wasn't a lowball offer.

 

Harbinger #1 - sometimes you have to swing for the fence with a "package deal"... especially when the seller tells you the books are absolute junk and has several of them.

 

I know that keeps getting shot down as an excuse. It's the only reason I did it. "Why not?" It's not like I had anything to lose. I didn't JUST PM the seller with a lowball offer. I just threw out one swing for the fence offer that if the answer was "no" (and I was guessing it would be) I wouldn't have been left wondering. Who knows what someone will accept to get the ice broken on a sales thread when they have multiple of a book.

 

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

[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....

 

I guess you've never seen "In the Heat of the Night"

 

 

Goodness...not for 20 years at least.

 

I've got to watch that again. One of the great movies of that era.

 

Did you get the theme there, falsely accused and redemption at the end.

 

 

Except you just made me Virgil Tibbs....

[Conan_Aficionado]

[NewWorldOrder]

And I've learned a lesson. Don't post anything publicly.

 

And, stop lowballing.

 

And that goes for all of you.

 

BA12 wasn't a lowball offer.

 

Harbinger #1 - sometimes you have to swing for the fence with a "package deal"... especially when the seller tells you the books are absolute junk and has several of them.

 

I know that keeps getting shot down as an excuse. It's the only reason I did it. "Why not?" It's not like I had anything to lose. I didn't JUST PM the seller with a lowball offer. I just threw out one swing for the fence offer that if the answer was "no" (and I was guessing it would be) I wouldn't have been left wondering. Who knows what someone will accept to get the ice broken on a sales thread when they have multiple of a book.

 

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

 

Anyone that knows me knows that I love Harbinger #1's that is why when someone posts Private PM's in general forum it is not a good idea. I thought you could tell from our back and both conversation that I was obviously joking.

 

I don't believe I said it was a low ball offer as much I said I would get more $ selling the book on eBay because I don't pay anywhere near 13% combined eBay and PP fees.

 

 

 

 

[Broke as a Joke]

And to think I feel guilty when I ask for $20 off a book...I need to completely rethink my lowballing strategy.

[jsilverjanet]

The one thing I've learned is not to refer to my books as "junk"

[jsilverjanet]

lists updated