ASM #252 CGC 9.8 Record Sale - something fishy going on? - Holder Tampering Incident confirmed by CGC 50 50

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 1/12/2024 at 12:52 PM, EastEnd1 said:

Not sure I understand.  The scammer committed FRAUD (among other crimes).  Has nothing to do with the videos. 

[EastEnd1]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:53 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 1/12/2024 at 12:54 PM, EastEnd1 said:

[ADAMANTIUM]

I really need to stop, it isn't as much fun if no one agrees with you, or it is as obvious as the nose on your face, I've made my point and time to move on

[agamoto]

The video's intent is to demonstrate the security, or lack thereof, of a case. He didn't limit his examination to just CGC cases, you realize that, right? You have a juvenile understanding of civil law if you think CGC has any right to try and silence him if he wants to record himself blasting their case with a heatgun and posting that on Youtube. 

You also don't understand how defamation works. It's not defamation if the problems with the case are true.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 1/12/2024 at 12:54 PM, EastEnd1 said:

It was just a small point that I initially made; it didn't bare repeating. It isn't going to make a difference to a hill of beans. 

And no Defamation doesn't have to be "false"  

[EastEnd1]

On the Immaculate video, I have to confess I did have mixed feelings seeing it.  On the one hand, I was shocked at how easy it was to open and reseal the holder... very eye-opening.  On the other, I did think the genie was being let out of the bottle, unfortunately educating and inspiring more scoundrels.  Overall though, I think I do side on transparency.  Burying our heads in the sand about a seriously flawed holder doesn't strike me as a good approach.  The flaw will inevitably be revealed and cause damage.  If the videos inspire CGC to quickly come up with a better holder, I'm on board.  

[agamoto]

On 1/12/2024 at 10:11 AM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Still waiting for the "intent!" 

And I hope you get your story straight, as you may need to testify on his behalf as just a "crack out video"

Despite the pages of how everyone else took it, including you, saying CGC fix your slab or else. @agamoto

 

On 1/12/2024 at 10:28 AM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Balls in CGC "court" they could do anything!

 

I don't know where you got your knowledge of how the law works. Was it from a comic book?

[EastEnd1]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:00 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

It was just a small point that I initially made; it didn't bare repeating. It isn't going to make a difference to a hill of beans. 

And no Defamation doesn't have to be "false"  

You can defame people by speaking the truth?  Don't think so.

[agamoto]

On 1/12/2024 at 11:00 AM, ADAMANTIUM said:

It was just a small point that I initially made; it didn't bare repeating. It isn't going to make a difference to a hill of beans. 

And no Defamation doesn't have to be "false"  

No, you still don't seem to understand it. It's not defamation for someone to say, just as an example, that you're an insufficiently_thoughtful_person, if it can be demonstrated to any reasonable person that you are, in fact, an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. Does that make sense? Again, just as an example. I don't think you're an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. You're not an insufficiently_thoughtful_person, right? 

[agamoto]

Gotta love that filter.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:03 PM, EastEnd1 said:

You can defame people by speaking the truth?  Don't think so.

If it is none of their business then yes. I'll admit I am stuck for an example, but if you tell someone then they in turn act but weren't in the need to know kind of thing

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:05 PM, agamoto said:

No, you still don't seem to understand it. It's not defamation for someone to say, just as an example, that you're an insufficiently_thoughtful_person, if it can be demonstrated to any reasonable person that you are, in fact, an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. Does that make sense? Again, just as an example. I don't think you're an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. You're not an insufficiently_thoughtful_person, right? 

lighten up dork

[mosconi]

I remember hearing some CGC youtubers say there was no way you could switch out a CGC book in the new cases.  They were adamant that it was an improbable if not impossible scam method that people were dreaming up and that something else was going on, like insider CGC help to pull it off.  I think that Immaculate guy may have heard those comments and said "time to make a video and see what they think about this?"  No more arguments from any youtubers now about comic swapping being possible.  Not saying it was right or wrong but he did get his point across 

   

[agamoto]

On 1/12/2024 at 11:06 AM, ADAMANTIUM said:

lighten up dork

You're the one implying all of us telling CGC to fix their case are defamatory, which itself could be taken as defamatory. So, maybe you should lighten up, Francis. 

[Nick Furious]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:09 PM, mosconi said:

I think that Immaculate guy may have heard those comments and said "Hold my beer!"

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:09 PM, mosconi said:

I remember hearing some CGC youtubers say there was no way you could switch out a CGC book in the new cases.  They were adamant that it was an improbable if not impossible scam method that people were dreaming up and that something else was going on, like insider CGC help to pull it off.  I think that Immaculate guy may have heard those comments and said "time to make a video and see what they think about this?"  No more arguments from any youtubers now about comic swapping being possible.  Not saying it was right or wrong but he did get his point across 

   

and that's all I said! If those inclined had made the videos before the scam, CGC would have taken issue, and I don't see how now is any different.

That and everyone wants it back at square one, wants to prosecute the scammer, but not the other people "providing entertainment" because "shame on CGC!"

It made me scratch my head. hypocrites are nothing new

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:12 PM, agamoto said:

You're the one implying all of us telling CGC to fix their case are defamatory, which itself could be taken as defamatory. So, maybe you should lighten up, Francis. 

I only took case with the videos, not comments. never said otherwise, if it is on you're mind that way, then just take a breath and reassess 

[William-James88]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:09 PM, mosconi said:

I remember hearing some CGC youtubers say there was no way you could switch out a CGC book in the new cases.  They were adamant that it was an improbable if not impossible scam method that people were dreaming up and that something else was going on, like insider CGC help to pull it off. 

I remember that as well. Tring to remember if the video I saw was from Gem Mint or not. Been a while.

[EastEnd1]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:06 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

If it is none of their business then yes. I'll admit I am stuck for an example, but if you tell someone then they in turn act but weren't in the need to know kind of thing

You may be thinking of "invasion of privacy" instead of defamation.  I don't think businesses that hold themselves out to the public have very strict privacy rights though.  Again, I'm not a lawyer so I defer to them.  As far as defamation goes...

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject ...

 

Interestingly here though, it says nothing about intent or knowing that the speech is false... it speaks to saying things in a "negligent" way, which I don't believe requires intent.