Trim JIM in Heritage Auction

[FFB]

Wow, you must have really gotten a bee up yer azz when it was made public that you were the guy that couldn't wait to spread the word about Doug's disbarrment. Nice job.

 

Yeah, I can see you really respect privacy. And you called me a hypocrite.

 

Brad

 

Actually, there are about 50 different people here who fit that description. You seem intent on making me feel guilty about sharing that information, but it isn't going to work. I don't think Doug has an expectation of privacy in his disbarment opinion because his disbarment for moral turpitude, dishonesty, and theft of client property impacts his current profession as a consignor of other people's property. I also find it funny that you continue to defend him when he won't answer simple questions about huge, gaping holes in his story about the JIM 92. Nor has he posted his invoice showing when he submitted the book. But here you are, acting like Doug is an angel and the rest of us are terrible people for pointing out what he did.

 

In any event, my point wasn't about privacy, it was about keeping confidences when people ask you to -- something you've demonstrated a remarkable inability to do. I think you'll find your well of sources drying up before long.

[Red Hook]

Give me a single example of a confidence that I was specifically asked to hold that I did not. And it better be something good. Otherwise I have to assume you are the leading candidate for Drama Queen of 2006.

 

And you've obviously found Doug guilty already, so what's the point? Why would he feel he owes you or anyone else further details. You believe him or you don't. I'm cool with that.

[Red Hook]

[FFB]

Give me a single example of a confidence that I was specifically asked to hold that I did not. And it better be something good. Otherwise I have to assume you are the leading candidate for Drama Queen of 2006.

 

You have got to be kidding me. I specifically asked you not to say that I sent you the link to Doug's disbarment. I was sending it to you because I wanted to talk to you about it and because I thought you were one of the people who would keep it confidential because at the time I sent it to you, I hadn't decided yet whether it was something that needed to be made public. When it suited your purposes, you decided to share with everyone where you got it.

 

Now, as I said, I don't actually care if people know that you got it from me. But the fact that you shared something that I asked you not to tells me that you can't be trusted, and for that reason, I'll never share anything with you in confidence again.

 

And you've obviously found Doug guilty already, so what's the point? Why would he feel he owes you or anyone else further details. You believe him or you don't. I'm cool with that.

 

Why did you feel that people in your past witchhunts (including those of whom you have done no business with, such as Ewert) owed you answers? Maybe the answer is that their honesty and integrity as dealers affects the hobby overall, and so we all have an interest in the answers to our questions? And I'm not the only one asking those questions of your boy Doug, either.

[jbud73]

Um, er I gotta go get a good seat at the Bar, but feel free to continue this discussion at your leisure -- me? IM READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL

[shadroch]

Mainly because he offered to provide more details-his amex card,verification from the folks at CGC,ect,ect. Then nada.

 

Anyway,I'm off to the 'big game' party and then for points far south. Everybody enjoy . See ya in two weeks.

[Red Hook]

I think you guys are getting way carried away over a single questionable incident. With Ewert there was ultimately a huge pattern of deception, but if you check back into board history (as I've mentioned before) I treated Ewert and Daniel Patterson a whole lot more fairly than you rabid dogs have treated Doug.

 

My reaction to the whole Doug thing was based on the fact not that I considered Doug a saint, or even a close friend, which I'm not, but on the speed with which he went to trial, was found guility and was condemned. Even before he got his first post in.

 

That's it. That was my whole biitch. The unfairness of the pileup.

 

I never defended Doug's record as a lawyer. Or excused it. All I ever said was that pending further concrete revelations, I would continue to do business with Doug (all of about $400 a year in 2005). I was appalled by the visciousness and mob mentality of the situation. And you still don't get that distinction.

 

Want some history? Check out these two links and try to jog your memory about what happened back in the day. You mentioned Ewert....I'll add on Daniel Patterson's thread at no extra charge.

 

The First Jason Ewert Thread

 

The Daniel Patterson Thread

 

I'm sure the subtlety of the difference is lost on you, but in each of these cases, I went to the trouble of soliciting answers from both Ewert and Patterson, and posted them without editorial comment. Why? Because it's fair. I did offer my opinion on the scans that were part of both threads, but there was no rush to judgement. By anyone. In fact we all listened patiently to defenses of Ewert in the first thread. Seems like a long time ago.

 

In Daniel's case, I came into it in the middle. I offered some pretty good analysis of the scans of the ASM 68 and it was pretty conclusive at that point. But I still went to the trouble of querying Daniel and posting his answer as written. My opinion about him and PCX has evolved to where it is now.

 

In Doug's case....once he came on to post his own answers, I considered my job done. He's a big boy and he can make his own case. I was just saying to you dopes, wait until you hear the other side of the story. But all I heard was "There is no other side of the story!"

 

Today Brent is the truthteller. Doug's the liar. That's the only possiblity, right? Maybe they're both telling their own version of the truth and totally believe it. But wait until a year from now, when Brent gets caught in a questionable deal and the mob comes after him. Everyone is entitled to make their own call on Doug. I no longer have a dog in this fight.

 

As for your email.....I went back and checked....it was coyly entitled "You didn't get this from me..." (cute) and the total text ran as follows......"Yes, same guy we know and love." containing the link. That's it.

 

And actually, I'd already gotten it from October. So it was pretty obvious it was scorching around pretty quickly.I didn't know you were the prime source until Woogie told me. I just find it ironic that someone who started the blaze is complaining about a little hotfoot of their own. I wasn't the only one you sent it to, so it was pretty obvious you were expecting it to get leaked. Why not take responsibility for it? Weren't you willing to stand behind what you unleashed?

 

Is there anything to be learned from all this? Yeah. If you're gonna' go after someone, do it right! And be fair. Otherwise you end up looking like a bigger a-hole than the guy you're after.

 

The bottom line is, listen to Brent. Listen to Doug. I'm not trying to sway anyone at this point. Make your own decision. I don't care. But I will still buy my ocassional old label slab from Doug if it's a Green River, and if he tells me it wasn't pressed. An imperfect situation? Absolutely.

 

But instead of chasing Doug down to the river with torches over a single incident related to the hobby, why don't you stop obsessing about me and go kick some PCS asss!

 

Brad

[Red Hook]

Mainly because he offered to provide more details-his amex card,verification from the folks at CGC,ect,ect. Then nada.

 

Anyway,I'm off to the 'big game' party and then for points far south. Everybody enjoy . See ya in two weeks.

 

Have a great time.

[Norrin_Radd]

[Illiterati-migration]

 

In any event, my point wasn't about privacy, it was about keeping confidences when people ask you to -- something you've demonstrated a remarkable inability to do.

 

What was that point about keeping confidences? I mean, you've done your best to blather about (and distort) any little aspect of MY life here on the boards every time you get upset at me...

 

Or is your point that you can't keep confidences, either?

[FFB]

 

In any event, my point wasn't about privacy, it was about keeping confidences when people ask you to -- something you've demonstrated a remarkable inability to do.

 

What was that point about keeping confidences? I mean, you've done your best to blather about (and distort) any little aspect of MY life here on the boards every time you get upset at me...

 

Or is your point that you can't keep confidences, either?

 

OK Logan, I'll bite. Exactly what confidence of yours did I not keep? Was the fact that you took the LSAT supposed to be a secret? Maybe you should have said so.

[FFB]

Maybe if you go back and read the Doug thread you'll see that I didn't pile up on him. My comments were initially a mishmash of what you and two of the board lawyers wrote, which was that I like Doug because he's a nice guy, but his crimes were pretty severe and contrary to everything I believed about him.

 

As for being the guy who started "the blaze," I'm afraid I can't take credit for that. I've hashed out exactly how this worked in prior threads, and I see that because it doesn't match up with your take on things, you can't accept it. Fine. As for what I said to you about it, I noticed that you neglected to post my comments from the rest of our PM conversation about the incident where I said that it sucked because Doug was such a nice guy and that the whole thing was "just sad." But because those comments don't help you make me look like a villain here, I can see how you would selectively omit them.

 

As for whether Doug's "single incident" is really a "single" incident, we don't really know that either, do we? We only know it's the first incident that someone caught. After all, according to Doug, as of October 2 his site was free of Ewert books. But three days later, there is another one. And when people have tried to get to the bottom of what really happened, we get three different versions from Doug but with no actual proof that what he says in any of them is true. We don't even have the scan of the invoice yet that he said he could provide that would show that he subbed the book in mid-September. And if he did sub it in mid-September, why didn't he mention that it was at CGC in early October when he was alerted to the fact that the book was trimmed?

[FlyingDonut]

[Silver Surfer]

I think you guys are getting way carried away over a single questionable incident. With Ewert there was ultimately a huge pattern of deception, but if you check back into board history (as I've mentioned before) I treated Ewert and Daniel Patterson a whole lot more fairly than you rabid dogs have treated Doug.

 

My reaction to the whole Doug thing was based on the fact not that I considered Doug a saint, or even a close friend, which I'm not, but on the speed with which he went to trial, was found guility and was condemned. Even before he got his first post in.

 

That's it. That was my whole biitch. The unfairness of the pileup.

 

I never defended Doug's record as a lawyer. Or excused it. All I ever said was that pending further concrete revelations, I would continue to do business with Doug (all of about $400 a year in 2005). I was appalled by the visciousness and mob mentality of the situation. And you still don't get that distinction.

 

Want some history? Check out these two links and try to jog your memory about what happened back in the day. You mentioned Ewert....I'll add on Daniel Patterson's thread at no extra charge.

 

The First Jason Ewert Thread

 

The Daniel Patterson Thread

 

I'm sure the subtlety of the difference is lost on you, but in each of these cases, I went to the trouble of soliciting answers from both Ewert and Patterson, and posted them without editorial comment. Why? Because it's fair. I did offer my opinion on the scans that were part of both threads, but there was no rush to judgement. By anyone. In fact we all listened patiently to defenses of Ewert in the first thread. Seems like a long time ago.

 

In Daniel's case, I came into it in the middle. I offered some pretty good analysis of the scans of the ASM 68 and it was pretty conclusive at that point. But I still went to the trouble of querying Daniel and posting his answer as written. My opinion about him and PCX has evolved to where it is now.

 

In Doug's case....once he came on to post his own answers, I considered my job done. He's a big boy and he can make his own case. I was just saying to you dopes, wait until you hear the other side of the story. But all I heard was "There is no other side of the story!"

 

Today Brent is the truthteller. Doug's the liar. That's the only possiblity, right? Maybe they're both telling their own version of the truth and totally believe it. But wait until a year from now, when Brent gets caught in a questionable deal and the mob comes after him. Everyone is entitled to make their own call on Doug. I no longer have a dog in this fight.

 

As for your email.....I went back and checked....it was coyly entitled "You didn't get this from me..." (cute) and the total text ran as follows......"Yes, same guy we know and love." containing the link. That's it.

 

And actually, I'd already gotten it from October. So it was pretty obvious it was scorching around pretty quickly.I didn't know you were the prime source until Woogie told me. I just find it ironic that someone who started the blaze is complaining about a little hotfoot of their own. I wasn't the only one you sent it to, so it was pretty obvious you were expecting it to get leaked. Why not take responsibility for it? Weren't you willing to stand behind what you unleashed?

 

Is there anything to be learned from all this? Yeah. If you're gonna' go after someone, do it right! And be fair. Otherwise you end up looking like a bigger a-hole than the guy you're after.

 

The bottom line is, listen to Brent. Listen to Doug. I'm not trying to sway anyone at this point. Make your own decision. I don't care. But I will still buy my ocassional old label slab from Doug if it's a Green River, and if he tells me it wasn't pressed. An imperfect situation? Absolutely.

 

But instead of chasing Doug down to the river with torches over a single incident related to the hobby, why don't you stop obsessing about me and go kick some PCS asss!

 

Brad

 

Have to agree with a lot that Brad has stated here. People really teed off on Doug from the get go.

[Red Hook]

Thanks.

 

Happy to have the chance to clarify, especially after FFB (aka Little-Miss-Can't-Be-Wrong) popped in out of left field with his cheap shot. Hopefully someone will explain what the letter STFU stand for someday.

 

Red

[FFB]

Thanks.

 

Happy to have the chance to clarify, especially after FFB (aka Little-Miss-Can't-Be-Wrong) popped in out of left field with his cheap shot. Hopefully someone will explain what the letter STFU stand for someday.

 

Red

 

You mean while you were taking a cheap shot at Shadroch? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

And if you guys actually went back and READ the Doug thread, you'd see that you're 100% wrong. The discussion started out very civilly, with several people commenting as far in as ten or more pages into the thread about how reasonable everyone was being. It wasn't until people started defending his unethical behavior that things got heated, and Brad, you were the one who first decided to take things to a personal level, and then after a few initial apologies from you, you quickly spun further and further out of control. But don't let the facts get in the way of your martyrdom! You've finally got one person who thinks you weren't completely full of shiite! Run with it!

[Red Hook]

[Silver Surfer]

Hey I just made a simple observation that some people were a bit over zealous and then you have to take a cheap shot in the process. Spin it any way you want but leave me out of it.

[FFB]

Hey I just made a simple observation that some people were a bit over zealous and then you have to take a cheap shot in the process. Spin it any way you want but leave me out of it.

 

What cheap shot did I take at you? Is pointing out that you agreed with Brad a cheap shot?

[FlyingDonut]