• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Fantazia -keys ad 1991

Started by aardvark88,

176 posts in this topic

500Club

500Club

Posted
Posted

You must like being the target of contempt and disdain, Danny boy. Why else would you stick around? And I'm sure all the names you've dropped as subjects of board criticism feel validated because you've defended them. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bonds25

Bonds25

Posted
Posted
I tend to lean towards Bonds and Supa for prime candidates. For the sheer irony as amongst those Forum members who have so flagrantly broken every Ebay rule in the book with respect to shill bidding & shill feedbacking (with suspensions), auction interference, (creating "prosaic" Ebay handles with the intent of disrupting auctions and leaving negative feedback), spamming, etc., etc., their exploits are well known, condoned on this Forum, and their rule-breaking, second to none.

 

Thank you!! acclaim.gif

 

You seemed pretty happy when I created a shill account to help you out when someone stole your scans and ran a scam auction, but now I did a bad thing? Stick with one story Scammy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BronzeBruce13

BronzeBruce13

Posted
Posted
... You all did this with Notch_top didn't you? Then, when he showed up to answer your charges, you all backed down like little lambs. What all you cream of the crop of the collector world (I see it as the creme-de la- 893censored-thumb.gif from the bottom of the pickel barrel) need to do is what I suggested.

 

Innuendos and false statements don't make something true, no matter how many times you repeat them yet you believe this that by constant incantation, you can make all your statements true. You should take all that anger and all that hatred out on the road and find the subjects of your personal crusades and address them in person, or haven't any of you got the stomach for that. Obviously with Matt Stanley, you didn't. From snapping dogs, I saw the lot of you transformed to cowering vermin once he showed up to put you all in your respective places.

 

 

Mr. Nice.

 

With all due respect, you've brought up Matt (notch_top) several times now characterizing him, in my opinion, as one that has been unjustly attacked on the boards of late. I've laid off responding because Matt again reaffirmed his commitment to honor his word (concerning our 2 month+ old unfinished deal) and did not see the point in exploring the topic again until he had another opportunity to fulfill it. I've accepted his word and as such didn't want to speak about this further on the forum, however your repeated mention of him (especially as a victim or as unfairly treated) leaves me little choice.

 

I don't know if you are suggesting that I backed off any of my statements or was one of the "lambs" you mention, but I wanted to clear a few things up for you. For the record, I didn't back off ANY of my statements. I also did not notice anyone shy away from Matt when he returned, nor was anyone "put in their place" in my estimation. Matt actually had some of his facts wrong when addressing the Shuley's, mistakenly attributing an email to Mike and claiming that he had explored deals with him... False, but an honest mistake I presume. If you're referring to ME specifically, kindly note that Matt chose to contact me via EMAIL (instead of on the forum).. and I was AVAILABLE on the board to answer him IF he had issue with anything I posted. I arrived on the thread shortly after he did and was still emailing him too to ask if he wanted to address me on the boards... he said none of his comments were intended for me. You'll notice Matt did NOT take issue with even ONE of my statements (neither online or in email). I will say one thing for Matt, he'll acknowledge a well-made point, accept criticism, and own up to "some" of his shortcomings when faced with them. He did so in those emails and I assure you I was more of a lion than a lamb. One should not mistake a respectful demeanor and attitude for weakness, nor does one have to shout or hurl insults to be aggressive. I have no cause to post those emails here, but had I, you'd have a much different impression if I'm reading you correctly.

 

As for my participation on the thread... It was an odd situation to be in when Matt arrived on the boards (to address some he had a problem with). He and I had already been exchanging emails for hours (and still were) to discuss our problems and were basically arriving at an understanding at that point.

 

Anyway, some short thoughts for consideration and a recap:

 

1. I posted Facts about my experience(s). Matt took NO issue with any of them on the forum or in email while having opportunity to do so in both. In fact, he acknowledged several important issues I made concerning his conduct/performance as mentioned above. He also chose not to address several other hard to answer questions... but I did not push.

 

2. As for speculation and innuendo. I generally agree with most of your premise here. Its best to stick to facts and solid information, especially in a public situation when reputations are on the line. I feel I did so, and went out of my way to make my statements fair when I would have liked to say more in some instances. Even still, I'm sure some (you) may have considered a few of my remarks to be speculation/innuendo, but let me say one thing to that. If you've had more than one "trying" experience with an individual with some similarities, and know of others you're close with and trust that have had similar experiences too... I feel some speculation is acceptable, plain and simple. I think its reasonable to expect to some degree, especially if good explanations for the "topic of speculation" have not been offered, or have, and seem very unlikely. Most importantly, Matt expressed to me in email that he "respected" the fact that I did not delve into rumor or speculation and stuck with facts. That should put your mind at ease on how he viewed my statements.

 

3. You can't possibly know nearly as much as I do, nor have you had any experiences dealing with Matt by your own admission, so your offering of an opinion that he may be unfairly treated is "speculation" (if you're referring to my statements which were the bulk of that thread) and not based on any personal knowledge to the contrary. You may also be defending someone you'd disagree with if you knew all the details.

 

4. I'm frustrated and have been angry, but I don't feel "hatred" nor is Matt a subject of a "personal crusade" if I am whom you were speaking about.

 

5. Your suggestion that people face others they have problems with "face to face" is idiotic (and fiscally ridiculous )in most situations quite frankly. Reasonable people can find solutions in email or phone conversations. I've noticed that those with repeated problems and suspect reputations suggest this for some reason?... or make threats for the future. That type of "problem solving" suggestion sounds like its probably from someone that feels they have physical superiority over another and can use that to advantage through intimidation.

 

6. WHO are you speaking about here specifically?

"From snapping dogs, I saw the lot of you transformed to cowering vermin once he showed up to put you all in your respective places.

 

 

Anyway, if you are indeed referring to me in your posts, I'll ask you to politely consider laying off "Matt references" for a few weeks until he has a chance to return and an opportunity to follow through. If he does, and I'm optimistic he will... I'll certainly be man enough to post that he did so and you'll have an opportunity to comment should you wish.

 

Bruce

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illiterati-migration

Illiterati-migration

Posted
Posted

I tend to lean towards Bonds and Supa for prime candidates. For the sheer irony as amongst those Forum members who have so flagrantly broken every Ebay rule in the book with respect to shill bidding & shill feedbacking (with suspensions), auction interference, (creating "prosaic" Ebay handles with the intent of disrupting auctions and leaving negative feedback), spamming, etc., etc., their exploits are well known, condoned on this Forum, and their rule-breaking, second to none.

 

 

Man, for a guy who just signed on in July, you sure do know a lot about the goings-on of the various forum members. Particularly those 8-month old scandals...

 

Look, Meth/Hammer/BlackShotzy/Otis/Mr. Nice, you're looking like a complete psycho... and not even that endearing, wacky, "Oh, that OJ, he's so whimsical", kind of way. No, you're looking like a regular ol' fashioned "The Gub'mint cain't see me if'n I wear mah tinfoil hat," psycho.

 

Of course, this is just a " theorey ."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted

Since people mentioned the famous pic with all the great books, here it is, from the front half of the 1987 Overstreet price guide:

 

fantazia.jpg

 

Nice books! Interestingly, in the back half of the 1987 Overstreet price guide, you have this: shocked.gif

 

fantazia2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bonds25

Bonds25

Posted
Posted
(Thanks Kevin... it's been changed accordingly. But I've never heard of this "JoeHawk" persona? Thus, I had to leave him off...)

 

it is..go and find some of his posts..you can tell it's him

 

JoeHawk is the seller of the Eastern books that were on Ebay, and is NOT Hammer. I can guarantee it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing