Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatspajamas
The guy has the ball needed, but doesn't want to let it be shown in public. That's pretty much the definition of selfishness, which describes the action, not the person in this case. The owner of the ball has a very real concern that if made public, it would be duplicated/replicated/counterfeited, which would in turn reduce the value/prestige of his own original. This can and has been done, so whether we agree with the decision or not, I would call it "justified selfishness" in this case.
That doesn't make it any less frustrating for Brandon, who has put a LOT of work into his upcoming book, freely shared his knowledge at every turn, and (in my experience) shows equal parts fairness and gratitude when obtaining any piece needed for the book. I personally have never gotten a sense of "entitlement" from him. Much the opposite in fact, as he has been gracious to a fault at every turn, whether there was any exchange of goods or I was simply plying him for information.
Many of us here on the boards have been anxiously awaiting Brandon's upcoming book, and if photographing this ball is the last major obstacle to realizing that goal, add my voice to those bemoaning the only example he has located being locked up out of sight. I understand the owner's hesitance, but in this case, I will indulge the closest thing to complaining that I have heard from Brandon.
|
We'll agree to disagree Lance. The dude is not being selfish in the least. Protective, paranoid, concerned maybe, but not selfish. He might even be smart in this instance. I'm not trying to argue semantics here, but Brandon asked for a favor, he was denied, so he branded the guy selfish. Sorry, I'm not buying your rationalization on this one. And it absolutely describes the person! He's the one making the decision not to give Brandon the information!
EDIT: And I will be buying this book, regardless of my comments here or the outcome of this thing.