Should we maintain a list of suspicious buyers and sellers?

[ullmandds]

Seymour...I hope your investigative work will be more thorough on your novel!!!!

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Suspicious to who?

Suspicious to whom?

Sorry... just sayin'.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Seymour...I hope your investigative work will be more thorough on your novel!!!!

What if the author had included an introduction? All he wrote was that a guy was a disgrace to the hobby and included three links. That's four threads to read because you've got the original thread plus the three other threads... well, sorry if I wasn't interested. Maybe I was busy writing the next great American novel! (Or some other P.O.S. that couldn't come close)

Pete, I think you've got a Dick Francis novel in you somewhere...

[ullmandds]

Ha ha Jamie...It's definitely in there...just needs to be extracted and written down!!!!

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Ha ha Jamie...It's definitely in there...just needs to be extracted and written down!!!!

Check your anal sphincter for the extraction... it's got to be down there somewhere.

[ullmandds]

only thing that came out of my but was lyle overbay to take the lead?!

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by tschock

Leon (and others),

I see what the OP is proposing as a viable option. I don't think he is talking about a place for discussion of scammers, etc, but a place to list those already discussed. What I see as viable is a list of possible people to deal with caution, with a slight summary and a reference back to the vetting thread.

Using the Panky thread as an example. This were was a long discussion on this, but the "list" would contain a reference back to the original thread with (possibly) a brief summary. With the thread reference in place, should Panky change his ebay ID (for example), that can be detailed in the original thread and would be easy to locate and update, if the reference was handy in the list. I don't see the list containing any real discussion at all.

Not sure if this is exactly what the OP was intending, but I could see this working without an increased risk of liability. We could even provide the ability for the entity to respond, either in their own thread (which would be added as a referenced thread on the list), or their response could be inline with the original referenced thread.

Taylor, perfectly summarized.

The list would be just that. A collection of names, with no discussion whatsoever. It would be a quick reference for Net54 members to refer to before doing business with a person for the first time.

An example of what the list could look like:

"Exercise caution when doing business with the following Ebay buyers:

Public, John Q: purchased two cards buy it now, and reneged on the purchases. Net54 member ______ had to enter two unpaid item cases with Ebay. Link to the discussion on Net54: "______".

Public, Michael Q: won an auction for a Ty Cobb T206 red back being sold by Net54 member ______. Dispute resolution was started after non-payment despite several attempts to contact the buyer by e-mail. Unpaid case item created.

-----

There would not be anything that could expose the forum to legal troubles, as the only thing the list would contain would be indisputable facts of the issue(s) at hand: the user ID and name of the buyer/seller, the name of the website or auction house, a brief summary, and a link to whatever discussion (if any) has already taken place on Net 54. And before anybody's name would appear on the list, proof would need to be provided documenting the facts: a copy of an unpaid item case, for example.

I would never suggest or do anything that would put Leon or Net54 in harm's way whatsoever.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Yeah but we can't just forever be police officers... we need to enjoy the hobby as well, or what is the point?

You are absolutely right, Jamie. But how can you enjoy the hobby as a seller on Ebay if you are spending a substantial portion of your evening reading the feedback left for people bidding on your items? It seems to me that this list would make you less of a police officer, as it would help to eliminate many of the people that could cause you problems.



“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”--Edmind Burke

[Leon]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I would never suggest or do anything that would put Leon or Net54 in harm's way whatsoever.

I appreciate your thoughts and we can keep debating this but..... It's not going to happen because of -

1. liability (regardless of what anyone thinks, I already get enough threats)
2. management of the section
3. added drama

I don't think there is anyway to overcome those obstacles. **And as everyone knows, I don't think change is good unless it's an overwhelming majority that wants it. Not only is it not that, it's not even a majority in this case.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

but I voted No because if we asked for this to be implemented, we'd be asking the mods to wade through all of the drama posts, and make a ruling about a person, while sticking their neck out legally. Not something I think we should ask them to do.

The mods wouldn't have to wade through any posts.

If I buy a card on Ebay, and the seller tells me that "he lost the card", and then I see him sell it for more money the next day, I would start a thread here. But then I would begin the appeal process on Ebay. Then I would contact a mod or admin with the facts of the dispute. They wouldn't have to wade through the discussion at all, as what I'd present to them would be pretty cut and dry. They would make their decision having never taken a look at what the members here were saying.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

You are absolutely right, Jamie. But how can you enjoy the hobby as a seller on Ebay if you are spending a substantial portion of your evening reading the feedback left for people bidding on your items? It seems to me that this list would make you less of a police officer, as it would help to eliminate many of the people that could cause you problems.



“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”--Edmind Burke

Well, I think that ebay affairs are really for ebay to manage. They have their system and way of doing things. You may or may not agree with their methods, but their profits are greater than anybody's. They've chosen to create a system where, apparently, it is almost impossible for a seller to leave negative feedback for a buyer. That was their choice. But it's hard to create a sort of vigilante blacklist on the side because there would be no way to get off it. I think you have to go with the ebay system and address whatever complaints to them. That doesn't mean it isn't flawed, or that you or I might not do things differently, but ultimately I believe that when you sign up for ebay there must be some sort of contract that you agree to follow their rules. Otherwise you can sell somewhere else...

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Well, I think that ebay affairs are really for ebay to manage. They have their system and way of doing things. You may or may not agree with their methods, but their profits are greater than anybody's. They've chosen to create a system where, apparently, it is almost impossible for a seller to leave negative feedback for a buyer. That was their choice. But it's hard to create a sort of vigilante blacklist on the side because there would be no way to get off it. I think you have to go with the ebay system and address whatever complaints to them. That doesn't mean it isn't flawed, or that you or I might not do things differently, but ultimately I believe that when you sign up for ebay there must be some sort of contract that you agree to follow their rules. Otherwise you can sell somewhere else...

Ebay does have it's way of doing things, and it sucks. And yes, their profits are incredible. But I'm not interested in their profit margin. I'm interested in my safety, and the safety of my fellow Net54 members, when dealing with new members. We can say "well, it's easy to avoid trouble, just read the feedback left for buyers." I'm sorry, I don't want to waste 15 minutes reading feedback every time I want to sell an item when I could bring up a spreadsheet, hit ctrl-f, and enter the user ID and enter, and accomplish the same thing in 10 seconds. And it's not a vigilante blacklist; calling it such somehow insinuates that I am out to get people that have demonstrated poor behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth. I could care less about the people that would appear on the list. Their names would exist just to save me the trouble of having to go through a prolonged appeal process.

There are people out there like Zone91 who have perfect feedback as a buyer even though we know he has not paid for several items in the past (confirmed by members of this forum). And there's really not even any bad comments that have been left for him. People like this would appear on the list.

I guess it's a moot point, as it's not going to happen. And it's too bad, because I think some of the people voting "no" are making a lot of assumptions about how the list would be managed instead of asking questions first. Hell, if it were a concern of liability, put the list on my website. I would be the only person in harm's way. I would be responsible for maintaining the list, and if somebody wanted to shoot off a pissy email, they could send it to me. I have no problem with making my email public.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Ebay does have it's way of doing things, and it sucks. And yes, their profits are incredible. But I'm not interested in their profit margin. I'm interested in my safety, and the safety of my fellow Net54 members, when dealing with new members. We can say "well, it's easy to avoid trouble, just read the feedback left for buyers." I'm sorry, I don't want to waste 15 minutes reading feedback every time I want to sell an item when I could bring up a spreadsheet, hit ctrl-f, and enter the user ID and enter, and accomplish the same thing in 10 seconds. And it's not a vigilante blacklist; calling it such somehow insinuates that I am out to get people that have demonstrated poor behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth. I could care less about the people that would appear on the list. Their names would exist just to save me the trouble of having to go through a prolonged appeal process.

There are people out there like Zone91 who have perfect feedback as a buyer even though we know he has not paid for several items in the past (confirmed by members of this forum). And there's really not even any bad comments that have been left for him. People like this would appear on the list.

I guess it's a moot point, as it's not going to happen. And it's too bad, because I think some of the people voting "no" are making a lot of assumptions about how the list would be managed instead of asking questions first. Hell, if it were a concern of liability, put the list on my website. I would be the only person in harm's way. I would be responsible for maintaining the list, and if somebody wanted to shoot off a pissy email, they could send it to me. I have no problem with making my email public.

Remember that most ebay bids are snipes, at least the winning bids are often snipes. So unless you are going to block the person from bidding ahead of time, there is no reason to be checking out feedback. You just hope they pay and go with it. If they don't pay, you run the auction again.

As far as Zone91 goes, I think that he mostly paid but then wound up returning a lot of the cards. That's not going to win any awards, but it's different than being a non-payer.

As far as your maintaining the list, it's more than someone shooting off a pissy email. You'd have to make judgment calls about who is and isn't a good ebayer. That is going off the grid, man, that really is being a vigilante and creating your own set of rules. If you think checking bidder feedback is hassle, try setting up a blacklist and see what a hassle that is!

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

As far as Zone91 goes, I think that he mostly paid...

Yep, he paid for most of his transactions...what a piece of trash!

Post # 1

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Yep, he paid for most of his transactions...what a piece of trash!

Post # 1

I don't think it's right to go on ripping the guy. He's not even here any more to defend himself. Bad ebayer, no doubt, but there's far worse. I don't think he stole from anyone, although he was an incredible nuisance. There's been far worse, but he did wind up being incredibly annoying and a pathological liar.

But if you're an ebay seller and you haven't blocked him, then you are getting what you ask for because his ebay ID has been mentioned several times. The protocol is decent enough as it is... make your own decisions about who you are going to block/not block.

[Leon]

We shouldn't say too much about folks that are banned from the board. It's not fair as they can't defend themselves.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Leon

We shouldn't say too much about folks that are banned from the board. It's not fair as they can't defend themselves.

Leon,

Please accept my apologies on this. Adrian flat-out lied to me on this board...early on during his tenure here. Forgiving him is something I have struggled with mightily.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Eric72]

To answer the question posed by the OP...for those deemed suspicious, no. Such a list would be detrimental to quite a few honest sellers.

As it pertains to those who are confirmed fraudsters, please feel free to start a thread, Bill. Just be careful to get your ducks in a row before doing so.

Best Regards,

Eric

[cyseymour]

People tell lies all the time. Everyone on this board has probably told a thousand lies without even realizing it. Maybe ten thousand or more. It can't be that hard to handle being lied to, and that was like six months ago.

What is it with this guy that people are still airing out dirty laundry with him six months after his being banned? Let it go, folks, it's over. Sometimes you just have to let things go.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I don't think it's right to go on ripping the guy. He's not even here any more to defend himself. Bad ebayer, no doubt, but there's far worse. I don't think he stole from anyone, although he was an incredible nuisance. There's been far worse, but he did wind up being incredibly annoying and a pathological liar.

But if you're an ebay seller and you haven't blocked him, then you are getting what you ask for because his ebay ID has been mentioned several times. The protocol is decent enough as it is... make your own decisions about who you are going to block/not block.

Cy,

I agree that "ripping" Adrian further is in poor taste. Out of curiosity, though, I wonder why you were compelled to defend a "pathological liar" in the first place.

Please let me know what led you to do this. I am understandably curious.

Best Regards,

Eric

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

As far as Zone91 goes, I think that he mostly paid but then wound up returning a lot of the cards. That's not going to win any awards, but it's different than being a non-payer.

As far as your maintaining the list, it's more than someone shooting off a pissy email. You'd have to make judgment calls about who is and isn't a good ebayer. That is going off the grid, man, that really is being a vigilante and creating your own set of rules. If you think checking bidder feedback is hassle, try setting up a blacklist and see what a hassle that is!

No, Adrian simply did not pay for these items. It was not a matter of him returning the cards and getting refunds. He made a commitment to buy the items, then reneged. He said he did not have the money to pay for them, and he did it more than once. In one instance, he bought a $500 card, and backed out on the transaction. Then he bought $200 worth of cards the next day.

I don't want to go into the whole Zone thing again, as it's been beaten to death, but before you comment on what he did and did not do, you really should know what really went down:

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=169148

And I'm hardly some vigilante. A vigilante is somebody that doles out retribution to somebody they feel has slipped through the legal system. I'm simply trying to provide a list of people that voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract, and are backing out of their commitment. I am trying to protect you, myself, and the good and honest members of this forum that are tired of the crooked behavior that is running rampant throughout our hobby. And as I've said at least two or three times now, nobody would be put on to the list unless there was clear, incontrovertible facts to establish their culpability.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

People tell lies all the time.

No, they don't...at least, not everyone. Find different people to socialize with.

Sincerely,

Eric

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

No, they don't...at least, not everyone. Find different people to socialize with.

Sincerely,

Eric

Even that's a lie... you're saying that they don't is lie, and then you're speculating that I socialize with the wrong people, which is another lie. That you're saying you're sincere, and frankly I'd doubt that as well, which is a third lie.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Cy,

I agree that "ripping" Adrian further is in poor taste. Out of curiosity, though, I wonder why you were compelled to defend a "pathological liar" in the first place.

Please let me know what led you to do this. I am understandably curious.

Best Regards,

Eric

I am not defending him. I am just against the idea of a blacklist.

[the 'stache]

Sports Card Forum.com, which I am an active member of, has a "bad trader" list at the very top of their home page. This is precisely what I was proposing for here, only extending it to websites like t206forum.com where the FBI has been involved investigating the criminal activity of the site's owner.

Here's the URL:

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/badtrader/page

I know that SCF pools information with other sites like Blowout Cards. When there is a theft by a member on one of the forums, they are entered on a shared resource, and prohibited from entering into monetary transactions on the other site(s).

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Even that's a lie... you're saying that they don't is lie, and then you're speculating that I socialize with the wrong people, which is another lie. That you're saying you're sincere, and frankly I'd doubt that as well, which is a third lie.

Cy,

I'm not speculating at all. I know for certain that my sincerity is not in doubt.

Regarding the people you socialize with, that's your business. As for your assertion that, "people tell lies all the time," you are absolutely incorrect.

There are truly honest people in this world. I am very sorry to hear that you have yet to encounter them.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Luke]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

The mods wouldn't have to wade through any posts.

If I buy a card on Ebay, and the seller tells me that "he lost the card", and then I see him sell it for more money the next day, I would start a thread here. But then I would begin the appeal process on Ebay. Then I would contact a mod or admin with the facts of the dispute. They wouldn't have to wade through the discussion at all, as what I'd present to them would be pretty cut and dry. They would make their decision having never taken a look at what the members here were saying.

This sounds like you're just arguing semantics. In your example, you're sending an un-solicited PM to a mod, which they have to:
a. Read
b. Form an opinion
c. Post that opinion on the internet (which opens them up to liability)

The mods may not have to wade through "ANY" posts, but they are still spending a decent amount of time on something because you asked them to. Not to mention sticking out their necks in a legal sense.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Even that's a lie... you're saying that they don't is lie, and then you're speculating that I socialize with the wrong people, which is another lie. That you're saying you're sincere, and frankly I'd doubt that as well, which is a third lie.

Dude, you said that all people lie, thousands or tens of thousands of times, and don't even know it. I'm sorry, that's just bogus. And calling Eric insincere in his statement is an ad hominem statement that you cannot back up.

You seem to be at ease with pathological liars. I'm sorry that I'm not. I think it's a very clear character flaw. And with Zone91, it wasn't a simple white lie like "no, that dress doesn't make you look fat, honey". He was taking money out of people's pockets. He was creating a criminal act by entering into a legally binding contract, and then backing out.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Cy,

I'm not speculating at all. I know for certain that my sincerity is not in doubt.

Regarding the people you socialize with, that's your business. As for your assertion that, "people tell lies all the time," you are absolutely incorrect.

There are truly honest people in this world. I am very sorry to hear that you have yet to encounter them.

Best Regards,

Eric

People ask how you are and you say "fine", even when you are having a bad day. But that is actually a form of social intelligence. It would be moronic to pour your guts out to every passing casual question. Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day. We don't live in Disneyland - life is not a fairy tale.

No offense, but if you are still angry about a lie someone told you six months ago, and it wasn't a lie that damaged you financially or physically in any sort of way, that is an over-sensitivity. Philosophically, you might want to examine whether you are being honest with yourself about all facets of your life.

And that is my bit of wisdom for the night!

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

This sounds like you're just arguing semantics. In your example, you're sending an un-solicited PM to a mod, which they have to:
a. Read
b. Form an opinion
c. Post that opinion on the internet (which opens them up to liability)

The mods may not have to wade through "ANY" posts, but they are still spending a decent amount of time on something because you asked them to. Not to mention sticking out their necks in a legal sense.

How am I arguing semantics? There's no interpretation necessary when a criminal act has been committed.

And again, if it's so dangerous for the moderators, admins or forum owner, how is it that Sports Card Forum has the exact thing I am proposing openly displayed at the top of the site's home page?

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/badtrader/page

There are at least six pages with 50 + names per page. User names, real names, the member's address, and a summary of what they did.

Know why the mods aren't liable for posting names to that list? Because there are facts which support their decision to include the wrongdoer on the list. And you cannot be accused of defamation when there are facts to substantiate your claim.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I am not defending him. I am just against the idea of a blacklist.

"Pathological liars" within this hobby should be, "outed," no?

I understand that my role on Net54 is not to be the beat cop; however, collecting cards these days is a hobby fraught with peril. And trying to deal with it has become a full time job.

Punks like Adrian should be forced to the sidelines, in my opinion. Either deal straight or go somewhere else! True collectors have better things to do than put up with BS.

Just my two cents.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day...

...And that is my bit of wisdom for the night!

Duly noted, sir.

Good luck with lying to get you through your days.

Best Regards,

Eric

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Dude, you said that all people lie, thousands or tens of thousands of times, and don't even know it. I'm sorry, that's just bogus. And calling Eric insincere in his statement is an ad hominem statement that you cannot back up.

Definition of sincere - "free of pretense or deceit"

If the other two statements I consider to be lies, then wouldn't they be insincere by definition?

Originally Posted by the 'stache

You seem to be at ease with pathological liars. I'm sorry that I'm not. I think it's a very clear character flaw. And with Zone91, it wasn't a simple white lie like "no, that dress doesn't make you look fat, honey". He was taking money out of people's pockets. He was creating a criminal act by entering into a legally binding contract, and then backing out.

LOL, I am not at ease with pathological liars. I thought Adrian should go, just like most the rest of you. But that doesn't mean we haven't lied. Zoner was kind of a grey line because his lies didn't do much financial damage but he was a large nuisance. It wasn't good for the community. The rest can be argued all day long. But I don't think he committed any crimes where he would be persecuted by the state and you wind up behind bars. It would probably be a civil offense. So there you have it - another potential lie by yourself about Adrian committing criminal acts. Just my case in point that we lie all the time without realizing it. Cheers.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Good luck with lying to get you through your days.

Thanks, but do you really mean that, because I note a hint of sarcasm. Isn't sarcasm a form of lying?

[cyseymour]

Let me also say, Eric, that you misquoted me in post #82... another one of your deceptions. In my original post my wisdom was referring to the concept that if you are still upset with Adrian's lies six months after the fact that maybe there is a part of you that is not being honest with yourself.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

So there you have it - another potential lie by yourself about Adrian committing criminal acts. Just my case in point that we lie all the time without realizing it. Cheers.

When you buy it now on Ebay, it is a legally binding contract.

"You are agreeing to a contract -- You will enter into a legally binding contract to purchase the item from the seller if you're the winning bidder. You are responsible for reading the full item listing, including the seller's instructions and accepted payment methods. Seller assumes all responsibility for listing this item."

Breach of contract allows the complainant, the seller in this case, to pursue damages in civil court.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

How am I arguing semantics? There's no interpretation necessary when a criminal act has been committed.

And again, if it's so dangerous for the moderators, admins or forum owner, how is it that Sports Card Forum has the exact thing I am proposing openly displayed at the top of the site's home page?

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/badtrader/page

There are at least six pages with 50 + names per page. User names, real names, the member's address, and a summary of what they did.

Know why the mods aren't liable for posting names to that list? Because there are facts which support their decision to include the wrongdoer on the list. And you cannot be accused of defamation when there are facts to substantiate your claim.

There's not much point in continuing this conversation since Leon has already explained why it won't happen. The only part of your post I disagree with is where you say the mods aren't liable for what they post. They are. And just because you have facts that support your claim, doesn't mean that you can't be sued for libel or defamation. You would just have to defend yourself in court.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

People ask how you are and you say "fine", even when you are having a bad day. But that is actually a form of social intelligence. It would be moronic to pour your guts out to every passing casual question. Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day. We don't live in Disneyland - life is not a fairy tale.

No offense, but if you are still angry about a lie someone told you six months ago, and it wasn't a lie that damaged you financially or physically in any sort of way, that is an over-sensitivity. Philosophically, you might want to examine whether you are being honest with yourself about all facets of your life.

And that is my bit of wisdom for the night!

I post this for the sake of posterity...

People ask how you are and you say "fine", even when you are having a bad day. Yeah, right. The people who work for me know better than to blow smoke up my @$$.

But that is actually a form of social intelligence. Actually, it is a form of @$$-kissing stupidity.

It would be moronic to pour your guts out to every passing casual question. I agree, which is why I typically do not engage morons like you. That said, you chose to attempt to "win" this Internet argument.

Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day. Cy...this statement speaks volumes about your character.

We don't live in Disneyland - life is not a fairy tale. Agreed...I may be a bit utopian; however, my rose colored glasses have steered me the right way thus far.

No offense, but if you are still angry about a lie someone told you six months ago, and it wasn't a lie that damaged you financially or physically in any sort of way, that is an over-sensitivity. I'm not angry. I simply judge people based upon their actions. Adrian is a liar, plain and simple.

Philosophically, you might want to examine whether you are being honest with yourself about all facets of your life. I am exceedingly honest with myself and others. You seem to be the one with issues. After all, you have vigorously defended a pathological liar who was banned from this board. Why?

Best Regards,

Eric

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

There's not much point in continuing this conversation since Leon has already explained why it won't happen. The only part of your post I disagree with is where you say the mods aren't liable for what they post. They are. And just because you have facts that support your claim, doesn't mean that you can't be sued for libel or defamation. You would just have to defend yourself in court.

They are liable in the eyes of the law if they defame a person by spreading falsehoods about them.

They are not accountable in any way for what they post if said posting is supported by fact. A person would have to be an idiot to take somebody to court for defamation of character when the posting was clearly factual in basis.

There is no arguing this.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Thanks, but do you really mean that, because I note a hint of sarcasm. Isn't sarcasm a form of lying?

Cy,

Yes, I do mean what I have said. I truly wish you the very best of luck. You have apparently been misguided somewhere along the way.

And...just to clarify...on the Internet, I set my sarcasm meter to zero.

Best Regards,

Eric

[the 'stache]

And by the way, LukeLyon, I am not trying to argue with ya. I am just clarifying.

Edit: I poorly worded one part of my post. A person can be accused of anything. I could accuse Kate Upton of being too damned gorgeous. /rim shot

If a mod on SCF posted somebody's name, and that person wanted to sue the mod for defamation, they could try. They wouldn't get anywhere, however, because no attorney would take the case when there is no actionable cause.

[Eric72]

Cy,

BTW - do you have your 30 greatest Pre-war player list posted yet?

Just wondering...

Best,

Eric

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I post this for the sake of posterity...

People ask how you are and you say "fine", even when you are having a bad day. Yeah, right. The people who work for me know better than to blow smoke up my @$$.

But that is actually a form of social intelligence. Actually, it is a form of @$$-kissing stupidity.

It would be moronic to pour your guts out to every passing casual question. I agree, which is why I typically do not engage morons like you. That said, you chose to attempt to "win" this Internet argument.

Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day. Cy...this statement speaks volumes about your character.

We don't live in Disneyland - life is not a fairy tale. Agreed...I may be a bit utopian; however, my rose colored glasses have steered me the right way thus far.

No offense, but if you are still angry about a lie someone told you six months ago, and it wasn't a lie that damaged you financially or physically in any sort of way, that is an over-sensitivity. I'm not angry. I simply judge people based upon their actions. Adrian is a liar, plain and simple.

Philosophically, you might want to examine whether you are being honest with yourself about all facets of your life. I am exceedingly honest with myself and others. You seem to be the one with issues. After all, you have vigorously defended a pathological liar who was banned from this board. Why?

Best Regards,

Eric

Eric, you can have your dogmatic, black-and-white view of the world, but it is a simple one that doesn't hold ground under examination. You seem to think you know the truth about everything, and that is the biggest lie of your life.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Cy,

BTW - do you have your 30 greatest Pre-war player list posted yet?

Just wondering...

Best,

Eric

Huh?

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

When you buy it now on Ebay, it is a legally binding contract.



Breach of contract allows the complainant, the seller in this case, to pursue damages in civil court.

Yes, but that is civil offense, not a criminal act, which you previously claimed Adrian committed. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Eric, you can have your dogmatic, black-and-white view of the world, but it is a simple one that doesn't hold ground under examination. You seem to think you know the truth about everything, and that is the biggest lie of your life.

You are a master of hyperbole, Cy.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

You are a master of hyperbole, Cy.

That is no lie.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Huh?

Apparently, your memory is faulty...

Does Smokey Joe Wood ring a bell?

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Apparently, your memory is faulty...

Does Smokey Joe Wood ring a bell?

I remember the thread but what on earth does it have to do with anything written in this thread? It is crazy...

[Eric72]

How about Ross Barnes?