This is what happens when EMR team reports get ignored

David Atkatz · #1 04-20-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

And by the way, Dan, I was the one who infomed Atkatz that his "1927 Yankees" baseball was not authentic after his avatar caught my eye.

No Chris, it was Richard. And not out of the kindness of his heart, or the desire to protect the integrity of the hobby, either. It was a pure act of spite.

On Halloween two years ago Richard posted another of his typical cryptic threads--this one concerning a forger he called "Johnny F." I criticized him for once again (and again, and again, and again) posting just enough to show us how much he himself knows, but not enough to be useful to anyone. He could, for the board's enlightenment, have posted examples of this forger's work, but, to quote the late, great, John Belushi, "Nooooooo."

Throwing a little tantrum at my audacity in criticizing the master, Richard told me that I should be very familiar with Johnny F's work, since I was so "close to it." On further questioning, he revealed his long-held secret--the ball was fake--and informed me that another on the board agreed. (Ain't that Richard all the way? Always backing up his statements by referring to unnamed board members.) At that point, Chris posted that the unnamed person was him.

Sometimes--when Chris or Richard post something priest-like--I say to myself 'Let it be. Don't bother posting a response--it ain't worth another argument.' In this case, however, I'm extremely glad I pissed Richard off--it led to the removal from my collection of a significant forgery.

That might never have happened had I stayed in Richard's good graces.

thetruthisoutthere · #2 04-20-2013, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

No Chris, it was Richard. And not out of the kindness of his heart, or the desire to protect the integrity of the hobby, either. It was a pure act of spite.

On Halloween two years ago Richard posted another of his typical cryptic threads--this one concerning a forger he called "Johnny F." I criticized him for once again (and again, and again, and again) posting just enough to show us how much he himself knows, but not enough to be useful to anyone. He could, for the board's enlightenment, have posted examples of this forger's work, but, to quote the late, great, John Belushi, "Nooooooo."

Throwing a little tantrum at my audacity in criticizing the master, Richard told me that I should be very familiar with Johnny F's work, since I was so "close to it." On further questioning, he revealed his long-held secret--the ball was fake--and informed me that another on the board agreed. (Ain't that Richard all the way? Always backing up his statements by referring to unnamed board members.) At that point, Chris posted that the unnamed person was him.

Sometimes--when Chris or Richard post something priest-like--I say to myself 'Let it be. Don't bother posting a response--it ain't worth another argument.' In this case, however, I'm extremely glad I pissed Richard off--it led to the removal from my collection of a significant forgery.

That might never have happened had I stayed in Richard's good graces.

It was me, David.

It was me who asked Richard to take a closer look at the photos of your "1927 Yankees" baseball. It was then, that Richard agreed the sigs were not authentic.

I was the first one on this board that was suspicious of those autographs after something caught my eye about your avatar.

David Atkatz · #3 04-20-2013, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

It was me, David.

It was me who asked Richard to take a closer look at the photos of your "1927 Yankees" baseball. It was then, that Richard agreed the sigs were not authentic.

I was the first one on this board that was suspicious of those autographs after something caught my eye about your avatar.

I guess nothing gets by that "autograph eye" of yours. LOL!

You may have spoken to Richard, but you were not the first to tell me. (I guess I just didn't piss you off soon enough.)

Don't worry, though, Chris. I consider both yours and Richard's behavior here equally hypocritical, duplicitous, and inexcusable.

thetruthisoutthere · #4 04-20-2013, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I guess nothing gets by that "autograph eye" of yours. LOL!

You may have spoken to Richard, but you were not the first to tell me. (I guess I just didn't piss you off soon enough.)

Don't worry, though, Chris. I consider both yours and Richard's behavior here equally hypocritical, duplicitous, and inexcusable.

Thank you for the compliment, David.

thetruthisoutthere · #5 04-20-2013, 06:42 PM

By the way, David, you have no one to blame but yourself about your first "1927 Yankees" baseball.

You're the self-proclaimed vintage Yankees autograph expert.

You're the one that attempted to start-up a Quick Opinion service on Net54.

You held that "1927 Yankees" ball for over decade and during that time you never knew about the person who penned that baseball? Why?

Self-proclaimed experts like yourself are suppose to be keeping up with the Joneses.

David Atkatz · #6 04-20-2013, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

By the way, David, you have no one to blame but yourself about your first "1927 Yankees" baseball.

That's true. And I never said otherwise. I bought the ball because I was fooled by it. My mistake, and mine alone.

Not sharing with me the fact that you thought the ball a forgery as soon as you had suspicions is, though, as I stated before, hypocritical, and inexcusable.

But, you just go on publicly congratulating yourself for whatever you do.

We're all used to it.

thetruthisoutthere · #7 04-20-2013, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's true. And I never said otherwise. I bought the ball because I was fooled by it. My mistake, and mine alone.

Not sharing with me the fact that you thought the ball a forgery as soon as you had suspicions is, though, as I stated before, hypocritical, and inexcusable.

But, you just go on publicly congratulating yourself for whatever you do.

We're all used to it.

David, you're unbelievable.

If you remember correctly, it was August 2011 when I first saw full images of your "1927 Yankees" ball. I requested photos from you after your avatar made me suspicious of the autographs.

Before that, I had never seen your first "1927 Yankees" ball.

When I first wanted to tell you the autographs were forgeries, I didn't have the heart to do it. I have written that more than a few times here on Net54.

It was approximately two weeks later that I finally informed you all of the autographs were forgeries.

And you didn't believe me, did you, David?

No you didn't.

You went to your friend Jodi, didn't you, David? Then you told the Net54 members here that your friend relayed that the autographs were forgeries.

You give the impression that I knew for months or years that your "1927 Yankees" ball were all forgeries and that I held that information from you. That's a 100% lie.

That isn't the case. You know it and I know it.

That's what you do, David. You spin and deflect. Then you'll start calling me names. Why? Because that's what you do.

David Atkatz · #8 04-20-2013, 07:13 PM

I've posted what happened above. As usual, you present a totally self-serving, BS version.

What part of "In a fit of pique, Richard told me the ball was a 'Johnny F' original" don't you understand?

Richard told me, Chris. Richard. (Only to get back at me, but, what the hell. It was still Richard.)

I know you're his little lap-dog, Chris. But you still are two different people.

David Atkatz · #9 04-20-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

You give the impression that I knew for months or years that your "1927 Yankees" ball were all forgeries and that I held that information from you. That's a 100% lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

As a matter of fact, at the time David and I were still cordial towards each other, I sent him a message that read "nice ball." I didn't have the heart to tell him it was not authentic

You can't even keep your story straight from one post to the next within the same thread!

"Oh what tangled webs we weave... "

Big Dave · #10 04-20-2013, 07:27 PM

Seriously kids.....who gives a sh**?

David Atkatz · #11 04-20-2013, 07:31 PM

Here is the "nice ball" email you refer to Chris:

REDACTED BY LEON

It is dated 22 August 2011.

Richard informed me the ball was fake on 31 October 2011, and you then chimed in.

Two months later.

By your own admission above, when you sent the "nice ball" email, you knew the ball was a forgery. You said nothing until two months later--and then only when Richard publicly referred to "another board member" who agreed with him. You then identified yourself as that member.

Yet you just explicitly stated above that the idea that you withheld that information from me "for months" is a "100% lie."

Check your pants, Chris They're on fire.

thetruthisoutthere · #12 04-20-2013, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

You can't even keep your story straight from one post to the next within the same thread!

"Oh what tangled webs we weave... "

Those statements are accurate.

What's the tangled web?

You know as well as I do, that after I got your full images of the ball, and I found my suspicions to be correct, I didn't have the heart to tell you they were bad. And I emailed you "Nice ball."

That is absolutely correct. At the time I didn't want to break your heart about the ball. It was two weeks after that I sent you a Net54 email that read "Do you know who Johnny Fang is?"

You have Dan and everyone else here thinking that I was holding back that information for years.

Tell me, David, how does a Tom Tresh collector know that your ball was bad, but a self-proclaimed vintage Yankees autograph expert not know?

David, write what you want and believe what you want.

RichardSimon · #13 04-20-2013, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

It was me, David.

It was me who asked Richard to take a closer look at the photos of your "1927 Yankees" baseball. It was then, that Richard agreed the sigs were not authentic.

I was the first one on this board that was suspicious of those autographs after something caught my eye about your avatar.

Chris is 100% correct.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PSA Population Reports	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	16	04-05-2008 03:02 AM
PSA, SGC and GAI population reports.....what gives?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	05-12-2007 07:34 AM
what's up with SGC pop reports?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	1	05-19-2006 10:47 PM
Maintaining Pop Reports	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	06-07-2005 10:43 PM
sgc population reports	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	02-19-2005 06:47 PM