REA Lot 819: Babe Ruth Autographed Book

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I clearly stated in the very first sentence "a lot of what Peter Nash posts is factual". Did you not read that part? But I know for a fact that he will lie to further his agenda...and it's not just a "personal attack", it's a lie. Big difference. He's a liar and that's the least of what he's been accused of doing...and also found guilty of in a court of law.

Mind boggled.....

Sorry I've boggled your mind Dan. I've got no dog in this fight--some posting here do. When Peter speaks of an item, you can take it to the bank. I make no judgements regarding his speaking about a person.

[smokelessjoe]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Sorry I've boggled your mind Dan. I've got no dog in this fight--some posting here do. When Peter speaks of an item, you can take it to the bank. I make no judgements regarding his speaking about a person.

David,

By your comment above, am I to understand that you David Atkatz believe 100% that the REA Lot 819: Babe Ruth Autographed Book is a forgery?

[bigtrain]

While I agree that much of what Nash says appears to be accurate, his tactics are despicable. We all know that he has multiple six figure civil judgments against him. These judgments based on fraud are unlikely to be discharged in bankruptcy. We also know that he has been convicted of tax evasion. He has a never ending vendetta against Rob Lifson and REA but he also attacks anyone who disagrees with him. Last year, I had the audacity to suggest that in my opinion his comments did not constitute proof of fraud by Barry Halper, who of course, is dead and unable to defend himself. Nash called me a Halper apologist and posted my picture on his website. Fortunately, it was a very flattering picture taken about 20 years earlier when I was a local school board member with no gray hair and 60 pounds lighter. Incidentally, I am very anxious to read Nash's "Hauls of Shame" book which is due to be released in 2011 according to the website.

[smokelessjoe]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Leon's comments must be taken with a grain--or an entire shaker--of salt. There is a well documented animosity (feud?) between Leon and Peter. Without taking sides in any way, I can tell you that most of what Peter posts regarding forgeries, the selling of stolen and/or doctored items, etc. is very well researched, and, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, true.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Sorry I've boggled your mind Dan. I've got no dog in this fight--some posting here do. When Peter speaks of an item, you can take it to the bank. I make no judgements regarding his speaking about a person.

This just in... Sources say that the well informed "Peat Nash Guru" and Net54 member DAVID ATKATZ stated that "MOST of what Peter posts" is "very well researched" and "true" but that some of the Pet Gnash posts on the Hauls of Shame website are not well researched and are indeed false. Also, other sources say that apparently DAVID ATKATZ has spoken with Petey and may have taken "an item" to "the BANK".? One can only guess at what kind of "MYSTERY" item Dr. ATKATZ would take to the bank after listening to Mr. Peters. Certainly more to come on this mystery.

[David Atkatz]

Was there really a point in getting personal, Shawn? Are you that much of an ass?

And, BTW, to you, it's "Dr. Atkatz."

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Sorry I've boggled your mind Dan. I've got no dog in this fight--some posting here do. When Peter speaks of an item, you can take it to the bank. I make no judgements regarding his speaking about a person.

That's because it generally is not Peter doing the speaking when it involves discussion of items with research behind it.

I know for a fact that much of what 'he' writes is true, because he's swiped research directly from this forum (my research and that of others) and also been fed information that I provided others, and which later showed up on his website…not stuff he (or his researchers) would have come up with on their own.

There is a lot of complaining here about the fact that he is allowed a voice to speak on ills of the hobby (his website), given his past, but you rarely see any complaints about the plagiarizing he has done - the fact that a lot of this plagiary is actually being done by his 'researchers', some of whom are respected members of our hobby, is even more pathetic.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

That's because it generally is not Peter doing the speaking when it involves discussion of items with research behind it.

I know for a fact that much of what 'he' writes is true, because he's swiped research directly from this forum (my research and that of others) and also been fed information that I provided others, and which later showed up on his website…not stuff he (or his researchers) would have come up with on their own.

There is a lot of complaining here about the fact that he is allowed a voice to speak on ills of the hobby (his website), given his past, but you rarely see any complaints about the plagiarizing he has done - the fact that a lot of this plagiary is actually being done by his 'researchers', some of whom are respected members of our hobby, is even more pathetic.

You're a very well-respected member of the community, Scott. Why don't you publish your research before anyone can swipe it?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

You're a very well-respected member of the community, Scott. Why don't you publish your research before anyone can swipe it?

David - it's minor stuff, but you are correct. I should probably at least have a blog where I keep my findings. I'll send you an email later with some details regarding the research I was referring to.

The other reason for not publishing (even in a blog) is that most people who do sometimes publish (myself included), are hesitant to put anything out there while still preparing to publish an actual article or book, that others could swipe and use in their own publications.

And to go a step further - I once sent an article to a well-respected organization for consideration of publication, and it was rejected; however, bits and pieces of it showed up later in the blogs of baseball researchers who were likely on the board of editors who rejected my article. This was esoteric stuff that would not have been found on their own.

So, yeah, I'm familiar with how to protect my research and the fact that it really can't be completely protected unless you either publish an article, publish a book or apply for a copyright every single time you find something new.