NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule

[Archive]

Posted By: Tony Andrea

Out of everyone's post so far, one sticks out to me.
Member Davalillo states, and I quote;
"I don't condone the abusive e-mails, but Bruce's posts are among the very best on Net54 and I would hate to see him stop posting".


You know, what never ceases to amaze me with many on this board is how much stature is given to someone solely on how much their collection is worth, or how much knowledge they have in the hobby.
What ever happened to judging a person for what they are. Who cares how much they're worth or how much schooling they've had. I'll tell you what, if we were just a chat board of people meeting online shooting the sh#% about life in general and cards weren't a part of our lives, anyone that acted the way I'm understanding Bruce did, and as many times as he has would be someone everyone would avoid.
For some reason though somewhere along the way many have given a free pass to certain people here just because of the baseball cards they own or how much their collection is worth. I think that's pretty sad and disappointing if you ask me.

Regards, Tony Andrea

edited to correct message title...

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

I lose all respect for people who "threaten" electronically. It's not the highest form of cowardice, but it's up there.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I would just like to interject that Bruce is not representative of Upenn Alumni. Please don't come away with the impression that we are all, or even mostly, uppity snobs. I will readily admit, I have much to learn from most everyone on this board.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Tony- while I know Bruce's collection and he has some very fine baseball cards, it in no way approaches the scope of many of the posters on this board. If anything, it is rather modest in size. That is what makes all his rants even more preposterous. I can think of at least a dozen posters with collections that would dwarf his, yet these same people exhibit modesty and show respect to collectors who may not be able to afford what they can.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Matt,

Your post might carry more weight if you listed the year and honor level of your degree. Just a thought. <LOL>

[Archive]

Posted By: Tony Andrea

Hi Barry -
I agree with you 100%. For every one bad egg on N54, you'll find 20 good ones here.

Tony

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

How many good eggs does that bad egg drive away?

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Barry asks an excellent question: why does anyone feel Bruce is "one of the best posters on this board. Does insulting people who may not have as much as he does (or pretends he does) count as part of the good stuff?"

The sad truth is that Bruce has cleverly set the bar so abysmally low with most of his posts that when he does occasionally make one with some content of value to collectors, and I do mean occasionally, a minority of respondents seem inclined to kiss his a** up down and sideways, which is really pathetic.

In no way could his posts, taken as a whole, be called an asset to this board.

And then there are the emails....

Tim
(Ph.D. and all the rest of it, LOL)

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Sick people write sick things. I like Joann's idea of a web site devoted to posting the devolved ramblings of such people.

www.miserablesods.com



Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Why would Bruce scold anyone on spelling or grammar when he makes the same mistakes?






http://www.network54.com/Forum/376259/thread/1190470409/last-1190470409/High+Grade+E+Cards+Wanted



<<We continue to strive to assemble the ulitmate ultra high grade
pre-War type collection.

Why subject yourself to uncertaines of the auction market?

Confidenality and discretion assured.>>

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I actually think banishment is taken too seriously here. If you have two or three serious complaints about a contributor to the Board, banish the guy. So what? We're not upholding sacred principles of the first Amendment here. If I cross the line once too often, I'd accept that as my fate.

From what I can tell, Bruce has crossed that line (probably more than a few times) and deserves to go play somewhere else.

It is not a badge of honor that Net54 has only banished two people -- in this case, it is more reflective of an anarchic environment.

A provocative post is only valuable to the extent it opens serious dialogue about pre-war baseball cards.

In any event, can anyone really say that Bruce contributes when he just issues a first-person-plural post and then does not return to engage in any meaningful dialogue about his post? Where is the value in that?

Banish him. Move on happily.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Brian- I read that BST post closely and it is amazing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Yes it is Barry.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

All of this email stuff just goes to show you that business school can't always teach character, honor, decency, self-awareness or basic respect for others. From what I've read, it appears that "Wharton (Magna) '73" must have skipped all of the classes that taught those qualities. What an idiot.

[Archive]

Posted By: PAS

In both cases of words that were misspelled in his post, "ti" was missing. UncertainTIes. ConfidenTIality.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

I could dig up more examples if I cared to do so.

Their overuse and misuse of the comma is astounding.

[Archive]

Posted By: PAS

I really, hate it, when people, overuse commas.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

The 'uncertaines' of such posts are troubling.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

While I respect your opinion I completely disagree with you. I think it is good that only 2 people have been banned from this site. As the Honorable Mr.Wakefield has so eloquently stated, many times, there is no 1st amendment rights that go with this board. I understand that mode of thinking completely. I do my best to let everyone say what they want to though and I will continue in that vein. Also, I really don't think Bruce has run off that many board members...nor do I think Jim C has. Like I said before if folks want to post they will. If they don't they don't. There are enough good threads to participate in to post if so desired. Also, these same folks that think the sky is falling could be part of the solution and post a good thread. I have yet to see Bruce or Jim C attack anyone that started a good thread. I will make sure there are no unprovoked personal attacks on the board, per the forum rules. That is all I can, or will, do...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I wish I had saved my emails from Bruce...he once emailed me after I commented on his horrendous spelling and grammar. He blamed it on his secretary.

Whoops! Was that too much of a summary to post to Net54?

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew S.

Shouldn't someone who stoops to such depths be cast out?
I think the hockey forum just banished someone for repeatedly making physical threats to forum members.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

While I don't want summaries of emails on the board I do have to say that Bruce sent an email this morning, to all parties concerned, that his private emails were not meant to be a threat. He bold faced typed "NO one wants to hurt you".....So the things folks are saying about him sending threatening emails should not be considered physical threats, at least in my opinion. IF they were construed that way then this last email should clear it up. Now I know how Jeff L. feels about defending folks he might not agree with....and might even be appalled by in certain instances.....This is the "not so fun" part of moderating.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...at unprovoked personal attacks. I draw mine at unsolicited offensive e-mails arising from Board postings. If anything, the unsolicited offensive e-mail is MUCH more detrimental to the health of this Board. I am not sure how you could say otherwise.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Bland

Seems to me the best way to avoid being misconstrued is to stop sending unsolicited emails to people who disagree with you.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

T206 Collector made a good point that Bruce will start a thread, admittedly at times thought provoking, but never return to it to participate in the discussion. There is no interchange of ideas, no defense of his position if people disagree, and no response to comments made by board members about his condescending tone.

Bruce, from now on when you start a thread, I think you should be prepared to carry on a discussion. It's as if you are just throwing some random idea out and then stepping out of the office for the day. Are you exchanging ideas with the board, or just talking at people? A hundred people may ask you a pointed question which you refuse to answer, and then you start a new thread about Disney buying out Topps for a gazillion dollars, or something like that. Why not stay with the topic and interact with everyone a little bit.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I think posting summaries is fine with the caveat that the original sender of the e-mail is free to post his/her own e-mail which is being summarized. Scott Elkins once summarized an e-mail I sent to him and his summary was a complete distortion. I responded by posting the actual e-mail I sent. If we leave it only to the receivers to summarize the info, we must let the sender clarify by posting if s/he choses.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

It’s disturbing to me that Lee would receive an email like this but I am sort of astounded that this is not an isolated incident. The situation seems like something I’ve run into first hand in my own life, and so I ran ours by a respected professional that I know. It is difficult to assess these things clinically from a distance but he exhibits symptoms of some a schizophrenia or related delusional disorder. I kid you not. I have read in his own posts and from the posts of other here of what they personally received from him, and sparing the lengthy diagnostic criteria, see symptoms of grandiosity, paranoia, an overt argumentative nature, display threatening behavior, and misinterpretation of what others have written. I wouldn't be surprised if he is either taking medication, or refuses (or occasionally refuses) to take medication. These kinds of disorders are not necessarily always like they are portrayed on TV or in the movies -- such as Olivia de Havilland in The Snake Pit. In fact, many who suffer it can be highly functional. In many, the activity can be episodic, and often the person later disavows knowledge of them happening (and believes that too.) Much of this can explain the emails to many here, apparently received from him out of the blue. And also the erratic behavior. There is something of a dichotomy in a person who would write such formalized postings on the forum and yet write in a private email that “darkness is lurking.” (Sounds like something out of a Bela Lugosi film.) Or later claim that the emails were not meant as a threat or that “NO one wants to hurt you.” What’s up with that? Or, as Barry just mentioned, via T206 Collector, starting a thread and not participating in it.

I am not defending him by way of armchair diagnosis; in fact I realize how disturbing receiving these might be for some people (I’m only trying to figure out an explanation for it all.) Hopefully, anyone who does get one might take some solace in the fact they are not the sick one. Wouldn't it be a terrifying thing to have to inhabit that mind?

Leon -- re the public posting of private emails: I am totally against it. In fact I think that anyone who sends them should be suspended or banned, especially when there are repeated occurrences. While this extends to what Lee received, the upside is that it now exposes just how many people have received the same. Otherwise we may not have known the extent of it all. Probably people should forward these things directly to you rather than simply deleting them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

The grammatical errors in his BST posts are bad, but the five (FIVE!) errors in two sentences in the email to Lee (sentences, by the way, that were telling Lee to learn to spell) really went to a new level. Heck, there were only 18 WORDS in the two sentences combined and he still managed to squeeze in 5 mistakes.

I guess a Wharton education isn't quite what it used to be, huh? Maybe when they admitted this guy in the early 70's it was a "there goes the neighborhood" kind of event.

So we are having this big policy conversation about email summaries that is centered around the misbehavior of one individual.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

A couple of days ago I received an email from Bruce. Like the email which Lee received, which was also sent to Barry, Bruce's email, though addressed to me, was also sent to another board member. This board member contacted me, confused as to why he was the recepient of this. Best I could come up with was that it was an error. In light of the Lee/Barry email, that does not seem likely, though the purpose continues to elude me.

Likely that some people responding to this thread have gotten, or will get, emails from Bruce.
If contacted by him again, I will not respond. This is ridiculous behavior at best and I for one, will not feed into it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

When all those "show us your highest graded xxxxx's" posts started showing up on the board, I knew there was trouble brewing. Who cares? If you buy a highly graded card, I have no problem posting it on the weekly pickup thread but why the compulsion to flaunt high graded cards in this forum? I know that there are a lot of us collecting cards who have highly graded cards (along with lower graded cards) but I don't see the rush to vanity that I have witnessed by a few. I have a lot of cards which are the highest graded or among the highest graded, just as others out there have, but I don't feel compelled to participate in the "nyah-nyah look what I have" mentality. Maybe I am being overly sensitive but I don't think so. I just think this goes backs to the whole "backbone of the hobby" debate from earlier in the year.
If you buy some highly graded card and are proud of it, good for you! Be proud. Glad you have the disposable income to afford it. You can even be smug if you like, but don't flaunt it and brag about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I'm not a fan of posting private emails on a public board, regardless of their content.

As far as the "show us your high-grade XXX" posts are concerned, I see no difference between those posts and the "Show us your Matty"-type posts that pop up on the board every day. If there's a "Show Us Your N162s" thread that pops up, and I don't have any, I don't get upset. Similarly, I don't have any cards that I could share in any of the "high grade" threads that have popped up lately - that doesn't mean I don't enjoy seeing the cards, though. It reminds me of the occasional scans that Marshall Fogel gives to Leon to post - Marshall doesn't contribute to the board, but man, it's awesome to see his cards once in a while. They're nice examples of cards I don't have, and being a lover of baseball cards, I do love to see them. In the case of these recent threads, they don't really belong in the "new pickup" threads, because they're not new pickups - just new scans that haven't been shared here before.

People used to get on Jim for not ever sharing scans of his cards - now that he's doing that, I think it's really cool to see some of the things he's got.

Just my opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for it.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

I do think there is a big difference in what Jim has done on the board and what Bruce has done. Don't remember how far it was up this thread now, but I think someone mentioned something about the people that Jim and Bruce have both chased off...while Jim can be hard headed and easy to differ on opinions with...he is far from Bruce...Jim isn't a threat to anyone, nor has he ever to my knowledge spewed any hate or ill will to anyone.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

In my opinion, Jim is a lot less threatening because there's only one of him.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I agree with Al on the high-grade posts. I enjoy seeing the cards. Imputations of the intent behind posters displaying high-grade cards is just that, a mere imputation. As Al said, people nagged Jim C. for not posting scans; now they complain that he does. I, for one, have thoroughly enjoyed seeing scans of some of his incredible cards.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jim is cool. Bruce could be...if he wanted to be.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

I like seeing 'em. I'd show mine more often but I don't want to make anyone feel ill.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

thanks Chad. I puke enough over my own cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I think the grades of all my T206 HOFers added together might add up to 9.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

by the way Chad, just sent another threatening email

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

You are no longer cool. You're so uncool, you're almost a stamp collector!

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

My wife would agree with you on the uncool statement. However I still have my 2 year old daughter convinced.

Sorry for the break in topic...now back to diasecting Bruce.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim is a lot less threatening because there is only one of him.

And with that, Al wins the prize for best line of the day!

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

"How do you spell Sybil"

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

There's time for a better line...the day is still young. These pretzels are getting mighty salty.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

I'm giving Jim VB my vote for this one - even though there ARE too many commas .

"I've noticed, in my short time on this board, that many of us can go out of our way to be asses. Bruce just has the shortest commute"


What say a poll for funniest backhanders?


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron M.

leon, count me as someone who has also received "hateful" (although I would just describe them as crazy) private e-mails from Bruce (I think we are seeing a pattern here?), but I can see both sides of whether to allow private e-mails to be posted.

I agree with T206 -- Maybe you should simply threaten Bruce that based on his history of doing so, if he continues to send unsolicited abusive private e-mails he will be banned from posting on this site?

I'd hate for him to be banned as he is crazy funny, but under the same rationale that you don't want private e-mails posted on the forum, he shouldn't be allowed to bombard posters with unsolicited abusive e-mails that result from postings on this forum.

When you step away from the board, you should be able to step away from the board.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

You have made the most persuasive argument so far. However, if I were to ask him to not send private emails then I am policing other areas besides this board. I don't have the time or "want" to do that. I do see your point though in that his email(s) were/are instigated from board behaviour.....Now you have me thinking again.....Crap.....I almost am to the point of considering exceptions for repeat offenders but again, this is a very, very slippery slope.....I really don't want to go here if at all possible. I also hate that I have to waste so much of my time, and the board's time, over such an idiotic issue as this. I need to contemplate this some more....

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Leon,

It goes back to an expectation of privacy, if people want everybody to see their posts then they would post on the board. However, when they send personal e-mail to board members they expect that e-mail to remain private.

So when you pass rules just make sure that you only regulate conduct on this Board.

If you get lots of complaints about any individual for their posting on this Board, then that's a good reason to ban.

However, if it's complaints about what they said in private e-mails then that's not a good reason to ban.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: CN

I think the Dorskind group should get together and have a meeting and hopefully they will be able to explain their alleged bizarre behavior and have a chance to defend themselves. CN

[Archive]

Posted By: ps

I appreciate the distinction just drawn by Peter C. but disagree with it. If the emails are generated as a result of posts on the Board, I see it as sufficiently related to the Board that the moderator would be acting appropriately to react to extreme conduct.