Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on December 9, 2013 at 9:46am

nice day's work, William!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Ryan on December 9, 2013 at 1:46pm

You got busted Shill bidding IGroup, thats all there is too it. A disgusting practice!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on December 9, 2013 at 2:09pm

William looks pretty sharp to me. Had you pegged from the get go it seems.

Wealthy folks are usually the slimiest snakes.

Example: Martha Stewart worth approx. $500 million goes to jail over selling $230K of ImClone stock. Which on her scale her loss would have been the equivalent of me losing a quarter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erich Jerozal on December 9, 2013 at 6:13pm

Right he dug his own grave.  I did learn something from this thread. Thanks.......

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2si9gjw9em85g on December 11, 2013 at 5:41am

"Wealthy folks are usually the slimiest snakes"  Really?  Don't you think that is a HUGE stereotype/overstatement? 

Prisons cells are filled with people from ALL socioeconomic levels.  The dollar amount of your net worth has little to do with your internal compass.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on December 11, 2013 at 8:31am

No not really. Was a response to the guy stating he was wealthy so that means he has no need to try and defraud anyone.

You were really offended?

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2si9gjw9em85g on December 11, 2013 at 9:58am

Did that struck a nerve with you?  I thought the comment was a gross overstatement and blown out of proportion.  Rich people are no more "slimy" than those of any other socioeconomic status.  Having this or not having that isn't the deciding factor on a person's morality. 

What will be interesting is what will happen to your comments and those of others if the current lawsuit that is moving through the Federal court system about comments posted on message boards/twitter/social media.  The current decision on the case has the web-site being held liable for the comments of the individuals that post.  If that is upheld then message boards with opinions that can be shown to negatively impact another party may be a thing of the past.  Personally, I will find that refreshing.  Maybe then the art and/or study of how to identify an authentic signature will be more of a topic instead of the "This is a ______ (fill in the derogatory term) of whatever autograph I found on whatever website" threads that dominate things on here. 

I really liked the Heath Ledger signature study thread idea and some of the comments on why the signatures were not authentic.  Some of the post explained the views of the poster and why an example had issues.  Good information!  That is the type of information I was looking for so I can learn what is good and WHY it is a good signature.  That is what I thought I find more of here.  It is refreshing to read when it does.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wascher on December 11, 2013 at 12:01pm

What case are you talking about MPB ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2si9gjw9em85g on December 11, 2013 at 4:40pm

The Sarah Jones Case.  She won a $338,000.00 judgement from the website that comments were posted about her.  Yes, I know that I am simplifying the case and leaving somethings out.  However, when Amazon, Twitter, and Google get involved with the case by filing briefs in the 6th US Circuit Court it makes you wonder where the case will go and what it means for what accountability each poster, and websites will have thrust upon them in the future.

I believe that both the poster and the website should be held accountable if damage is done to a 3rd party that post are being written about.  Many States have enacted anti-cyber bullying laws for post made against minors. Thus, limiting freedom of speech on the web has been covered within the legislative branches of government.  The Courts that are now ruling on cases brought before them with infractions to those laws don't seem to have an issue with limiting that form of speech.  This is a continuation of that type of law.  It isn't a huge leap in logic to make the move to hold websites and social media platforms accountable for post made on them.  If you don't think that is a possibility then you aren't viewing the case through the same lens that Amazon, Twitter, and Google are looking at it.  If the current judgement stands speech on the web and social media will be changed forever.

Making someone/website pay in a civil suit and making that easier to accomplish might make the world wide web a more civil place to move through.  Too many people take the anonymity of their keyboard to an extreme on the web.  You have people sitting behind their keyboards typing pure vitriolic comments about this subject/place/person that they would never think to say to another human in a face-to-face conversation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on December 11, 2013 at 12:13pm

I suppose if we stuck with threads like you're describing that were purely seeking truthful, functional information, then threads like this wouldn't even exist to begin with (i.e. gloating about a sale that seems to have numerous questionable aspects).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2si9gjw9em85g on December 11, 2013 at 7:40pm

This is for William Farrell.  There is no reply button under your post for me to click to post a reply.

I don't consider any to be vitriolic in this thread.  I never said I did. 

My post was an attempt to answer the question Wascher asked. 

Opinions posted that could potentially harm or do harm a third party would become a thing of the past if Ms. Jones' judgement is held to be valid.  See, if I, you, another poster said autograph "a" was not authentic, it turned out to be an authentic signature, and it caused a sale to be missed or damages a business' reputation then the website the post were made on becomes as liable as the person who posted them.  That changes the communication flow in forums in a in a huge way.  A moderator's job would become a nightmare.  Thus, a website would have to set-up rules and enforce them that those type of post could not be made.  If the forum allowed them to be posted and damaged occurred you'd have judgements for those damages being paid out.  Also, the website in question would more than likely have to hire an attorney and/or firm in the state where that 3rd party who has damages is located or one in which they brought suit.  Why?  As the third party I can show I sustained damages in the state I reside in if I can produce witnesses that viewed it in my state of residence or my headquarters is located and their mind was changed on a purchase based upon that post.  Thus, I can bring suit there.  I might also bring suit in another state that is more advantageous due to rulings that have come out of the Court system or laws on their books.  Again, all I have to do is find one person whose mind was changed by reading that post in that state.  I can then bring suit in that jurisdiction.  Doesn't mean I will prevail.  However, somebody has to defend that and that cost money.

"Who wouldn't?" 

Umm, the people that threatened to kill the Alabama field goal kicker on twitter after he missed the field goal in the AL vs. Auburn game might be some.  I don't think they would have made those statements if they had been standing in front of him.  Maybe they would have but you have to believe that some of those would not have been made if they were looking him in they eyes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Ryan on December 11, 2013 at 8:12pm

I understand your argument MPB, but if what you say were to occur, then there would be no point to this website or any like it. Forgers would get free reign, and there would be absolutely no way to stop them. And as collectors, we cant have it both ways.

If people cant voice there opinions on autographs, and call into question there validity, then forgers will have complete free reign, as they will know that no one will call out there items out of fear of threats of litigation. Sites like this, would quickly be turned into little more than "show me your autograph" or "TTM request" type sites. There may be plenty of autograph discussion, but this site basically exists for one reason in my opinion. and thats to combat the forgery industry and those who sell them.

If people cant voice there opinions on an item then there really is no point in collecting autographs at all. B/c you would never get honest opinions about items, out of fear of litigation. 

Its one thing if the comments are all "this person sells nothing but forgeries", but its quite another to say "in my opinion this item is a forgery". The first statement, if not true, and not based on evidence, is damaging, and i can see the need to put a stop to those type of claims without hard evidence. The 2nd statement however, is what good autograph discussions should be about. Authenticty, period. But if we all refrained from giving opinions out of fear that we may be wrong, then whats the point of every trying to get into the autograph field. B/c even a comment such as, "in my opinion, its bad", under the rules you proposed, could potentially be incorrect, and the seller could potentially claim that it damaged there business. Whether it did or not, under the proposed layout, the shear threat of a damaging lawsuit would cause people to never give opinions, ,b/c there would always be the risk of some seller claiming something.

When a sellers items hit the public marketplace, they deserve to be dissected, good items and bad. IF they are good items, then almost all the time, on boards like this, they are shown to be good. And vice versa with bad. I have been wrong plenty of times, but the good thing about this forum is that its full of so much knowledge, that my incorrect opinions quickly get corrected by others. But if someone is trying to sell items to the public, then its our right to dissect them, and if its our opinion they are bad, then so be it. Otherwise no one would ever give opinions out of fear of being wrong or a lawsuit. We just cant have it both ways. Forgers and sites that sell forgeries would love for the proposed system to be in place for that reason.

I know you post here regularly MPB, or have in the past, so i believe you to have good motives. But  i really was shocked to see a legit autograph collector post the comments above. The part about rich people i can understand taking offense of. But the parts about how boards like this shouldnt exist when people can make claims that could damage a sellers rep is something i was very surprised to see. If people were constantly throwing about wild claims, thats one thing. But thats not what goes on here, and the members here know this. Sometimes threads start neg or postiive, and they turn the other way for a dealer. But most hit the nail on the head. The only times i typically see the proposed argument is typically with forgers and those who sell them. I dont include you MPB in this category, but its surprising none the less b/c if such a system were to occur, then forgeries would totally swamp the industry and no site would truly be all that useful for trying to help others. No moderator or anything else would change that either. It would either be a site full of autograph studies, or.......well thats basically all it would be. No forgeries would ever get exposed out of fear of litigation, and more and more forgers would pop up. This truly is a situation where autograph collectors and sellers could never have it both ways.

I venture to say even that most legit autograph experts and companies would rather have there items called into question and dissected, rather than have 5 million companies selling forgeries that put there company out of business. All b/c there was no resource on the net to help others gauge authentic autographs. The company could be someone like NE Autographs, who sells all bad stuff, and who has a horrid rep. And then someone post a thread about them and someone reply and then all of the sudden NE comes in and sues them for damage. There whole inventory may be horrible, except for one or 2 richard simmons posters. And they could say that those comments hurt the sale of those legit simmons posters. And they could have a case. 

So as a collector, and i hope to hear others chime in here. Maybe not in this thread, but maybe another created one, since this one isnt about this. I just dont see how anyone could ever truly enjoy collecting and researching autographs if no one could ever give there opinion (right or wrong). B/c the seller can always claim damage, even from the simplest and stupidest statements. It may have not hurt the seller in any way shape or form, but the shear threat of a lawsuit would always be enough for most to never say one little word about the seller or company, even if they had good evidence.

There are several companies right now that are doing that exact thing. 2 widely known companies that threaten litigation all the time in order to keep people shut up. Now if all sellers did that, the headache would be so great from even trying to find legit items, that most would give up. I knwo i wouldnt have ever gotten into collecting if it werent for others helping out and exposing forgeries, from good sellers and bad sellers alike.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page