FS: Blizzard 2060

[Sig999]

doctorq wrote:
Ilwrath has a point IMHO. I'm amazed about how much information people can extract from a few posts: his motives, the purpose of the comments, etc.

I wish I was that clever; I would have been rich by now.

I'll just go on with my ordinary life, and let others figure everything out about me, based on this post....

Well - seeing how you're not clever enough to be rich by now.. you're obviously a Windows user, are responsible for the Amiga's downfall and making the baby jesus cry.

In your spare time you also kick dogs...



 :-o

Eh, just trying to keep in the spirit of the thread here!


Yah, I was also amazed at the amount of info that was extrapolated from such few posts

[Sig999]

ZeBeeDee wrote:

 You want the item? You pay a reasonable price for it. If you don't like the price then go elsewhere, that is your perogative. If you want to trade items via places like amibay then thats fine, go right ahead ... that too is your perogative.

Agree 100% - and here's the crazy of crazy points that really hasn't been touched on:

99% of the time it isn't the person putting up the item that creates the crazy price - it's the people bidding on it.

I mean I've seen some things with starting crazy prices before - but they aren't the norm.

Recently I saw a flicker fixer start out at 20 bucks. It ended up being sold for 200.

This wasn't the seller being 'greedy' it was the market wanting the item.

I think it would be a safe mans bet that if you had people bid on an item even on a forum you'd get exactly the same result.

As for me - I made up my mind long long ago I wasn't going to sell stuff on here after a rather 'heated debate' over parting a system out.

[Sig999]

arkanoid wrote:
tone007, doctorq, ZeBeeDee, and whoever else it may concern:


You guys are narrowing your blinkered focus on a few choice words which were basically used to PROVE Redromola's motives behind shouting out "waaaay too cheap". I can see the tactic, and how it benefits your Red-crusade, but common - it's pretty deceitful and low.

LOL.

Which choice words were those again? Was that where he was accused of having multiple accounts on Amibay in order to bilk the masses - or was it when he as a moderator was going to lock the thread?

Because I think those were pretty deceitful, and low.
(and both proven untrue as well).

BTW wouldn't know Red from Adam - and I'm sure he's the same way about me... After reading both threads from start to finish - I think he made a pretty funny comment and folks foamed at the mouth.. and the majority of the foaming wasn't from him.

[Sig999]

ffastback wrote:

(Ok have to come off the bench for this one, sorry).

Now now.  If Red's comments should be supposedly taken in the best light then its only fair you grant arkanoid the same courtesy.  He did not make a direct accusation.  He implied it might be so out of anger, just like red did stuff out of anger.  The difference, arkanoid apologized.  And the comment about locking the thread I believe was someone else, I think you are referring to the comment from the user "Ideal", where he actually said he expected his post to be deleted?  

I was referring to the mass comments in general - I mean if I'm to be lumped into the stereotype of 'cheerleader' then (now now) you can expect the same?  Good for the goose, and all of that.

'Did not make a direct accusation' is very much like Fox News saying 'some people say...(insert opinion here). I'm not taking anyones comments in the 'best possible light' - I'm treating them as I read them.. I don't think I see anything from his side of the argument that compared to the insinuations leveled against him. That simple.  

As for the 'bigger man' - hey I actually think that goes to Red - he just stopped replying and let it sit.

He's not going on about it trying to assert motives and piety post mortum.  He just let it be.

I really think if you anyone goes back and reads over the thread from start to finish, a lot of folks would come to the same conclusion... I didn't on first read (or any of the reads on any other similar comments) come to the conclusions that were launched on this thread, and although I think both parties acted like f*ckwits over it - you'll find the low blows, accusations, and character assasinations pretty much came from that side off the fence.

Hey - you might not see it that way, and thats fine - but it has nothing to do with 'cheerleading' or 'post counts' or any of that rot, as your buddy has implied.. in fact all that rubbish did was solidify my opinion on the situation (if you don't agree with me you must all by type x y z as I've just lumped this guy in with a b c...).

And then to say someone ELSE is close minded (laugh) ohhhhh the irony! (wipes tear) it's just too much to take in one night.

[Sig999]

ffastback wrote:

Except I never called you a cheerleader now did I?  In fact I did no such thing.  You are the one not giving equal treatment.  You are one not treating each individual based on their own actions only when dealing with them.  You treat me as if I called you a cheerleader.  I did not.  And yet you are on my case as if I did.  You are the one lumping me in with those that did call you one.  Do you normally give one person crap for something they never did?  If you did thats a real poor way to conduct yourself.

ohh PLEASE! This is a silly interweb quip and a jades trick of old - follow your own logic and you should never have 'gotten off the bench' to reply to that which never was addressed at you then.

Sorry - not taking the bait on that one.

The point is to be fair, should it not be?  He admitted he f'd up doing it.  I said straight up I think he did it out of anger, which is wrong.  And he apologized.  You don't want red crucified but lets crucify arkanoid right?  What penance does he have to do beyond this to satisfy you?  Is he not allowed to still hold and defend his opinions otherwise meanwhile?  

So.. see above - you're speaking for him now?  He doesn't have to do ANY pennance to satify me... A line was crossed. But am I 'crucifying him'? No - pointing out his own double standards, hypocracy, and hyperbole - yes... most certainly - especially in regards to the argument that if I don't agree with his conclusions I must be in a specific camp.

Now please - hold up your last words here to the light... He most certainly is... and with that... so am I.  And please show me where I've even implied this tangent - I'd be most glad to see it!

Bull (IMHO).  Because a) he owed some people an apology on a couple of points himself.  b) he is a mod and should be held to a higher standard, and if not held to it by others,  he should have done so for himself.  

in my opinion he made that peace with the boards owner - asking to be removed.

I don't think he owed any of you an apology - seriously I don't. I do think that some folks crossed the line and I wouldn't blame him for not accepting one.

You should deal with each person for what they did or said individually and if you are referring to mass comments in general maybe its worth making that a little clearer maybe??

If you can't tell the difference - you shouldn't even be typing, as you don't have a grasp of the subject matter.
But I know you can, and you know exactly what I'm saying.. see above.. sorry ..  at the top.. very top - first comment..(perhaps I should number them) been around too long to worry about this non-sequitor.

Dancing around the subject aint gonna change the subject. Dancing around the points won't change the facts, text, nor context.

And it certainly won't change my opinion.

Bottom line is - some folks acted as d*cks... I noticed them acting like d*cks... and to me they will always BE d*cks.

From here the list doesn't get shorter... it only gets longer.

[Sig999]

ffastback wrote:

No tricks.  I refered to myself as coming off the bench as I said in a previous post I intended to bow out of the thread.  I made my comment because I thought you were being grossly unfair to someone IMHO.

Good - then you can understand MY opinion that a bunch of folks were being grossly unfair to someone else.

My opinion on that is unchanged, and it's as valid as yours or anyone elses... You may not LIKE it - but thats too bad.
It's not based on 'buddies' nor post counts or affiliations - its based entirely on this thread.

Always huh?  Now thats a friggin great attitude to have now isn't it?  

Yes it is - it works well for me - empirical evidence over the years has shown 'the interweb leopard rarely changes its spots'

And certainly in this case - with some of the low points struck in this thread I wouldn't want to associate with several of the participants.

And to be honest - I don't think many would hold that against me (and I really don't care if they did)..

Or lets put it in a more real light: I watch a person get punched at a bar - Do I become drinking buds with the guy who threw it, based on the 'fact' that it wasn't me?
Or do I look at the way they treat others a pretty good indication of how I myself would be treated?

Do I go back a week later and shake his hand and sit next to him?

No - when someone shows their nature to you, you take note of it.  As for anger or emotions or any of other excuse... well.. again - I put a side note that they can't control them - I don't take it as a justification.  The bigger man in THIS situation would walk rather than let that happen.

Your mileage may vary - but hey - thats life.

*shrug*  But I'm not even remotely connected to anyone making pricing quips, or disparaging remarks about someones ethics, nor passing comment or judgement on anyones idea of community, fair pricing, or free market.

And as such - trying to use MY character to shadow earlier goings on in this thread won't make the air fresher either.
It's not MY attitude that brought this about is it?

If there's nothing to add to the actual topic at hand - then my conversation with you is over.

[Sig999]

arkanoid wrote:
I've outwinded even myself on this one. And it's getting boring have people drag up the myopic intricacies of my delivery, rather than face the central and only real issue: that of nosey people interfering in other people's FS threads.

Hardly - if that was the meat of the situation (a flippant comment made quite OBVIOUSLY after a sale was made) - and the subsequent comments made right after be 'it' it would be a non issue.

The subsequent pages of comments after the fact, after the argument as well - a litany of unrelated comments on the guys character, his (non existant) actions on other sites, his mindset as a moderator.. its all there - you wrote it, go back and read it... had very little to do with (and was pretty much AFTER) your initial tiff.

Little late to cry 'unfair'... but here, you can borrow my hammer if you like - that last nail can be a {bleep} to get in by yourself.