FS: Blizzard 2060

[ZeBeeDee]

kolla wrote:
 I'd call you an asshole and exploiter, no need to bring in fancy -isms.

Thats Mr Rich Asshole or Mr Exploiter if you please ... and you'd still pay if you needed the item, despite your attempts at flattery  :-)

[ZeBeeDee]

arkanoid wrote:
I've put ZeBeeDees button on my wall...and I'm not going to press it!!

Dont push me! :

[Plaz]

All we can do now is move on. I'm ready... is everyone else yet?

I'm ready to move and have a suggestion. I've been following biting my lip and keeping my finger from the keyboard knowing I would probably only fuel the fire.

However it's come to a quiet spot where I might make a suggestion.... Could we agree to leave the FS and FA threads to the sellers and interested buyers? Maybe even make a board policy about it? Certainly we would have to make some rules around it and allow exception for any attempted scam or scammer. Craigslist has a feature to flag a suspect post without disrupting it. It's tagged for scrutiny, investigated and either left to run or deleted if proven fradulent. Could we do similar here with the report button and keep our other opinions in check?

Some wish to gain maximum profit, others are happy with charity, and still others are some where in the middle. These camps have hammered away since the invention of man with predictable results.

Pesonally I say let the sellers sell, and let the market decide. Even before this thread, I too have become reluctant to sell here. A.org will remain an option for me, but any more slugfest like this one will definitly put me off in the future. (Big deal eh? I probably only sell 4-5 Amiga things a year.)

Plaz

(edit: spelling as usual  :-P )

[Plaz]

Well, if you got those by buying them in heaploads when available, only to resell them later with profit when the stores are sold out, I wouldnt bother calling you a capitalist, I'd call you an asshole and exploiter, no need to bring in fancy -isms.

I'd call him fortunate and hope he resells at a reasonable price so I can have one. For me, the name calling would be waaaay out of line unless it was proven his buying and selling were done deceitfully.

A perfect example to why I made my suggestion in the previous post.

And now I'm done here and hope that some one starts another topic about posible thread policys.
 
Plaz

[arkanoid]

Plaz wrote:

However it's come to a quiet spot where I might make a suggestion.... Could we agree to leave the FS and FA threads to the sellers and interested buyers? Maybe even make a board policy about it?

I'm not sure if a board policy is practical or even necessary. I would guess all it really takes is for most users to adopt a similar stance on the matter and begin informing the people making the "that's waaay too cheap" or "that's waaay to expensive" remarks that their behaviour is unacceptable. After a while, the price-whiners will get the message and the unwritten rule will be that you do not pass judgement on people's pricing.

I mean, people just want to buy and sell their stuff and, like you say, people have different ideas on both what to charge and pay. Long gone are the days of RRP for classic Amiga items, so who really has any right to pass judgement. It's not on and it seems that almost every FS thread these days has someone at it.

But, on the other hand, perhaps a written rule somewhere would help make the idea more concrete. You've seen for yourself just how divided people are on this one.

[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.

[ffastback]

Sig999 wrote:
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.

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.

'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.

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?  

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

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.  c) Even if he did not mean it the way it came off he probably should be savvy enough to know his vendor status complicated things.  He banned kinhell for even trying to mediate, a previous customer.  Abandoning all the people here who love what he does for the community and have stood up for him here is like running off the playground with his ball.  

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.

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??

[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.

[ffastback]

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.

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.

So.. see above - you're speaking for him now?

No.  Its pretty obvious he can speak for himself as he has on multiple posts.  I am speaking about 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.

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

[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.

[ffastback]

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

 

Yep I do and thats fine and dandy.  I just happen to feel similarly about a post you made and shared my opinion in turn.

My opinion ... (i)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

Neither is mine.

And as such - trying to use MY character to shadow earlier goings on in this thread won't make the air fresher either.

I didn't see any attempts to cloud (or "shadow") as you say anything from earlier in the thread using your character as a tool.  

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

Sounds good, bye then.

[arkanoid]

Sig999 wrote:

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

...

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.

What a pathetically inappropriate and contrived analogy. You might be in control of your emotions and anger, but you clearly are not in control of your hyperbolic emotives. Although I guess it served its function of plucking people's heart strings by equating two totally unequal acts. ie: the act on one hand of people simply giving a person their honest opinions (and perhaps one or two going a little over the top), and on the other hand a wild and crazy drunkard physically battering an innocent man in a bar. I'm surprised you didn't give the attacker a double barrelled shotgun and end with the victims guts sprawled on the dance flaw. well, done, but not very subtle and I think the gross inappropriateness of it and its obvious aim proves you're far from impartial.

Ever considered that most people were not "drinking with me" and merely stating their OWN independent opinion on the matter? What makes you think I wield more influence over the community than an already more popular (by far) moderator and respected trader? Another low-down reverse psychology trick. you seem to have quite a few.

There were a lot of people in that thread giving Red grief for what he done, all coming from different angles - some lower than others (many a lot lower than myself) but _most_ basically saying the same thing: "keep you nose out of sales between individuals and do not price hike!" And I think that's well and truly justified. Yes. Redromola's been around forums long enough to know _exactly_ what to do in those situations: show a little humility and at least hint that you may have been in the wrong. He didn't do that and so began the barrage. I'm pretty sure even you can see that and appreciate just how much that failure and his persistent rebuttals of "I don't give a crap - capitalism rules, you could have got twice for that!" and then simply walking away (as out of some higher morally justified principle) contributed to the heavy handedness he received.

but if you wish to paint him as the proverbial bar brawl victim, be my guest. you will get no real resistance from me as 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.

[jj]

Your all like a bunch of kids in a playgroung arguing about who's dad is the hardest. And I am not trying to insult any one person or group of people with the same view.  But this is a discussion that can not be concluded.

Everyone has different views.  And this thread has gone way way way way off topic.

There has been a lot of nonsense talked by lots of different people about lots of differen things.

No one persons view on buying, selling or anything else is the definitive.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we lay this to rest now, its going around and around in circles, getting more and more people angry.

If we keep up at this rate more and more people will leave.  Thats not something I want to see and I am sure its not something you all want to see either.

Wayne or any other Mod can we lock this thread please and have done with it.

[Ni72ous]

Hi i am just a lurker in these forums but i know enough to not post usually, man you lot are ugly, i would not trust you fookers anytime if i had a banning stick you would be banned, atleast 3 of you anyway.

[arkanoid]

JJ: I for one would be happy with that. As I can't seem to just shutup, what with having the finger continually pointed in this direction. But, regardless, this is the ABSOLUTE final time I even bother to read this thread.

[motorollin]

Enough!!!!! :roll:

--
moto