Roger, just drop it.
Go make a Workprinter or something.
Alex recently interfered with Matt Pacini's ebay auction by contacting the top bidder and sending a link to a year-old, dead topic where Matt described his difficulties modifying his super 8 camera. Alex insists that he did nothing wrong by sending the link to the bidder because (for some bizarre reason) Alex feels it was Matt's "responsibility" to have updated the old post, even THOUGH the bidder would never have seen it and the ebay ad clearly stated that the camera worked just fine (which, in effect, IS an update about the camera).
In short, while Matt didn't update the old post from a year ago, but he DID provide an update on the functionality of the camera by stating clearly that it worked fine in his ebay ad. (Alex is trying to make a distinction of some sort that WHERE Matt updated the information somehow makes a difference in Alex's liability.)
So, in essence, Alex simply didn't believe Matt's ebay claim that that the camera worked okay and Alex took it upon himself to contact the top bidder and warn that person, by way of the link to the old post, about the camera. As a result, the top bidder withdrew their bid and that cost Matt Pacini money.
My opinion is that none of this concerned Alex in any way. Matt clearly stated the status of the camera in his ad. If Alex believed Matt, then there was no reason to arouse the suspicions of the top bidder by sending a link to a long forgotten post from a year ago. Even if Matt had NOT said the camera worked okay in his ebay ad, it STILL was no concern of Alex's since this was not his camera, he did not know the person bidding on the camera, and Alex had no first hand knowledge of the camera in question. More to the point, ebay strictly forbids people from inteferring in ebay auctions, regardless of their intent.
So, basically, Alex interfered in Matt's auction and it cost that person money. Assuming that anyone here really cares, anymore, what is you opinion? Do you think that Alex had an ethical right to interfere in Matt's auction?
Roger, just drop it.
Go make a Workprinter or something.
I wonder if it's ethical for Roger to slam me on forums that I cannot respond because I have been completely and unfairly banned from.
I wonder if it's ethical for Roger to make a mountain out of a crater, and I wonder if it's ethical for Roger to IGNORE my Super-8mm website and all the information (and opinion, hee hee hee) that it provides.
I wonder if it's ethical to Ignore the Super-8 images I have posted in the past on this forum and that are currently on my super-8 website.
And I wonder if it's ethical (and I'm not saying it's Roger) to fake Id's and then have those ID's slam me, as has happened on the Brantley forum and IS happening on the other 8mm forum even as we speak.
Gee, the multitudes that come to your defense is staggering, Alex.
A mountain out of a crater? Nice to know that if someone interferes with one of YOUR ebay auctions then you would consider it justified and nothing to make a big deal about.
Good tip, Alex. I'm sure Matt will find that interesting.
As far as anything I've written on other forums, tough cheese, dude. YOU got banned from them for the same type of behaviour on display here. I had nothing to do with it any more than the dozens of other forum members that were sick and tired of your pompous BS. Anything I've written about you (and others have written far more) has been accurate, which is more than I can say for your sophistry on display here.
Oh, yeah: Why did you interfere with Matt Pacini's ebay auction?
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Useful, yes, but not REQUIRED if one wants to sell something on ebay. Hostboard and ebay are not connected in the real world; only in your mind because you live on the internet. The top bidder didn't even KNOW about that old post until you intervened and sent a link to it. Ultimately, there was no reason since Matt's ebay add clearly stated that the camera worked fine, even IF the old post wasn't updated. You're an idiot, Alex.Originally posted by Alex:
Roger, there is no such thing as a "dead topic". The topics are made to be updated. They become a useful source of information as they are updated.
Roger, there is no such thing as a "dead topic". The topics are made to be updated. They become a useful source of information as they are updated.
-----------------------------------------
Maybe, just maybe, when people are banned for ridiculous reasons, and are blocked from communicating with others, they don't take it lying down.
I would have MUCH PREFERRED to simply post to Matt's topic on the Brantley's forum. I would have much preferred to post a question about what happened to Matt's camera there, on his own topic post, but I could not. It would have been a simple question, just like I had done 600 times before you or Matt arrived on Brantley's forum.
So I did the next best thing, I started a topic about the situation on my forum WELL BEFORE I contacted the one ebay bidder, it might have been as much as five days before. When I saw how ineffectual that was, then I contacted the bidder.
I used the means available to me one by one. I would have even emailed Matt, if not for his slanderous comments he made about me on Brantley's forum after I had emailed him. So that option was removed.
There is no case against me on Brantley's forum, just a few paranoid people who put their own interests above the Super-8 format, but the resulting banning of me has affected the flow of information to the general Super-8 community.
I've asked Matt to post the email he recieved from the ONE bidder, (without the address or name of the bidder) so that we can judge if could have corrected the situation.
Don't forget that I posted the topic HERE on this forum for five days BEFORE I sent the link and the link only, to one bidder.
I think a simple update by Matt to his own hostboard topic post would have alleviated the bidders possible concern.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">That only proves how pre-meditated your actions were in ultimately contacting the high bidder and interfering with Matt's auction. It also proves how self-centered you are that you assume the entire universe revolves around your forum and that everyone will check in here before they do anything else in life. You should try getting one.Originally posted by Alex:
Don't forget that I posted the topic HERE on this forum for five days BEFORE I sent the link and the link only, to one bidder.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Ahhh, but there would have been no "concern" to alleviate if you had simply NOT contacted the bidder. Again, no matter how you try to justify it, Alex, YOU were the problem here, not Matt. Matt had no responsibility to update the old post, whether the camera worked or not, and YOU had no business contacting his top bidder, whether the camera worked fine or not. IT WAS NOT YOUR AUCTION. You did it simply to create trouble and that's obvious to everyone that reads your silly rationalizations.Originally posted by Alex:
I think a simple update by Matt to his own hostboard topic post would have alleviated the bidders possible concern.
Roger, your continual twisting of good intentions is imaginative, and also the primary ingredient of being a witchhunter in search of a witch.
I was hoping that the five days the topic post was on this forum would be enough time for SOMEONE, anyone, to notify Matt and let Matt update his topic post.
I won't be unfairly banned from another forum AND then sit on the sidelines and not participate at all, even though you seem to want that with the utmost of motivations.
It's a sickening agenda YOU HAVE when you already have a contribution to the Super-8 world you are known for. You've already created roadblocks towards me, and all you've really done is harm the communication from those who could have benefited from my knowledge, and vice a versa, but that's not enough for you, you continue witchhunting.
Somebody find that portal back to the 16th century for Roger, and hurry please.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">You have GOT to be kidding. No, "imaginative" is you trying to pass off what you did as "good intentions". THAT'S imaginative.Originally posted by Alex:
Roger, your continual twisting of good intentions is imaginative
You had no ethical right to contact Matt's top bidder and interfere with his auction. Period. The more you try to justify it, the more foolish you look.
"Good intent". That's dumb.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks