Answer the question, Alex.

[Corey D.]

What gave you the right to interfere in Matt Pacini's ebay auction?

Answer the question.

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Hey Roger,
You should make that your signature so you don't have to retype it every time you post.

[MovieStuff]

Originally posted by Alex:
Dude, you really have a one way brain.

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Well, that puts me one brain ahead of you.

Originally posted by Alex:
Matt had a choice to update or not update his post. He chose.

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Is there ANYONE here that buys into this load of crapp?

Alex, try and comprehend this:

1) It was Matt's auction, not yours.

2) It was Matt's camera, not yours.

3) It was Matt's bidder, not yours.

4) There is NO obligation to update ANY Hostboard post prior to running an ebay ad.

and

5) Even if there were,

6) IT WASN'T YOUR EBAY AUCTION!

So, again, what gave you the right to intefere in Matt's ebay auction?

[blue demon]

Alright, you win, Mr. Moviestuff.

Alex contacted the bidder on ebay because last he had heard of the camera it was broken and didn't work -and that was the last anybody had heard of it- and Alex felt it was his civic duty as a good citizen on the web. Probably because he didn't like Matt Pacini, it wasn't a big hardship to do it, but he felt he had to say something.

There are you happy? Now you can leave our private **** and let Alex and I rule here together.

Bye Bye

[MovieStuff]

Originally posted by Paradise Lost:
[QB]
Alex contacted the bidder on ebay because last he had heard of the camera it was broken and didn't work -and that was the last anybody had heard of it-/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">No, the last that anyone ever heard was that it worked fine. Read the ebay ad. Whether Alex believed it or not doesn't matter, does it? It wasn't his business to interfere. But, then, you knew that already, didn't you?

[Alex]

Lets see, two years ago I gently lifted a cigarette out of the hand of a pregnant teenager who was smoking in a car with a younger girl next to her.

I never touched her either. I did it when she had the cigarette in her hand, and her hand was resting on the drivers window, and I had parked next to her, and darn it if her cigarette didn't end up in my line of site because I had to back my car into the spot so I ended up next to her when I was getting out of my car.

I gently slipped the cigarette from between her two fingers while she looking at the younger girl who she was corrupting by smoking in front of her while pregnant.

I just recently attempted to warn someone that they were driving a car that was overheating and that they would ruin the engine if they continued driving the car...

Two nights ago I mentioned to someone that it sounded like their back brakes were worn because the metal tab that starts to rub when the brakes get low was screeching.

The last two people said, practically verbatim, "It's Ok, I'm getting rid of the car this week", [img]tongue.gif[/img] . The pregnant teen was royally pissed at me and wanted to call the cops on me.

What do these three stories have in common, incredibly selfish acts that harm either inanimate objects that these people plan to give to others, or harming another soon to be life.

If you're being selfish, and you do it in front of me, I'll be very civil and nice, but I will probably ask what's going on.

Now we have Roger, standing up for the right of Matt Pacini to sell his product on ebay and not update information about the item on a post that Matt Pacini started himself here on Hostboard.

It's clear to me that selfish tendencies rule the world, and selfish people first order of business is to persecute those who point out their foibles
(as Super-8 Booster and Cameraguy did by deleting their posts on this forum after I called them to the carpet for not giving a rat's arrse about my being banned form the Shooting 8mm forum, and yes, Roger was involved that also.) Matt Pacini is STILL being selfish by not updating his forum post about his camera. Valuable information that could be handed to others who can do a forum search at any time and find his topic post is not available because Matt refuses to update the post, that's a selfish act, or non-act.

I ain't budging in the face of a selfish act, so deal with it, Roger. I'm not going to cowtow to a selfish act, never have, NEVER WILL, and you are the kingfish of selfish, and Matt is your bobblehead buddy.

[MovieStuff]

Originally posted by Alex:

Now we have Roger, standing up for the right of Matt Pacini to sell his product on ebay and not update information about the item on a post that Matt Pacini started himself here on Hostboard.

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">That's exactly right, Alex. It IS Matt Pacini's right NOT to update his post on ANY forum.

Let's repeat that:

It IS Matt Pacini's right NOT to update his post on ANY forum. Got it?

Matt's ad clearly stated the camera worked fine. Didn't you believe him? Or is it not "official" unless he posts identical information on Hostboard?

But whether you believed him or not, what gave YOU the right to interfere with Matt Pacini's ebay auction?

Answer the question.

[Alex]

And I have the right to encourage the proper flow of information, and Matt disagrees with that.

So why are you here, about this?

[MovieStuff]

Originally posted by Alex:
And I have the right to encourage the proper flow of information

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Oh, so YOU get to decide what's "proper"? Did you believe Matt's ebay description that the camera worked fine or not?

What gave you the right to interfere with Matt's ebay auction, Alex?

Answer the question.

[Alex]

That's your interpretation.

Your position is weak because you can't even build a case. You know your case could be strong if I had done even one of a multitude of things.

If I hadn't tried to contact Matt in four different manners as I did, If I hadn't waited 5 days, If I had said something in my post to the one person that I did contact, I had sent a link to gossip about Matt's camera, but I didn't, none of those things happened.

and of course, this doesn't even concern you, pretty much in the same manner that you don't think Matt's auction concerned me, but here you are, harrassing me over and over.

wow. You really do only see your side.

[MovieStuff]

Originally posted by Alex:

Your position is weak because you can't even build a case.

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Can't build a case? You've got to be kidding, Alex.

It wasn't your camera, it wasn't your auction, it wasn't your bidder, it wasn't your business. How much simpler could it be, Alex?

Matt described the condition of the camera in his ad and that's the ONLY place he was required to do so, regardless of your Hostboard obsession. Any differences between his description and the actual functionality of the camera are between Matt and his buyer; not you.

On the contrary, it's YOU that have no case to support your actions because you knew what you did was unethical, never thought you'd get caught, and now your stuck for an answer to a question that gets more embarrassing by its unanswered repetition.

But, really, we already know the answer, Alex. I don't think there's a single person on this forum that believes you had "good intent" when you contacted Matt's top bidder and sent that link.

Again: What gave you the right to intefere with Matt Pacini's ebay auction?