So Scott, how long have you known Matt?
Alex - Roger,
If I am reading this wright this is not an admision that Alex contact the eBay buyer for the wrong reasons, only that his action had consequences that cost Matt P. money,when he was looking for cash to finish his film.
It sounds like the solution that would end the the flame wars and turn this in to a win-win situation.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">But the most important fact that you leave out of your "story" is that it wasn't your auction and, as such, ANY inability to contact Matt is academic. You had no need to contact him because it wasn't any of your affair and trying to connect how he and I treated you two years ago on Mike's forum to what you did on his auction only reinforces the image that your actions were premeditated revenge. Certainly you must see that. Think about it.Originally posted by Alex:
I guarantee no one can repeat my "story" and get all the facts correct.
Alex,
I've never met Matt, but I did buy his movie off of Ebay about 3 years ago. At the time, we exchanged email, mainly about his movie and moviemaking in general. I was curious how he'd made a feature on Super-8 because I was thinking about doing the same.
I've known you a whole lot longer.
The reason I'm supporting Roger's offer is because I'd like to see the battling stop, but in the end it's your call.
Scott
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">A telling question, yes? Is there something that you've offered that has been summarily dismissed, here? Like, maybe an apology to Matt?Originally posted by Alex:
Why is it only what Roger offers that seems to matter?
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">More importantly, how long have YOU known Matt? Long enough to feel that he wouldn't mind your interference in his auction?Originally posted by Alex:
So Scott, how long have you known Matt?
My offer to send Matt a check is sincere but you really need to deal with this, Alex. Bumping a dozen topics to the top of heap in an effort to push aside more unpleasant realities isn't going to make the problem go away. It's just going to make Matt mad. My advice is don't make the same mistake twice.
Roger
Roger, you haven't built any sweat equity nor any post equity on this forum. Your stay here is ending if you don't start contributing useful Super-8 topics. I didn't bump up other topics to push your topics away, but rather to get back to what this forum is about, discussing Super-8 filmmaking and equipment.
If you, Matt, or your small enclave had shown even a modicum of interest in this forum over the past year, Matt's ebay auction situation would have been handled in a different manner because other lines of communication would have been available to me.
You play a game where you ignore my clearly defined explanations and then you simply repeat the same mantra as before. You have justified past unwarranted criticisms you have made about me by saying that "you were mad at me" (check out the Kodachrome 35mm topic post by Greg C).
It's intellectually dishonest to attempt to discredit my words simply because you are mad at me. You used this technique to try and build a consensus against me two years ago.
I would have much preferred communicating with Matt recently If I had had the luxury of doing that. But the same hysterical drama card that you and Matt threw around two years when you both completely misinterpreted my PROTOTYPE post caused the present situation. And I certainly wasn't going to email Matt after he slandered me about an email communication we had two years ago.
Here is a recent example of how I conducted myself when a Hostboard member posted a Hostboard topic about selling their camera on ebay Nigel Auction - 1
Nigel Auction - 2
The second topic post could have gotten ugly because pulling a piece of equipment off of ebay after the auction has started AND has almost concluded is considered unethical.
Nigel had an answer to my queries concerning this point. If Nigel had not had an answer and had simply canceled his ebay auction because he was worried that he wasn't going to get his minimum selling price, I would have blasted him. However, Nigel responded to my questions because we both had access to the same topic post. That was NOT an option between me and Matt, because I did not have access to ANY forum that Matt had access to.
By the way, I also gave Nigel what I consider to be SEVERAL helpful ideas. Lol, Nigel chose to ignore them all.
The prototype link that I posted above was an example of my attempt to share PERSONAL information about my own experiences working with a designer in making a prototype and instead the topic remained about Roger and his workprinter and how I had slammed him! (this is why I believe if Roger had had his own workprinter forum everybody could have peacefully cohabitated on these forums) I never even got to mention the part about my own experience with prototypes because Roger and Matt hijacked the discussion and made it only about what they wanted it to be about, slamming me for allegedly slamming them. (sounds familar, doesn't it?)
Roger, if you want to apologize for overreacting to several of my posts two years on Brantley's forum, (and it's quite evident that you did this on more than one occasion), then we can both agree that YOUR ACTIONS two years ago precluded me from taking any other course than the one I took recently regarding Matt and his auction.
But I don't want an apology from you. You did a lot of damage by your tyrannical responses to my posts two years ago and I think I've shown a lot of latitude in you and Matt's spamming of this forum over the last month.
You got your way two years ago, and Brantley's forum was harmed as a result. The fact that you recently used the word "rant" to discuss how I spoke of your workprinter on this forum, when I was nothing but complimentary to the point that YOU MADE TWO SALES just proves that you don't know when to hold and when to fold, and you STILL twist discussions by using words such as rant when they don't fairly assess the situation at hand.
This past month you have pilloried this forum and yet my civil discussion of your workprinter, which you call a rant, have led to an additional sale or two of your workprinter. Imagine all the good things that could have happened for Super-8 if you hadn't been so quick to judge every post that I had made on Brantley's forum in such a negative light.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Alex, and I mean this respectfully, you miss the point entirely because YOUR values regarding the importance of updating an old Hostboard post are not the same as everyone else's. If they were, then you would find more support on your own forum regarding your actions in this matter.Originally posted by Alex:
My intent was to close a loophole, which by the way, has apparently failed because Matt never did update the topic in question.
Just think about this question:
Why is updating an old forgotten Hostboard post more important than Matt's right to run an auction without interference from you?
No one had even given that old post a second thought until you saw that Matt was running an auction involving the same camera. Need more information about the camera? Okay, the ebay ad WAS updated with current information about the functionality of the camera, so the two year old post did not contain any information that would be relevant to the ongoing camera auction -UNLESS- you felt that Matt was not telling the truth in his ebay ad.
Is that what you thought, Alex?
See, you really don't have to answer because what YOU thought isn't any more important now than it was then. Even if you had every indication that Matt was lying, it still wasn't your place to interfere, was it?
But the truth is that you had NO indication that Matt was lying, or any way to tell, even if he were. Certainly if it was Matt's goal to deceive, then his update on Hostboard would be no more believable than his update on the ebay ad, now would it? Therefore, WHERE Matt updated his post makes no difference and, as such, there is zero reason for you to have contacted his top bidder with a link to an old post that would do nothing but cause predictable problems for Matt.
Matt did not have an obligation to update his post but you DID have an oblgation to not interfere with his auction. And, knowing that you did and that your interference cost Matt money, don't you think you own him an apology?
You apologize to Matt and I'll write the check for the loss that you caused him.
How much fairer does this have to get?
Roger
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Okay, so you had a different reason for bumping these items to the top of the list but the result is the same.Originally posted by Alex:
I didn't bump up other topics to push your topics away, but rather to get back to what this forum is about, discussing Super-8 filmmaking and equipment.
Still, you need to deal with this issue. You did interfere with Matt's auction. That's a fact. The results of your interference is that you cost him money. That's another fact. It wasn't your place to do so and your much repeated inability to contact Matt is academic since it wasn't your auction. That, of course, is the most important fact of all. If you couldn't contact Matt (which is questionable in iteself), then what on earth made you feel you had the right to contact his top bidder?
You owe Matt an apology and an admission that your interference in his auction was an error in judgement. If you make that compromise, I will personally send Matt a check for his loss and all this will be over with. Don't you think that's reasonable?
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">But this is a Super 8 topic Alex, and, frankly, you made it one on your forum by your uninvited involvement in a fellow super 8 film maker's business affairs. How "useful" this topic will be remains to be seen and that's entirely up to you. I think knowing the integrity of the moderator is pretty useful information because the validity of any other information offered by that moderator will judged by how he carries himself and resolves this situation.Originally posted by Alex:
Roger, you haven't built any sweat equity nor any post equity on this forum. Your stay here is ending if you don't start contributing useful Super-8 topics.
I have made a sincere offer in an effort to clear the air. If you wish to "solve" the problem by banning me, that's okay. As you say, I have no sweat equity in this forum and could take it or leave it. Not so sure that Matt will be so quick to dissappear, though, but that's your problem, not mine. No banning necessary, unless it makes you feel better.
Goodbye and live well, Alex. I tried.
Roger
You did gloss over my previous post which took me close to an hour to comprise.
Your agenda is not the world's agenda, and your previous agenda against me two years did play into the recent events, not out of malisciousness on my part, but out of my lack of being able to communicate directly with Matt.
Heck, I still can't directly communicate with Matt. Matt should have been able to handle the situation by simply responding to the original topic that he himself created, and he could have responded even after the bidder contacted Matt.
We still haven't seen the email that Matt received from the one bidder. My intent was to close a loophole, which by the way, has apparently failed because Matt never did update the topic in question.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">"precluded you from taking any other course"?Originally posted by Alex:
Roger, if you want to apologize for overreacting to several of my posts two years on Brantley's forum, (and it's quite evident that you did this on more than one occasion), then we can both agree that YOUR ACTIONS two years ago precluded me from taking any other course than the one I took recently regarding Matt and his auction.
Alex, did it ever occur to you that you didn't have to do anything since it wasn't your auction?
Or are you seriously suggesting that our disagreement from two years ago FORCED you to contact Matt's top bidder and interfere with an ebay auction that had nothing to do with you?
Really, I don't see the connection. Please explain.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks