Is Alex Ethical?

Printable View

October 4th, 2003, 11:55 AM
MovieStuff

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?
October 4th, 2003, 04:20 PM
Corey D.

Roger, just drop it.

Go make a Workprinter or something.
October 4th, 2003, 05:15 PM
Alex

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.
October 4th, 2003, 06:12 PM
MovieStuff

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?
October 4th, 2003, 06:15 PM
MovieStuff

Quote:

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.

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.
October 5th, 2003, 03:49 AM
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.

-----------------------------------------

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.
October 5th, 2003, 04:42 AM
Alex

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.
October 5th, 2003, 09:59 AM
MovieStuff

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
I think a simple update by Matt to his own hostboard topic post would have alleviated the bidders possible concern.

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.
October 5th, 2003, 12:51 PM
Alex

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.
October 5th, 2003, 10:03 PM
MovieStuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
Roger, your continual twisting of good intentions is imaginative

You have GOT to be kidding. No, "imaginative" is you trying to pass off what you did as "good intentions". THAT'S 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.
October 6th, 2003, 03:36 AM
Corey D.

Or maybe Roger can build one himself.
October 6th, 2003, 12:11 PM
MovieStuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
Maybe that's how Roger got here, by building his own portal

Helll, who needs a time portal when we have Alex to relive the past, over and over again, so he can talk about how unfair he was treated by getting kicked off of two different forums?

Gee, Alex. You're our own private time-warp!

(And to think all this time I considered you merely warped.)
October 6th, 2003, 03:04 PM
Alex

Well Roger, just for you...

What, Alex has done this before??? The Horror!!!

I could charge admission for your response, I'm sure it will be the most demonically driven (sorry blue demon) response ever.
October 6th, 2003, 03:06 PM
Alex

Quote:

Originally posted by Corey D.:
Or maybe Roger can build one himself.

GOSH COREY, your one-liners are fall down funny! [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

Maybe that's how Roger got here, by building his own portal. Probably broke down and that's why he can't go back to witchhunting in the 16th century. [img]graemlins/bat.gif[/img]
October 6th, 2003, 05:03 PM
Matt Pacini

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
"... I won't be unfairly banned from another forum AND then sit on the sidelines ..."

Ahhhh, I see!
And that, folks, is the real thing behind this:

What Alex just said, is a typical "Alex-speak" way of saying he's getting revenge any way he can for being kicked off Brantley's board BY MIKE BRANTLEY.

I did not kick Alex off Brantley's board, Alex did it all by himself, by repeatedly attacking everyone on that board, ignoring repeated warnings by Mike Brantely, to the point where all he could do is get you out of there.
And to get kicked off of TWO forums, when I've never even heard of anyone getting kicked off of any forum.... well, that's saying something.
And for you to insist it was unfair in both instances is reason enough for you to get therapy for illusions of granduer.

Your logic here is so twisted, it's incredible.
I've also noted that since we've "outed" you for being the vindictive sphincter you really are, that almost nobody but you is on this board.

And as for witch hunts, YOU are the one that qualifies for that, because you stuck out at me unprovoked, with justification so bizarre and twisted that it makes the real witchhunters look like geniuses.

Matt Pacini
October 6th, 2003, 09:07 PM
Alex

I don't have time to respond to this right now, but for the record, Matt is so far off base he's landed in a soccer stadium.
October 7th, 2003, 05:02 PM
Matt Pacini

You don't have time?
But you do have time to put new posts up, answer other posts, and spent god know how much time on this and other websites.

I think we've just discovered Alex' stock excuse when he can't justify why he ripped me off on my ebay sale he had nothing to do with.

Now why again was it OK for you to interfere in my ebay sale Alex?

Matt Pacini
October 7th, 2003, 06:24 PM
Alex

er, I volunteered to work the California Recall Vote, it's a 14-15 hour day with a couple of one hour breaks.

But I do find your style of twisting everything quite fascinating.
October 7th, 2003, 11:14 PM
MovieStuff

I guess you didn't see Matt's question:

Why did you interfere with Matt's ebay auction, Alex?
October 8th, 2003, 04:22 AM
Alex

Typical for Roger.
October 8th, 2003, 10:11 AM
MovieStuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
Typical for Roger.

Cowardness in the face of accepting responsibility for his actions: Typical for Alex.

Answer the question. It's been asked, like, over a dozen times.
October 9th, 2003, 09:20 PM
MovieStuff

Alex, since you seem to know everything, here's a question for you:

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

Answer the question.
October 9th, 2003, 09:38 PM
Alex

Quote:

Originally posted by MovieStuff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alex:
Typical for Roger.

Cowardness in the face of accepting responsibility for his actions: Typical for Alex.

Answer the question. It's been asked, like, over a dozen times.<hr /></blockquote>It's been answered SEVERAL times. Your Ken Starr behavior won't work here bud.
October 9th, 2003, 10:08 PM
cameraguy

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
It's been answered SEVERAL times.

Nobody's dumb enough to buy it.
October 9th, 2003, 10:15 PM
MovieStuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
It's been answered SEVERAL times.

No it hasn't. Quit lying.

Explain why you felt you had the right to interfere in Matt Pacini's auction.

Answer the question.
October 9th, 2003, 11:53 PM
Alex

Quote:

Originally posted by cameraguy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alex:
It's been answered SEVERAL times.

Nobody's dumb enough to buy it.<hr /></blockquote>Are you refering to Matt's camera?

Obviously I would have contacted Matt if it was an realistic option,
iust like when I communicated with Nigel
October 10th, 2003, 12:29 AM
MovieStuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:

Obviously I would have contacted Matt if it was an realistic option,

But wouldn't a more realistic option be to mind your own business and contact no one? After all, it didn't concern you, did it?

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

Answer the question.
October 10th, 2003, 01:00 AM
Alex

It's silly to only point the finger at me Roger. Matt even went as far to update the info on the Shooting 8mm forum, but not Brantley's forum.

Does Pacini pick up his own dogs poop, probably not.
October 10th, 2003, 01:23 AM
MovieStuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
Matt even went as far to update the info on the Shooting 8mm forum, but not Brantley's forum.

So what? You're trying desperately to make a connection where there is none, Alex. In fact, you've sort of lied your way into a corner here. Since you've made the admission that you were aware Matt's old post hadn't been updated, then you KNEW it was in conflict with the information in the ebay ad, which had more up to date information that the camera worked fine. So why send a link for it to the highest bidder EXCEPT for the sole purpose to stir up trouble for Matt? Either you believed Matt's ebay description that the camera worked fine or you didn't. Which is it?

In either case, wouldn't a more realistic (and ethical) option be to mind your own business and contact no one? After all, it didn't concern you, did it? You aren't the ebay police. You didn HAVE to do anything.

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

Answer the question.
October 10th, 2003, 11:10 PM
MovieStuff

Let's just bump this up to the top.

Answer the question, Alex.