PDA

View Full Version : Bushing Speaks!


Archive
03-10-2005, 11:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan</b><p>Dave Bushing came out of hiding to give a statement about some of the problems people have with him and SCDA. Not sure what he accomplished, but I respect the guy for doing something.<br />Here's the link<br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=379976&messageid=1110511825&lp=1110518662" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=379976&messageid=1110511825&lp=1110518662</a><br />Dan

Archive
03-11-2005, 02:27 AM
Posted By: <b>Bushing Speaks</b><p>Especially in his response to Aaron.<br /><br />Davey's attempt at Creative Writing:<br /><br />Dave Bushing <br />(Login DBushing1) Response to Aaron March 11 2005, 1:05 AM<br /><br />"Maybe I am the minority here but it is my opinion that your continual disclosure of an alleged private phone conversation between yourself and Troy is without class."<br />*<br />*<br />*<br />Davey Boy is talking about class, but before I read anymore of his attempt at Creative Writing, or maybe I should say, his attempt at Re-Creative Writing.<br />In his desperate attempt to sound moralistic. Davey Boy is overlooking the fact that it was his boy Troy Boy that obtained Aaron's phone number from someone, and phoned Aaron to call hin a c--k s---er, and to f--k off.<br />The man appears to have a twisted sense of class, and morals.<br /><br />I can thoroughly understand why the twice submitted thesis, is still awaiting final submission.<br /><br />Davey Boy continues to say absolutely nothing.<br /> <br />

Archive
03-11-2005, 03:30 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Joe, aren't you least bit curious what would make Troy react that way? Regardless of whether it right to do it, people do not say things like that for no apparnet reason. There is a lot to that phone call that no one will know except the parties involved. Both will try to play themselves off as being in the right, but they are both in the wrong. One for responding the way he did and the other for obviously saying something or acting in such a way that provoked the repsonse.<br /><br />And yes, I've read Aaron's version and no more believe it than I would believe Troy's version. Without an actual tape of the conversion there is no real way to know what actually happened and what was said.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive
03-11-2005, 07:58 AM
Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Let me state up front that I am not a memorabilia collector (I collect cards). My interest in these ongoing issues stems from a general love of the game but also from an interest, as a lawyer, in the ethical questions presented.<br /><br />My general view, be it cards, memorabilia, stocks, or houses, is that sellers should disclose all material facts. That has been a fundamental principle of the law forever. Generally speaking, a material fact is one a reasonable buyer would want to know BEFORE purchasing. So applying that standard to memorabilia, and I am not persuaded that memorabilia is different from anything else, it seems to me that if an authenticator has a financial interest in an item, that should be disclosed, up front. Let people make their own judgments as to whether it matters, or how if at all it affects their bidding.<br /><br />I do not understand the continued reluctance (with the apparent exception of Robert Edwards) of auction houses, and presumably authenticators (who even if they don't set policies are surely in a position to exert influence), simply to adopt a full, up-front, disclosure policy. I have yet to hear a justification for it. Perhaps there is one, but I have yet to hear it. One would like to think the purpose is NOT to sell items at a higher price than they would sell for absent disclosure, but until the real reason is revealed it is reasonable to draw that inference. I could speculate that there may be other less sinister reasons -- for example, auction houses are reluctant to make changes unless others follow step for fear of losing authenticator business -- but again, unless I have missed it, noone has EXPLAINED the reasons for not disclosing. <br /><br />As far as SCDA's new policy goes, while I agree it is a step in the right direction, I don't think it constitutes full disclosure and I agree with Aaron. First, it is after-the-fact. Second, it puts an unfair onus on the buyer to disprove authenticity within a short time frame. With due respect, knowing up front an item I am bidding on is both owned and authenticated by (for example) Dave Bushing is just not the same as learning that fact when the item shows up on my doorstep, and the paperwork tells me that if I don't like it, I have 30 days to find an expert (and how many are there, truly) to prove Mr. Bushing was wrong about the item. I am sure that if I picked 12 people at random off the street, they would agree that the disclosure I suggest is fuller than the one offered by SCDA. <br /><br />I have no reason to doubt Mr. Bushing's expertise, or that of other members of SCDA or anyone else for that matter, in authenticating memorabilia. And I am on record as saying that I thought Mr. Bushing's degree or lack thereof was much ado about nothing. But the continued reluctance to disclose authenticator interest before-the-fact puzzles me. <br />

Archive
03-11-2005, 09:48 AM
Posted By: <b>Aaron</b><p>Jay wrote: "One for responding the way he did and the other for obviously saying something or acting in such a way that provoked the repsonse." <br /><br />I'll tell you exactly what I said: "Don't curse at me." <br /><br />Troy began say "****" this and "****" that, as in "we work so ****ing hard", and I asked him to stop cursing and he fired of direct expletives at me instead. <br /><br />His response was completely unprovoked. (But it is marvelous to see how hard your mind will work to villify me and champion your pals at SCDA.)<br /><br />Jay also wrote: "And yes, I've read Aaron's version and no more believe it than I would believe Troy's version. Without an actual tape of the conversion there is no real way to know what actually happened and what was said." <br /><br />Hmn, and yet without Adam or Robert Planich present to contest SCDA's version of the "streak" bat authentication, you readily believed whatever they had to say. <br /><br />Jay, I invite you to contact Troy and get his version of our conversation. Unlike SCDA, I am completely unafraid of having my account challenged. <br /><br />As I also previously asked, please ask him to reveal how he obtained my phone number and from whom. (I'm seriously concerned the same auction house may have divulged other bits of my account information such as my account password and my credit card info.)<br /><br />

Archive
03-11-2005, 10:02 AM
Posted By: <b>mcavoy</b><p>PASJD wrote: "I do not understand the continued reluctance (with the apparent exception of Robert Edwards) of auction houses, and presumably authenticators (who even if they don't set policies are surely in a position to exert influence), simply to adopt a full, up-front, disclosure policy. I have yet to hear a justification for it. Perhaps there is one, but I have yet to hear it. One would like to think the purpose is NOT to sell items at a higher price than they would sell for absent disclosure, but until the real reason is revealed it is reasonable to draw that inference. I could speculate that there may be other less sinister reasons -- for example, auction houses are reluctant to make changes unless others follow step for fear of losing authenticator business -- but again, unless I have missed it, noone has EXPLAINED the reasons for not disclosing."<br /><br />I think the big ones have in defense testimony and news articles when major fakes are revealed after the fact: 1. Their policy is "Buyer beware." 2. Buyer don't ask, house don't tell. 3. Competition; full disclosure policies may deter some selling collectors from placing their collections/questionable items with houses that disclose all known and suspected problems. 4. House Fees and Seller Revenues; uncertainty disclosed would likely reduce the hammer price and lower the juice

Archive
03-11-2005, 10:28 AM
Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>on a sort of "game used" board..Er...where did I post, exactly?

Archive
03-11-2005, 11:36 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Aaron, Planich made his case here. I had all that info before I ever went to meet with SCDA. It's his claims that made me want to see SCDA's side. Unlike you, who would rather sit at home, ignorant as to one side of the story. And don't feed us this melarkey about wanted to see it played out in an unbiased court of law. You've already made up your mind and doubt it would change even if that court said the bat was legit. You'd jsut say they spent more money on lawyers and bought the verdict. Just gotta love that view from the win-win barcalounger.<br /><br />You do mighty fine job of cutting and pasting, but you obviously don't read very well. I'm not taking a side on this he-said-she-said issue. Like I said, without a tape of the conversation, as far as I know, you are both lying to make each other look bad. And there is obvious bad blood between you two, so I have no reason to believe anything the 2 of you say about each other.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive
03-11-2005, 12:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Aaron</b><p>Jay, I have two questions for you: <br /><br />1. When will your beating at the National take place? And; <br /><br />2. Who will be administering it? <br /><br />(Pst, you responded to me.) <br /><br /><br />As to your comment: "Like I said, without a tape of the conversation, as far as I know, you are both lying to make each other look bad. And there is obvious bad blood between you two, so I have no reason to believe anything the 2 of you say about each other." <br /><br />Good. I'm happy to see you finally displaying a healthy sense of skepticism. <br /><br /><br />

Archive
03-11-2005, 12:18 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Anyone is welcome to take a shot. BcD is the ony guy that really worries me <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Aaron, now if you'd only show the same amount of skeptism when it comes to Planich and his claims. You've only got one of side of story. An opinion based on one side of the story is always a bad opinion no matter if you are right or wrong.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive
03-11-2005, 12:42 PM
Posted By: <b>Aaron</b><p>Jay: <br /><br />I keep telling you: I don't believe Planich either. And I would have had the same reaction to the demonstration had it been organized by Adam and consisted simply on a one-sided presentation by Planich. <br /><br />I wanted to see this decided in the suit, since each side would have the chance to present their best case, and then have it rigorously challenged by a knowledgeable party.<br /><br />Otherwise, we just have Planich and his side and Bushing and his side, and neither, IMO, is controlling or determinant. <br /><br />Maybe Ryan can knock you out after he knocks me out. No sense in inconveniencing more than one person. <br /><br />

Archive
03-11-2005, 01:06 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>So how is it the opinions of 3 people that read everything Planich had to say here and saw and heard SCDA's side of the story is any different than a court case and less meaningful than that of jury? And please spare me the rules of evidence and legaistic junk. We went in thinking the bat had major problems because of what Planich had stated. They basically had to convince us that this bat was what they claimed it to be. In a trial, the jury isn't supposed to have any preconcieved notions, so SCDA's job would be that much easier. With us, they had to change our mind.<br /><br />The 3 people that have more knowledge about this situation than almost anyone else walked away from it with basically the same opinions. So this is the closest you are going to get to a trial and can't realistically expect much more than that.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive
03-11-2005, 01:29 PM
Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Sheesh, as a lawyer I feel offended. Jay, with all due respect, cross-examination of witnesses under oath, with all relevant evidence produced (for example the full videotape) is better at eliciting the truth than an informal presentation, no matter how informed or skeptical you were.

Archive
03-11-2005, 01:36 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Sorry if you took offense. Just trying to fend off Aaron's parsing of comments, which he is so fond of. Realistically, the DiMaggio bat is never going to go to trial. The closest thing we have is the 3 of us who went to Chicago. Anyone that goes to the National will also be able to see this same evidence and ask questions to their hearts content. If you are going to the National, there is no excuse not to go to this if you collect equipment. They will you take you the steps of authenticating bats and if the majority of the poeple come out of that saying that the bat is bogus, then I guess the 3 of us were wrong, but I really doubt that will happen.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive
03-11-2005, 05:11 PM
Posted By: <b>Aaron</b><p>Jay wrote: "The closest thing we have is the 3 of us who went to Chicago." <br /><br />LOL, you guys were a regular tribunal, you were! <br /><br />Dave, if that was the closest that we had to a trial, then we are back to square one. (In fact I would actually argue your demonstration was less than square one since it swung so widely on a unchallenged, one-sided, biased presentation as to taint the information that was out there.)

Archive
03-11-2005, 05:31 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Aaron, would like to buy a vowel from Vanna so you can get a clue? Their presentation did not go unchallenged. We came plenty of questions for them to answer and new ones for them as the day went on.<br /><br />I really a small glimmer of hope that might be capable of rational thought but you've proven me wrong. At this point, you go back into the iggy box since you once again insult us and seem to think we are incapable of farming unbiased opinions, even though the 3 of are armed with far more information than you have and went in convinced the bat was bad. This proves that you are completely incapable of unbiased thought and opinion. Enjoy your view from the win-win barcaloungers. I won't disturb you anymore.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive
03-11-2005, 06:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Franz Anton Mesmer was right</b><p>Back and forth, back and forth.<br />Your eyes are getting heavy.<br />As you look at the pendant going back and forth.<br />Your eyes are getting heavier and heavier.<br />The tranquil swinging pendant, belonged to Franz Anton Mesmer.<br />It belonged to Mesmer because I authenticated it, and I said so.<br />When I count to three, your eyes will be completely shut, and listening for your instructions.<br />One!<br />Two!<br />Three!<br />Good!<br />Here are your instructions.<br /><br />Anytime that you hear the name Bushing, regardless of what you are doing, whether it's sitting down at the dinner table.<br /><br />About to finalize a special moment with your mate.<br /><br />In the lavatory contemplating the price of rice in China.<br /><br />....... You Cut It Short!<br /><br />It is your Unquestionable Duty to defend the David Bushing name.<br /><br />It's blind obedience.<br /><br />Those sodas at Mastro did not come cheap.<br /><br />When I count to three, you will wake up, and the only thing that you will remember is the name that will trigger you to action for the rest of your life.<br /><br />One!<br />Two!<br />Three!<br />

Archive
03-11-2005, 07:29 PM
Posted By: <b>Aaron</b><p>You can give up on me, Jay, but I'm not going to give up on you. I've grown very fond of you these past couple weeks.

Archive
03-16-2005, 11:48 AM
Posted By: <b>Dan</b><p>I know people here monitor the other network 54 forum on game used memorabilia. <br /><br />They posted last night that it can also be found at <a href="http://www.gameusedforum.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.gameusedforum.com</a><br /><br />Dan

Archive
03-17-2005, 06:28 AM
Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>You guys break my heart. I thought I found a forum that was above all this pettiness.

Archive
03-17-2005, 08:35 AM
Posted By: <b>Pettiness, Liberating Money from Collectors?</b><p><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>