NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I just deleted an email that Lee B posted sent to him by the Dorskind Group. The rule on this board is that no private emails are to be posted. Exceptions can be made when both parties are ok with it and it is non-confrontational in nature. Generally it is totally unacceptable. The reason is that emails can be manipulated or there can be things left out ...which makes the private email posted be out of context. Also, I have always asked that disputes be taken to private emails. If I allow private emails to then be posted then that would be hypocritical in my view. If not hypocritical then at least self defeating of sending said disputes to emails. For the record I have had this "contorting" out of context done to me recently as emails were left out of the string that was posted about me on another board. I know it happens with first hand knowledge. Those are the reasons private emails will not be allowed on this board. I hope everyone understands it protects everyone....regards<br /><br /><br />edited out "and not open for debate though."...as this IS open for debate...<br /><br />and edited spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Nice to see that the truth gets edited.<br /><br />Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Like I said....I have no doubt it was the truth....I have gotten emails from the Dorskind Group like that too. I hope you understand it's not personal. It's a forum rule for reasons stated above.....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Leon, <br /><br />This is the stuff you allow. The follow up:<br /><br />Yet another defeat for the hopeless "Behrens"...<br />Behrens, a good word, indeed to describe and empty mind<br />and an empty wallet.<br /><br />This man is truly pathetic and if you condone this you are no where close to the person I met at the Nationals.<br /><br />Lee<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>With all due respect what are you talking about? Where did I say I condone hateful emails? I just said you can't post private emails per the board rules. It's been a rule from day one of me moderating, over 2 years ago. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Hi Lee,<br /><br />I agree with Leon's policy of not posting actual private emails. There is simply no positive outcome.<br /><br />However, as far as I understand the rules it is still okay to post with a summary or characterization of a private email - a summary in your own words. <br /><br />If the emailer objects to the presentation he can offer and you can agree to post the entire text. If anyone else inquires you can forward the email to that person privately. <br /><br />I don't see it as editing the truth. I see it as preventing private conversations from becoming public, and eventually the truth getting out if both parties dispute the way the communication is presented by the other.<br /><br />So ... characterize away on the Dorskind email! lol. I missed it the first time around, and am very curious to see what I missed. If you can't or don't want to summarize it, then just answer this one question ... WAS THERE ROTTING IN A LITTLE SHACK INVOLVED?????<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>When I posted the original email I stated that I would let the people decide for themselves on the content. I had no intention of any follow up at all I think Dorskin is a waste of time. You have brought this to the forefront by deleting the email and telling me if I reword it I can post it. I copied the email as is, the truth, and you tell me that is wrong but it is all right to post it in my own words? <br /><br />It's your board, to me by deleting such posts you are condoning such behavour. I hope this is not the case.<br /><br />Jericho<br /><br />Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>bcornell</b><p>I completely agree with the forum policy not to allow posting of emails, which are private by nature. Many have tried this and every single time, they were trying to forward their own argument. Make your own point here and don't aim so low.<br /><br />That said, if you're sending obnoxious emails, you probably have a habit of doing so. Tsk tsk.<br /><br /><br />Bill<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Joann, I always respect your opinion on this board. But this was not intended to be a conversation, it was an unintended email. There are many that wonder why there are so many lurkers, it is the likes of Dorskin and his BS that keep good people away.<br /><br />Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Are they private when they are unsolicited?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>You said:<br /><br />"It's your board, to me by deleting such posts you are condoning such behavour."<br /><br /><br />If you think deleting personal emails, per the board rules, is "condoning" then we will just agree to disagree on this matter. No one is allowed to post them. Same rules for everyone....... Again, nothing personal. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Lee,<br /><br />Leon did not tell you to post it in your own words. That was my suggestion so you could convey something you clearly think needs to be conveyed, but without posting an actual email<br /><br />The reason I agree with Leon's policy is exactly for the reasons he states - it is too easy to edit an email and present it as the sender's words. I would hate to think that someone could take my private communication, modify it to make me look stupid, and post it on this board.<br /><br />I know it may seem unfair to those that would post emails honestly and accurately with no edits, but in this case it seems to me that erring on the side of conservatism is the best move. I would rather have to put a received email into my own words, giving up the ability to post it directly, than risk that anyone else could completely corrupt my words and post them here.<br /><br />J

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>If it was sent to you personally then it was private, imo. .....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Yes, Johann, Leon did tell to reword and it could be posted.<br /><br />Now about unsolicited emails?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>So we just let these people to as they please so they can continue do run more people from the board or posting? <br /><br />Edited to correct my spelling so I don't get more emails from Dorskin

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>bcornell</b><p><i>Are they private when they are unsolicited?</i><br /><br />Lee -<br /><br />Doesn't matter. If we were sending you stupid comments like the one you quoted, we would block them. And now I've lost track of who "we" is.<br /><br />I have never once seen a single angry post here that got the poster what he wanted. Yet, people keep trying.<br /><br />Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Lee,<br /><br />Now that I've read what you posted while I was writing my last, I will say that I completely agree with you that Dorskind is a complete ass (asses?) and keeps good people away. And bad people. And tired people. And happy people. And short people. And wise people. And fun people. Oh to hell with it - he keeps all kinds of people away!!<br /><br />OK. So now I'm dying to know what he sent you. I remember that in the past Jay has posted some summaries of emails Bruces Dorskinds sent him, and they were truly appalling. I imagine that yours is in the same vein.<br /><br />J

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I support Leon's rule.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />What if the senders email address was omitted and only partial content was used? Is that ok? I would guess that this usually pertains to emails that might be controversial.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Ooooohhhhh HELL no! hahaha. OMG. I take it back. I take it all back. We should be allowed to post private emails - freely and frequently. <br /><br />Leon - can you suspend the policy for five minutes, long enough for Lee to repost his email from Wharton (Magna) 73?? I'm sorry. Did I say "Wharton (Magna) 73"? Of course I meant the Dorskinds. For a minute there I thought of him in the way he signed his email to Lee, which Lee just sent me privately. hahaha. DANG was that funny.<br /><br />I'm sorry Lee - you have every reason to be offended by that elitist crap. But it was so over-the-top that I just had to laugh. <br /><br />OK. No more Dorskind references for me. No more Bruces or any other name. From here on out he will always be "Wharton (Magna) 73" to me.<br /><br />J<br /><br />PS: Leon, I know you can't suspend the policy. But it would have been so funny for all to see Mr. Wharton (Magna) 73 refer to his two (count-em, two!) Ivy League degrees while chiding Lee for spelling/grammar errors IN THE SAME TWO SENTENCES IN WHICH HE MAKES FIVE VERY OBVIOUS GRAMMATICAL/PUNCTUATION ERRORS! hahaha. Oh the comedy the group is missing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I did get to read Dorskindsssssss's email to Lee before it was edited, since it was posted on one of my current threads.<br />It was very mean-spirited and smelled like the rantings of a pathetic person. I, like others, have recently received an <br />email from the same "snob"; however, in my case it was about an attempt to correct some mundane grammatical error <br />that I supposedly committed.<br /><br />Why do we have to tolerate this kind of "hate email" from such "elitists" on this forum ? It's unacceptible and should be<br /> exposed.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>As devils advocate.....what would stop someone from changing the email and then posting it? I am not saying it would happen but it could. I think it's a slippery slope and I think making the rule steadfast is better. <br /><br />Joann- I saw the email he posted before I deleted it. I pretty much skimmed over it but do remember a mistake or three. But no, I don't think it would be right to allow it to be posted publicly. Now, if ya'll want to send it to everyone and their brother privately...then there is nothing I can, or would want to do, about that. ..regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>So Leon, what do you do on your end when you are aware of such emails?<br /><br />Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>lol. I know Leon - and I do agree with the policy.<br /><br />But I think I will try do something to get one of Wharton (Magna) 73's emails of my own. Who doesn't dream of being called a commoner? Or having family members invited to move to Cuba? <br /><br />If I got one of my very own, then I could characterize away to my heart's content. Wharton (Magna) 73, my email address is jmkline@juno.com,<br /><br />But to Ted's comment, on a more serious note, the private emails are truly deplorable if the one that Lee got is any indication. At some point it may be a valid question to ask whether someone can use the contact information that is available because people participate on this board to send those people unsolicited, harassing and insulting emails.<br /><br />I'm just asking.<br /><br />Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I have gotten many emails from Bruce and for the most part they have always been pleasant. I don't know why he chooses to post here with such arrogance....I've also seen the little short video of Bruce showing off some of his collection and I didn't notice any use of "We" or "Whilst"...nor any mention of Sir Edward Wharton-Tiger. It's sad that he can't figure out how to win friends and influence people because not only would he have a lot to gain personally, but I bet his collection would too.<br /><br />And Joann have you gotten that photo you won off of ebay yet?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am not trying to be argumentative but I am not sure I understand your question. What do I do when I know about these emails, or what do I do when I get them myself? <br /><br />If I know about them then so be it. I won't, and can't, police anything outside the board, nor do I want to. I don't condone hateful emails and would hope no one sends them to anyone.<br /><br />If one gets sent to me personally then I react appropriately...and honestly, sometimes, with a somewhat nasty email back....but I would not make theirs public here and I wouldn't let them do it to me here. I feel it's a good rule...regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Never mind I am just beating my head against the wall and Dorskin wins again. Congrats Bruce. You are a much better man than I will ever be or try to be. I bow to we's greatness.<br /><br />Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Like many (all?) regulars, I have gotten abusive unprovoked emails from Dorskind, including one recently in which he accused me of insulting the size of his manhood in a thread. Apparently he has trouble reading, because I never did any such thing. (Someone else in the thread did, but not me.) I pointed this out to him but amazingly did not receive an acknowledgement or apology for his error.<br /><br />Leon, why DO we have to put up with unsolicited abusive emails which are a direct result of this board, since that's where he gets our addresses from? Is there nothing that can be done about this twerp?<br /><br />I have to laugh when someone whines that the "class war" position of certain "poor" collectors on this board drives lurkers away and keeps supposedly wonderful people from posting here. One look at most of Bruce's posts would drive just about any sane person right into another hobby.<br /><br />"Wharton (magna) '73" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, LOL.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Lee, <br /><br />We don't need to read his email to know what kind of pompous ass he really is. I've noticed, in my short time on this board, that many of us can go out of our way to be asses. Bruce just has the shortest commute. He needs no busses, trains, cabs or limos. Two steps out the door and he's there. <br /><br />Ignore him. Put a block on his emails through your ISP. <br /><br />(For the record, when I graduated from college in 1973, I was accepted at Wharton. I deferred because my dad had passed away a couple of years prior and I needed to get a real job, right away. Today, I'm glad I never got back to it.)<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am open to debate about posting private emails but it's going to be tough to convince me to change it. I am sorry for the emails. Heck, he's sent me some too. I just think the rule is a good one for reasons stated. If ya'll convince me otherwise, then so be it.....I knew this wouldn't be a fun thread but I felt the need to post it...regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Maybe if people were allowed to post some of Bruce's vile emails then he would think twice about sending them. I've often noticed that Bruce chooses to email replies to posts on Net54 rather than posting his thoughts on the board....I doubt he'd be nearly as vicious in his replies if people were allowed to post his emails.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>I don't disagree with your position on private emails-- it wouldn't help in a situation like this. I was mainly just venting, and I have now learned how to use the "Blocked Senders" feature of my email program, which is fun.<br /><br />However, at this point I do have to wonder whether Bruce hasn't caused as much or more grief on this board as some people who have been shut down.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>It's a judgement call. Only 2 people (that were known people, not anonymous trolls) have been banned. One was so over the top that I didn't need another opinion, though I got about 5 privately, and it was unanimous. The other person is someone that I specifically told not to interact with someone else on the board. Nine days later they started it again so I had to act on it. I would prefer to never ban anyone. Bruce does start some provocative posts and has a lot of hobby knowledge. I agree it's a shame he acts the way he does on the board sometimes. It irritates and riles folks up. I know you very much understand my position concerning banning though you might not personally agree with it. I am extremely slow to ban anyone....Two in over two years isn't too many....I hope it stays at two....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Hi-<br /><br />I have nothing to add.<br /><br />Cobby33<br />UCSB '91<br />GGU Law '96

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Elliot</b><p>It is also my opinion that nothing good can come out of allowing the posting of private emails on the board. It's is just too easy to manipulate the email to one's advantage. <br />Having said that, I agree that it is wrong for Bruce to be sending abusive emails to board members with addresses that he has obtained from the board. An obvious first step is to block his emails.<br><br>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>i don't condone the abusive e-mails but Bruce's posts are among the very besy on Net54 and I would hate to see him stop posting.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Here's one solution. I got some very disturbing emails from Bruce about a year ago, which included death threats. He was told if I ever get another email even remotely like that, I will contact local authorities and forward all emails. If you have gotten any threatening emails from him, please forward them to me, including all headers. If he does step over the line again, I will be more than happy to make the legal authorities in his area of his threats so he can be dealt with.<br /><br />I recently got another email stating "the dark is lurking".<br /><br />Go ahead and keep it up Bruce. You're just digging yourself a deeper hole.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>I agree with Leon's policy. It's just too easy for someone to edit an email. More important, in many cases emails can be used to resolve differences and foster greater understanding between people. Or in other cases they are meant to convey information not intended for public dissemination. People could be dissuaded from writing them if this Board allows them to be posted. Either way one looks at it, there are imperfections with either rule, but on balance I think looking at the entire situation and not any one particular instance, Leon's ban is a prudent one.<br /><br />Also, I think Lee's point about the inconsistency between not allowing the entire email to be published (out of fear of editing) but allowing the receiver to post a summary is well taken. Summaries by their nature are subjective and can be quite misleading. If posting the email is prohibited, then so should posting a summary.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Well, I have to say that I still agree with the policy of not posting personal emails. But after reading the email Lee got, supporting the policy suddenly got quite a bit harder. <br /><br />It was, for me, a theoretical position to take based on sound arguments in favor of preventing abuse and misrepresentation of content, plus betraying the sender's intent of a private communication. With Lee's email it is no longer theoretical because I think the email he got is horrible and there is a real urge in me to want to see Wharton (Magna) 73 exposed to the world for what he is.<br /><br />So I still support the policy, but it is a much closer call.<br /><br /><br /><br />And to idly respond to a few of the posts above:<br /><br />I too thought I knew what a pompous ass he is from his posts on the board, but it turns out I didn't. What he posts here is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to what he sent Lee. I had no idea.<br /><br />I still wonder if there is not recourse here, since he's using contact info from this board to make contact and the content of people's posts to fuel his bs, to do something to discourage this behavior. A suspension instead of a ban? I know that participation on a public forum leaves one (two?) open to uninvited emails and sometimes impolite disagreement. But if this guy is making a habit of doing it a lot, and to a lot of people, and emailing PURELY TO INSULT, NOT TO COUNTER A POINT, then maybe some response is in order.<br /><br />Jim, even though you value Wharton (Magna) 73's contributions, I think you would be shocked to see what he has said to someone in an email. It may change your thinking about his overall value to this forum.<br /><br />Finally, to those of you who have asked me to forward the email - I'd be happy to but I need to check with Lee first. He sent it to me and I don't know that he intended it to go past that. That he posted it on this board tells me he's not all that concerned about spreading the content, but I'll check first. If it's okay with him, I'll happily forward it.<br /><br />Hmmm. Maybe I should start some kind of website where people could post his emails. Anyone happen to know if www.whartonmagna73.com is taken? Hahahahaa. Cracked myself up with that one. And pretty early in the morning too.<br /><br />Joann<br />The proud product of our nation's public university system. Go Terps! lol<br /><br />CMU 81 BS<br />Maryland 84 MS<br />WMU 94 MS<br />Cooley Law School - currently enrolled

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Corey,<br /><br />I think posting a summary should be okay for the exact reason that it is clearly the poster's words. People would know that it is content as seen by the person posting, with whatever biases or spin or impressions that person may carry with it. So readers could decide what to make of it armed with the knowledge that it is the poster's words and version of events.<br /><br />That is a lot different than posting an email that has possibly been edited according to the poster's biases and spin. In that case it is being represented as the actual words of the sender, and the reader has no reason to mentally account for the spin of the poster. That is much more deceitful to me.<br /><br />Plus, if you extend the rule to cover summaries it would become impossible to find the limits. What about statements like "you told me in an email last year that you would do such and such, and now you are going back on that"? <br /><br />JMO.<br /><br />JMK. hee. I'm on a roll this morning.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>joann you said " I think the email he got is horrible and there is a real urge in me to want to see Wharton (Magna) 73 exposed to the world for what he is." i don't think we need to see the email to figure out what he is. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I need to drink black coffee at night so I can stay up and read all this scintillating banter.<br /><br />I also agree that private emails don't belong on the board, but for whatever reason Bruce blind copied me on the email that he sent Lee. Like all of Bruce's takes on what is really important in life, my jaw dropped as I read it. When he is attacked in any way, Bruce pulls out the Ivy league degrees and his great wealth and culture, and lets people know in no uncertain terms why he is better than them.<br /><br />I don't even know where to start regarding that email, I am simply speechless.<br /><br />And Jim C., while Bruce does occasionally make some useful posts, please explain in your own words why you feel he is one of the best posters on this board. Does insulting people who may not have as much as he does (or pretends he does) count as part of the good stuff?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Not a bad point, but the problem I see with it is that as a practical matter, in order for the sender to effectively rebut the summary, he/she will feel tremendous pressure to post the entire email, and then we are back to square one. So, while I think there is sound logic to what you say, on balance I still feel summaries should be prohibited as well.<br /><br />Or, another way to look at it, if the main purpose of the ban is to not put a damper on people writing emails, I'm not sure if allowing summaries would not act as a comparable damper. In fact, it arguably could act as more of a damper due to concerns of the potentially misleading nature of summaries.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Oh my gosh. So Wharton (Magna) 73 is a bcc'er too??? Why am I not surprised? I have never once, ever, personally or at work used a blind copy. I think they are unethical (just my personal opinion), so it doesn't shock me in the least that he would use it. <br /><br />Although why he would want another soul in the universe to know what he wrote to Lee is beyond me.<br /><br />And Corey - also good points. I guess there is no good answer. In the end it's too bad that it even needs to be discussed. If people didn't misrepresent themselves and their role in events in public, it wouldn't even be necessary for someone to want to post a message that demonstrates the public falsity.<br /><br />J

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>Dammit. I want to be noticed, too!<br /><br />--Chad<br />(The Hollow Leg, drunka, 'perpetually)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PAS</b><p>I agree with Leon that private emails should not be posted. That said, no one should have to endure hate emails as the price of particpating here, and the moderator should consider banning someone if there is conclusive proof he is abusing other posters.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p>Hey Chad,<br /> <br />Just sent you a threatening email. Thanks.<br /><br />Dave

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>It hurts so good.<br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I think this is a healthy debate. Before Corey ever posted his thought on summarized emails, and the point of NOT allowing them to be posted, I had already typed a long response to Joann, and deleted it before I hit the respond button. I came to the same conclusion as Corey though. I don't think summaries can be allowed either. Also, I am not sure how we can ascertain that an email addresss is ONLY derived from this board. The debate rolls on but so far I am not convinced the rule needs to be changed. To change this rule there is going to have to be a compelling argument that outweighs the current standard. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p>It's funny most these people that like to send out hostile emails and such would never do the same thing face to face. Thats part of the wonderful world of the internet. <br /><br />It seems its kind of on the same line as men that like to abuse women...most of them I've seen do so because they can't seem to handle taking their frustations out on another man...they are too scared to do so....same thing with the internet bullies...they are goofy little guys that can't and won't back up any talk in person.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Out of everyone's post so far, one sticks out to me.<br />Member Davalillo states, and I quote;<br />"I don't condone the abusive e-mails, but Bruce's posts are among the very best on Net54 and I would hate to see him stop posting".<br /><br /><br />You know, what never ceases to amaze me with many on this board is how much stature is given to someone solely on how much their collection is worth, or how much knowledge they have in the hobby.<br />What ever happened to judging a person for what they are. Who cares how much they're worth or how much schooling they've had. I'll tell you what, if we were just a chat board of people meeting online shooting the sh#% about life in general and cards weren't a part of our lives, anyone that acted the way I'm understanding Bruce did, and as many times as he has would be someone everyone would avoid. <br />For some reason though somewhere along the way many have given a free pass to certain people here just because of the baseball cards they own or how much their collection is worth. I think that's pretty sad and disappointing if you ask me.<br /><p>Regards, Tony Andrea<br /><br />edited to correct message title...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>I lose all respect for people who "threaten" electronically. It's not the highest form of cowardice, but it's up there.<br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>I would just like to interject that Bruce is not representative of Upenn Alumni. Please don't come away with the impression that we are all, or even mostly, uppity snobs. I will readily admit, I have much to learn from most everyone on this board.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Tony- while I know Bruce's collection and he has some very fine baseball cards, it in no way approaches the scope of many of the posters on this board. If anything, it is rather modest in size. That is what makes all his rants even more preposterous. I can think of at least a dozen posters with collections that would dwarf his, yet these same people exhibit modesty and show respect to collectors who may not be able to afford what they can.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Matt, <br /><br />Your post might carry more weight if you listed the year and honor level of your degree. Just a thought. &lt;LOL&gt;

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Hi Barry -<br />I agree with you 100%. For every one bad egg on N54, you'll find 20 good ones here. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><p>Tony<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>How many good eggs does that bad egg drive away?<br /><br />Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Barry asks an excellent question: why does anyone feel Bruce is "one of the best posters on this board. Does insulting people who may not have as much as he does (or pretends he does) count as part of the good stuff?"<br /><br />The sad truth is that Bruce has cleverly set the bar so abysmally low with most of his posts that when he does occasionally make one with some content of value to collectors, and I do mean occasionally, a minority of respondents seem inclined to kiss his a** up down and sideways, which is really pathetic. <br /><br />In no way could his posts, taken as a whole, be called an asset to this board.<br /><br />And then there are the emails....<br /><br />Tim<br />(Ph.D. and all the rest of it, LOL)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Sick people write sick things. I like Joann's idea of a web site devoted to posting the devolved ramblings of such people.<br /><br />www.miserablesods.com<br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Why would Bruce scold anyone on spelling or grammar when he makes the same mistakes?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/376259/thread/1190470409/last-1190470409/High+Grade+E+Cards+Wanted" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/376259/thread/1190470409/last-1190470409/High+Grade+E+Cards+Wanted</a><br /><br /><br /><br />&lt;&lt;We continue to strive to assemble the ulitmate ultra high grade<br />pre-War type collection.<br /><br />Why subject yourself to uncertaines of the auction market?<br /><br />Confidenality and discretion assured.&gt;&gt;<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>I actually think banishment is taken too seriously here. If you have two or three serious complaints about a contributor to the Board, banish the guy. So what? We're not upholding sacred principles of the first Amendment here. If I cross the line once too often, I'd accept that as my fate. <br /><br />From what I can tell, Bruce has crossed that line (probably more than a few times) and deserves to go play somewhere else. <br /><br />It is not a badge of honor that Net54 has only banished two people -- in this case, it is more reflective of an anarchic environment.<br /><br />A provocative post is only valuable to the extent it opens serious dialogue about pre-war baseball cards.<br /><br />In any event, can anyone really say that Bruce contributes when he just issues a first-person-plural post and then does not return to engage in any meaningful dialogue about his post? Where is the value in that?<br /><br />Banish him. Move on happily.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Brian- I read that BST post closely and it is amazing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Yes it is Barry.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kenny Cole</b><p>All of this email stuff just goes to show you that business school can't always teach character, honor, decency, self-awareness or basic respect for others. From what I've read, it appears that "Wharton (Magna) '73" must have skipped all of the classes that taught those qualities. What an idiot.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PAS</b><p>In both cases of words that were misspelled in his post, "ti" was missing. UncertainTIes. ConfidenTIality.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>I could dig up more examples if I cared to do so.<br /><br />Their overuse and misuse of the comma is astounding.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PAS</b><p>I really, hate it, when people, overuse commas.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>The 'uncertaines' of such posts are troubling.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>While I respect your opinion I completely disagree with you. I think it is good that only 2 people have been banned from this site. As the Honorable Mr.Wakefield has so eloquently stated, many times, there is no 1st amendment rights that go with this board. I understand that mode of thinking completely. I do my best to let everyone say what they want to though and I will continue in that vein. Also, I really don't think Bruce has run off that many board members...nor do I think Jim C has. Like I said before if folks want to post they will. If they don't they don't. There are enough good threads to participate in to post if so desired. Also, these same folks that think the sky is falling could be part of the solution and post a good thread. I have yet to see Bruce or Jim C attack anyone that started a good thread. I will make sure there are no unprovoked personal attacks on the board, per the forum rules. That is all I can, or will, do...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I wish I had saved my emails from Bruce...he once emailed me after I commented on his horrendous spelling and grammar. He blamed it on his secretary.<br /><br />Whoops! Was that too much of a summary to post to Net54?<br /> <br /><img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew S.</b><p>Shouldn't someone who stoops to such depths be cast out?<br />I think the hockey forum just banished someone for repeatedly making physical threats to forum members.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>While I don't want summaries of emails on the board I do have to say that Bruce sent an email this morning, to all parties concerned, that his private emails were not meant to be a threat. He bold faced typed "NO one wants to hurt you".....So the things folks are saying about him sending threatening emails should not be considered physical threats, at least in my opinion. IF they were construed that way then this last email should clear it up. Now I know how Jeff L. feels about defending folks he might not agree with....and might even be appalled by in certain instances.....This is the "not so fun" part of moderating.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...at unprovoked personal attacks. I draw mine at unsolicited offensive e-mails arising from Board postings. If anything, the unsolicited offensive e-mail is MUCH more detrimental to the health of this Board. I am not sure how you could say otherwise.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Bland</b><p>Seems to me the best way to avoid being misconstrued is to stop sending unsolicited emails to people who disagree with you.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>T206 Collector made a good point that Bruce will start a thread, admittedly at times thought provoking, but never return to it to participate in the discussion. There is no interchange of ideas, no defense of his position if people disagree, and no response to comments made by board members about his condescending tone.<br /><br />Bruce, from now on when you start a thread, I think you should be prepared to carry on a discussion. It's as if you are just throwing some random idea out and then stepping out of the office for the day. Are you exchanging ideas with the board, or just talking at people? A hundred people may ask you a pointed question which you refuse to answer, and then you start a new thread about Disney buying out Topps for a gazillion dollars, or something like that. Why not stay with the topic and interact with everyone a little bit.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I think posting summaries is fine with the caveat that the original sender of the e-mail is free to post his/her own e-mail which is being summarized. Scott Elkins once summarized an e-mail I sent to him and his summary was a complete distortion. I responded by posting the actual e-mail I sent. If we leave it only to the receivers to summarize the info, we must let the sender clarify by posting if s/he choses.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>It’s disturbing to me that Lee would receive an email like this but I am sort of astounded that this is not an isolated incident. The situation seems like something I’ve run into first hand in my own life, and so I ran ours by a respected professional that I know. It is difficult to assess these things clinically from a distance but he exhibits symptoms of some a schizophrenia or related delusional disorder. I kid you not. I have read in his own posts and from the posts of other here of what they personally received from him, and sparing the lengthy diagnostic criteria, see symptoms of grandiosity, paranoia, an overt argumentative nature, display threatening behavior, and misinterpretation of what others have written. I wouldn't be surprised if he is either taking medication, or refuses (or occasionally refuses) to take medication. These kinds of disorders are not necessarily always like they are portrayed on TV or in the movies -- such as Olivia de Havilland in The Snake Pit. In fact, many who suffer it can be highly functional. In many, the activity can be episodic, and often the person later disavows knowledge of them happening (and believes that too.) Much of this can explain the emails to many here, apparently received from him out of the blue. And also the erratic behavior. There is something of a dichotomy in a person who would write such formalized postings on the forum and yet write in a private email that “darkness is lurking.” (Sounds like something out of a Bela Lugosi film.) Or later claim that the emails were not meant as a threat or that “NO one wants to hurt you.” What’s up with that? Or, as Barry just mentioned, via T206 Collector, starting a thread and not participating in it.<br /><br />I am not defending him by way of armchair diagnosis; in fact I realize how disturbing receiving these might be for some people (I’m only trying to figure out an explanation for it all.) Hopefully, anyone who does get one might take some solace in the fact they are not the sick one. Wouldn't it be a terrifying thing to have to inhabit that mind?<br /><br />Leon -- re the public posting of private emails: I am totally against it. In fact I think that anyone who sends them should be suspended or banned, especially when there are repeated occurrences. While this extends to what Lee received, the upside is that it now exposes just how many people have received the same. Otherwise we may not have known the extent of it all. Probably people should forward these things directly to you rather than simply deleting them. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>The grammatical errors in his BST posts are bad, but the five (FIVE!) errors in two sentences in the email to Lee (sentences, by the way, that were telling Lee to learn to spell) really went to a new level. Heck, there were only 18 WORDS in the two sentences combined and he still managed to squeeze in 5 mistakes.<br /><br />I guess a Wharton education isn't quite what it used to be, huh? Maybe when they admitted this guy in the early 70's it was a "there goes the neighborhood" kind of event.<br /><br />So we are having this big policy conversation about email summaries that is centered around the misbehavior of one individual. <br /><br />Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Pomilla</b><p>A couple of days ago I received an email from Bruce. Like the email which Lee received, which was also sent to Barry, Bruce's email, though addressed to me, was also sent to another board member. This board member contacted me, confused as to why he was the recepient of this. Best I could come up with was that it was an error. In light of the Lee/Barry email, that does not seem likely, though the purpose continues to elude me.<br /><br />Likely that some people responding to this thread have gotten, or will get, emails from Bruce.<br />If contacted by him again, I will not respond. This is ridiculous behavior at best and I for one, will not feed into it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>When all those "show us your highest graded xxxxx's" posts started showing up on the board, I knew there was trouble brewing. Who cares? If you buy a highly graded card, I have no problem posting it on the weekly pickup thread but why the compulsion to flaunt high graded cards in this forum? I know that there are a lot of us collecting cards who have highly graded cards (along with lower graded cards) but I don't see the rush to vanity that I have witnessed by a few. I have a lot of cards which are the highest graded or among the highest graded, just as others out there have, but I don't feel compelled to participate in the "nyah-nyah look what I have" mentality. Maybe I am being overly sensitive but I don't think so. I just think this goes backs to the whole "backbone of the hobby" debate from earlier in the year. <br />If you buy some highly graded card and are proud of it, good for you! Be proud. Glad you have the disposable income to afford it. You can even be smug if you like, but don't flaunt it and brag about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I'm not a fan of posting private emails on a public board, regardless of their content. <br /><br />As far as the "show us your high-grade XXX" posts are concerned, I see no difference between those posts and the "Show us your Matty"-type posts that pop up on the board every day. If there's a "Show Us Your N162s" thread that pops up, and I don't have any, I don't get upset. Similarly, I don't have any cards that I could share in any of the "high grade" threads that have popped up lately - that doesn't mean I don't enjoy seeing the cards, though. It reminds me of the occasional scans that Marshall Fogel gives to Leon to post - Marshall doesn't contribute to the board, but man, it's awesome to see his cards once in a while. They're nice examples of cards I don't have, and being a lover of baseball cards, I do love to see them. In the case of these recent threads, they don't really belong in the "new pickup" threads, because they're not new pickups - just new scans that haven't been shared here before.<br /><br />People used to get on Jim for not ever sharing scans of his cards - now that he's doing that, I think it's really cool to see some of the things he's got. <br /><br />Just my opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for it.<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p>I do think there is a big difference in what Jim has done on the board and what Bruce has done. Don't remember how far it was up this thread now, but I think someone mentioned something about the people that Jim and Bruce have both chased off...while Jim can be hard headed and easy to differ on opinions with...he is far from Bruce...Jim isn't a threat to anyone, nor has he ever to my knowledge spewed any hate or ill will to anyone.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>In my opinion, Jim is a lot less threatening because there's only one of him.<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I agree with Al on the high-grade posts. I enjoy seeing the cards. Imputations of the intent behind posters displaying high-grade cards is just that, a mere imputation. As Al said, people nagged Jim C. for not posting scans; now they complain that he does. I, for one, have thoroughly enjoyed seeing scans of some of his incredible cards.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jim is cool. Bruce could be...if he wanted to be.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>I like seeing 'em. I'd show mine more often but I don't want to make anyone feel ill. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p>thanks Chad. I puke enough over my own cards. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I think the grades of all my T206 HOFers added together might add up to 9.<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p>by the way Chad, just sent another threatening email <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>You are no longer cool. You're so uncool, you're almost a stamp collector! <br /><br />--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p>My wife would agree with you on the uncool statement. However I still have my 2 year old daughter convinced. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Sorry for the break in topic...now back to diasecting Bruce.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim is a lot less threatening because there is only one of him.<br /><br />And with that, Al wins the prize for best line of the day! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>"How do you spell Sybil"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>There's time for a better line...the day is still young. These pretzels are getting mighty salty.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>I'm giving Jim VB my vote for this one - even though there ARE too many commas <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>.<br /><br />"I've noticed, in my short time on this board, that many of us can go out of our way to be asses. Bruce just has the shortest commute"<br /><br /><br />What say a poll for funniest backhanders?<br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Aaron M.</b><p>leon, count me as someone who has also received "hateful" (although I would just describe them as crazy) private e-mails from Bruce (I think we are seeing a pattern here?), but I can see both sides of whether to allow private e-mails to be posted. <br /><br />I agree with T206 -- Maybe you should simply threaten Bruce that based on his history of doing so, if he continues to send unsolicited abusive private e-mails he will be banned from posting on this site? <br /><br />I'd hate for him to be banned as he is crazy funny, but under the same rationale that you don't want private e-mails posted on the forum, he shouldn't be allowed to bombard posters with unsolicited abusive e-mails that result from postings on this forum. <br /><br />When you step away from the board, you should be able to step away from the board.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>You have made the most persuasive argument so far. However, if I were to ask him to not send private emails then I am policing other areas besides this board. I don't have the time or "want" to do that. I do see your point though in that his email(s) were/are instigated from board behaviour.....Now you have me thinking again.....Crap.....I almost am to the point of considering exceptions for repeat offenders but again, this is a very, very slippery slope.....I really don't want to go here if at all possible. I also hate that I have to waste so much of my time, and the board's time, over such an idiotic issue as this. I need to contemplate this some more....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />It goes back to an expectation of privacy, if people want everybody to see their posts then they would post on the board. However, when they send personal e-mail to board members they expect that e-mail to remain private.<br /><br />So when you pass rules just make sure that you only regulate conduct on this Board.<br /><br />If you get lots of complaints about any individual for their posting on this Board, then that's a good reason to ban.<br /><br />However, if it's complaints about what they said in private e-mails then that's not a good reason to ban.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>CN</b><p> I think the Dorskind group should get together and have a meeting and hopefully they will be able to explain their alleged bizarre behavior and have a chance to defend themselves. CN

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ps</b><p>I appreciate the distinction just drawn by Peter C. but disagree with it. If the emails are generated as a result of posts on the Board, I see it as sufficiently related to the Board that the moderator would be acting appropriately to react to extreme conduct.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>I agree with Leon, and we have spoken on this before (Hey Leon). It’s just too easy to post an email out of context or type things that were never there. So I for one say no to posting emails with names etc.<br /><br />For the most part I have a few folks here I have disagreements with most notably Jim C and perhaps Kevin; to me they are nothing more than differences of opinions although their perception may be quite different and I respect that.<br /><br />I will however go on the record and say as collector I respect Jim C and his collection and his passion about the hobby and his way of collecting, even though we tend to be like cats and dogs (hi Jim) my respect for him as a collector is still there even if we don’t see eye to eye most of the time. Have we taken shots at each other sure we have, par for the course just two very opinionated guys bound to happen. I can assure you the line stops at that. In no way would I personally bombard Jim with private emails with vulgar demeaning under tones nor would Jim to me I can only assume.<br /><br />We talk a lot about anonymity on this board, to have it or not. While for the most part I agree with no anonymity allowed and having emails and names along with your posts. <br /><br />I find it a total abuse of the honest system we have in place for someone to use peoples emails as some sort of odd pathetic ranting avenue, or self ego booster. We talk a lot about personal attacks here; a lot of those are nothing more than shades of gray or personal perception. However, death threats, lawsuits and just plain name calling via email is about as personal as it can get. <br /><br />Nobody deserves to be called an un-educated commoner, a bottom feeder. Nobody deserves to be threatened physically or any other way, just because of one person’s inadequacies and his ease of access to our available email addresses.<br /><br />Just my 2 cents.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>"In my opinion, Jim is a lot less threatening because there's only one of him."<br /><br />Now, that is, funnie.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JT Burtchaell</b><p>This whole thing reminds me of an Andy Griffith episode that was on last night:<br /><br />Goober finds out Andy is taking Aunt Bee and Opie to the auto show in Raleigh and asks to go along, confident they'll get free samples when salesmen find out he's a "big operator". At the hotel, Goober calls up Roy Swanson, an old friend from trade school, to see how he's doing and to brag a little. They meet at the show and Goober is surprised to find out that Roy is a senior vice-president in charge of engineering with Amalgamated Motors. After hearing about a fellow student, Goober tells Roy he has a chain of stations instead of just one. When Roy meets the Taylors and invites them to dinner, Goober says it's his treat and chooses the finest restaurant in Raleigh. At dinner, Goober, out of his element, tries to act like a big shot but things don't work out and Roy finds out the truth. As they prepare to go home the next day, Andy unsuccessfully tries to cheer up a dejected Goober, who feels like a complete failure. Stopping for gas, Andy gets a bottle of pop and sees Roy, covered in grease, working on a car. He calls Goober over and asks him if he'd like to say hello to an old friend but Goober declines, saying he wouldn't want to embarrass him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ScottIngold</b><p>Aaron and CN= very good points.<br /><br />Whats wrong with a village idiot anyway ? I guess all sites have at least one.<br /><br />Usually i get a huge chuckle out of the Dorskind groups posts..... Just typing it in the plural was worth a laugh. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>that Al's post should be deemed funniest or best of the thread, and actually, best of the week.....<br /><br />There's only one of him!!!!! That is pure genious.....<br />Still laughing 10 minutes later.....<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>video on classroom manners, originally appearing in 1959, depicting the character of "Mr. Bungle" has highly relevant context to the Net 54 VBC forum.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.archive.org/details/lunchroom_manners" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.archive.org/details/lunchroom_manners</a><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Aaron M.</b><p>Yeah, ps, it's like Bruce knows that if he posts with that kind of vitriol and abusiveness leon would probably ban him -- not to mention that most posters would probably be appalled and would treat Bruce much worse than they already do. <br /><br />So what he does (and this is really a loophole) is respond to posts via private e-mail rather than in the thread in a manner grossly harsher than he otherwise would. It's like he feels he can harass, abuse, threaten and insult with impunity because posters aren't supposed to be disciplined for private e-mails. <br /><br />In any case, I am glad so many people have stepped forward and shared how often Bruce resorts to this tactic. It shows an obvious pattern on Bruce's part and while it clearly illustrates how troubled Bruce is, it also shows how many people Bruce has gone after and that jay isn't some isolated incident.<br /><br />Leon, I get your points and I wouldn't wish your oversight responsibilities on anyone, I think we really are dealing with an isolated poster here. Maybe I'm wrong -- are there other posters with a history of sending unsolicited abusive e-mails? <br /><br />If so, and since he seems to be using e-mail as a way to circumvent and overstep what he would be allowed to post, I don't see why a warning would be out of place. It could actually be helpful in keeping Bruce from going off and maybe forcing him to improve his communication skills.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Leon,<br />Is there a way to suspend someone's ability to click the email link on a post? This way, if enough complaints piled up, you could just cut them off from being able to email people on the board. Just a thought and not sure if it is feasible.<br /><br />Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Aaron M.</b><p>Scott, I think Bruce's posts are fun as well. The village idiot analogy is very appropriate as Bruce just sets himself up for mockery and I don't think he even gets that he's doing it. I guess the more mature reaction would be to refrain from laughing and try to help him communicate better, but you could also argue that he brings it on himself and is so disdainful of his fellow posters that it's OK to laugh and watch as he just keeps digging that hole deeper. <br /><br />But the private e-mails are a much more serious matter. Maybe you should ask jay to privately forward Bruce's e-mail to you.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I wish there was an easy answer to this issue. There isn't. If I ban Bruce for private emails sent then I get to go down that road with the precedent. So far I have spoken to numerous folks on the phone today (you know who you are) and so far it's unanimous that private emails shouldn't be allowed on the board. Unless it was overwhelmingly the other way I don't see a change happening. I think these emails Bruce sends are despicable and should be stopped. At the end of the day (I sort of hate that phrase) they are private and should be kept that way. The debate is still open. Also, please look at how many folks have said they think private emails SHOULD be allowed to be posted. With everything said, and those facts, what would you do if you ran the board? Everyone knows the inmates run the asylum around here....best regards <br /><br />edited to say....yes, there are other posters that have had this issue in the past...Bruce isn't the first. So do I go back and ban them too? It's very difficult......

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I know that Adam Moraine was a pain in the butt, but I can't remember what he did to get himself banned. I certainly don't remember him sending vile and threatening emails to people. Elkins was asking to be banned and got what he deserved. Anyone remember what Moraine did that was the final straw?<br /><br />I would think sending nasty emails to Net54 members would constitute at the very least a warning. Is there any doubt that Bruce obtained Lee's email address from this message board?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I too support the board rule on not posting private e-mails.<br /><br />But I do think that a compendium of the Dorskind Groups e-mails could be a best seller. Im going to check how many I have.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Adam Moraine is the only person banned by my right hand man. (that's why I say I have only banned 2 people but a total of 3 have been) I was on vacation at the time. I believe he went totally crazy and it was an easy decision. I certainly backed it....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />Why don't you send Bruce a private e-mail and see if he wants to respond?<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Sean C</b><p>There is a very easy way to deal with this, Leon. Bruce is attacking members of the message board that YOU moderate over comments they made on YOUR message board that he may happen not to agree with. I agree that emails should not be posted on the boards either, but when you have 1 board member (no matter how many personalities may be rattling around in that royal "we" head of his) sending unsolicited attack emails to members of YOUR message board, YOU need to take action. <br /><br />Think of it this way: what would you do if some board member were sending unsolicited auction spam emails to your board members? Would you ban them from the site? If so, what make unsolicited, hate-filled emails more acceptable than auction spam?<br /><br />I am a moderator over another hobby message board, and we have to deal with garbage like this at least 5 times a day. Stop abdicating responsibility for the situation, and handle it like a responsible forum owner.<br /><br />For anyone that receives unsolicited emails from Bruce, forward the email (with internet headers) to his ISP. (abuse@aol.com, abuse@yahoo.com, etc.). They receive enough complaints, they'll take action. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Leon' post:<br /><br />I wish September 24 2007, 4:50 PM <br /><br /><br />I wish there was an easy answer to this issue. There isn't. If I ban Bruce for private emails sent then I get to go down that road with the precedent. So far I have spoken to numerous folks on the phone today (you know who you are) and so far it's unanimous that private emails shouldn't be allowed on the board. Unless it was overwhelmingly the other way I don't see a change happening. I think these emails Bruce sends are despicable and should be stopped. At the end of the day (I sort of hate that phrase) they are private and should be kept that way. The debate is still open. Also, please look at how many folks have said they think private emails SHOULD be allowed to be posted. With everything said, and those facts, what would you do if you ran the board? Everyone knows the inmates run the asylum around here....best regards <br /><br />edited to say....yes, there are other posters that have had this issue in the past...Bruce isn't the first. So do I go back and ban them too? It's very difficult...... <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>Another tough question - <br /><br />If you were to ban Bruce, would you also have to ban the rest of his personalities?<br /><br />Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I completely disagree with you. I take heed from ALL members of this board. Most members DO NOT think private emails should be posted. Read all of the above posts.....YOU might do what YOU want to on YOUR board but I generally do what the majority wants on this one. I guess we are different in that respect...To me it sounds as YOU are taking the easy way out on YOUR board......next...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Sean said anything about posting emails on the board...he's telling you that he bans people for using his board to send unsolicited emails. That's pretty simple. Dorskind is circumventing the board rules regarding attacks that cross the line by sending his attacks through emails. He deserves a warning...if he can't play nicely in the future then he should be banned. That's pretty simple to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Sean C</b><p>Did you even read what I said? I agreed that private emails should NOT be posted. Reread what I said:<br /><br />"There is a very easy way to deal with this, Leon. Bruce is attacking members of the message board that YOU moderate over comments they made on YOUR message board that he may happen not to agree with. I agree that emails should not be posted on the boards either, but when you have 1 board member (no matter how many personalities may be rattling around in that royal "we" head of his) sending unsolicited attack emails to members of YOUR message board, YOU need to take action. "<br /><br /><br />I'm in agreement with you that the emails should not be posted. <br /><br /><br />Leon's post<br /><br />Sean September 24 2007, 5:07 PM <br /><br /><br />I completely disagree with you. I take heed from ALL members of this board. Most members DO NOT think private emails should be posted. Read all of the above posts.....YOU might do what YOU want to on YOUR board but I generally do what the majority wants on this one. I guess we are different in that respect...To me it sounds as YOU are taking the easy way out on YOUR board......next... <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Bland</b><p>The emails are unsolicited and apparently are sent in response to posts made on here, the email addresses garnered from information on this board (yes, it is theoretically possible he gets them somewhere else, but why would he?). <br /><br />To me, that is reason enough to take action on someone.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>I kind of have to agree with Dan and Sean, I see how it’s a tough call Leon. <br /><br />But the message that’s getting sent is no personal attacks on this board, but feel free to obtain the persons email via the board, and bum them out in private with actions that would never fly on here.<br /><br />Lets also be honest with each other for a second, this isn’t some heated discussion about graded vs. non-graded, high grade vs. non-high grade. It’s not some discussion about altered cards, where both folks can have heated but valid points of views which can get a little ugly.<br /><br />This is just some sad person calling people names from behind a keyboard in an apartment somewhere, nothing more nothing less. The irony is that for someone who claims to be such a classy well educated individual, the upper crust of society if you will, his actions are the exact polar opposite. In fact dare I say I’ve seen “commoners” with better manners?<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>what a BS thread...<br /><br />there should be no private emails posted on a public forum, next subject.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Mike,<br /><br />Agreed on the posting of private emails, but do you feel its ok since you are requested to have an email to participate in certain threads that you should be open to the constant bombardment, personal shots and or threats?<br /><br />You don’t feel that there are some liberties being taken with the email addresses if that’s allowed to happen?<br /><br /><br />***I guess a good analogy would be like having an office phone list, its there if you need to notify someone your coming in late etc. It’s not there for you to get phone numbers of chicks in the typing pool to heavy breath on them via the phone on the weekend.***

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Bland</b><p>Seems like this thread has gone in two different directions - The discussion about posting emails on the board (which nearly everyone seems against allowing), and now about what (if anything) should be done about people sending unsolicited emails of an "unpleasant" nature to people about posts they made on here.<br /><br />I would say the first subject is pretty much dead - no one really wants emails appearing on here, but I would argue the latter subject should be considered a little more IMO...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>George H. Counter</b><p>Leon, lets run a poll at the top of the board asking if Bruce should stay or go.<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DJ</b><p>What would football commisoner Roger Godell do in this instance? <br /><br />My e-mail is private so I have never had the pleasure of receiving an e-mail from "the plural", but it all goes back to what someone said a few dozen posts above...the internet allows us to act in ways we wouldn't if we saw them face to face. <br /><br />Private e-mails that are exposed only show the general public a side of a person that he does not want the rest of the world to see. By exposing a person to the Forum in a public way, you expose who they truly are. <br /><br />You ever meet Jerry Lewis? I have. When the camera is rolling, he's whacky, funny (I guess) and somewhat charming. When it's off, it's a different story. <br /><br />DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>there was nothing ambiguous about his threat to me. He said that he wished someone would kill me or he might hire someone to do it himself. That's pretty crystal clear.<br /><br />As for how to deal with unsolicited emails, let it be known that hence forth any unsolicited emails involving personal attacks can and will lead to being banned. No need to back track. If people can't follow that simple rule, then give them the boot. <br /><br />As for Bruce's email claiming he never made threats. I'm not sure you got the same one I did because I was given a set of ground rules to follow for posting on the board, lol.<br /><br />I'm felling left out. I didn't get mentioned as someone that drive people away and used to be the uber bad guy around here <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Dj, Bill Cosby is the same way. During my limo driving days, I had the horrible experience of driving him. I took him to his destination and with my boss's permission, told him he needed to find another service to pick him up later that night. I lost all respect for him that day and he was one of my favorite comedians of all time.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DJ</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />I have had two very pleasant experiences with the "Cos", but I heard from others that he can be like this though.<br /><br />DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>John made a very important point that really needs to be addressed. This board offers a variety of resources, among them the email addresses of the majority of posters. If anyone sends threatening emails to fellow board members, and gets those addresses directly from this site, that is a violation of board protocol.<br /><br />I get regular emails from board members, many whom I don't even know. But they are all pleasant and typically involve a hobby question. But how does a stranger get my contact information? Directly from the section that we all provided for general reference.<br /><br />But that is not a free pass for anyone to just grab an email address and use it to send out threatening emails. And as a result, a ban is within reasonable boundaries.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>judsons hamlins</b><p>only one of him can stay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p><b>JT Burtchaell</b> wrote:<br /><i>This whole thing reminds me of an Andy Griffith episode that was on last night:<br />Goober finds out Andy is taking Aunt Bee and Opie to the auto show in Raleigh and asks to go along...</i><br /><br />So let me figure out who's who: Bruce is Goober, Andy is Leon; Jim C is the Amalgamated Motors guy. Who does that make me? Opie?<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Paul. Being Opie is better than being Aunt Bee.<br />I have a mental picture of how you'd look in her wig.<br />UUUGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><p>Tony

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My apologies. I went a different direction with your post. I still have to contemplate banning someone for private emails but I am closer to that than letting them be posted on the board. Banning is an alternative but still not one I would prefer to do..... Debate is ongoing....I think it's almost unanimous that emails shouldn't be posted...so we can scrap that part of it. Should someone be banned for private emails relating to board issues?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Pomilla</b><p>Earlier than the Andy Griffith show, there was a Honeymooners episode with the same plot, involving Ralph and an old flame of Ralph's wife Alice that Ralph ran into. Both claimed to be more successful than they were and it all came out n the end.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Did he get the emails off this board, and was that his sole source of contact information?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Tony, I think Joann is going to have to be Aunt Bea by default. Sorry Joann <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> . I've yet to figure out who plays Barney.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I get to be Andy....I always liked Andy......IF the world were full of Andy's it would be a better place. (Andy is/was much better than I am ....I am a bad guy....just ask Lee and Jay... )....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Guys, please take the OT stuff to email. This is a very serious topic being discussed and there is already enough to read without having to filter out that garbage.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Paul- Barney was not in that episode. He left the show in 1965, before it went from black and white to color (although he did make four guest appearances).<br /><br />Edited to add Jay is right, we should get back on topic, but I think we all needed a five minute recess.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Pomilla</b><p>"Should someone be banned for private emails relating to board issues?'<br /><br />No, not for private emails, per se, but to send threatening, insulting emails to fellow board members is an abuse of the privilege of belonging to this board and a misuse of the email addresses available on this board. Is there any member who, when they posted their emails, did so with the expectation that these type of abusive emails were to be part of the package?<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Barry, not only are you a Seinfeld expert but an Andy of Mayberry one as well. You rock!<br /><br />Jay, you are correct. Apologies. However, I have also been added to Bruce's email list due to the my earlier analytic post.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew</b><p>I read the first ten responses or so, but stopped as they were mostly about one ass on this board. In regard to not posting email addresses, my home computer doesn't connect to Outlook when I click the user name (a few others also have this issue.) I apologize if someone already chimed-in with the answer somewhere in this long thread. <br /><br><br>"Take your life in your own hands and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame." -- Erica Jong

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>This is a serious issue let's please do address it as such...so let's do stay on topic please. My bad on going off topic too.....I had to escape for a minute and I really liked Andy...I was so excited to get to be him I took the bait... <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> ....Shall we start another thread about the banning due to personal emails? The private email posting issue is done...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>sounds like a good idea. A new thread without 100+ posts will get more people reading<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Edited to delete all content. I was typing it as the last dozen or so posts were added. <br /><br />It was more appropriate to the new thread Leon mentioned, so I'll save it for that.<br /><br />J

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Paul -<br />If I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that because of your earlier post<br />you to now have received an email similar to Lee's and Jay's from the Bruce's??<br /><p>Tony

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Man, this is an exhausting thread. Obvious thought: do we really need to post private emails when it is clear that any victim of an obnoxious private email will quickly out the offender as well as the gist of the email on the board anyway? It's not like anyone is getting away with murder by sending private emails only to have their obnoxious behavior hidden forever due to the 'no posting of private email' rule. As for Bruce's condescending tone, if he thought he was so above the community here would he still bother to regularly share his thoughts with the rest of us? Isn't this also clear?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>"Earlier than the Andy Griffith show, there was a Honeymooners episode with the same plot, involving Ralph and an old flame of Ralph's wife Alice that Ralph ran into. Both claimed to be more successful than they were and it all came out n the end"<br /><br />Bob - Yes! great episode where Ralph is left holding the check for<br />a fancy meal he cannot afford. His old friend Bill Davis was an<br />assistant plumber instead of a business exec and Ralph led Davis to<br />believe he was in charge of the Gotham bus company.<br /><br />Heh! Ya know this thread has gone down hill when The Honeymooners &<br />Andy Griffith Show are quoted

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Jeff, what is worse, discussing the actions of someone who uses email to make vile threats or a 55 year old man who sends them? <br /><br />If I'm still using this messageboard at age 55 and I'm using the King's language and threatening people through email then everyone has my permission to come over to my house and kick my ass. If you're a pacifist (Hi Barry!) then call my doctor.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Sean C</b><p>Apology accepted, Leon.<br><br>As for your question, I'll again respond with my question: Would you suspend or ban a board member for sending unsolicited auction spam to your board members? If so, then why would sending unsolicited hateful and/or threatening emails be acceptable? <br><br>You mentioned your previous post that you &quot;generally do what the majority wants&quot;. So far, it's pretty clear that the board views Bruce's actions as unacceptble at best, an end-around of board policies at worst. He needs to go. <br><br>Leon's post<br><br>Sean C September 24 2007, 6:32 PM <br><br><br>My apologies. I went a different direction with your post. I still have to contemplate banning someone for private emails but I am closer to that than letting them be posted on the board. Banning is an alternative but still not one I would prefer to do..... Debate is ongoing....I think it's almost unanimous that emails shouldn't be posted...so we can scrap that part of it. Should someone be banned for private emails relating to board issues? <br>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Will I get a nasty hate filled email from JayB? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Aaron M.</b><p>Joann, that's another excellent point. If we've all agreed not to post e-mails, and the person sending the abusive e-mails can't be disciplined by the board's moderator, then how does the recipient of the abusive e-mails fight back? <br /><br />He or she can't expose the writer of the e-mail to the board and can't go to the moderator for help. I don't know how else to say it, but that's just not cool. <br /><br />This board has to be one of the least anonymous message board's on the Internet. My e-mail address, blog address and other personal information are readily on this site. Plus the moderator has all of my personal info, including my full name. Other posters have even more personal information available, and we have a rule in place that demands that if you post on controversial topics you give up your anonymity. <br /><br />All of that requires an enormous amount of trust by and between users of this forum that they won't be attacked in their personal lives simply because they have consented to allow their personal information be available in good faith furtherance of our hobby. That means we trust that other users not to abuse the personal information that we have provided. If someone does abuse that trust we either have to have rules in place to protect us or we could end up seeing people read these horror stories and be less and less willing to share their information in the first place (which means this forum suffers).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Dan, that was a funny post. Not sure which is worse...but it is amusing either way. Bruce's posts don't bother me because I am convinced it is completely an over the top act. As I said earlier, if he had so much disdain for the entire community here he wouldn't post; he clearly enjoys being the bad guy. I find other posts on the board much more offensive as I have little patience for idiocy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>In answer to your question it is "no". I would not ban a person that sent an unsolicited email from an auction house. Not exactly sure what that means though? Each and every person that posts their email here (I do on every one of my posts) understands it could be the cause of unsolicited email. Not much I can do about that. As far as Bruce staying or going....I would prefer him to stay but tone it down and act in a civil manner and not be so aristocratic on the board. Looking down at others will only generate ill will and that is not what this hobby is about. The hobby is about having fun with our friend collectors and collecting exactly what you can afford and enjoy. I hope this answers your question. Also, since my thread about my phone call with Bruce, I hope we can put this to bed now....(am I using too many commas?)<br /><br />edited to say one more thing...I can count on 2 fingers the number of board members who have abused private emailing. Neither do it anymore that I am aware of.....but yes, I guess at some point I will protect board members if the emails were instigated from the board....That is somewhat of a duty. I want everyone to be happy (as they can be) not sad...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Pomilla</b><p>Does using too many commas make one commatose?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Bruce is not going to change. For whatever reason he posts the way he does, it will remain that way. Although he agreed not to send any more private emails, and that is a positive step, as far as his being more down to earth and a little more compassionate, I don't see that happening. Don't ask me why he won't make a few concessions, and for that matter what pleasure he gets posting on this board in the first place, but it will be business as usual.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>It turns out I was wrong in several of my posts above. In the 18 words (two sentences) in which he bragged about his two Ivy League degrees, Wharton (Magna) 73 actually made 6 errors, not 5 as I stated earlier. 6 mistakes in 18 words describing his two Ivy League degrees - now THAT is funny. <br /><br />And as to his promise to stop sending private emails ... anyone got the pool going yet? <br /><br />OK. Sorry Leon. I'll be done now and let it go. But I am permanently disgusted by what he sent Lee. I hope in all honesty that he does stop with the emails as promised. <br /><br />Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p><b>Tony:</b><br /><br />That is correct. I received a private email that directly responds to the subject matter of my post on this thread, and a bit more as well. Now, I have not read the email that was sent to Lee and Jay so I can't say whether/how it compares, or not. However, there is nothing in mine that I would perceive as a "threatening" tone.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>"It’s not there for you to get phone numbers of chicks in the typing pool to heavy breath on them via the phone on the weekend."<br /><br />John- how did you know i did that? haha...<br /><br />when are you coming up to NYC?????

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>I have had many requests for the email and I will honor all of them. If you have the email feel free to send it if asked. I don't understand why this behaviour is even tolerated. He should in the least be suspended. Leon you did it rightly to our 13 yr. old Sean, and this is way beyond anything he did.<br /><br />Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>Email posting: no.<br /><br />Banning someone for mining email addresses here and sending hateful emails: Yes, after a warning.<br /><br />Dorskind = pompous ass(es): yes.<br /><br />Here's a solution, the same one I implemented after his royal we-nis sent me a nastygram filled with diatribe: spam block him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I didn't respond to this again but your thoughts are exactly as mine are.....Exactly.....and I have been thinking them since yesterday....I just don't care to always come back and respond. The problem with what the 12 yr old did before (he is much much better now) was that he didn't heed warnings I gave him. If Bruce sends unprovoked emails again it will be dealt with appropriately. I hope he doesn't as he said he won't. Thanks again for being very reasonable. About 95% of this board is reasonable. The other 5% will always be there....as a reality check.