former ebay head Gonzalez purported said psa and jsa suck according to post.
 

http://www.autographnewslive.com/19-...authenticators


Not surprised he evidently felt that way.

Hmm... Some guy said some guy who worked at eBay said PSA sucks.

I have an email from him too. He said "I see O.J. And he look scared. Baba Booie to y'all."

Ironclad.

Travis, who is the author behind that article/post?

I think that site may be The Onion spoof of an autograph newsletter. Headlines include:

"Steve Cyrkin’s Autograph Sewage Still Polluting the Hobby!"

"Autograph Magazine Live's owner Steve Cyrkin is a well documented Anti-Semite"

"PSA president in full spin-mode ...."

Last I heard, serious journalism doesn't use exclamation points in their headlines. And lists the identities of the publisher and author.

I hope you will give us the name of the author behind that article/post. I'm sure you'll do the responsible thing and reveal the author to us.

One thing is clear: Travis has very high standards, demands and requirements for the third party authenticators.

His standards for what he considers credible journalism... not so high.

It's purported that Travis knows the author behind that article/post.

Anonymity sucks. I put very little credence in articles such as that.

If it's not Travis himself, it's a safe bet it is one of 5 other people.

The article states, "Those in the field of autographs would be shocked to know how many good dealers were removed from eBay for selling genuine autographs deemed fake by PSA/DNA and JSA."

Really? Please let us know, how many. Can the author produce a list of all these great sellers who have been banned from eBay? Who are all these sellers who have been unjustly banned, Travis? Name names.

+1

+1

I don't know who the author is.

Why are you talking to me like I am the author? I didn't write it so how can I name names?

I see you denounced White Betsy then? And made a point to tell the person who posted links to the white betsy articles or the posters that gave their opinions on speculative identities that white betsy greedily kept anonymous but still wrote about that you don't put any credence in the sucky anonymous articles such as that? Funny, I didn't see that post.

Then why did you post it?

It is purported that you know the author of that article/post.

Maybe you can convince the author to come over here and show us the original email exchanges and for the author to identify himself?

You created a thread linking to the article, therefore the presumption is you think it is something of value. Something worth sharing with the community at large.

What you shared was an article with one quote (that could be fabricated or completely out of context) surrounded by paragraphs of unsupported puffery.

I thought for a moment, since you thought it was important enough to share, you might be aware of some supporting facts behind the article.

Like, who are all these great sellers who have been banned from eBay? Supposedly there are so many the number would "shock" us all. You must know at least one, right?

I knew John and knew of his frustrations with what was going on with the autograph business. He is one of the good guys. It was a loss to the hobby to see that John is no longer in charge of the ebay fraud division.
And I do agree that the authorless article should have a name attached to it to at least give it a modicum of credibility.
When it is one of five people who may have written it the credibility does fall short.
And why don't they give the Cyrkin is an anti-Semite story its long overdue retirement. Steve Cyrkin is Jewish, he made what could be interpreted by some as an anti-Semetic remark. Jews, and I am one, have interpreted it as a joke. Steve Cyrkin is Jewish. Many people make jokes about their own race/religion. If some were offended by it that is their business and they can say so. But to beat it to death is absurd. Give it a rest already.

Well done Steve, Chris, Leon, and all the rest of you guys that refuse to let Travis get away with all the nonsense! I'm on patrol on the Memorabilia Forum. Keep up the good work guys! BTW... The Boxing thread regarding the curled corners was fantastic!

And Travis. This response does not concern the rare occasions when you're actually right about something.

i posted it because its news.

of course it is of value. the former head of ebay fraud division said out loud what a lot had been thinking.

out of context? "they suck" is out of context? What kind of context would you say that where it actually doesn't mean that "they suck"

"they suck" means "they suck"

"they suck" must refer to their spelling abilities.



i didn't write the article, so i dont know the sellers they are talking about.

I provided a link to an article and you are asking me for info about sellers on ebay?

I didn't write it dude.

It's not slam against gonzalez, he was right, i agree with his statement, he had courage to tell it like it is.

Travis - we have our concurring opinions about PSA, but an anonymous story on a blog is not really news. It is gossip, which may or may not be true, but with anonymity and lack of any proof, who can say.
And I would certainly like to see the names of good dealers who were thrown off ebay for selling "bad stuff."

well, people can read it and make up their own mind.

I didn't write it so I can't name any dealers on ebay. I don't know who wrote it, no one told me about the release of this article, and no one told me to post a link. I did that all on my own.


People should take autograph magazine to task for allowing people to tell any firsthand account they want then without verification under the name "hammerhead shark" or whatever made up name they invented that day.

I think it's the subject and content of the email people object to being disclosed. Had some sort of embarrassing coache's corner or morales email been disseminated in the same way, I have a hard time thinking people would be up in arms about it.

People can believe or not, if not - fine, but then don't believe anything on wikileaks then, they made all the embarrassing u.s. state dept./foreign service emails and correspondence up too.

Travis - I didn't say I gave "no" credence to the article you posted, just very little. I never said anything about White Betsy but I felt the same way. I just agreed with it more than the anonymous one you posted (though it could all be true).
Just like I tell advertisers when they call me bitching about someone trashing them on the board, I don't tell folks what to say or what not to say. By the same token I generally won't do something just because someone says I should, concerning the board. I stand behind everything I say, have my name next to it, and with around 7500 posts on the board, I have said things that were incorrect and have admitted them and retracted them when need be. We can always agree to disagree and where you are concerned, that comes into play quite a bit. Such is life.

Around 8000 posts...maybe even by the end of the day.:)

I don't mind disagreeing with you, just wondering why you publicly said it on this thread and didnt on white betsy.

Yikes, I guess I need to get a life... :confused:

I agreed with the White Betsy one more....but there was no reason, good or bad, why I didn't respond about White Betsy. I don't care for any anonymous postings on the internet, even when they favor how I feel. Everyone should stand behind what they say. For that, I do respect what you say.

Hell, I need to respond less, not more!! :eek:

I think there is a big difference between anonymous posts/articles that contain information that is independently verifiable to be true whether you know the identity of the writer or not (i.e. news), and anonymous posts/articles that are 100% hearsay/unverfiable as well as anonymous (i.e. gossip).

Anonymous, unverifiable second-hand information is not news, whether you agree with the presented information or not. At best, it is an anonymous editorial, and grammatic errors aside, any serious journalist who turned that article in as "news" without any follow-up would be laughed out of the editor's office and/or fired for their lazy journalism.

Consider that the writer could have stated the exact opposite, that "Gonzalez loved PSA/DNA and JSA and sang their praises for all they had done to help clean up fraud on eBay," and it would be just as unverifiable.

Now if the writer wanted to post the actual full e-mail, or a follow-up interview with Gonzalez, or the number of sellers who had been banned, or any other shred of verifiable information, then it might be newsworthy. Otherwise, for all the reader knows, the whole thing could be completely fabricated, and he doesn't even know who to address the necessary follow-up questions to.

Edited to add: Does anybody know Gonzalez or have a way to get in touch with him to verify the statements he is quoted on and whether they are presented accurately (not out of context)?

The usual "No-Name Cowards" who wrote that article/post are 100% wrong about one thing, and that is that John G. is still works at Ebay. He never left, and that is a fact!!!!

i consider it news, because it's a true story.

if it was mastro who said it instead who would come to his defense?
i am coming to gonzalez's defense. I am with gonzalez om his statement. i am pro-gonzalez on this matter!

At this point, Travis, I could give a rats butt what position you take.

You posted an article/post that was written by a "No Name Coward" who won't even stand behind their own words; who in fact, got at least part of that article/post wrong. John G. still works at Ebay and that's a FACT.

Travis, if you did not write the article, how do you know it's true ? Were you the collector that Gonzalez sent the e-mail to?

I don't think anyone here has attacked Gonzalez. Whether you are with him or not is irrelevent to whether the quote is accurate or out of context.

I didn't post an article/post, I posted a link to an article and i said the crux of the story is true, that he said those remarks. quit making it about me or using a red herring that you are incensed about getting the part wrong that he still works there when you are really mad that the cat is out of the bag that he said those remarks, and it shows even ebay's fraud division's faith in those companies abilities was not what it was cracked up to be.

no, it wasn't me, but he said it to my satisfaction, and if it's not to other's satisfaction, I don't care because I didn't write the story.

I know people don't like this news story, that an agent of ebay said that psa and jsa suck. It rubs them the wrong way but they will have to live with it.

I am personally satisfied that the story is true regarding the email and that's all that matters to me as I don't know who wrote the story, who owns the site and I wanted others to read it to make up their own mind.

The article/post reads "After all his years with eBay, John Gonzales is no longer with eBay."

John G. never left Ebay. He is still with Ebay.

My issue is with the "No Name Cowards" who wrote that article/post and doesn't have the guts to put his name as author of the article/post.

This isn't about whether John G. wrote that or not. If that was John's opinion, then it is what it is.

My issue is the fact that the "No Name Coward" author didn't have the guts to stand behind that article by posting their name under it. That's the issue here, Travis. It's not about if John wrote that or not.

The coward who posted that did get one item wrong and that is that John G. still works at Ebay. If they got that wrong, why should we believe anything else written in that article?

You know Travis, when you defend as a reliable news source what to the rest of us here is obviously someone's anonymous personal vendetta smear campaign, it doesn't help your credibility.

If you don't know who wrote the article, who the e-mail was sent to, or who owns the website, how can you know the quote to be true? Can you really not see how anyone would have a problem with the "I read it on the internet so I believe it to be true" argument?

The only thing that "rubs people the wrong way" is that FACT that a "No Name Coward" didn't have the guts to post his name as author of the article, and that fact that you, Travis, were more than willing to oblige him by posting a link to that anonymously written article.

If that's John's opinion, so be it. That isn't the issue; the issue is that the author of that article didn't have to guts to sign his name under it.

I take it you didn't like the story.

I realize others might have a problem with it, they really have a content with the subject and content of the story.

Like I said, if this were a coaches corner or morales story, no uproar.

What’s amazing is Travis harps all day long about the TPAs not following proper procedures, no proper standards, etc, etc. They can do nothing right.

But in his world, an anonymous, thinly-veiled and poorly written smear “article” on a site that looks like it was designed by a seven-year old is totally credible news and he believes every word of it. And it is coming from an author he allegedly doesn’t know, but he knows for a fact the email was not taken out of context or fabricated.

Makes sense to me! :rolleyes:

Of course I am willing to post a link to a news story. SCD isn't going to cover it.

I didn't oblige him (how do you know it's not a her?) because no one asked me to post the link and you can only oblige a request, which I never received.

oblige-



2.Do as (someone) asks or desires in order to help or please them


no one asked and i know of no one desire that i post the link because I don't know who the writer of the article is.

I will run all future links through the office of politically correct thinking for a majority vote on the subject matter and if it furthers that office's agenda or not.

You don't like that it was anonymous, got it. I like the story, think it is relevant to the autograph hobby.

When I write about Morales or Coach's Corner, my name is all over it.

Why didn't the author of that article/post sign his true name under it? Why is he hiding?

I will write this one more time. The issue isn't what John allegedly wrote or didn't write; it's the fact that the author of that article/post didn't sign his name to it. The only issue I have with the content is the FACT that John G. did not leave Ebay. He is still there.

Don't spin this into something it isn't.

I'm no defender or user of PSA, PSA/DNA or JSA I have nothing graded or authenticated by any of them, and have never submitted anything to them. They mean very little to my life-- just something I sometimes read about on this board.

I don;t closely follow JSA, but do I believe PSA makes errors? Sure. In fact, I've seen a few with my own eyes. Do I agree with all their methods and grading criteria? No.

I couldn't possibly think of a better example of paranoia overshadowing critical thinking. Thank you for at least answering the question directly. I think David summarized my thoughts on the matter, so I'll bow out of the discussion with a +1 to his comment:

and the personal assurance that I have never dug in on either side of the ongoing "my authenticator can whup your authenticator" debate.

Travis,

Maybe next time, just post the article or whatever it is you have an interest in, and let it go at that. No need to follow up on all the questions or whatever others say. These treads would be a lot shorter and maybe more interesting if more people did that.

Travis, how would feel if some anonymous author posted a confidential email sent by you to a confidant of yours?

Wouldn't you demand to know who the author was?

+1

This thread shouldn't have been as long as it is. Travis tried in vain to spin it into something it isn't.

Aside from the fact that one item of the content (John G. is still working for Ebay) was incorrect, it is about the FACT that a "No Name Coward" author was afraid to attach his name to it.

It comes from a site that attacks people behind psuedonyms and via anonymous posts. Real brave people.