This looks interesting indeed

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That sounds like a hidden reserve, which I personally don't mind. How is it any different than starting the auction at a minimum bid? Granted, the latter would be cleaner.

To be clear, I think shill bidding -- that is, placing a bogus bid whose only purpose is to bump a different bidder to a higher level -- is wrong.

is it a perfect distinction? No, probably not. Can one posit examples where the effect is going to be similar? Probably. But to me intent does matter, and placing a bid with intent to win feels different from placing a bid with the intent to run someone else up.

Okay, but just remember that Huggins and Scott has dibs on the bargains.

[mordecaibrown]

The difference between the ebay scenario and H&S scenario is everyone is NOT playing under the same rules!

In the ebay scenario, we are all playing under the same rules - no buyers premium!

When H&S places a bid in their auctions (as HOC) and does NOT have to pay the buyers premium they are at an advantage over the other bidders. When you make a bid in an auction, you like to believe that the other bidders are making the same considerations as you: bid amount, buyers premium, any other fees - essentially, do I feel comfortable at this TOTAL price. When HOC makes bids they do not have to consider these other variables: H&S $200 bid = $200, other bidder $200 bid = $239 (with buyers premium) - those are not the same amounts; therefore, thats an advantage!

When H&S increases the bid amount, they directly increase the buyers premium; therefore, directly increase their profits - even if they dont win the item. Its a conflict of interest.

In the ebay situation, the seller (with the new user ID) can make a bid and increase the amount. The other bidders are playing under the same rules: seller $200 bid = $200, other bidder $200 bid = $200 - same amounts, no advantage gained. The seller does have a conflict of interest in this case because he likely is charging the individual who consigned the item a fee (higher it sells for - higher fee amount); however, in this case, the seller is taking more money from the consigner - NOT the other bidders.

I see numerous people spinning this a variety of different ways and using different comparisons, but this is a conflict of interest. Any auction company that bids on its own items should have it clearly listed right under the buyers premium - "we bid on our own things and dont have to pay buyers premiums!"

An.dy Ke.nn.edy

[Orioles1954]

1.) HOC pays the Buyer's premium on each lot they win.

2.) They bid on a small fraction of lots in the auction. Primarily for the needs of their storefront or frequent customers with wantlists. There is no nefarious plot to artificially drive up prices so that no one can't get good deals.

3.) Peter Spaeth is correct. It's all about intent and motive. It is also about trust. If you think something is amiss (which I assure you in this case there isn't), place a maximum bid (as stated earlier in this thread) and stick with it.

For those who are truly interested and want to discuss this in a cordial manner, the owner's have generously offered to discuss this personally. The phone numbers are posted earlier in the thread.

James Feagin

[mordecaibrown]

James -

Thank you for the information.

One question:

House of Cards is owned by Huggins and Scott, correct? So, they are essentially paying the buyers premium to each other? The left hand is giving the right hand the money; therefore, its not really paying the buyers premium.

If what I wrote above is wrong, I apologize, but please clarify. Earlier in this thread, it was stated that both businesses are run from the same address and operated by the same individuals.

An.dy K.enn.edy

[Orioles1954]

Andy,

Although operated from the same address by the same owner, I am not privvy to the finances other than Mr. Huggins runs them completely as separate businesses. I am an employee of H&S and NOT of HOC. There are also multiple employees of HOC who do not work for H&S. That's what I can tell you from that end.

James

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

1.)
2.) They bid on a small fraction of lots in the auction. Primarily for the needs of their storefront or frequent customers with wantlists. There is no nefarious plot to artificially drive up prices so that no one can't get good deals.

So why did they need the 52 Topps lot of Authentic graded cards? Obviously not a store need since they threw them up on ebay, and obviously not a frequent customer wantlist filled.

[Orioles1954]

Dan,

You can always call HOC and ask. They have an "open door" policy when it comes to those questions. I have nothing to do with HOC, so I don't know why they bid on those. Perhaps they had a wantlist customer who fell through? I can only hazard a guess.

James

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Dan,

You can always call HOC and ask. They have an "open door" policy when it comes to those questions. I have nothing to do with HOC, so I don't know why they bid on those. Perhaps they had a wantlist customer who fell through? I can only hazard a guess.

James

The solution to that would seem to me to be to register these customers who have wantlists with HOC for the auction.

[mordecaibrown]

Thanks James.

Essentially, the same individual owns the same company; therefore, the owner of House of Cards pays the buyers premium to the owner of Huggins and Scott (who are the same person).

All of this comes down to this:

Huggins and Scott occasionally bid on items in there own auction as House of Cards. As a bidder in their auctions, you never know if the item you are bidding on is also an item they are bidding on. Personally, I think that should be stated under their rules section, but thats simply my opinion.

If you dont feel comfortable with this possibility, then you should not bid on items in Huggins and Scott Auctions; however, if it does not bother you or you are willing to take the risk, then continue to bid.

But it would really make me upset, if I lost out on an item and then saw it posted on ebay by House of Cards.

An.dy K.enn.edy

[iggyman]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

2.) They bid on a small fraction of lots in the auction. Primarily for the needs of their storefront or frequent customers with wantlists. There is no nefarious plot to artificially drive up prices so that no one can't get good deals.

James,

If I'm to understand what you are saying, House of Cards had a "storefront need" for "four" Topps 1952 high numbers. Thus, they placed a bid and ultimately win the cards. Regrettably, after receiving the items from Huggins and Scott they have buyers remorse and feel the cards no longer serve their "storefront needs." Thus, a decision is made to sell the cards on eBay. Yeah, okay; I'm good with that explanation .

By the way, the four Topps 1952 high numbers sold for:

$202.50 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $181.75
$100.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $89.60
$371.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $333.23
$138.50 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $124.20
------------------------------------------
$812.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $728.78


One question that really needs to be asked. Can House of Cards consign items to Huggins and Scott???

Lovely Day...

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by iggyman

Regrettably, after receiving the items from Huggins and Scott they have buyers remorse and feel the cards no longer serve their "storefront needs." Thus, a decision is made to sell the cards on eBay. Yeah, okay; I'm good with that explanation .
Lovely Day...

That is not even close to what I wrote and takes a leap that was never mentioned. Should further questions arise, please contact the owners. As much as I would like to hang out on Net54, I do have an impending publication deadline to meet.

James

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by iggyman

James,
By the way, the four Topps 1952 high numbers sold for:

$202.50 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $181.75
$100.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $89.60
$371.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $333.23
$138.50 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $124.20
------------------------------------------
$812.00 *minus eBay/paypal fees = $728.78

Based on the H&S lot selling for $822.50, I believe the final bid was $700. So the "profit" was $28.78? Had they let the previous bid of $650 take the auction, they would have received $113.75 in juice.

Or is my math off here?

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Andy,

Although operated from the same address by the same owner, I am not privvy to the finances other than Mr. Huggins runs them completely as separate businesses. I am an employee of H&S and NOT of HOC. There are also multiple employees of HOC who do not work for H&S. That's what I can tell you from that end.

James

Does that mean there are employees who work for both companies? If so what would be the purpose of that?


Chr...s Sh..-re..v-=e

[iggyman]

Erick,

It's tough to speculate, because we are waist high in murky water. For example, did House of Cards place the $600 bid? Thus, the $650 second place bidder might have conceivably won the lot at $550.

Lovely day...

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

The solution to that would seem to me to be to register these customers who have wantlists with HOC for the auction.

I think Dan B has hit it on the head. If they are buying things because of a storefront need or for customers with want lists, why not just have them register and bid on the H&S auction?

Secondly, if you don't want these customers bidding in the auction for some reason, why not just sell directly to the customer instead of putting it on Ebay?

Ch...s Sh..-r-..ev..e

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by iggyman

Erick,

It's tough to speculate, because we are waist high in murky water. For example, did House of Cards place the $600 bid? Thus, the $650 second place bidder might have conceivably won the lot at $550.

Lovely day...

I agree. Very murky at this point. To me, it doesn't even matter anymore. The murkiness is all brought about by the fact that one entity owned and operated by the same person is bidding on items owned and operated by that same person. It's murky because it's murky.

Only way to clean up the waters is to have H&S (employees, subsidiaries, owners, etc.) stop bidding on their own auctions.

[atx840]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Based on the H&S lot selling for $822.50, I believe the final bid was $700. So the "profit" was $28.78? Had they let the previous bid of $650 take the auction, they would have received $113.75 in juice.

Or is my math off here?

No Erick you are correct. H&S will always be out the profit of the previous increments BP amount if HOC wins.

Im 99% certain H&S would make HOC pay the BP as each lot required effort to scan, detail, receive, ship and process the funds.

HOC then is in the same boat as all of us, paying a 20% premium on lots and have to find a way to make a profit on the flip. Now maybe its just a risk they take while trying to bump up auctions and occasionally win but I doubt this as your one example shows a significant loss of profit.

[Jaybird]

Even if I were willing to accept the notion that one hand paying the other is not a competitive advantage (which I don't), what about all the auctions that they bid on and don't win. Those lot prices are driven up putting more Money in H&S hands. They could look at the lots they win as collateral damage

[ValKehl]

Josh & James - It's nice of you to attempt to do "damage control" for H&S and HOC, but it would be much more meaningful for Bill Huggins to address these issues himself on Net54, rather than inviting anyone who is concerned (MANY Net54ers are CONCERNED!) to call him to discuss.

It has long been my assumption that pretty much the same individuals own both H&S and HOC, with Bill owning a majority interest in both companies. FWIIW, I have known Bill since the mid-1980s, and I have always believed him to be a person of high integrity.

I would prefer that auction houses, their retail affiliates, and/or their employees be precluded from bidding in their own auctions. But, personally, I have no problem with auction houses, their retail affiliates, and/or their employees (1) putting their own items in their auctions, and (2) bidding on items (except their own) in their auctions, PROVIDED this is very clearly made known to us bidders. By this, I mean that each item so owned should be clearly noted, both in the auction catalog and online; and furthermore, each lot on which the auction house, their retail affiliate, and/or their employees bid should be clearly noted online during the course of the auction along with whether or not the auction house, their retail affiliate, and/or their employee is the current high bidder. This could still lead to shill bidding by auction houses, especially on those lots with higher maximum bids, but I seldom leave maximum bids because of this concern.
Val

[atx840]

Yes collateral damage is the risk they could be taking.

I can't seen any advantage in paying a BP from one hand to the other. Keeping it simple.

You have $20 in your right hand.

Right hand gives the $20 to the left hand, you still have $20.
Right hand does not give $20 to the left hand, you still have $20

-$20 spent + $20 made = $0 profit
$20 saved + -$20 earned = $0 profit

[ValKehl]

Paying the BP from one company to the other obviously affects how much profit each company makes at the end of the day/month/year. Even if the same individuals own both companies, this will make a difference in each individual's profit, unless each of the individuals owns the same percentage of both companies, which I doubt is the case.
Val

[mordecaibrown]

Chris -

I mean no disrespect, but I think you are over simplifying this and not looking at whole picture.

1) Does H&S take a percentage from the consigner? Lets just assume its 10% (as I have no idea if they do and if so, what the percentage would be - simple assumption for illustration purposes).

They bid $600 on it, but it only cost them $540, because they got $60 from consignor. All of a sudden that profit Erick showed earlier just grew from $28 to $88.

2) When HOC bids in a H&S auction, the only possible scenarios is H&S benefits.

Either - they increase the bid amount; therefore, directly increasing the buyers premium. If current bid is $200 (H&S makes $39 - 19.5% buyers premium). If they make a bid of $300 and are outbid by another bidder max bid, the new high bid is $330 (H&S makes $64.35 on buyers premium). They just made $25 by simply making a bid. Do you make $25 (or any money) by making a bid in the auction? This profit amount increases with the value of the item.

OR - they win the item at a discount versus other bidders. If they win an item at $200 and pay the 19.5% buyers premium and receive a consignors fee of 10%, then total cost = $239 - $20 = $219. Also, this assumes that they do pay the buyers premium, if you dont think they do because the two places are owned by the same person - then the savings increase!

When a bidder can only benefit from bidding in an auction thats a conflict of interest.

Any.y K.enne.dy

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by atx840

Yes collateral damage is the risk they could be taking.

I can't seen any advantage in paying a BP from one hand to the other. Keeping it simple.

You have $20 in your right hand.

Right hand gives the $20 to the left hand, you still have $20.
Right hand does not give $20 to the left hand, you still have $20

-$20 spent + $20 made = $0 profit
$20 saved + -$20 earned = $0 profit

0 profit but they have a $20% advantage over the person bidding next to them. So, if they get any item at a 20% discount, how do they not win that battle? And why would I play a game where the house has a 20% advantage? This isn't vegas and the potential to "win big" isn't even there.

They are able to own an item at a 20% savings over anyone else. If they take the next increment over anyone, bidding it up 10%, they still get the item at 10% less than previous bidder. Not a level playing field.

In math terms, the item is $1000 (bid by outside bidder). He stops because he knows he has to pay $1200. Auction house bids up to $1100. Since they don't have to pay premium, they still get it at $100 less than previous "REAL" bidder.

[atx840]

Im keep it simple on the BP side only as to clarify there is very little advantage to not paying a BP.

In theory HOC gets a lot for 20% less but then H&S is out that 20% buyers fee that every 3rd party bidder pays or would pay if they win.

So if H&S gets 10% of the hammer price from the consigner, who do you think pays that on the lots that HOC wins? HOC, so its not profit, either they get 10% from me or they get it from HOC. If they don't take their 10% and no BP then yes HOC gets the cards for 90% of the hammer price and a 20% BP savings. But now H&S is out that 10% and the 20%. I think its all even.

Now if they bid up and up and still don't win, then yes HOC is making H&S a profit on the 10% hammer price and the 20% BP for every increment they can raise it by.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by mordecaibrown

Chris -

I mean no disrespect, but I think you are over simplifying this and not looking at whole picture.

1) Does H&S take a percentage from the consigner? Lets just assume its 10% (as I have no idea if they do and if so, what the percentage would be - simple assumption for illustration purposes).

They bid $600 on it, but it only cost them $540, because they got $60 from consignor. All of a sudden that profit Erick showed earlier just grew from $28 to $88.

2) When HOC bids in a H&S auction, the only possible scenarios is H&S benefits.

Either - they increase the bid amount; therefore, directly increasing the buyers premium. If current bid is $200 (H&S makes $39 - 19.5% buyers premium). If they make a bid of $300 and are outbid by another bidder max bid, the new high bid is $330 (H&S makes $64.35 on buyers premium). They just made $25 by simply making a bid. Do you make $25 (or any money) by making a bid in the auction? This profit amount increases with the value of the item.

OR - they win the item at a discount versus other bidders. If they win an item at $200 and pay the 19.5% buyers premium and receive a consignors fee of 10%, then total cost = $239 - $20 = $219. Also, this assumes that they do pay the buyers premium, if you dont think they do because the two places are owned by the same person - then the savings increase!

When a bidder can only benefit from bidding in an auction thats a conflict of interest.

Any.y K.enne.dy

Hi Andy,
I'm not sure what you mean by over simplifying or the point that I am over simplifying is, but I agree with everything you are saying. For the record, I am of the opinion that this is a major conflict of interest and I am skeptical as to why HOC would buy those 1952 Topps cards to try and resell as they say.

Maybe I didn't do a good job of explaining how I feel about this, but I think I am seeing the big picture. To me, it is a big conflict of interest and I personally don't buy the two different businesses they are trying to sell to people on the board.

Ahhh, I see you were talking about Chris B

ch...s Sh..-re-v..e

[Jaybird]

I think I'm done beating this horse. Last point other than to say that I won't be bidding at H&S anymore.


Bottom line, an item is worth a certain amount of money. H&S bidding on their own items allows them to bid up items close to that value. If an item is too low, they bid it up until it gets closer to the real value. If they lose, great. They get all the fees, etc. On the other side, if they win, they still get an item near the value of the item and then resell it on HOC. Even if they break even or lose at HOC, they can declare that loss or break even. I'm sure they make up any break even or loss (of which I don't think there is any) by all of their "losing" bids.

Let me make it clear that I don't know how many items they are bidding on. But I'm sure it is judicious and calculated. They aren't going to go crazy and win items way over value. They are going to get them right up there near the value that they think they can sell them for on HOC. But, if they can get a $1200 item for $1100 and then resell it for $1200, they make $100. If a buyer wins the item at $1000 (one increment lower), he breaks even.

I don't see how this can be a level playing field and I ain't playing on it anymore.

[pgellis]

How about these 2 lots?

http://jan12.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=41124

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-JGA-Jap...item53eb994c40

[mordecaibrown]

Vintage Chris - sorry for the confusion, yes we agree and I was referring to the other chris.

Jaybird - summed it up PERFECTLY.

In this case, maybe they took a shot and only made a little. The damage is in the lots that they place on the lots they DONT win. In those cases, they increased the bid price and therefore the buyers premium - making themselves more money. And you have NO idea - you think your in a bidding war with another bidder, but it could be the auction house.

There is no way of ever knowing when HOC is putting bids in on an item unless its the last winning bidder and then you see the cards on ebay in their store. How often do they bid on an auction raising a price to what they feel is acceptable and you never know?

A.ndy Ke.nned.y

[atx840]

Thanks guys, I think we are in agreement that it can be quite shady and yes if they bump but don't win they WIN on the consigners fee + the BP. We will never know.

one tiny thing Jason - "if they can get a $1200 item for $1100" how would they get something at $1100 that you and I couldnt? Saving on the BP or consigners fee? If they are then that savings hurts H&Ss profit by $100, so no advantage.

all around they should just stay out of it, go bid on everything else out there.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by pgellis

How about these 2 lots?

http://jan12.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=41124

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-JGA-Jap...item53eb994c40

From the same lot:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-1985-Mi...ht_2329wt_1185

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-1973-Ja...ht_2332wt_1165

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1970s-Tokyo-...ht_2766wt_1165

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-c-1960s...ht_2664wt_1165

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by atx840

Thanks guys, I think we are in agreement that it can be quite shady and yes if they bump but don't win they WIN on the consigners fee + the BP. We will never know.

one tiny thing Jason - "if they can get a $1200 item for $1100" how would they get something at $1100 that you and I couldnt? Saving on the BP or consigners fee? If they are then that savings hurts H&Ss profit by $100, so no advantage.

all around they should just stay out of it, go bid on everything else out there.

I guess we're just nitpicking now since we all agree that it ain't right, or at least some of us agree.

The advantage is that they now have the item. Profit isn't realized until that item is sold. We'd have to track the item until it is finally sold to decide where the profit was won or lost.

[Exhibitman]

You don't need to be a professional ethicist to know that what H & S is doing with HOC is dishonest. Owning a few items at net bid cost with no real BP, no real commission and no shipping is a small price to pay for all of the added bid increments--i.e., added BP fees and commission fees, since both are % calculations--that SHILLING through HOC permits H & S to make. It is crooked as the day is long, in my humble opinion, and no amount of clever talk will get around it. I don't have a problem with an auctioneer selling its own stuff but an auctioneer should not be bidding on items in its own sale, period, regardless of whether done directly or through a related entity. The appearance of impropriety is too great.

I'm Ad@m W@rsh@w and I approve this message.

[hugginsandscott]

So look, we at Huggins and Scott have ALWAYS tried to do the “right thing.” Certainly none of our actions are meant to hurt, deceive, show any dishonesty or lack of integrity. While we could show you auction invoices with hammer prices and buyers premiums, along with matching cancelled checks, just to prove that EVERYONE pays the 17.5% buyers premium, it just doesn’t seem that it would really do any good at this point.

In light of your voices that have spoken loudly, we have have instituted the following policy effective immediately: No one who is currently employed with Huggins and Scott or House of Cards may bid on any items in any Huggins and Scott Auctions. I can assure you, none of this will happen again with our auctions.

Bill Huggins
President
Huggins and Scott Auctions
www.hugginsandscott.com
1-866-462-2273
auction@hugginsandscott.com

[uyu906]

Wow - Power to the Net54 People!!

Originally Posted by hugginsandscott

So look, we at Huggins and Scott have ALWAYS tried to do the “right thing.” Certainly none of our actions are meant to hurt, deceive, show any dishonesty or lack of integrity. While we could show you auction invoices with hammer prices and buyers premiums, along with matching cancelled checks, just to prove that EVERYONE pays the 17.5% buyers premium, it just doesn’t seem that it would really do any good at this point.

In light of your voices that have spoken loudly, we have have instituted the following policy effective immediately: No one who is currently employed with Huggins and Scott or House of Cards may bid on any items in any Huggins and Scott Auctions. I can assure you, none of this will happen again with our auctions.

Bill Huggins
President
Huggins and Scott Auctions
www.hugginsandscott.com
1-866-462-2273
auction@hugginsandscott.com

[tbob]

That's great Bill, I have always enjoyed bidding in your auctions and clearing this up means I will continue to do so.
Bob M@rquette

[Peter_Spaeth]

"Certainly none of our actions are meant to hurt, deceive, show any dishonesty or lack of integrity."

This point seems lost on the Net 54 lynch mob, unfortunately.

[Jaybird]

Thank you, Bill. It means a great deal when a company is willing to take a look at their customers and give them what they want.

[Bugsy]

I appreciate the change and will continue to buy and sell through you in the future.

Chris

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by hugginsandscott

In light of your voices that have spoken loudly

Thanks Bill! I've been pleased with my H&S winnings in the past and will continue bidding w/them in the future.
Rob

[danmckee]

Bill Huggins is a long time good friend which I stated to start this post. I have known Bill and John for almost 40 years now.

I had to think long and hard before starting this thread but I was really upset to see the items I was bidding on surface on ebay 2 weeks later.

I think we have all gotten through to a long time hobby veteran who heard our cries and answered the call. I have full confidence and absolutely no doubt that this new policy will be enforced at H&S and HOC.

This excellent change couldn't have happened without the many voices here on NET54! And even though many of us do not spend billions of dollars on baseball cards each year, we are all still customers and Bill really came up to the plate for us!

I encourage anyone who may have pulled their names from the bidder list to get added back on as I will personally back the validity of this new policy.

A very special thanks to: Bill Huggins, John Scott, Josh Wulkan, James Feagans who contributed here. And of course a very special thanks to the NET54 family and Leon for making a difference in OUR hobby.


Sincerely,

Dan Mckee

[rainier2004]

Good job Bill!

Its refreshing to hear someone use some common sense and put their customers forst when they speak. I will continue to purchase from h/s and after my prdeal with heritage auctions will have more money coming your way.

Steven Suckow

[edhans]

Kudos for doing the right thing, Bill.

[ScottFandango]

thanks

[ullmandds]

Wow...what a forgiving lot?!?!

Not even an apology? We're listening to what our customers want...meaning for HOC/HS not to shill their own auctions and basically rob their customers of their hard earned cash?

And from this moment on...we're not going to steal your $$$ anymore?!?!

And many of you are ok with this...end of story? WOW!

[ullmandds]

I must admit this silence is deafening to me.

[rainier2004]

Peter, I know from your posts you are a much more educated and overall experienced collector than myself. But for me, I am tired of not being listened to with legitimate concerns such as the one with h/s auctions. Bill changed his policies and apologized...my inexperience leaves me somewhat historically uneducated, but at this point I was happy Bill changed. If the cards I want are at a good price, I have no reservations on bidding.

Steven Suckow

[Kenny Cole]

Legitimate point, but, as you know, stuff triumphs over everything else. EOS.

[Runscott]

Steven, I will defend the way Chris handles his customers at Heritage - I can guarantee you that he goes overboard trying to resolve issues, and I didn't see anything in your posts here or your PM's with me that indicated otherwise. If I had known that he was going to get attacked repeatedly after trying to resolve your situation, I would never have suggested you contact him. You apparently did so with your line drawn in the sand, and any response by him that fell short of what you demanded was going to result in your taking the issue to this board, and then apparently never letting go of it. I don't think that's fair.

I'm sure I'll regret not avoiding this train-wreck.

[iggyman]

KRAMER: What did you go up there to heckle her for?

JERRY: Because she came down to the club and heckled me! Give her a taste of her own medicine!

KRAMER: Oh, YEAH! You gave her a taste of medicine, alright.

JERRY: Well, I didn’t want her to have an accident.

GEORGE: What accident?

KRAMER: Well, after he heckled Toby, she got so upset, she ran out of the building and a street sweeper ran over her foot and severed her pinky toe.

GEORGE: That’s unbelievable!

KRAMER: Yeah! Then after the ambulance left, I found the toe! So I put it in a Cracker Jack box, filled it with ice, and took off for the hospital.

GEORGE: You ran?

KRAMER: No, I jumped on the bus. I told the driver, “I got a toe here, buddy – step on it.”

GEORGE: Holy cow!

KRAMER: Yeah, yeah, then all of a sudden, this guy pulls out a gun. Well, I knew any delay is gonna cost her her pinky toe, so I got out of the seat and I started walking towards him. He says, “Where do you think you’re going, Cracker Jack?” I said, “Well, I got a little prize for ya, buddy – ” – knocked him out cold!

GEORGE: How could you do that?!

KRAMER: Then everybody is screamin,’ because the driver, he’s passed out from all the commotion…the bus is out of control! So, I grab him by the collar, I take him out of the seat, I get behind the wheel and now I’m drivin’ the bus.

GEORGE: You’re Batman.

KRAMER: Yeah. Yeah, I am Batman. Then the mugger, he comes to, and he starts chokin’ me! So I’m fightin’ him off with one hand and I kept drivin’ the bus with the other, y’know? Then I managed to open up the door, and I kicked him out the door with my foot, you know – at the next stop.

JERRY: You kept makin’ all the stops?

KRAMER: Well, people kept ringin’ the bell!

GEORGE: Well, what about the toe? What happened to the toe?

KRAMER: Well! I am happy to say that the little guy is back in place at the end of the line.

GEORGE: You did all this…for a pinky toe?

KRAMER: Well, it’s a valuable appendage.

Lovely Day...

[rainier2004]

Scott - No trainwreck, pm sent. Won't happen again.