Does anyone know ben in real world

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Leon,

I totally agree with this guy. Why doesn't Sliphorn have his name in his post?

And are you really going to allow posting the names of other members wives? Is that how far we've come? I assume other family members are fair game too?

WOW!

WOW right back at you.,

Matthew got sent his full name as I stated. His wife, or whomever that is, has been or has had their name used in the escapades as part of the business. That is why that is still there. Generally speaking family members privacy is very protected on this forum as it should be. IF you don't like this situation....sorry.

Also, if a member demands something and acts crazily doing it, then there is a real good chance he won't get his way...rule or no rule.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

WOW right back at you.,

Matthew got sent his full name as I stated. His wife, or whomever that is, has been or has had their name used in the escapades as part of the business. That is why that is still there. IF you don't like it....sorry.

So what if she's part of the business? Are they doing something illegal or unethical? Did I miss something? I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm curious, did I really miss something? Besides, even if he is, that doesn't mean she knows about it. But it's your board, your call.

And as far as sending him Sliphorn's name, that's not what your rules state. They state if you give an opinion of a person or company, your full name needs to be in your post. Sliphorn gave an opinion. He stated, "obviously using her name to hide from identity." That is an opinion. But, again, your board, your call.

[Bpm0014]

Does Vintagetoppsguy = RealToppsaholic??

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

Does Vintagetoppsguy = RealToppsaholic??

Not even close.

It's just that this thread has been a real eye opener for me. I've learned 3 things: Despite the rules, (1) it's obviously OK to post PMs, (2) you really don't have to have your name in your post when giving an opinion of someone else and (3) it's OK to post the names of members family members.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Not even close.

It's just that this thread has been a real eye opener for me. I've learned 3 things: Despite the rules, (1) it's obviously OK to post PMs, (2) you really don't have to have your name in your post when giving an opinion of someone else and (3) it's OK to post the names of members family members.

You apparently were in the wrong class.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So what if she's part of the business? Are they doing something illegal or unethical? Did I miss something? I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm curious, did I really miss something? Besides, even if he is, that doesn't mean she knows about it. But it's your board, your call.

And as far as sending him Sliphorn's name, that's not what your rules state. They state if you give an opinion of a person or company, your full name needs to be in your post. Sliphorn gave an opinion. He stated, "obviously using her name to hide from identity." That is an opinion. But, again, your board, your call.

So what if she is part of the business? Because of that, to me, she is in the same realm of being discussed as any other collector/dealer etc...not a regular, out of the hobby, family member. I don't see any rule that says someone has to do something wrong or unethical to be discussed. She was discussed on this board before, if I am not mistaking?

And you are absolutely right about Sliphorn. And in almost every instance I would have mandated his full name being out there or he would have had to edit his post out. However, as I stated, if someone acts crazy as Matthew did then all bets off.

And It really never goes well when someone debates rules with the person that wrote them. I think you missed this part, under the heading what you may not post about. It's been there as long as the other part you rattled off..

**Since there are an unlimited amount of unforeseeable issues that can arise on the board, the moderator may make any decision he feels is in the best interest of Net54baseball, regardless of any written or oral rules.


.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So what if she's part of the business? Are they doing something illegal or unethical? Did I miss something? I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm curious, did I really miss something? Besides, even if he is, that doesn't mean she knows about it. But it's your board, your call.

And as far as sending him Sliphorn's name, that's not what your rules state. They state if you give an opinion of a person or company, your full name needs to be in your post. Sliphorn gave an opinion. He stated, "obviously using her name to hide from identity." That is an opinion. But, again, your board, your call.

She was also posting on this forum using the realtoppsaholic account. I also received PMs with 3 different names from that account.

Now to get back to the original question, have we ever figured out if this Ben person is real?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

And you are absolutely right about Sliphorn. And in almost every instance I would have mandated his full name being out there or he would have to edit his post out. However, as I stated, if someone acts crazy as Matthew did then all bets off.

If someone posted my wife's name on a public message board, I would act crazy too. Maybe I have the sequence of events out of order? But from what I see, Sliphorn resurrected a thread from a month and a half ago for the sole purpose of causing trouble. Was there some previous bickering between toppsaholic and Sliphorn that I missed?

Originally Posted by bnorth

She was also posting on this forum using the realtoppsaholic account.

If that's true, then I think it's fair that her name be posted...but I think it has to be absolutely certain that it was her.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If someone posted my wife's name on a public message board, I would act crazy too. Maybe I have the sequence of events out of order? But from what I see, Sliphorn resurrected a thread from a month and a half ago for the sole purpose of causing trouble. Was there some previous bickering between toppsaholic and Sliphorn that I missed?

If that's true, then I think it's fair that her name be posted...but I think it has to be absolutely certain that it was her.

Yes, I think there was a bad deal between the two recently, that is my take on it. And from a 3rd party board member, Matthew might have been the issue. You have every right to your opinion just like any other member. I don't see anything I did which I would change. You are safe as long as your family isn't part of your business. That said, I don't think that merely mentioning a family members name is the worst thing in the world. It shouldn't be done but it's not in the top million things I don't want. And I will generally edit their name out too. In the last 15 yrs I don't recall anyone's family member being allowed to be spoken about unless there was an extraordinary situation such as this. I don't see anything that has been said about her that has been disrespectful either.
BTW, Matthew acted crazy before I had a chance to address Sliphorn's name issue. After he went crazy I changed my mind on posting it...but still sent his name to Matthew. Everyone should be able to know who is saying stuff in their direction.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

Yes, I think there was a bad deal between the two recently, that is my take on it. And from a 3rd party board member, Matthew might have been the issue. You have every right to your opinion just like any other member. I don't see anything I did which I would change. You are safe as long as your family isn't part of your business. That said, I don't think that merely mentioning a family members name is the worst thing in the world. It shouldn't be done but it's not in the top million things I don't want. And I will generally edit their name out too. In the last 15 yrs I don't recall anyone's family member being allowed to be spoken about unless there was an extraordinary situation such as this. I don't see anything that has been said about her that has been disrespectful either.
BTW, Matthew acted crazy before I had a chance to address Sliphorn's name issue. After he went crazy I changed my mind on posting it...but still sent his name to Matthew. Everyone should be able to know who is saying stuff in their direction.

Understood. I'm just trying to make sense of it all. The bad deal story makes sense, shows motive, but you would think if there were a deal between the two (good or bad), that Toppsaholic would have his contact information as well and wouldn't be starting threads asking for it. From someone who's been away from the boards lately and just reading it, it appears that Sliphorn started it for no apparent reason. Like you said, maybe there was more to it? Either way, I don't know Toppsaholic and really don't care.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Now to get back to the original question, have we ever figured out if this Ben person is real?

The question of whether or not there is a Ben has plagued mankind since the very beginning. Some people say the Shroud of South Dakota only dates back to the middle ages and isn't a true relic, but me, personally? I have faith and choose to believe in a benevolent Ben.