How Many Criminals?
 

I sure wish I was so smart that I could claim a certainty without being able to cite actual facts. Tell me exactly how many hobby figures you know to have criminal records, then? Not under investigation or suspicion, but actual convictions? And just to bring it back to my original point, I was only trying to say that there's an enormous amount of hobby activity transacted honestly every day online, at shows, in auctions, between individuals, etc., and that, in relation to all of that, the extent of illegal and unethical behavior is actually quite small, just as it is in the other fields mentioned for all the justified publicity the dark side gets. As for your self-declared brain power, at least I'm smart enough not to resort to childish name-calling that would expose me as a jerk. And thanks for the props, Joe, it's people like you and so many other classy individuals I know in the hobby that prompted me to defend its reputation.
Hank Thomas

Hank -

I should also say - I very much enjoy breaking bread and talking hobby talk with Jeff and I consider him a good friend.

I see both of your point of views - and I think much of it is a matter of individual perspective.

As heated as the exchanges you and Jeff are having (or it seems heated anyway), I actually read through it and think that you are not fundamentally disagreeing / just looking at things from different experiences.


I am looking forward to better weather, more card shows, and more enjoyment of this hobby.


And, as was said earlier in this thread - I am looking forward to receiving the REA catalog.

REA catalog
 

I just hope my catalog gets here before the government shuts down on Friday...I'd hate to think one of the year's big highlights is stuck in a mail truck in a parking lot somewhere...

Take Care,
Geno

I'm pretty sure that the mail won't be effected.

The post office is a corporation and will not be affected by a govt shutdown.

Obviously, there are no guarantees Peter.

I tend to share Hank's view that the vast majority of people in the hobby, including auction houses, conduct themselves in an ethical manner. To the best of my knowledge, these auction houses, with the notable exception of Mastro, have continued in business for significant periods of time because they continue to be patronized. And, their patrons are, by and large, savvy collectors and dealers who I should think would not risk substantial sums of money if they perceived a significant likelihood of being defrauded.

But, all that aside, my primary point is that, so long as collectors are not funding the trade association (directly or indirectly), they stand nothing to lose by offering support and letting the chips fall where they may.

Duly note I wasn't really suggesting that there are major felony problems within the medical, legal and accounting systems-- I assume there aren't. I was just making a technical point. Clearly the legal and medical fields have good self-policing systems that the baseball card hobby does not. Though I assume the legal and medical fields policing systems are in part defined by outside laws.

Hank, you want me to cite facts about how many hobby figures have actual criminal convictions? That's a laugh, try reading the board it's all there. And why not open your eyes a bit to the reality in this hobby? But then again you're probably one of the guys who thinks that Doug Allen and Bill Mastro are good guys because they send out free catalogs.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings but to be honest -- I'm not really sorry. You can choose to fantasize about the tiny bit of fraud which exists in the hobby and I'll keep warning people about the fraud I see which is pervasive. I'm willing to bet, however, that only one of us has real knowledge of the widespread nature of the fraud in the hobby from shill bidding to card alterations--and it is not you.

...

Recent lessons to be gleaned from the coin hobby
 

How true.

As posted many months ago on this forum, PCGS, the coin grading division of Collectors Universe (also PSA's parent company), filed a suit against at least six of their own authorized coin dealers (and perhaps even 10 additional dealers) for submitting doctored coins.

http://www.coinlink.com/News/counter...universe-pcgs/


Recently, this lawsuit was thrown out of Federal Court. The reasons why were not exactly clear and I've read a myriad of message board posts and blogs that seem to be more speculative than factual stating things such as CU couldn't sue someone for failing to do their own duty or that they weren't truly fraud victims, etc.

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/fe...-doctors-suit/


The interesting thing was that 3 of the 6 defendants were members of PNG, the Professional Numismatists Guild which has an extensive Code of Ethics including issues concerning coin doctoring and misrepresentation. However, as I recall reading, shortly after the CU lawsuit was filed, there was a problem that there were no clear guidelines regarding what exactly constituted coin doctoring versus cleaning, etc. As a result, PNG drafted a definition of what exactly entailed "coin doctoring" and when the members voted recently to add this definition to their guidelines, the members voted it down - supposedly because it wasn't clear enough.

http://www.pngdealers.com/item.php?i...&category_id=2


So in summary, if the card hobby wants to have some accountability and credibility, they're going to have to do more than make dealers and auction houses form some professional association. For starters, they will have to set some clear, unambiguous guidelines what constitutes fraud or what is ethical and what isn't in the card hobby regarding alterations and disclosure issues. That in itself could be a daunting task since there have been some threads on this board that have debated those issues ad nauseum regarding soaking, cleaning, pressing, etc. In my cynical opinion, I don't see this happening. I hope I can be proven wrong.

I've put a link to a pdf of the document below. I'm going to try and get my copy autographed by Nash, Lifson, and Henry Chadwick.

http://bit.ly/gLFStq

Also important is that this lawsuit raises the issue of "shill bidding" we've been hearing about for years. If it plays out the discovery would be fabulous.

Wow.. I read every word in the 18 pages. This is going to be interesting. Thanks for posting it.

Dan

You're a Winner!
 

Yes, Jeff, you're smarter than everybody else, and you're the only one with the "real knowledge," and you don't mind insulting people because you're so tough, and so on and so on. You win. Feel better now? Of course there's fraud in the hobby, and as an honest dealer I've always applauded every effort to expose it and stop it, including by Mike O'Keeffe, who is a friend of mine. I jumped into this originally only to dispute the assertion that "the hobby is mostly filled with low-life hucksters," a characterization I know to be false. By the way, Jeff, I'll be set up at tables 509-513 at the upcoming Oaks show and with Kevin Keating at the National if you think you're tough enough to show up and insult me to my face.
Hank Thomas

Hank, stop whining. And you're challenging me to a fight? Are you 12? Seriously? Why don't you take a pill and calm down.

And you challenged my assertion that there is a higher percentage of criminals in this hobby than in the fields of law, medicine, finance and the clergy. You were wrong when you said it and you're wrong now -- and that won't change no matter how hard you stamp your feet in frustration.

A tough guy behind a keyboard...
 

...and you're always going to be right, right or wrong. What a jerk.

Unethical behavior in the Indusrty
 

I have been involved in the hobby for about 30 years and still enjoy it. However, I have found it to be a virtual "Wild West" where just about anything goes and one must constantly be on his toes from a knowledge perspective. Otherwise, you will get burned, eventually. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that a lot of, if not out-and-out unethical, at least questionable practices exist in the hobby. I am in agreement with Calvindog that percentage-wise, these practices are much more prevalent in the sportscard/memorabilia business than in any of the professions mentioned. I don't have statistics; this has just been by observation and experience over the years. Of course, there is going to be unethical behavior in all professions. We are dealing with human beings, afterall. I enjoy and participate in the hobby, but I do so with my eyes open.

Hank, I never said I was a tough guy; I just said you were childish to threaten me. If I give you my lunch money will that make it better?

Hank- have to agree with jeff. This business from a percentage standpoint has been extremely tarnished with bad apples in the barrel. While there are other issues with our political and criminal agendas, i do believe it pales to the other, thanks

I'll take the lunch money. I can probably get two lunches out of it here in Seattle.

Oh, Man! Two very good, very knowledgable hobby guys--can't we just agree to disagree? You should have seen the three-judge panel I had on a Michigan Court of Appeals case yesterday! Now there was some real cause to get feisty (I don't usually have to be cautioned about pounding the podium for emphasis in the course of oral argument, and reminded I wasn't giving closing argument to the jury)!!!

As Adam would say, it's just cardboard, dammit!

Larry

Wow, you actually get to have oral argument in state court appeals? I think the last time I did that was about 20 years ago. I go argue writs (in front of a referee) out at the state Supreme Court fairly frequently, but they practically never hear oral argument in actual appeals. My partners and I get to go visit with the esteemed jurists in the 10th Circuit occasionally (not by choice), but that never happens in state court. I remain conflicted about whether or not that's a good thing.

It seems to me about 1/3 to 1/2 of the auction houses have had "problems". Way, way higher than the other professions.

Delete.

I'm still waiting for this story to hit the "Breaking News" at the Hauls of Shame website. Seems like this kind of story is right up his alley...I wonder why he isn't posting it??

What I'd like to see is how many of these auction house honchos would be willing to take polygraph tests to assure the collecting community that they've never engaged in shill bidding, card doctoring (actively themselves or knowingly through a third party), allowing items of questionable authenticity to be embellish as the "real deal", consigning their own items without disclosure, and the list goes on.

As I recall, recently one auction house boss was already given that challenge on this board to deny just one of those issues on a polygraph and best my knowledge never accepted that offer to "clear the air".

Larry --this reminded me of trying a case out in a country courthouse when the judge called us to the bench. I leaned on the bench and the judge said " don't lean on my bench " then he turned to my opposing counsel, a local, and said " I learned that from your daddy !" I went to the hallway and settled the case.

I would also like to see the owners and managers of third party authentication companies take these polygraph tests as well. It would be nice to find out who the true good guys are.

I'd also like to see certain posters on this board take IQ tests.

I would have to believe that there are few auction houses where shilling hasn't happened, and those few would be new ones. But there are probably only a few that have done the shilling themselves. In theory I could consign anywhere, and have a friend bid on my items. Pretty hard to prove, and harder to stop.

I also have to believe that every auction that's been around long enough has handled an item or two that is either fake, altered, or stolen. Stolen stuff because the item isn't widely known as stolen. Altered stuff - Maybe the alteration was done well enough to pass inspection at one time, but newer technology has made it possible to detect the alteration. And some fake stuff can be well done enough to get past many experts. Nobody can catch 100% of the questionable items unless they have access to a lot of lab gear and time. And even then some stuff would slip through.

The need for third party graders to not buy or sell cards is a tough one. Yes, it's a conflict. But I wouldn't expect someone with no knowledge or interest in cards to be able to authenticate them. Stamps are authenticated by experts in a particular issue. All of them collect, and buying and selling are a part of that.

Steve Birmingham

Forget the Cowbell... What this lawsuit needs is more Halper!

I agree completely. We'll never see an auction system that is free of shill bidding; however, at the very least we should expect auction houses not to engage in fraud themselves.

shill bidding
 

Agree completely with Jeff on that one. It's just so annoying to be so very conveniently cha-chinged right up to but not past your maximum bid near the end of the auction by some of these auction houses. I can think of at least two instances where that's happened to me right off the top of my head. I would think the auction house would have to have been involved in those cases, at least to the extent of tipping off the consignor concerning the maximum bid. Maybe the only thing you can do with auction houses known to have pulled this is to set the maximum bid a few rungs lower than you ordinarily might-- better suggestions?

Good move, by the way, Bill. Oh and by the way, Jeff? My wife tested out at an IQ of 163, and she still doesn't like baseball cards!

Best regards, everyone.

Larry

If you don't trust them, don't use max bids at all. Only put in the next bid that puts you on top. Monitor the auction to the end.

Cheers,
Blair

not once have I ever informed any auction house what my high big was. to me, it's none of their business.

Would you give your credit card or keys to your house to strangers? In most cases, how well do we really know the employees at auction houses?

Max bids
 

Sometimes my schedule just doesn't permit staying up to the very end; otherwise I would agree that perhaps max bids just shouldn't be used with auction houses that engage in these tactics. It would be great if the max bid simply worked as it was supposed to: you simply decide how much you're willing to pay for a given lot, and don't get caught up in the action to the point that you start to feel it's a contest, and that the other guy is bidding on "my" card. That way you get enough sleep and still maintain control over the bidding.

Larry

Why?
 

If you know an auction house has engaged in this activity, why are you looking for suggestions about how to modify your bidding activity? My suggestion would be that you NEVER USE THAT AUCTION HOUSE AGAIN. They stole from you.

The truth is, this is the real problem. Everyone gives example after example of unethical behavior and then continues to bid. It seems there are very few (though I do know some) that are willing to boycott these unethical practices when it comes down to a card they really want. Until we stop accepting it as buyers and put these places out of business, it will continue...and it will continue to be our fault.

Ben Sutton.

Theory vs Reality
 

That's all well and good in theory, Ben, and I agree with you completely "in theory." If you're looking for an item that comes up regularly (which is almost always not what I'm looking for; I much prefer rare and significant, in the best condition available or that I can afford), then there is no problem. With regard to such fungible items, you're right; you simply avoid those auction houses whose ethics are not what they should be.

But if what you're bidding on is an item you've been after for perhaps a decade or more without success, and/or is very, very rarely seen in auction catalogues at all, has a pop report of less than ten, all of which tends to indicate that the examples that do exist have been gathered into private collectors' hands and are intended to be kept that way for many, many years (what is referred to as "strong hands" with regard to great rarities in the realm of coin collecting), then you've got a far tougher choice. As Adam (Exhibitman) has said with regard to '50's cards, it is no great chore to find virtually any example in NMt-Mt or better at almost any time, and one can afford to be choosy with regard to who the seller is. Try doing the same thing with a 1923-1924 Exhibit Ruth, the 1931-32 Exhibit Ruth (beautiful portrait!) from the movie stars set (PSA has graded 3; I have the highest, a "5"), or even a more recent acquisition, the 1907 Dietsche Cobb Fielding Position.

The simple, inescapable fact of the matter is that there are certain cards that many of the members of this board will never have the wherewithal to acquire unless they are purchased when they are available within a certain price range (including me--I don't know about your finances, and that's absolutely none of my business in any event!). These are those cards that come up so rarely, that are so significant to the history of baseball and have such a significant upside in value, that they are best snatched up if you want them in your collection badly enough when they are available. One prime example would be when my wife and I were attending the Strongsville, Ohio show in the early '90's. One of the dealers there had a NMt-Mt M101 Ruth rookie. He wouldn't budge on it for less than $7,000. I had only $5,000 to spend, and couldn't make the deal (I ended up later settling for one in poor to fair condition for $1700, if memory serves correctly). The last (only?) sale I am aware of for that card in that grade was not so long ago (2009?) for $140,000. I highly doubt that I'll ever be in that market for a card (now the wife says she would have come up with the additional $2,000, but hindsight is 20/20--she's not a Babe Ruth fan, but she most definitely is a fan of $140,000!). The fact is, if I wanted that card in that grade in my lifetime, then was the time. And almost certainly the only time.

It depends upon your perspective, I guess. Mine is that sometimes you simply have to bite the bullet. If you feel that there is no room for compromise in your stance under any circumstances, I tip my hat to you.

Best wishes to you in your collecting endeavors!

Larry

Ben is exactly right. Larry is part of the problem that allows these criminals to continue to rip people off. Larry and just about every other member of this board who continues to bid with an auction house they know is ripping people off. The "bite the bullet" theory certainly contributes to the fraud that is so prevalent in the hobby. Bullet-biters are not nearly as responsible as the criminals themselves. But they do have some culpability. It's more like they're helping fugitives hide from justice in their house.

It's called greed, plain and simple. Not for money, exactly, but for that great item you just can't live without.

I had an item like that, one that I NEEDED, come up for auction a few years ago. But it was being offered by a fraudulent auction house. I don't want to name names, but it rhymes with "Mastro." Anyway, I was asked by someone if I'd be bidding on it. I told them that I, of course, would not be bidding with scumbag thieves who had stolen from me and many other collectors I know. So this person bid on and won the item for $1,500. Then they sold it to me for $3,500.

The moral of this story is, there's money to be made in the business of selling out your integrity. If you're willing to abandon your principles and any moral compass you may have had, there is profit to be made in this "hobby." If you're not after profits, you can always build a world-class collection of must-have items that you would have missed out on it had you not found a way to silence that pesky conscience.

Happy bidding.

-Ryan Christoff

Don't chip your teeth on the bullet!
 

Dear Ryan:

See the last two paragraphs of post #87. Let's set the record straight: beyond any rational, reasonable dispute, there's absolutely nothing amoral or greedy, let alone criminal, in sometimes biting that bullet--the key is simply in knowing enough to make an informed choice, and being able to consider all relevant factors in pursuing our collecting endeavors.

Good luck in your collecting!

Larry

Hi Larry,

I re-read the last two paragraphs and wasn't sure what you wanted me see. I wasn't trying to single you out. Many people agree with you. Actually, I think MOST people on this board probably agree with you. I happen to disagree and am of the opinion that it actually causes harm to the hobby, albeit unintentional. But more importantly, I think it would really HELP the hobby if everyone stopped bidding with and supporting scumbags who are stealing their money.

You know how if you feed a stray cat, it will keep coming to your house and scratch at your door until you feed it again? I'm saying, stop feeding Doug Allen.

-Ryan

I guess this is the part I don't get.
A sensible bidder can't really be "stolen from" because a sensible bidder bids what the item is worth to them and no more. If everyone bid that way shilling would be pointless Because all the bids would be nearly the same and a shill would end up buying the item or only making a small difference.

But the way some people bid in a competitive manner is foolish. I might go a bid or two beyond my max at a live auction if the opposing bidder seemed weak and I really wanted something. But I wouldn't be the guy hanging on the phone raising any bid till I won. (Ok, maybe on a couple items, but I can't afford any of them) The other danger is thinking "it's worth 500 but I'll bid 1000 so I'll be sure to win" In any case shilling or not that sort of bid is a sure fire way to overpay and/or be unhappy with the price.

In the example you gave, obviously you'd have been happy to win it for 3500 since you eventually bought it for that. What's the difference between bidding 3500 and paying that or close to it, and paying that in a private sale?

Steve B

Hi, Ryan. No offense taken to your comments. As a lawyer, I'm more than used to dealing with different points of view (I always prefer the judges to share mine, however), and wouldn't even begin to suggest you are not absolutely entitled to yours. One of the greatest values of this forum is the opportunity to not only share information, but discuss such different approaches.

As to the stray cats, I'm a confirmed cat lover (have two, and have had as many as four at one time through two distinct periods of time), and I probably would not only feed a stray cat, but endeavor to find out if it had a home, and if not, take it in!

I sincerely wish you the best in your collecting! Thanks for the discussion,

Larry

I really don't quite understand what you're saying here. A sensible bidder CAN be stolen from, even while paying no more than what they were "willing" to pay. Auctions aren't set up for the winner to pay what he was "willing to pay". Auctions are set up for the winner to pay just more than the next highest bidder was willing to pay. Anything above that IS stealing, no matter how sensible a person's high bid was.

Steve,

A sensible bidder can absolutely be stolen from. In fact that's exactly what has been happening. It doesn't matter what you're willing to pay for something. If you are willing to pay $3,500 for an item in an auction and you wind up paying that exact amount for it, you're saying you should be happy, right? Well, what if the next highest legitimate bid was $1,000. That means you should have gotten the item for the next bid over $1,000. We'll say $1,100. Are you still happy that you had to pay an extra $2,400? Will you be happy when you try to sell your item and find out that you can't seem to get more than $1,000 for the item you paid $3,500 for? Surely, if you paid $3,500, that means at least one other bidder was willing to pay somewhere close to that amount, right? No, you just had $2,400 stolen from you. STOLEN. S-T-O-L-E-N.

It's not ebay where you can put in a snipe at the last minute. On ebay, I've often won items for 10% of what my snipe was. Other times, I've won them very close to what my max was. Either way, I'm happy. I think that's the kind of example you were trying to make, but it simply doesn't apply to these auction houses. It just doesn't.

I think part of the problem is that most people are generally good and it's hard to imagine that there are so many shady people in a hobby that is also filled with a lot nice people who you wind up becoming good friends with. There are many people that I've met over the years in this hobby that I would remain friends with regardless of whether or not either of us collected anything. That's one of the great things about this board.

But people who steal from you are not your friends.

-Ryan

Inside Job?
 

Many bad apples in the barrel, Kevin, so stipulated. But after watching the documentary "Inside Job" recently, I'm having a hard time seeing lawyers, financiers, economists, politicians, etc., and other professions in a very good light these days, either. At least our bad apples won't take the world down with them!
And I'm not a pollyanna type, I can be as cynical as the next guy. But I'll be doing the Oaks show next week with 300+ dealers and if there's going to be crooks there, I wish someone would tell me who they are, because after 15 years of doing shows, I don't think I could name any. And half the auction houses are crooked? Really? I'd sure appreciate knowing which ones, so we can all stop doing business with them. When I requested some evidence and some names, all I got was insulted for being so dumb as to ask. I'll match wits with anybody on this board, but what I can't understand is why all of us smart and educated people are still involved in this cesspool of illegal and unethical behavior? My business has actually held up very well during these lousy last couple of years. And in general, I just don't see the business folding its tent anytime soon.
Why is that? Are our customers so stupid or ill-informed that they don't know or don't care about the serial scandals that have been rocking the hobby for years? No, I'd guess it's because they know that in spite of all that, the great preponderance of dealers and yes, even auctions houses, go about their business earnestly and honestly and are not trying to steal their money. Bad apples? Plenty. Conflicts of interest? Sure. Rip-offs? You bet. Let's all work and campaign tirelessly to get them out of our hobby and into jail, if warranted. But let's not blow it all out of proportion. There's still a lot more good than bad, I'll say it again, and I just thought the good needed to be spoken for.
Hank Thomas

I'm absolutely not saying there are no or few shady people in the business. Anytime there's enough money shady stuff will happen. Even some of the biggest names in antique auctions and stamp auctions have been found out.
Christies and Sothebys for price fixing, and a bunch of stamp guys for collusion over several years. I think for them the fine was something like 3 Million, a couple guys did a bit of time and one major company was cut loose by the parent company and closed.

If I've bid 3500 and win it over a shill with the next legit bidder at 1000 and cant find a buyer later at anything over 1000 I've bid 2400 more than I should have. A mistake and a painful one and compounded by the shilling, but still my mistake for them to take advantage of. Without the large overbid, there would be no room for a shill. If the shill was the auction house or the auction was feeding someone information it's illegal and they should be punished. In most cases it's hard to tell wether the underbids are legit.

Some of what's been described does look very bad. being bit up to a maximum within minutes of placing the bid would put me off bidding if it happened regularly. Or more likely I'd bid lower and on fewer items.

I've seen some crazy stuff at live auctions. I used to work for a car dealer taking used cars to an auction. The auction got away with more than anyone would have thought. Shilling was common, by the auctioneers, competitors, friends of the seller, even a random guy one day who "won" a car and literally ran off when he won. The guy I worked for always stood against the back wall so there couldn't be any "bidders" behind him. Plus reverse shilling. If a car sold for over 1000 there was recourse if it had problems like a bent frame and the auction had their own mechanics for inspections. once in awhile a care would rapidly be bid to 900 and sold as soon as the bid was placed. Usually accompanied by arguments from guys who thought their bids had been missed. A fine environment to learn how to walk away at a certain price.

Steve B

Ryan -- I disagree on your conclusion on relative legal culpabilities but I applaud your sentiment. Kudos to you, you are to be admired for taking your stance.

Hank -- just because you have lots of great deals with people at shows for relatively minor dollars does not mean that the industry is mostly clean. It's not. There are millions of dollars of fraud committed by auction houses and other cretins in this hobby. Just because they don't advertise their fraud in neon lights doesn't mean it's not so. Maybe there will be a documentary about it someday and then you'll believe it.

Can't wait for the movie
 

I'm going to take your word for it, Jeff, that there are "millions of dollars of fraud committed by auction houses and other cretins in the hobby." So stipulated. And I'm going to assume that you know a lot of things that haven't come to light yet, since as far as I know, even the Mastro /Legendary activities have only been investigated to this point. No indictments yet, right? And you are certainly correct that I've never been involved with auction houses for big money on the buying end, only selling, so maybe I've actually, and unwittingly, been the beneficiary of some of this.
So why are you big money guys still doing it? I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the sleazy morass you describe. And are any of the auction houses clean? Would you advise a total boycott of auctions? If not, how are the less well-informed going to proceed if you don't tell us who we can trust and who we can't?
I really do need the documentary because I live in another world altogether. And I still say, and maybe you will so stipulate, that if you take the dollar volume of all the honest dealings in the hobby (I'm talking web sites, eBay, shows, stores, private deals, honest auctions if there are any, etc.) it vastly outweighs the dollar volume of the scamming. What do you suppose the amount of sports memorabilia business on eBay is every day? Has to be in the millions, doesn't it? So maybe that volume equals the total of auction house fraud in a year? Does this bring our positions any closer together, then? Hopefully, at least the dialogue has improved, and that's progress.
Hank

strange
 

I sort of agree with both Hankphenom and Calvindog at the same time. On one hand I truly believe there are hundreds of good, honest hard working dealers out there. On the other hand, it's impossible to dispute that there are some well-known bad apples that have a lot of influence in our hobby.

Jeff,

I didn't mean to imply there was actual legal culpability. I just meant they're partially responsible. A tiny percentage responsible. Still, a tiny percentage is more than the 0% it would become by not bidding with or consigning to shady auction houses. Some of the individuals discussed in this thread do actually have very real legal culpability, but that's not who I was talking about when I mention culpability. I try to leave the legal discussions to the experts, which there are many of on this board. Or maybe a better way to put it is that I try to leave those discussions to the guys who went to law school.

-Ryan