It's been so long since I've been to GUU that I don't know how they moderate over there.

Oh my misunderstanding. In any event the general observation about CU is valid.

I posted the link and thread over in the SGC forums on the 29th..no responses from anyone and only 24 views and has one of those emotion-icons noteing it as important.
Depiste little to no activity at all for years there, you know some folks read it.

I got sucked into that 10 year old Hal thread for over half an hour.....quite the rabbit hole, indeed.

I've been thinking more about the "consignor/shiller" aspect of this list. I wonder if it's unfair to not have the entire auction's results in front of us while making judgements. Considering this list came directly from a piece of scum, isn't it possible he twisted it to make certain people look worse?

Let me give you an example:

I've always been into older game used bats, but I have a small budget. I like to put bids in on items I like when they're absurdly low, just as a way to watch. So it's no big stretch to assume I put 15-20 low bids on bats in each of these auctions. Usually, before the auction closes, I'll bump up my bids as much as I can, only to watch myself get blown away. Once a year or so, I'll actually win one!

Since the bat world is/was fairly limited at the time, let's suppose it's not a stretch to think that one guy consigned many of these bats. Thinking back to the biggest bat guy back then, a man I have nothing bad to say about, let's call him "Dave."

So in the records you will see many instances of "Ke.n Su.lik" bidding and not winning. If most of those items were consigned by "Dave," it would be very easy to create a partial list that only shows when Ke.n Su.lik has bid up--but not won-- items consigned by Dave! Especially when you DON'T list the items that I bid on from other consignors, nor do you list items I actually won and paid for.

Viola! Ke.n and Dave must be in cahoots as shillers!

It's the government's list, which Doug published for whatever reason. His own list is also included in the same pleading.

OK, thanks. It's still incomplete, though.

I have been wondering about this since the thread started. His lawyer filed the document as an exhibit (one of many) to his sentencing memorandum. I understand his desire to address the restitution issue, which was his reason for including it, but the list easily could have been filed under seal, so that it wasn't available for public viewing. What possible reason would Doug or his attorney have to make this public? Do you think they just didn't realize the storm it would create, or figured that no one would go digging through the exhibits and find it? Or was it an "I'm going to take everyone else down with me" mentality? Or something else? I certainly don't think it did the client any favors in the realm of public opinion by exposing the list.

I have the same bewilderment. My cynical view is that he wanted to take others down, but I don't know. He could not possibly have thought it would go under the radar.

who cares why..i think everyone (non shillers) will agree they are glad its there