//

So YES didn't answer the question? How about NO or Maybe? I don't care what you do it just seems like he answered the question but you keep on keeping on. He let Ron use his account one way or the other. The rest is semantics and I didn't see him lie or anything else about it. He told the truth. He admitted a mistake was made. What more do you want?

Rob Gordy
tiger8mush@yahoo.com
looking for E121s with a "Lou Gertenrich" back if you have any :)

Leon,
No problem I know he is your friend... Its like you and the Peck + Snyder incident. I know you didnt like it very much and I myself never once commented on it to you. But hay if you want to pencil whip me out of here to as I have always told you no problem.. I had stopped making comments as you know long ago on these posts BUT when a LAWYER came on and Im sorry really didnt tell the truth (the full truth) and did the dance well someone had to call this individual out. So I guess it was me.. Do what you will. I really dont care. Just wanted to stick up for the right side of the law...

I didn't like the P & S issue especially because I did absolutely nothing wrong. Just a small difference. Peter admits he made a mistake. I didn't admit anything except I am out a Peck and Sndyer I bought at auction. There really wasn't anything else except in peoples imaginations. But prefer not to discuss that here, now.

Not to make this thread all about Peter, but to clarify, he actually didn't tell the truth or admit a mistake was made, did he? This is a long thread so I legitimately might have missed it when he said it was a mistake. I hope he did and I just didn't see it. I know that he did say, "I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate." I read that as the exact opposite of admitting a mistake.

That was from his initial post in this thread. The one where, as he says, he "came on here perfectly willing to be transparent." The way he demonstrated that transparency was to lie about it and say that he was asked to bid for Ron, and he agreed to do it. Ron later posted that he was the one bidding on his own item, using Peter's account. It's not that different either way, but it's also not just semantics. One story was the truth, one was a lie. Maybe we have different ideas about what transparency means.

Again, there are far worse offenders than Peter, but Peter still belongs on the list. Coming on here and lying about it didn't make him look less guilty. Actually transparency and remorse might have gone a long way.

-Ryan

And Leon,
Like I said I never once made any comment on that issue whether I thought it was right or wrong but somewhere down the line you made a decision to return it. Whether it was right or wrong YOU made that decision and that was your choice. But when this thread started someone came on and made a long statement, then his friend came on and made another long statement., in both statements there were inconsistency, and all I wanted was to clear up some very simple points. Thats all but when the party started to do the dance well thats when I pushed for the truth. Peter I hope you sleep well every night and never stop standing up for truth justice and the american way! I salute you sir...

Your points would resonate much more if less attention were drawn to your continued butchering of the English language...most notably in this instance the difference between weather and whether. And for the life of me I cant find inconsintences anywhere in the dictionary, its almost some sort of contraction.

Rob G$the#l

It is a cross between inconsistent and incontinence. Tough situation to be in.

"Will I need adult diapers for this?"
"Depends."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

:)