|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I just deleted an email that Lee B posted sent to him by the Dorskind Group. The rule on this board is that no private emails are to be posted. Exceptions can be made when both parties are ok with it and it is non-confrontational in nature. Generally it is totally unacceptable. The reason is that emails can be manipulated or there can be things left out ...which makes the private email posted be out of context. Also, I have always asked that disputes be taken to private emails. If I allow private emails to then be posted then that would be hypocritical in my view. If not hypocritical then at least self defeating of sending said disputes to emails. For the record I have had this "contorting" out of context done to me recently as emails were left out of the string that was posted about me on another board. I know it happens with first hand knowledge. Those are the reasons private emails will not be allowed on this board. I hope everyone understands it protects everyone....regards<br /><br /><br />edited out "and not open for debate though."...as this IS open for debate...<br /><br />and edited spelling
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Nice to see that the truth gets edited.<br /><br />Lee
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Like I said....I have no doubt it was the truth....I have gotten emails from the Dorskind Group like that too. I hope you understand it's not personal. It's a forum rule for reasons stated above.....
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Leon, <br /><br />This is the stuff you allow. The follow up:<br /><br />Yet another defeat for the hopeless "Behrens"...<br />Behrens, a good word, indeed to describe and empty mind<br />and an empty wallet.<br /><br />This man is truly pathetic and if you condone this you are no where close to the person I met at the Nationals.<br /><br />Lee<br /><br />
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>With all due respect what are you talking about? Where did I say I condone hateful emails? I just said you can't post private emails per the board rules. It's been a rule from day one of me moderating, over 2 years ago. regards
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Hi Lee,<br /><br />I agree with Leon's policy of not posting actual private emails. There is simply no positive outcome.<br /><br />However, as far as I understand the rules it is still okay to post with a summary or characterization of a private email - a summary in your own words. <br /><br />If the emailer objects to the presentation he can offer and you can agree to post the entire text. If anyone else inquires you can forward the email to that person privately. <br /><br />I don't see it as editing the truth. I see it as preventing private conversations from becoming public, and eventually the truth getting out if both parties dispute the way the communication is presented by the other.<br /><br />So ... characterize away on the Dorskind email! lol. I missed it the first time around, and am very curious to see what I missed. If you can't or don't want to summarize it, then just answer this one question ... WAS THERE ROTTING IN A LITTLE SHACK INVOLVED?????<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Joann
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>When I posted the original email I stated that I would let the people decide for themselves on the content. I had no intention of any follow up at all I think Dorskin is a waste of time. You have brought this to the forefront by deleting the email and telling me if I reword it I can post it. I copied the email as is, the truth, and you tell me that is wrong but it is all right to post it in my own words? <br /><br />It's your board, to me by deleting such posts you are condoning such behavour. I hope this is not the case.<br /><br />Jericho<br /><br />Lee
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>bcornell</b><p>I completely agree with the forum policy not to allow posting of emails, which are private by nature. Many have tried this and every single time, they were trying to forward their own argument. Make your own point here and don't aim so low.<br /><br />That said, if you're sending obnoxious emails, you probably have a habit of doing so. Tsk tsk.<br /><br /><br />Bill<br /><br /><br /><br />
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Joann, I always respect your opinion on this board. But this was not intended to be a conversation, it was an unintended email. There are many that wonder why there are so many lurkers, it is the likes of Dorskin and his BS that keep good people away.<br /><br />Lee
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Are they private when they are unsolicited?
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>You said:<br /><br />"It's your board, to me by deleting such posts you are condoning such behavour."<br /><br /><br />If you think deleting personal emails, per the board rules, is "condoning" then we will just agree to disagree on this matter. No one is allowed to post them. Same rules for everyone....... Again, nothing personal. regards
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Lee,<br /><br />Leon did not tell you to post it in your own words. That was my suggestion so you could convey something you clearly think needs to be conveyed, but without posting an actual email<br /><br />The reason I agree with Leon's policy is exactly for the reasons he states - it is too easy to edit an email and present it as the sender's words. I would hate to think that someone could take my private communication, modify it to make me look stupid, and post it on this board.<br /><br />I know it may seem unfair to those that would post emails honestly and accurately with no edits, but in this case it seems to me that erring on the side of conservatism is the best move. I would rather have to put a received email into my own words, giving up the ability to post it directly, than risk that anyone else could completely corrupt my words and post them here.<br /><br />J
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>If it was sent to you personally then it was private, imo. .....
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Yes, Johann, Leon did tell to reword and it could be posted.<br /><br />Now about unsolicited emails?
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>So we just let these people to as they please so they can continue do run more people from the board or posting? <br /><br />Edited to correct my spelling so I don't get more emails from Dorskin
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>bcornell</b><p><i>Are they private when they are unsolicited?</i><br /><br />Lee -<br /><br />Doesn't matter. If we were sending you stupid comments like the one you quoted, we would block them. And now I've lost track of who "we" is.<br /><br />I have never once seen a single angry post here that got the poster what he wanted. Yet, people keep trying.<br /><br />Bill
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Lee,<br /><br />Now that I've read what you posted while I was writing my last, I will say that I completely agree with you that Dorskind is a complete ass (asses?) and keeps good people away. And bad people. And tired people. And happy people. And short people. And wise people. And fun people. Oh to hell with it - he keeps all kinds of people away!!<br /><br />OK. So now I'm dying to know what he sent you. I remember that in the past Jay has posted some summaries of emails Bruces Dorskinds sent him, and they were truly appalling. I imagine that yours is in the same vein.<br /><br />J
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I support Leon's rule.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />What if the senders email address was omitted and only partial content was used? Is that ok? I would guess that this usually pertains to emails that might be controversial.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Ooooohhhhh HELL no! hahaha. OMG. I take it back. I take it all back. We should be allowed to post private emails - freely and frequently. <br /><br />Leon - can you suspend the policy for five minutes, long enough for Lee to repost his email from Wharton (Magna) 73?? I'm sorry. Did I say "Wharton (Magna) 73"? Of course I meant the Dorskinds. For a minute there I thought of him in the way he signed his email to Lee, which Lee just sent me privately. hahaha. DANG was that funny.<br /><br />I'm sorry Lee - you have every reason to be offended by that elitist crap. But it was so over-the-top that I just had to laugh. <br /><br />OK. No more Dorskind references for me. No more Bruces or any other name. From here on out he will always be "Wharton (Magna) 73" to me.<br /><br />J<br /><br />PS: Leon, I know you can't suspend the policy. But it would have been so funny for all to see Mr. Wharton (Magna) 73 refer to his two (count-em, two!) Ivy League degrees while chiding Lee for spelling/grammar errors IN THE SAME TWO SENTENCES IN WHICH HE MAKES FIVE VERY OBVIOUS GRAMMATICAL/PUNCTUATION ERRORS! hahaha. Oh the comedy the group is missing.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I did get to read Dorskindsssssss's email to Lee before it was edited, since it was posted on one of my current threads.<br />It was very mean-spirited and smelled like the rantings of a pathetic person. I, like others, have recently received an <br />email from the same "snob"; however, in my case it was about an attempt to correct some mundane grammatical error <br />that I supposedly committed.<br /><br />Why do we have to tolerate this kind of "hate email" from such "elitists" on this forum ? It's unacceptible and should be<br /> exposed.<br /><br />TED Z
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>As devils advocate.....what would stop someone from changing the email and then posting it? I am not saying it would happen but it could. I think it's a slippery slope and I think making the rule steadfast is better. <br /><br />Joann- I saw the email he posted before I deleted it. I pretty much skimmed over it but do remember a mistake or three. But no, I don't think it would be right to allow it to be posted publicly. Now, if ya'll want to send it to everyone and their brother privately...then there is nothing I can, or would want to do, about that. ..regards
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>So Leon, what do you do on your end when you are aware of such emails?<br /><br />Lee
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>lol. I know Leon - and I do agree with the policy.<br /><br />But I think I will try do something to get one of Wharton (Magna) 73's emails of my own. Who doesn't dream of being called a commoner? Or having family members invited to move to Cuba? <br /><br />If I got one of my very own, then I could characterize away to my heart's content. Wharton (Magna) 73, my email address is jmkline@juno.com,<br /><br />But to Ted's comment, on a more serious note, the private emails are truly deplorable if the one that Lee got is any indication. At some point it may be a valid question to ask whether someone can use the contact information that is available because people participate on this board to send those people unsolicited, harassing and insulting emails.<br /><br />I'm just asking.<br /><br />Joann
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I have gotten many emails from Bruce and for the most part they have always been pleasant. I don't know why he chooses to post here with such arrogance....I've also seen the little short video of Bruce showing off some of his collection and I didn't notice any use of "We" or "Whilst"...nor any mention of Sir Edward Wharton-Tiger. It's sad that he can't figure out how to win friends and influence people because not only would he have a lot to gain personally, but I bet his collection would too.<br /><br />And Joann have you gotten that photo you won off of ebay yet?
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am not trying to be argumentative but I am not sure I understand your question. What do I do when I know about these emails, or what do I do when I get them myself? <br /><br />If I know about them then so be it. I won't, and can't, police anything outside the board, nor do I want to. I don't condone hateful emails and would hope no one sends them to anyone.<br /><br />If one gets sent to me personally then I react appropriately...and honestly, sometimes, with a somewhat nasty email back....but I would not make theirs public here and I wouldn't let them do it to me here. I feel it's a good rule...regards
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Never mind I am just beating my head against the wall and Dorskin wins again. Congrats Bruce. You are a much better man than I will ever be or try to be. I bow to we's greatness.<br /><br />Lee
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Like many (all?) regulars, I have gotten abusive unprovoked emails from Dorskind, including one recently in which he accused me of insulting the size of his manhood in a thread. Apparently he has trouble reading, because I never did any such thing. (Someone else in the thread did, but not me.) I pointed this out to him but amazingly did not receive an acknowledgement or apology for his error.<br /><br />Leon, why DO we have to put up with unsolicited abusive emails which are a direct result of this board, since that's where he gets our addresses from? Is there nothing that can be done about this twerp?<br /><br />I have to laugh when someone whines that the "class war" position of certain "poor" collectors on this board drives lurkers away and keeps supposedly wonderful people from posting here. One look at most of Bruce's posts would drive just about any sane person right into another hobby.<br /><br />"Wharton (magna) '73" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, LOL.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Lee, <br /><br />We don't need to read his email to know what kind of pompous ass he really is. I've noticed, in my short time on this board, that many of us can go out of our way to be asses. Bruce just has the shortest commute. He needs no busses, trains, cabs or limos. Two steps out the door and he's there. <br /><br />Ignore him. Put a block on his emails through your ISP. <br /><br />(For the record, when I graduated from college in 1973, I was accepted at Wharton. I deferred because my dad had passed away a couple of years prior and I needed to get a real job, right away. Today, I'm glad I never got back to it.)<br /><br />
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am open to debate about posting private emails but it's going to be tough to convince me to change it. I am sorry for the emails. Heck, he's sent me some too. I just think the rule is a good one for reasons stated. If ya'll convince me otherwise, then so be it.....I knew this wouldn't be a fun thread but I felt the need to post it...regards
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Maybe if people were allowed to post some of Bruce's vile emails then he would think twice about sending them. I've often noticed that Bruce chooses to email replies to posts on Net54 rather than posting his thoughts on the board....I doubt he'd be nearly as vicious in his replies if people were allowed to post his emails.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>I don't disagree with your position on private emails-- it wouldn't help in a situation like this. I was mainly just venting, and I have now learned how to use the "Blocked Senders" feature of my email program, which is fun.<br /><br />However, at this point I do have to wonder whether Bruce hasn't caused as much or more grief on this board as some people who have been shut down.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>It's a judgement call. Only 2 people (that were known people, not anonymous trolls) have been banned. One was so over the top that I didn't need another opinion, though I got about 5 privately, and it was unanimous. The other person is someone that I specifically told not to interact with someone else on the board. Nine days later they started it again so I had to act on it. I would prefer to never ban anyone. Bruce does start some provocative posts and has a lot of hobby knowledge. I agree it's a shame he acts the way he does on the board sometimes. It irritates and riles folks up. I know you very much understand my position concerning banning though you might not personally agree with it. I am extremely slow to ban anyone....Two in over two years isn't too many....I hope it stays at two....
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Hi-<br /><br />I have nothing to add.<br /><br />Cobby33<br />UCSB '91<br />GGU Law '96
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Elliot</b><p>It is also my opinion that nothing good can come out of allowing the posting of private emails on the board. It's is just too easy to manipulate the email to one's advantage. <br />Having said that, I agree that it is wrong for Bruce to be sending abusive emails to board members with addresses that he has obtained from the board. An obvious first step is to block his emails.<br><br>
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>i don't condone the abusive e-mails but Bruce's posts are among the very besy on Net54 and I would hate to see him stop posting.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Here's one solution. I got some very disturbing emails from Bruce about a year ago, which included death threats. He was told if I ever get another email even remotely like that, I will contact local authorities and forward all emails. If you have gotten any threatening emails from him, please forward them to me, including all headers. If he does step over the line again, I will be more than happy to make the legal authorities in his area of his threats so he can be dealt with.<br /><br />I recently got another email stating "the dark is lurking".<br /><br />Go ahead and keep it up Bruce. You're just digging yourself a deeper hole.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>I agree with Leon's policy. It's just too easy for someone to edit an email. More important, in many cases emails can be used to resolve differences and foster greater understanding between people. Or in other cases they are meant to convey information not intended for public dissemination. People could be dissuaded from writing them if this Board allows them to be posted. Either way one looks at it, there are imperfections with either rule, but on balance I think looking at the entire situation and not any one particular instance, Leon's ban is a prudent one.<br /><br />Also, I think Lee's point about the inconsistency between not allowing the entire email to be published (out of fear of editing) but allowing the receiver to post a summary is well taken. Summaries by their nature are subjective and can be quite misleading. If posting the email is prohibited, then so should posting a summary.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Well, I have to say that I still agree with the policy of not posting personal emails. But after reading the email Lee got, supporting the policy suddenly got quite a bit harder. <br /><br />It was, for me, a theoretical position to take based on sound arguments in favor of preventing abuse and misrepresentation of content, plus betraying the sender's intent of a private communication. With Lee's email it is no longer theoretical because I think the email he got is horrible and there is a real urge in me to want to see Wharton (Magna) 73 exposed to the world for what he is.<br /><br />So I still support the policy, but it is a much closer call.<br /><br /><br /><br />And to idly respond to a few of the posts above:<br /><br />I too thought I knew what a pompous ass he is from his posts on the board, but it turns out I didn't. What he posts here is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to what he sent Lee. I had no idea.<br /><br />I still wonder if there is not recourse here, since he's using contact info from this board to make contact and the content of people's posts to fuel his bs, to do something to discourage this behavior. A suspension instead of a ban? I know that participation on a public forum leaves one (two?) open to uninvited emails and sometimes impolite disagreement. But if this guy is making a habit of doing it a lot, and to a lot of people, and emailing PURELY TO INSULT, NOT TO COUNTER A POINT, then maybe some response is in order.<br /><br />Jim, even though you value Wharton (Magna) 73's contributions, I think you would be shocked to see what he has said to someone in an email. It may change your thinking about his overall value to this forum.<br /><br />Finally, to those of you who have asked me to forward the email - I'd be happy to but I need to check with Lee first. He sent it to me and I don't know that he intended it to go past that. That he posted it on this board tells me he's not all that concerned about spreading the content, but I'll check first. If it's okay with him, I'll happily forward it.<br /><br />Hmmm. Maybe I should start some kind of website where people could post his emails. Anyone happen to know if www.whartonmagna73.com is taken? Hahahahaa. Cracked myself up with that one. And pretty early in the morning too.<br /><br />Joann<br />The proud product of our nation's public university system. Go Terps! lol<br /><br />CMU 81 BS<br />Maryland 84 MS<br />WMU 94 MS<br />Cooley Law School - currently enrolled
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Corey,<br /><br />I think posting a summary should be okay for the exact reason that it is clearly the poster's words. People would know that it is content as seen by the person posting, with whatever biases or spin or impressions that person may carry with it. So readers could decide what to make of it armed with the knowledge that it is the poster's words and version of events.<br /><br />That is a lot different than posting an email that has possibly been edited according to the poster's biases and spin. In that case it is being represented as the actual words of the sender, and the reader has no reason to mentally account for the spin of the poster. That is much more deceitful to me.<br /><br />Plus, if you extend the rule to cover summaries it would become impossible to find the limits. What about statements like "you told me in an email last year that you would do such and such, and now you are going back on that"? <br /><br />JMO.<br /><br />JMK. hee. I'm on a roll this morning.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>joann you said " I think the email he got is horrible and there is a real urge in me to want to see Wharton (Magna) 73 exposed to the world for what he is." i don't think we need to see the email to figure out what he is. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I need to drink black coffee at night so I can stay up and read all this scintillating banter.<br /><br />I also agree that private emails don't belong on the board, but for whatever reason Bruce blind copied me on the email that he sent Lee. Like all of Bruce's takes on what is really important in life, my jaw dropped as I read it. When he is attacked in any way, Bruce pulls out the Ivy league degrees and his great wealth and culture, and lets people know in no uncertain terms why he is better than them.<br /><br />I don't even know where to start regarding that email, I am simply speechless.<br /><br />And Jim C., while Bruce does occasionally make some useful posts, please explain in your own words why you feel he is one of the best posters on this board. Does insulting people who may not have as much as he does (or pretends he does) count as part of the good stuff?
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Not a bad point, but the problem I see with it is that as a practical matter, in order for the sender to effectively rebut the summary, he/she will feel tremendous pressure to post the entire email, and then we are back to square one. So, while I think there is sound logic to what you say, on balance I still feel summaries should be prohibited as well.<br /><br />Or, another way to look at it, if the main purpose of the ban is to not put a damper on people writing emails, I'm not sure if allowing summaries would not act as a comparable damper. In fact, it arguably could act as more of a damper due to concerns of the potentially misleading nature of summaries.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Oh my gosh. So Wharton (Magna) 73 is a bcc'er too??? Why am I not surprised? I have never once, ever, personally or at work used a blind copy. I think they are unethical (just my personal opinion), so it doesn't shock me in the least that he would use it. <br /><br />Although why he would want another soul in the universe to know what he wrote to Lee is beyond me.<br /><br />And Corey - also good points. I guess there is no good answer. In the end it's too bad that it even needs to be discussed. If people didn't misrepresent themselves and their role in events in public, it wouldn't even be necessary for someone to want to post a message that demonstrates the public falsity.<br /><br />J
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>Dammit. I want to be noticed, too!<br /><br />--Chad<br />(The Hollow Leg, drunka, 'perpetually)
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>PAS</b><p>I agree with Leon that private emails should not be posted. That said, no one should have to endure hate emails as the price of particpating here, and the moderator should consider banning someone if there is conclusive proof he is abusing other posters.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p>Hey Chad,<br /> <br />Just sent you a threatening email. Thanks.<br /><br />Dave
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>It hurts so good.<br /><br />--Chad
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I think this is a healthy debate. Before Corey ever posted his thought on summarized emails, and the point of NOT allowing them to be posted, I had already typed a long response to Joann, and deleted it before I hit the respond button. I came to the same conclusion as Corey though. I don't think summaries can be allowed either. Also, I am not sure how we can ascertain that an email addresss is ONLY derived from this board. The debate rolls on but so far I am not convinced the rule needs to be changed. To change this rule there is going to have to be a compelling argument that outweighs the current standard. regards
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p>It's funny most these people that like to send out hostile emails and such would never do the same thing face to face. Thats part of the wonderful world of the internet. <br /><br />It seems its kind of on the same line as men that like to abuse women...most of them I've seen do so because they can't seem to handle taking their frustations out on another man...they are too scared to do so....same thing with the internet bullies...they are goofy little guys that can't and won't back up any talk in person.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Out of everyone's post so far, one sticks out to me.<br />Member Davalillo states, and I quote;<br />"I don't condone the abusive e-mails, but Bruce's posts are among the very best on Net54 and I would hate to see him stop posting".<br /><br /><br />You know, what never ceases to amaze me with many on this board is how much stature is given to someone solely on how much their collection is worth, or how much knowledge they have in the hobby.<br />What ever happened to judging a person for what they are. Who cares how much they're worth or how much schooling they've had. I'll tell you what, if we were just a chat board of people meeting online shooting the sh#% about life in general and cards weren't a part of our lives, anyone that acted the way I'm understanding Bruce did, and as many times as he has would be someone everyone would avoid. <br />For some reason though somewhere along the way many have given a free pass to certain people here just because of the baseball cards they own or how much their collection is worth. I think that's pretty sad and disappointing if you ask me.<br /><p>Regards, Tony Andrea<br /><br />edited to correct message title...
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>I lose all respect for people who "threaten" electronically. It's not the highest form of cowardice, but it's up there.<br /><br />--Chad
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>I would just like to interject that Bruce is not representative of Upenn Alumni. Please don't come away with the impression that we are all, or even mostly, uppity snobs. I will readily admit, I have much to learn from most everyone on this board.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Tony- while I know Bruce's collection and he has some very fine baseball cards, it in no way approaches the scope of many of the posters on this board. If anything, it is rather modest in size. That is what makes all his rants even more preposterous. I can think of at least a dozen posters with collections that would dwarf his, yet these same people exhibit modesty and show respect to collectors who may not be able to afford what they can.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Matt, <br /><br />Your post might carry more weight if you listed the year and honor level of your degree. Just a thought. <LOL>
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Hi Barry -<br />I agree with you 100%. For every one bad egg on N54, you'll find 20 good ones here. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><p>Tony<br />
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>How many good eggs does that bad egg drive away?<br /><br />Lee
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Barry asks an excellent question: why does anyone feel Bruce is "one of the best posters on this board. Does insulting people who may not have as much as he does (or pretends he does) count as part of the good stuff?"<br /><br />The sad truth is that Bruce has cleverly set the bar so abysmally low with most of his posts that when he does occasionally make one with some content of value to collectors, and I do mean occasionally, a minority of respondents seem inclined to kiss his a** up down and sideways, which is really pathetic. <br /><br />In no way could his posts, taken as a whole, be called an asset to this board.<br /><br />And then there are the emails....<br /><br />Tim<br />(Ph.D. and all the rest of it, LOL)
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Sick people write sick things. I like Joann's idea of a web site devoted to posting the devolved ramblings of such people.<br /><br />www.miserablesods.com<br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Why would Bruce scold anyone on spelling or grammar when he makes the same mistakes?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/376259/thread/1190470409/last-1190470409/High+Grade+E+Cards+Wanted" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/376259/thread/1190470409/last-1190470409/High+Grade+E+Cards+Wanted</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><<We continue to strive to assemble the ulitmate ultra high grade<br />pre-War type collection.<br /><br />Why subject yourself to uncertaines of the auction market?<br /><br />Confidenality and discretion assured.>><br /><br /><br />
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>I actually think banishment is taken too seriously here. If you have two or three serious complaints about a contributor to the Board, banish the guy. So what? We're not upholding sacred principles of the first Amendment here. If I cross the line once too often, I'd accept that as my fate. <br /><br />From what I can tell, Bruce has crossed that line (probably more than a few times) and deserves to go play somewhere else. <br /><br />It is not a badge of honor that Net54 has only banished two people -- in this case, it is more reflective of an anarchic environment.<br /><br />A provocative post is only valuable to the extent it opens serious dialogue about pre-war baseball cards.<br /><br />In any event, can anyone really say that Bruce contributes when he just issues a first-person-plural post and then does not return to engage in any meaningful dialogue about his post? Where is the value in that?<br /><br />Banish him. Move on happily.<br />
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Brian- I read that BST post closely and it is amazing.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Yes it is Barry.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Kenny Cole</b><p>All of this email stuff just goes to show you that business school can't always teach character, honor, decency, self-awareness or basic respect for others. From what I've read, it appears that "Wharton (Magna) '73" must have skipped all of the classes that taught those qualities. What an idiot.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>PAS</b><p>In both cases of words that were misspelled in his post, "ti" was missing. UncertainTIes. ConfidenTIality.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>I could dig up more examples if I cared to do so.<br /><br />Their overuse and misuse of the comma is astounding.<br />
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>PAS</b><p>I really, hate it, when people, overuse commas.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>The 'uncertaines' of such posts are troubling.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>While I respect your opinion I completely disagree with you. I think it is good that only 2 people have been banned from this site. As the Honorable Mr.Wakefield has so eloquently stated, many times, there is no 1st amendment rights that go with this board. I understand that mode of thinking completely. I do my best to let everyone say what they want to though and I will continue in that vein. Also, I really don't think Bruce has run off that many board members...nor do I think Jim C has. Like I said before if folks want to post they will. If they don't they don't. There are enough good threads to participate in to post if so desired. Also, these same folks that think the sky is falling could be part of the solution and post a good thread. I have yet to see Bruce or Jim C attack anyone that started a good thread. I will make sure there are no unprovoked personal attacks on the board, per the forum rules. That is all I can, or will, do...
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I wish I had saved my emails from Bruce...he once emailed me after I commented on his horrendous spelling and grammar. He blamed it on his secretary.<br /><br />Whoops! Was that too much of a summary to post to Net54?<br /> <br /><img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Andrew S.</b><p>Shouldn't someone who stoops to such depths be cast out?<br />I think the hockey forum just banished someone for repeatedly making physical threats to forum members.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>While I don't want summaries of emails on the board I do have to say that Bruce sent an email this morning, to all parties concerned, that his private emails were not meant to be a threat. He bold faced typed "NO one wants to hurt you".....So the things folks are saying about him sending threatening emails should not be considered physical threats, at least in my opinion. IF they were construed that way then this last email should clear it up. Now I know how Jeff L. feels about defending folks he might not agree with....and might even be appalled by in certain instances.....This is the "not so fun" part of moderating.....regards
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...at unprovoked personal attacks. I draw mine at unsolicited offensive e-mails arising from Board postings. If anything, the unsolicited offensive e-mail is MUCH more detrimental to the health of this Board. I am not sure how you could say otherwise.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Chris Bland</b><p>Seems to me the best way to avoid being misconstrued is to stop sending unsolicited emails to people who disagree with you.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>T206 Collector made a good point that Bruce will start a thread, admittedly at times thought provoking, but never return to it to participate in the discussion. There is no interchange of ideas, no defense of his position if people disagree, and no response to comments made by board members about his condescending tone.<br /><br />Bruce, from now on when you start a thread, I think you should be prepared to carry on a discussion. It's as if you are just throwing some random idea out and then stepping out of the office for the day. Are you exchanging ideas with the board, or just talking at people? A hundred people may ask you a pointed question which you refuse to answer, and then you start a new thread about Disney buying out Topps for a gazillion dollars, or something like that. Why not stay with the topic and interact with everyone a little bit.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I think posting summaries is fine with the caveat that the original sender of the e-mail is free to post his/her own e-mail which is being summarized. Scott Elkins once summarized an e-mail I sent to him and his summary was a complete distortion. I responded by posting the actual e-mail I sent. If we leave it only to the receivers to summarize the info, we must let the sender clarify by posting if s/he choses.<br />JimB
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>It’s disturbing to me that Lee would receive an email like this but I am sort of astounded that this is not an isolated incident. The situation seems like something I’ve run into first hand in my own life, and so I ran ours by a respected professional that I know. It is difficult to assess these things clinically from a distance but he exhibits symptoms of some a schizophrenia or related delusional disorder. I kid you not. I have read in his own posts and from the posts of other here of what they personally received from him, and sparing the lengthy diagnostic criteria, see symptoms of grandiosity, paranoia, an overt argumentative nature, display threatening behavior, and misinterpretation of what others have written. I wouldn't be surprised if he is either taking medication, or refuses (or occasionally refuses) to take medication. These kinds of disorders are not necessarily always like they are portrayed on TV or in the movies -- such as Olivia de Havilland in The Snake Pit. In fact, many who suffer it can be highly functional. In many, the activity can be episodic, and often the person later disavows knowledge of them happening (and believes that too.) Much of this can explain the emails to many here, apparently received from him out of the blue. And also the erratic behavior. There is something of a dichotomy in a person who would write such formalized postings on the forum and yet write in a private email that “darkness is lurking.” (Sounds like something out of a Bela Lugosi film.) Or later claim that the emails were not meant as a threat or that “NO one wants to hurt you.” What’s up with that? Or, as Barry just mentioned, via T206 Collector, starting a thread and not participating in it.<br /><br />I am not defending him by way of armchair diagnosis; in fact I realize how disturbing receiving these might be for some people (I’m only trying to figure out an explanation for it all.) Hopefully, anyone who does get one might take some solace in the fact they are not the sick one. Wouldn't it be a terrifying thing to have to inhabit that mind?<br /><br />Leon -- re the public posting of private emails: I am totally against it. In fact I think that anyone who sends them should be suspended or banned, especially when there are repeated occurrences. While this extends to what Lee received, the upside is that it now exposes just how many people have received the same. Otherwise we may not have known the extent of it all. Probably people should forward these things directly to you rather than simply deleting them. <br />
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>The grammatical errors in his BST posts are bad, but the five (FIVE!) errors in two sentences in the email to Lee (sentences, by the way, that were telling Lee to learn to spell) really went to a new level. Heck, there were only 18 WORDS in the two sentences combined and he still managed to squeeze in 5 mistakes.<br /><br />I guess a Wharton education isn't quite what it used to be, huh? Maybe when they admitted this guy in the early 70's it was a "there goes the neighborhood" kind of event.<br /><br />So we are having this big policy conversation about email summaries that is centered around the misbehavior of one individual. <br /><br />Joann
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Bob Pomilla</b><p>A couple of days ago I received an email from Bruce. Like the email which Lee received, which was also sent to Barry, Bruce's email, though addressed to me, was also sent to another board member. This board member contacted me, confused as to why he was the recepient of this. Best I could come up with was that it was an error. In light of the Lee/Barry email, that does not seem likely, though the purpose continues to elude me.<br /><br />Likely that some people responding to this thread have gotten, or will get, emails from Bruce.<br />If contacted by him again, I will not respond. This is ridiculous behavior at best and I for one, will not feed into it.
|
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>When all those "show us your highest graded xxxxx's" posts started showing up on the board, I knew there was trouble brewing. Who cares? If you buy a highly graded card, I have no problem posting it on the weekly pickup thread but why the compulsion to flaunt high graded cards in this forum? I know that there are a lot of us collecting cards who have highly graded cards (along with lower graded cards) but I don't see the rush to vanity that I have witnessed by a few. I have a lot of cards which are the highest graded or among the highest graded, just as others out there have, but I don't feel compelled to participate in the "nyah-nyah look what I have" mentality. Maybe I am being overly sensitive but I don't think so. I just think this goes backs to the whole "backbone of the hobby" debate from earlier in the year. <br />If you buy some highly graded card and are proud of it, good for you! Be proud. Glad you have the disposable income to afford it. You can even be smug if you like, but don't flaunt it and brag about it.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:42 AM. |