Bushing Comments about "Chat Room Guys"
 

Posted By: <b>Vin</b><p>I know people here have had discussions about SCDA. Over on the game used board, they have an except with Bushing comments about chat room guys. <br /><br />Here's the Link<br /><br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=379976&messageid=1112330427" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=379976&messageid=1112330427</a><br /><br />Vin

Bushing Comments about "Chat Room Guys"
 

Posted By: <b>Aaron</b><p>Does anyone have the text of the whole article? <br /><br />If not, for anyone who has read the article, was there mention and/or editorial endorsement or vindication of SCDA and Dave via the recent "demonstration" of the DiMaggio bat at Mastro offices?

Bushing Comments about "Chat Room Guys"
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>And it is pretty hilarious; Bushing dances more than a politician caught with his yoohoo in a hooker. I haven't heard this much BS since I had Joe Orlando on the stand...Apparently, his education is totally irrelevant to authenticating memorabilia (which is why it was so highly touted-- until it was discovered it did not exist), "game used" has never meant it was used in a game, his opinion is just his best guess, and we chatboard people don't know what in the hell we are talking about but SCDA is changing all its business practices anyway. As Dr. Evil might say, riiiight. <br /><br />Kinda reminds me of a case I had. The plaintiff was suing a city for $1 million in alleged overruns for building its new police HQ. I was retained as an expert to analyze its claim and advise the city attorney on whether a false claims case could be brought against the contractor for lying on his bills. I found so much fraud that when we all sat down to settle and I presented my findings, the contractor walked out screaming "there is no fraud!" Of course, an hour later he took $5,000 to settle.<br /><br />I cannot wait to read part II of the interview...

Bushing Comments about "Chat Room Guys"
 

Posted By: <b>Aaron</b><p>Great stuff, Adam. I'm gonna try and track down a copy myself. Sounds like a fun read.

Bushing Comments about "Chat Room Guys"
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>I always enjoy war stories about the exploits of my fellow attorneys.

Bushing Comments about "Chat Room Guys"
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>(1) "Conflict of interest: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust." <br /><br />(2) "Appearance of impropriety: an ordinary person, without knowledge of the facts, would assume that something he/she saw or heard was inappropriate or a violation of a rule/regulation."<br /><br />If it's not (1), then it's at least (2).<br /><br />

Bushing Comments about "Chat Room Guys"
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>This article has to be an April Fools joke; I simply cannot believe that this wingnut botched a softball interview from a related company's mouthpiece. Here are some of Diamond Dave's better ones:<br /><br />"Technically, I can't give a letter of authenticity; I can give an opinion regarding its authenticity."<br />--So I guess all those letters of authenticity floating around out there are what, toilet paper now? And from Dave's own web site, today: "We sell on Ebay with our LOA"! LOA??? LOL!!! <br /><br />But it gets better:<br /><br />"I can't authenticate it; all I can do is give you an opinion as to whether I feel it is or isn't authentic."<br />--Well, I feel that Dave is trying to cover his @$$ on all of the unequivocal letters of "authenticity" he has out there just in case any more "oops" moments happen. Like this one: ebay auction number 5180986549; BRSZ-2 has some stuff for sale with Bushing letters certifying that items are 100% original and unaltered. So he can "certify" [his word, not mine] that the Snider pants were 100% original and unaltered, yet now he says he cannot authenticate? I haven't laughed this much since the last time I saw the Three Stooges...I wouldn't buy a toothpick on his word.<br /><br />"If a bat's made for that guy, and it's got use, therefore, under hobby terminology, that was always 'game-used.'" <br />--On what planet, precisely, has that "always" been the case? Apparently, we've all been using the words incorrectly; game used just means used. I bet [ha ha] Pete Rose would love to know that...Query: if A-Rod uses a bat to open some walnuts on the floor of the clubhouse it is "game used"?<br /><br />And last but not least:<br /><br />"What we're doing now is splitting the words [sic]; to be quite frank, it's because of all these chat room guys that [sic] don't know anything about what they're talking about, making accusations and innuendo [sic] and hearsay [sic], they have no idea what they're talking about."<br />--Yeah, that makes sense; these chat room guys know so little that Dave and the rest of the other swine at the trough are altering their business practices as a result. And as long as we know-nothing chat room guys are at it, Mr. Almost-Masters Dave should take note of the following: (1) The expression is "splitting hairs", not "splitting words", (2) People are "who"'; objects are "that", (3) Innuendo is not "made", and (4) "hearsay" is a technical term for a type of evidence given in court, not a post in a chat room. <br /><br />Gad, I love the smell of flop-sweat in the morning...