pwcc (part two)

[vintagetoppsguy]

Kevin,

You should stay away from things like this...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Kevin,

You should stay away from things like this...

Yeah, but I was sitting on the couch watching the debacle and literally laughing out loud. I had to tell my wife what was going on. Hilarious. There is a fool born on this board every day. I can't imagine arguing a subject I barely know anything about with someone that does it, and has been doing it for decades, for a living.

[Gradedcardman]

12 pm is a work night ?

[drmondobueno]

Originally Posted by slipk1068

+1

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Keith not taken as confrontational at all. I think the answer in terms of a fraud claim, like in most circumstances, depends on the facts of your case, what information do you have based on bid history, etc. suggesting you have been defrauded. Fraud has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and alleged with particularity. This is why civil lawsuits are imperfect, as someone alluded to. It can be a catch 22 -- the evidence is in the hands of the fraudster, but without it you don't have enough to state a claim that isn't speculative. Now if Mastro's bidding records are released, for example, and it's pretty clear you were run up on a particular card -- different story.

As far as a claim against anyone for inflating the overall market, it would seem very difficult to prove that any particular card you may have bought was overpriced for that reason, as there could be a host of explanations. Then again, I tend to think like a defense lawyer, so don't take my word for it.

Thanks for that. This is what I was concerned you might say. I feel like I walked into my garage and two cockroaches scrambled for cover, but one big bastard stood his ground and spat at me. Guess which one is ebay.

I need a shower.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Kevin,

Thanks for getting me to laugh out loud in a very quiet coffee shop. I was laughing at the picture, not at the post - that was great.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by glchen

Scott, the problem is that the arguments around this get too personal. People are basically calling each other idiots if they don't agree w/ the opposing opinion. There's no "I respect your opinion, and let's agree to disagree." Instead it's more like, "you are an idiot who doesn't know what the #%#$%$ you're talking about, so just shut the %$#%$# up before you embarrass yourself further."

Gary, you and I see eye to eye on the above. I count myself as one of the guys who has a hard time 'holding back' in such situations. I can do it easily in real life, but not so much on the internet. In that respect, many of us here are very much alike, even though we are yelling at each other.

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You just keep revealing your ignorance. There are all sorts of meritorious individual claims that do not work as class actions because of very precise and technical requirements you obviously don't know anything about. But keep it up, you are impressing my friend Ron.

i didn't say all of them work that way. you are injecting words into the conversation.

i never claimed to know everything, but at the same time i have not said anything unfactual. period. if you want to debate that, then lets debate that.

what specifically have i said that is not accurate?

kevin

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

i didn't say all of them work that way. you are injecting words into the conversation.

i never claimed to know everything, but at the same time i have not said anything unfactual. period. if you want to debate that, then lets debate that.

what specifically have i said that is not accurate?

kevin

If you insist.

"enough claims for a single case or series of events will get compiled into a class action suit."

WRONG

"are you telling me that if a company has a large number of civil cases for a particular series of events they would not push to have those cases settled as a class action instead of fighting them individually"

WRONG

"someone with attention to suits being filed against a particular defendant can also easily bring class action on behalf of the class. whether the defendant pushes for it, or an entity involved in a civil case brings it to a class action......with enough people filing civil suit the chances of it becoming a class action from civil suit goes up."

WRONG

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you insist.

"enough claims for a single case or series of events will get compiled into a class action suit."

WRONG

"are you telling me that if a company has a large number of civil cases for a particular series of events they would not push to have those cases settled as a class action instead of fighting them individually"

WRONG

"someone with attention to suits being filed against a particular defendant can also easily bring class action on behalf of the class. whether the defendant pushes for it, or an entity involved in a civil case brings it to a class action......with enough people filing civil suit the chances of it becoming a class action from civil suit goes up."

WRONG

i already responded to each one of those but i will do it again

1) can is the correct word instead of 'will'. you got me on a single word i guess.
2) it has happened. it can happen and under the right circumstances it is exactly what one would want to happen.
3) this is pretty obvious. the more you poke at a situation, the better chance that it gets opened up, new things get exposed an opened into something else by more people and more eyes. that is the entire point of your whole thread is it not? that is what you even hope to achieve by talking about it.

im done responding to this now. you can continue to talk amongst yourselves.

kevin

[glchen]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Maybe if the people who sell widgets for a living respected the professional opinions of people who are dispensing information gleaned directly from decades of practice in that professional field instead of claiming that their lay opinions of said field are instead more accurate there wouldn't be the problem you talk about.

Maybe if the people who sell widgets for a living didn't fabricate their opinions for reasons of greed or dishonesty in an attempt to protect the fraudsters -- and instead actually gave honest opinions -- there wouldn't be the problem you talk about.

Respect is a two way street.

Jeff, so basically you're saying for certain topics on this board should be for lawyers-only to discuss.

Leon, can we have a lawyers-only subforum?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by glchen

Jeff, so basically you're saying for certain topics on this board should be for lawyers-only to discuss.

Leon, can we have a lawyers-only subforum?

No, Gary, what I'm saying is that when the issue arises which calls for an analysis of the law or for anecdotal information about how a practice of law occurs, the idiots with no training or education in the field (except from watching TV) should STFU and not say that we're wrong and insist upon flaunting their ignorance. It's a waste of sound information and it's only being challenged in order to protect a fraudster (or prevent someone's loved one from being raped or something).

Leon, can we have a passive-aggressive asshole subforum?

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Leon

Yeah, but I was sitting on the couch watching the debacle and literally laughing out loud. I had to tell my wife what was going on. Hilarious. There is a fool born on this board every day. I can't imagine arguing a subject I barely know anything about with someone that does it, and has been doing it for decades, for a living.

I blame Wikipedia.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by calvindog

No, Gary, what I'm saying is that when the issue arises which calls for an analysis of the law or for anecdotal information about how a practice of law occurs, the idiots with no training or education in the field (except from watching TV) should STFU and not say that we're wrong and insist upon flaunting their ignorance. It's a waste of sound information and it's only being challenged in order to protect a fraudster (or prevent someone's loved one from being raped or something).

Leon, can we have a passive-aggressive asshole subforum?

Hey Jeff, I have no formal training in the field, but even I know that you can't be "proven innocent" in court, as some have insisted in other threads. And that if you are found "not guilty", that has nothing to do with whether or not you are actually "innocent".

Other than that, I tend to usually defer to the "experts" in their respective fields.

[RCMcKenzie]

It would not surprise me in the least to learn that everything you need to know about lawyering is contained within that box. As a famous lawyer once said, "It depends upon what the definition of 'is' is."

[ALR-bishop]

Lawyers do not think lawyer jokes are funny, and non lawyers do not think they are jokes.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by tschock

Hey Jeff, I have no formal training in the field, but even I know that you can't be "proven innocent" in court, as some have insisted in other threads. And that if you are found "not guilty", that has nothing to do with whether or not you are actually "innocent".

Other than that, I tend to usually defer to the "experts" in their respective fields.

Well said and the PERFECT example of your common sense is when Judge Landis banned the "Black Sox Eight" the day after they were found "not guilty" in a court of law!

Joe T.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Well said and the PERFECT example of your common sense is when Judge Landis banned the "Black Sox Eight" the day after they were found "not guilty" in a court of law!

Joe T.

OJ

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OJ

++++1!!!!!!!!

[autograf]

I'm pretty sure this could be the problem........someone slept here.....

[npa589]

Originally Posted by Gradedcardman

12 pm is a work night ?

Perhaps he is an international lawyer stationed in Anchorage, and commutes to Krasnoyarsk.