former ebay head Gonzalez purported said psa and jsa suck according to post.

[RichardSimon]

Travis - we have our concurring opinions about PSA, but an anonymous story on a blog is not really news. It is gossip, which may or may not be true, but with anonymity and lack of any proof, who can say.
And I would certainly like to see the names of good dealers who were thrown off ebay for selling "bad stuff."

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Travis - we have our concurring opinions about PSA, but an anonymous story on a blog is not really news. It is gossip, which may or may not be true, but with anonymity and lack of any proof, who can say.
And I would certainly like to see the names of good dealers who were thrown off ebay for selling "bad stuff."

well, people can read it and make up their own mind.

I didn't write it so I can't name any dealers on ebay. I don't know who wrote it, no one told me about the release of this article, and no one told me to post a link. I did that all on my own.


People should take autograph magazine to task for allowing people to tell any firsthand account they want then without verification under the name "hammerhead shark" or whatever made up name they invented that day.

I think it's the subject and content of the email people object to being disclosed. Had some sort of embarrassing coache's corner or morales email been disseminated in the same way, I have a hard time thinking people would be up in arms about it.

People can believe or not, if not - fine, but then don't believe anything on wikileaks then, they made all the embarrassing u.s. state dept./foreign service emails and correspondence up too.

[Leon]

Travis - I didn't say I gave "no" credence to the article you posted, just very little. I never said anything about White Betsy but I felt the same way. I just agreed with it more than the anonymous one you posted (though it could all be true).
Just like I tell advertisers when they call me bitching about someone trashing them on the board, I don't tell folks what to say or what not to say. By the same token I generally won't do something just because someone says I should, concerning the board. I stand behind everything I say, have my name next to it, and with around 7500 posts on the board, I have said things that were incorrect and have admitted them and retracted them when need be. We can always agree to disagree and where you are concerned, that comes into play quite a bit. Such is life.

[barrysloate]

Around 8000 posts...maybe even by the end of the day.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Around 8000 posts...maybe even by the end of the day.

Yikes, I guess I need to get a life...

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Leon

Travis - I didn't say I gave "no" credence to the article you posted, just very little. I never said anything about White Betsy but I felt the same way. I just agreed with it more than the anonymous one you posted (though it could all be true).
Just like I tell advertisers when they call me bitching about someone trashing them on the board, I don't tell folks what to say or what not to say. By the same token I generally won't do something just because someone says I should, concerning the board. I stand behind everything I say, have my name next to it, and with around 7500 posts on the board, I have said things that were incorrect and have admitted them and retracted them when need be. We can always agree to disagree and where you are concerned, that comes into play quite a bit. Such is life.

I don't mind disagreeing with you, just wondering why you publicly said it on this thread and didnt on white betsy.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I don't mind disagreeing with you, just wondering why you publicly said it on this thread and didnt on white betsy.

I agreed with the White Betsy one more....but there was no reason, good or bad, why I didn't respond about White Betsy. I don't care for any anonymous postings on the internet, even when they favor how I feel. Everyone should stand behind what they say. For that, I do respect what you say.

Hell, I need to respond less, not more!!

[thecatspajamas]

I think there is a big difference between anonymous posts/articles that contain information that is independently verifiable to be true whether you know the identity of the writer or not (i.e. news), and anonymous posts/articles that are 100% hearsay/unverfiable as well as anonymous (i.e. gossip).

Anonymous, unverifiable second-hand information is not news, whether you agree with the presented information or not. At best, it is an anonymous editorial, and grammatic errors aside, any serious journalist who turned that article in as "news" without any follow-up would be laughed out of the editor's office and/or fired for their lazy journalism.

Consider that the writer could have stated the exact opposite, that "Gonzalez loved PSA/DNA and JSA and sang their praises for all they had done to help clean up fraud on eBay," and it would be just as unverifiable.

Now if the writer wanted to post the actual full e-mail, or a follow-up interview with Gonzalez, or the number of sellers who had been banned, or any other shred of verifiable information, then it might be newsworthy. Otherwise, for all the reader knows, the whole thing could be completely fabricated, and he doesn't even know who to address the necessary follow-up questions to.

Edited to add: Does anybody know Gonzalez or have a way to get in touch with him to verify the statements he is quoted on and whether they are presented accurately (not out of context)?