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

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

i consider it news, because it's a true story.

if it was mastro who said it instead who would come to his defense?
i am coming to gonzalez's defense. I am with gonzalez om his statement. i am pro-gonzalez on this matter!

Travis, if you did not write the article, how do you know it's true ? Were you the collector that Gonzalez sent the e-mail to?

I don't think anyone here has attacked Gonzalez. Whether you are with him or not is irrelevent to whether the quote is accurate or out of context.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Travis, if you did not write the article, how do you know it's true ? Were you the collector that Gonzalez sent the e-mail to?

I don't think anyone here has attacked Gonzalez. Whether you are with him or not is irrelevent to whether the quote is accurate or out of context.

no, it wasn't me, but he said it to my satisfaction, and if it's not to other's satisfaction, I don't care because I didn't write the story.

I know people don't like this news story, that an agent of ebay said that psa and jsa suck. It rubs them the wrong way but they will have to live with it.

I am personally satisfied that the story is true regarding the email and that's all that matters to me as I don't know who wrote the story, who owns the site and I wanted others to read it to make up their own mind.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by travrosty

no, it wasn't me, but he said it to my satisfaction, and if it's not to other's satisfaction, I don't care because I didn't write the story.

I know people don't like this news story, that an agent of ebay said that psa and jsa suck. It rubs them the wrong way but they will have to live with it.

I am personally satisfied that the story is true regarding the email and that's all that matters to me as I don't know who wrote the story, who owns the site and I wanted others to read it to make up their own mind.

This isn't about whether John G. wrote that or not. If that was John's opinion, then it is what it is.

My issue is the fact that the "No Name Coward" author didn't have the guts to stand behind that article by posting their name under it. That's the issue here, Travis. It's not about if John wrote that or not.

The coward who posted that did get one item wrong and that is that John G. still works at Ebay. If they got that wrong, why should we believe anything else written in that article?

[drc]

You know Travis, when you defend as a reliable news source what to the rest of us here is obviously someone's anonymous personal vendetta smear campaign, it doesn't help your credibility.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by drc

You know Travis, when you defend as a reliable news source what to the rest of us here is obviously someone's anonymous personal vendetta smear campaign, it doesn't help your credibility. It says you wear blinkers.

I take it you didn't like the story.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

no, it wasn't me, but he said it to my satisfaction, and if it's not to other's satisfaction, I don't care because I didn't write the story.

I know people don't like this news story, that an agent of ebay said that psa and jsa suck. It rubs them the wrong way but they will have to live with it.

I am personally satisfied that the story is true regarding the email and that's all that matters to me as I don't know who wrote the story, who owns the site and I wanted others to read it to make up their own mind.

If you don't know who wrote the article, who the e-mail was sent to, or who owns the website, how can you know the quote to be true? Can you really not see how anyone would have a problem with the "I read it on the internet so I believe it to be true" argument?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

If you don't know who wrote the article, who the e-mail was sent to, or who owns the website, how can you know the quote to be true? Can you really not see how anyone would have a problem with the "I read it on the internet so I believe it to be true" argument?

I realize others might have a problem with it, they really have a content with the subject and content of the story.

Like I said, if this were a coaches corner or morales story, no uproar.

[Mr. Zipper]

What’s amazing is Travis harps all day long about the TPAs not following proper procedures, no proper standards, etc, etc. They can do nothing right.

But in his world, an anonymous, thinly-veiled and poorly written smear “article” on a site that looks like it was designed by a seven-year old is totally credible news and he believes every word of it. And it is coming from an author he allegedly doesn’t know, but he knows for a fact the email was not taken out of context or fabricated.

Makes sense to me!

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I realize others might have a problem with it, they really have a content with the subject and content of the story.

Like I said, if this were a coaches corner or morales story, no uproar.

When I write about Morales or Coach's Corner, my name is all over it.

Why didn't the author of that article/post sign his true name under it? Why is he hiding?

I will write this one more time. The issue isn't what John allegedly wrote or didn't write; it's the fact that the author of that article/post didn't sign his name to it. The only issue I have with the content is the FACT that John G. did not leave Ebay. He is still there.

Don't spin this into something it isn't.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Can you really not see how anyone would have a problem with the "I read it on the internet so I believe it to be true" argument?

Originally Posted by travrosty

I realize others might have a problem with it, they really have a content with the subject and content of the story.

I couldn't possibly think of a better example of paranoia overshadowing critical thinking. Thank you for at least answering the question directly. I think David summarized my thoughts on the matter, so I'll bow out of the discussion with a +1 to his comment:

Originally Posted by drc

You know Travis, when you defend as a reliable news source what to the rest of us here is obviously someone's anonymous personal vendetta smear campaign, it doesn't help your credibility.

and the personal assurance that I have never dug in on either side of the ongoing "my authenticator can whup your authenticator" debate.

[Big Dave]

Travis,

Maybe next time, just post the article or whatever it is you have an interest in, and let it go at that. No need to follow up on all the questions or whatever others say. These treads would be a lot shorter and maybe more interesting if more people did that.

[39special]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Travis,

Maybe next time, just post the article or whatever it is you have an interest in, and let it go at that. No need to follow up on all the questions or whatever others say. These treads would be a lot shorter and maybe more interesting if more people did that.

+1

[thetruthisoutthere]

Travis, how would feel if some anonymous author posted a confidential email sent by you to a confidant of yours?

Wouldn't you demand to know who the author was?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I know people don't like this news story, that an agent of ebay said that psa and jsa suck. It rubs them the wrong way but they will have to live with it.

The only thing that "rubs people the wrong way" is that FACT that a "No Name Coward" didn't have the guts to post his name as author of the article, and that fact that you, Travis, were more than willing to oblige him by posting a link to that anonymously written article.

If that's John's opinion, so be it. That isn't the issue; the issue is that the author of that article didn't have to guts to sign his name under it.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

The only thing that "rubs people the wrong way" is that FACT that a "No Name Coward" didn't have the guts to post his name as author of the article, and that fact that you, Travis, were more than willing to oblige him by posting a link to that anonymously written article.

If that's John's opinion, so be it. That isn't the issue; the issue is that the author of that article didn't have to guts to sign his name under it.

Of course I am willing to post a link to a news story. SCD isn't going to cover it.

I didn't oblige him (how do you know it's not a her?) because no one asked me to post the link and you can only oblige a request, which I never received.

oblige-



2.Do as (someone) asks or desires in order to help or please them


no one asked and i know of no one desire that i post the link because I don't know who the writer of the article is.

I will run all future links through the office of politically correct thinking for a majority vote on the subject matter and if it furthers that office's agenda or not.

You don't like that it was anonymous, got it. I like the story, think it is relevant to the autograph hobby.

[drc]

I'm no defender or user of PSA, PSA/DNA or JSA I have nothing graded or authenticated by any of them, and have never submitted anything to them. They mean very little to my life-- just something I sometimes read about on this board.

I don;t closely follow JSA, but do I believe PSA makes errors? Sure. In fact, I've seen a few with my own eyes. Do I agree with all their methods and grading criteria? No.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by travrosty

no, it wasn't me, but he said it to my satisfaction, and if it's not to other's satisfaction, I don't care because I didn't write the story.

I know people don't like this news story, that an agent of ebay said that psa and jsa suck. It rubs them the wrong way but they will have to live with it.

I am personally satisfied that the story is true regarding the email and that's all that matters to me as I don't know who wrote the story, who owns the site and I wanted others to read it to make up their own mind.

I used to think you were merely a tad over zealous in your tirades, but you are now doing nothing but losing credibility on this one. If you don't/can't see why, than I just feel sorry for you. I know that you will now (if you haven't already) view me as being "with" TPAs as opposed to "against" them, but I frankly don't care because I don't look at the situation in that way. Do the TPAs suck? We talk about that a lot here, but unfortunately that is not what that article is about.

BTW, that "article" is a joke and represents some of the worst features of the Internet.