Heritage putting up junk on their website for all to see. fake ALI

[travrosty]

It's common to get slammed on here for liking anything hos has on their site. they jump on you for being a pal or buddy or whatever of hos or nash, this is to deflect from the stories he's uncovered, stories you won't find in the hobby publications, the stories they don't dare run. Trying to paint someone guilty by association or trying to embarrass someone to stop information or criticism from getting out is deplorable and a version of that is what they did in the 1950's on a much bigger scale and you know what it was called. It is practiced with one of its goals to stop or restrict dissent/criticism.

If someone doesn't like hos or nash, fine, no problem, but to point to others and say you can't read, believe, enjoy, or agree with what is posted less you be the "bad guy" is ridiculous and it should stop. I disagree with several on this board, but never tell them they can't be acquaintances or friends with whoever they want, i never tell them shouldn't believe whatever they want, I only tell them when I believe they are wrong or disagree with their opinion. But hos touches a nerve so you get the firing squad every time you mention them.

What I don't understand is if people have a problem with what HOS writes, simply rebut and provide your argument against what he writes if what he is writing is incorrect. When I call out a boxing autograph and say that abc or xyz wrongly authenticated something, I provide proof, show side by side and dissect, analyze the differences to prove my point, but I don't see anti-hos people doing that. It is always shoot the messenger.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by travrosty

trying to embarrass someone to stop information or criticism from getting out is deplorable and a version of that is what they did in the 1950's on a much bigger scale and you know what it was called. It is practiced with one of its goals to stop or restrict dissent/criticism.

This is hilarious coming from someone who does not allow any dissent at all on his own website. Why won't you allow Chris or Steve to sign up for your forum? You ever had a post on Net54 deleted? Have you ever been silenced here? You've overplayed your McCarthyism card, time to turn to Nazi Germany.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

This is hilarious coming from someone who does not allow any dissent at all on his own website. Why won't you allow Chris or Steve to sign up for your forum?...

Just to clarify, I have never attempted to sign up and have no interest in doing so.

I was simply relaying the information that Chris and one other (credible) person I know have attempted and were denied.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

This is hilarious coming from someone who does not allow any dissent at all on his own website. Why won't you allow Chris or Steve to sign up for your forum? You ever had a post on Net54 deleted? Have you ever been silenced here? You've overplayed your McCarthyism card, time to turn to Nazi Germany.

Travis Roste and his wife Nora Roste won't even explain why they rejected my membership over at "The Planet," but at the same time Travis is free to express his views here on Net54.

But obviously over at "The Planet" those unwritten rules of free expression are not allowed by Travis & Nora Roste.

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Travis Roste and his wife Nora Roste won't even explain why they rejected my membership over at "The Planet," but at the same time Travis is free to express his views here on Net54.

But obviously over at "The Planet" those unwritten rules of free expression are not allowed by Travis & Nora Roste.

Chris a bit of advice leave Nora out of this. Your feud is with Travis you know I am not trying to come down on you Chris, but just consider what I said and I know you will see it more clearly.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Wymers Auction

Chris a bit of advice leave Nora out of this. Your feud is with Travis you know I am not trying to come down on you Chris, but just consider what I said and I know you will see it more clearly.

Nora Roste is the owner, James.

The following is posted on her (AutographPlanet) website:

If you ever have any concerns about the site, please let me know as I am the chief in charge of the show.

So did Mrs. Roste reject my membership, or was it rejected on the advice (or demand) from Travis or Todd Mueller?

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Wymers Auction

Chris a bit of advice leave Nora out of this. Your feud is with Travis you know I am not trying to come down on you Chris, but just consider what I said and I know you will see it more clearly.

Jim, you are correct. It is wrong to bring in anyone's faimly. There is the problem that she is the head of the Company. I still think Travis should answere but he has put her in a reall bad position

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by shelly

Jim, you are correct. It is wrong to bring in anyone's faimly. There is the problem that she is the head of the Company. I still think Travis should answere but he has put her in a reall bad position

She appears to have an active role in the website though.

---------------------------------
Hello, welcome to my planet. I am Nora Roste and I created Autograph Planet for your enjoyment. I am your hostess ready to help you in your wonderful journey of collecting autographs. I have given my husband Travis, the boxing guy, the task of adminstering the site, so I can more easily help you with your collecting needs. You will be hearing from both of us a lot, and let me know how we can help you here at Autograph Planet.

I am originally from Philippines, which is on the other side of Autograph Planet, ha, but we have our celebrities there, too. Most notably Manny Pacquiao, but also billiards legend Efren Reyes and Americans who have Filipino heritage such as DWTS Cheryl Burke, and Tia Carrere, Phoebe Cates, Lou Diamond Philips and a lot more.

I have a lot of entertainment and collecting interests and it will be fun to learn yours! You will be seeing more posts from me and my sidekick, that's my husband, as we travel together on this spinning globe we call the Autograph Planet. Mabuhay!
-----------------------------------

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by shelly

Jim, you are correct. It is wrong to bring in anyone's faimly. There is the problem that she is the head of the Company. I still think Travis should answere but he has put her in a reall bad position

Correct, Shelly. Mrs. Roste announced "I am Nora Roste and I created Autograph Planet for your enjoyment."

All I want to know is why my membership was rejected.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Correct, Shelly. Mrs. Roste announced "I am Nora Roste and I created Autograph Planet for your enjoyment."

All I want to know is why my membership was rejected.

Sounds like a fair question to me.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

All I want to know is why my membership was rejected.

Then preface your question with: "Travis, I think PSA and DNA are the worst things since unsliced bread. What are your thoughts? Oh, and why was my Planet membership rejected?"

You'll at least get a response to half of your post.

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Correct, Shelly. Mrs. Roste announced "I am Nora Roste and I created Autograph Planet for your enjoyment."

All I want to know is why my membership was rejected.

I see your point Chris, Dan, and Shelly. I tried to state my concern politely as I have much respect for Chris. You are right fair question Leon. Chris certainly not wanting to start trouble here, but without the back story you can see why I would say that. I have never been to that website I get plenty of Travis on here. I actually like Travis just fine, but that small dig was to easy to avoid and rather harmless. Thanks for clearing this up for me guys.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by travrosty

It's common to get slammed on here for liking anything hos has on their site. they jump on you for being a pal or buddy or whatever of hos or nash, this is to deflect from the stories he's uncovered, stories you won't find in the hobby publications, the stories they don't dare run. Trying to paint someone guilty by association or trying to embarrass someone to stop information or criticism from getting out is deplorable and a version of that is what they did in the 1950's on a much bigger scale and you know what it was called. It is practiced with one of its goals to stop or restrict dissent/criticism.

If someone doesn't like hos or nash, fine, no problem, but to point to others and say you can't read, believe, enjoy, or agree with what is posted less you be the "bad guy" is ridiculous and it should stop. I disagree with several on this board, but never tell them they can't be acquaintances or friends with whoever they want, i never tell them shouldn't believe whatever they want, I only tell them when I believe they are wrong or disagree with their opinion. But hos touches a nerve so you get the firing squad every time you mention them.

What I don't understand is if people have a problem with what HOS writes, simply rebut and provide your argument against what he writes if what he is writing is incorrect. When I call out a boxing autograph and say that abc or xyz wrongly authenticated something, I provide proof, show side by side and dissect, analyze the differences to prove my point, but I don't see anti-hos people doing that. It is always shoot the messenger.

Travis, do you refute the White Betsy columns? They were laid out very convincingly with proof.

Ken

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by travrosty

It's common to get slammed on here for liking anything hos has on their site. they jump on you for being a pal or buddy or whatever of hos or nash, this is to deflect from the stories he's uncovered, stories you won't find in the hobby publications, the stories they don't dare run. Trying to paint someone guilty by association or trying to embarrass someone to stop information or criticism from getting out is deplorable and a version of that is what they did in the 1950's on a much bigger scale and you know what it was called. It is practiced with one of its goals to stop or restrict dissent/criticism.

If someone doesn't like hos or nash, fine, no problem, but to point to others and say you can't read, believe, enjoy, or agree with what is posted less you be the "bad guy" is ridiculous and it should stop. I disagree with several on this board, but never tell them they can't be acquaintances or friends with whoever they want, i never tell them shouldn't believe whatever they want, I only tell them when I believe they are wrong or disagree with their opinion. But hos touches a nerve so you get the firing squad every time you mention them.

What I don't understand is if people have a problem with what HOS writes, simply rebut and provide your argument against what he writes if what he is writing is incorrect. When I call out a boxing autograph and say that abc or xyz wrongly authenticated something, I provide proof, show side by side and dissect, analyze the differences to prove my point, but I don't see anti-hos people doing that. It is always shoot the messenger.

What I don't understand, Travis, is that no one has a problem with you expressing yourself freely here on Net54, but on your (and Nora Roste) own website you have "selective membership."

Why is that, Travis?

Is it because you don't want me to post critical comments about your buddy Todd Mueller?

Is it because you want your (and Mrs. Roste) website free of controversy?

Just give me a honest answer, Travis.

[thetruthisoutthere]

The owners of "The Planet" wrote "The Roste's have teamed up to give you the full autograph collecting experience without the problems of infighting that is prevalent elsewhere."

Are you and your wife referring to Net54, Travis?

[David Atkatz]

Should be "problems of infighting that are prevalent..."

Gotta fix that.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Should be "problems of infighting that are prevalent..."

Gotta fix that.

Not necessarily. It might be the problems that ARE prevalent because of comparatively rare infighting, or the infighting that IS prevalent because of the occurance of said problems.

I be an an inglish teachman.

[David Atkatz]

It is, without a doubt, "problems are prevalent." In his sentence, prevalent describes the problems, not the infighting.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is, without a doubt, "problems are prevalent." In his sentence, prevalent describes the problems, not the infighting.

I disagree and see no reason, syntactically, why that is so. It would surely be clearer to use a definite article to refer to infighting if that were indeed what were prevalent, but it is not necessary. You can say that your interpretation is true "without doubt," but it is interpretation only and therefore open to credible doubt. In fact, the vast majority of defining relative clauses modify by proximity, which means that in a case of ambiguity, we could fall back on the interpretation that the relative pronoun "that" is modifying the noun in closest proximity, which in this case is the aforementioned "infighting." However, you are using larger contextual clues to interpret that it is modifying the earlier-occurring "problems." That's a fair interpretation, but it is far from being "without doubt," and I revel in the fact that very few things dealing with language are such.

[shelly]

I would wonder if someone did not agree with them what would happen

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

I would wonder if someone did not agree with them what would happen

During my short visit to that page, I got the impression that the discussions were between the 'experts' at the planet, and a small group of carefully-screened people, with most of the discussions being planet people responding to their own posts;i.e-Travis starting a thread and then talking to/with himself.

So unless they create a member and plant a 'minor dissension' thread, there is really no damage of anyone arguing with their expert opinions.

As has been said frequently in the past: "It's a very small planet."

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by shelly

I would wonder if someone did not agree with them what would happen

No soup for you!

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by shelly

I would wonder if someone did not agree with them what would happen

Tarred and feathered?