pwcc (part two)

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Well-said, Lance.

We could also have scanner police who install 'settings locks' on all scanners, and who can conduct unannounced visits to check for compliance;however, if someone is a cheat, there are other ways to do so besides scans.

Or they could just put it in their terms so that they are legally obligated use the default settings, as I suggested 200 posts ago on the other thread.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Or they could just put it in their terms so that they are legally obligated use the default settings, as I suggested 200 posts ago on the other thread.

I know. I heard you. And when you say it again, I will hear you again.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I know. I heard you. And when you say it again, I will hear you again.

I had assumed you were being sarcastic in post #14. If you weren't, I apologize.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I had assumed you were being sarcastic in post #14. If you weren't, I apologize.

It was jestful sarcasm. Still, there isn't any need to apologize - it's good to know that you realize that you have been repeating yourself, and I completely understand the approach: if you repeat yourself enough times, the people who you are talking with will eventually realize how obvious it is that you have been correct all along, and they will change their minds.

But I think you should have more confidence in your own ability to state your point clearly. I personally think you did a wonderful job of explaining your thoughts. It allowed me to very easily decide that I disagree with you. It doesn't mean that either one of us is right, only that we disagree.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

It was jestful sarcasm. Still, there isn't any need to apologize - it's good to know that you realize that you have been repeating yourself, and I completely understand the approach: if you repeat yourself enough times, the people who you are talking with will eventually realize how obvious it is that you have been correct all along, and they will change their minds.

But I think you should have more confidence in your own ability to state your point clearly. I personally think you did a wonderful job of explaining your thoughts. It allowed me to very easily decide that I disagree with you. It doesn't mean that either one of us is right, only that we disagree.

I get no enjoyment out of repeating myself over and over again, but Scott, if you continue to be sarcastic, the trouble is, not everyone has read all those other posts. Not everyone retains information as well as you, either.

I am not a mind-reader. I have no idea what you know or don't know. If you write something sarcastic instead of constructively stating your opinion, I may not know whether you've read my initial statement about it or not.

And by the way, if you don't like my ideas about how to hold the auction houses accountable, then fine. But what exactly do you plan to do about it? I haven't heard any of your ideas, just sarcastic remarks and statements that I am wrong and that you disagree.

You have said yourself that there is fraud - demanding greater disclosure is often how people deal with fraud from any company, not just auction houses. If you don't like that idea, then what exactly is your solution?

[HRBAKER]

The best way to hold them accountable if you believe there are issues is to not do business with them. Short of that we can continue to thrash about on a message board.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

The best way to hold them accountable if you believe there are issues is to not do business with them. Short of that we can continue to thrash about on a message board.

The trouble is that the boycott approach doesn't seem to work. Because if the AH's have cards that collectors want, they bid anyways, because if the item is rare it might be their only opportunity to get that item for a long time, if ever.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I get no enjoyment out of repeating myself over and over again, but Scott, if you continue to be sarcastic, the trouble is, not everyone has read all those other posts. Not everyone retains information as well as you, either.

I am not a mind-reader. I have no idea what you know or don't know. If you write something sarcastic instead of constructively stating your opinion, I may not know whether you've read my initial statement about it or not.

And by the way, if you don't like my ideas about how to hold the auction houses accountable, then fine. But what exactly do you plan to do about it? I haven't heard any of your ideas, just sarcastic remarks and statements that I am wrong and that you disagree.

You have said yourself that there is fraud - demanding greater disclosure is often how people deal with fraud from any company, not just auction houses. If you don't like that idea, then what exactly is your solution?

Jamie, now you are just being a jerk. If you think that all of my remarks have been sarcastic, then you haven't been reading my posts. The fact that at this point in the discussion you still "have no idea what [I] know or don't know" indicates that I have been wasting my time responding to you. We'll talk again, I'm sure, but not on this subject.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Jamie, now you are just being a jerk. If you think that all of my remarks have been sarcastic, then you haven't been reading my posts. The fact that at this point in the discussion you still "have no idea what [I] know or don't know" indicates that I have been wasting my time responding to you. We'll talk again, I'm sure, but not on this subject.

Scott, you are endlessly misrepresenting my views. That's why I need to continuously repeat myself. Never did I say that "all your remarks have been sarcastic".

And I also noticed you evaded my question on how to find a solution to the fraud.

To just say "you are wrong" and write sarcastic remarks without providing constructive criticism and constructive solutions is cowardly behavior.