Happy Festivus! Airing of Grievances 2024 Edition

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I do think it's quite plausible the insurer recommended and stated a preference for continuing the auction. I don't think it was required by the policy or that the insurer "ordered" them to do it.

And you think it is wrong for an individual, but perfectly alright for a corporation, and you cannot understand why some people would not draw different lines for different people/groups but have ethic based on the act, not the thing committing said act?

And you think it is perfectly honest to run fake auctions for items one doesn't have, but only if that is a corporation doing it (otherwise, if it was honest independent of the thing doing it, then there is no reason an individual wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing)?

Even if one supports it, running auctions for things one does not have and cannot possibly deliver on is "dishonest". I think we all, at some level, must be cognizant of that.

[G1911]

It is so hard to actually argue this when people keep editing posts to change or add arguments lol

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is so hard to actually argue this when people keep editing posts to change or add arguments lol

I was kinda hoping that we could argue about this some more. Feels like we left a lot unresolved in that old thread. Glad we're getting back after it!

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

And you think it is wrong for an individual, but perfectly alright for a corporation, and you cannot understand why some people would not draw different lines for different people/groups but have ethic based on the act, not the thing committing said act?

And you think it is perfectly honest to run fake auctions for items one doesn't have, but only if that is a corporation doing it (otherwise, if it was honest independent of the thing doing it, then there is no reason an individual wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing)?

Even if one supports it, running auctions for things one does not have and cannot possibly deliver on is "dishonest". I think we all, at some level, must be cognizant of that.

I don't have time to explain the nuance of property law to you, but just know, that property is not a physical object according to the law. It is a group of intangible rights. A thief cannot take a property interest. Therefore, the owner still retains all of the rights he previously had to the stolen property. If you go down that road, you can see how the auction can lawfully run without criminal law implications (although civil ramifications can develop depending what steps are taken at the conclusion of the auction).

Further, there are fundamental legal differences between an individual fraudulently selling something, and a consigner, under contract to sell a property right on behalf of the owner of those rights. There just are. You don't have to understand or accept it. But it's just how the law works.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

And you think it is wrong for an individual, but perfectly alright for a corporation, and you cannot understand why some people would not draw different lines for different people/groups but have ethic based on the act, not the thing committing said act?

And you think it is perfectly honest to run fake auctions for items one doesn't have, but only if that is a corporation doing it (otherwise, if it was honest independent of the thing doing it, then there is no reason an individual wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing)?

Even if one supports it, running auctions for things one does not have and cannot possibly deliver on is "dishonest". I think we all, at some level, must be cognizant of that.

To me it would be dishonest if it was part of a scheme to defraud, by getting someone to pay for the item and then not delivering the card. That would apply equally to an individual and a company. The facts here are unique -- there was no such intent nor do you claim there was. The reasons for continuing the auction had nothing at all to do with fraud. IMO you could question whether they made the right judgment call under all the circumstances, but I don't buy into the characterizations of fake, dishonest, etc.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me it would be dishonest if it was part of a scheme to defraud, by getting someone to pay for the item and then not delivering the card. That would apply equally to an individual and a company. The facts here are unique -- there was no such intent nor do you claim there was. The reasons for continuing the auction had nothing at all to do with fraud. IMO you could question whether they made the right judgment call under all the circumstances, but I don't buy into the characterizations of fake, dishonest, etc.

This is correct. There is a big difference from selling something you don't have and have no intention to deliver, then taking money for it to deprive the buyer of their funds, and the situation here where they let an auction run with either a good faith belief you will be able to deliver the goods in the near future, or no intent to ever receive money from a buyer. If you never deprive the potential buyer of their money/property, there can be no fraud. Fraud requires an intent to defraud, and theft requires an intent to permanently deprive an owner of their property. Neither is relevant to Memory Lane in this case.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is so hard to actually argue this when people keep editing posts to change or add arguments lol

And of course 3 of the 4 posts after this one have already had to be edited within a few minutes.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

And of course 3 of the 4 posts after this one have already had to be edited within a few minutes.

I'm sorry changing a single letter to fix a typo confuses you. Can't say I'm surprised.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm sorry changing a single letter to fix a typo confuses you. Can't say I'm surprised.

My son’s favorite example of small changes in punctuation making a large difference in meaning is as follows:

“Let’s eat, grandma!”
AND
“Let’s eat grandma!”

[Peter_Spaeth]

If the ONLY facts we had in this case were that ML was selling the cards and that it did not have them in its possession, then sure we might think there was fraud.

But when you factor in everything else we know:
--that ML had valid consignments to sell the cards
--that the cards were stolen
--that it was pretty clear the thief was local and associated with the Best Western (I believe that was the state of play) and therefore there was a chance the cards might be recovered
--that ML would have to compensate the consignors if the cards were not recovered, and likely had insurance coverage that would require valuations before that could happen
--that continuing the auction to conclusion would be the most straightforward way to value any cards that were not recovered
--that ML had no intention of taking money from any auction winner unless it could deliver the card
Then it becomes clear there was no "fraud" in the traditional sense. To me, any argument that IGNORES all these additional mitigating facts and circumstances is fundamentally flawed and just based on reductio absurdum.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

“Grading is a scam”

Please clarify this grievance. Are you upset that grading is indeed a scam, or that people insightfully state that fact?

Sorry, couldn't resist the low-hanging fruit. Either way, it's all good.

[jchcollins]

Here are a few things after slowly combing through this tiring thread that might come to mind *for some* as grievances:

1. Attorneys on the main page, and their perpetual need to long windedly one-up each other on the details of the legalese which may or may not apply to a particular hobby incident / dealings of an auction house / other random hobby happening.

2. The never-ending argument on the main page and elsewhere on the skulduggery of alteration, or those who believe that Kurt's Card Care, et al. are totally legit businesses, who operate with no problems or cause for concern.

3. James and his perpetual disrespect for the way others collect as evidenced by his inability to go a week without tiredly railing on and on again about the evils of professional card grading, as if we haven't heard it all roughly 17 thousand times before.

BUT -- not me.

My grievance is petty much what it always is - prices. This is truly just a hobby for me, and as such I'm left to channel spare income, bonus money, Christmas & birthday money, etc. to fund my continuing pasteboard purchases. I could of course dip into retirement savings or investments to just go buy whatever I want without nearly as much regard for the cost, (another oft-visited main page subject...) but I think I'd like to remain married instead.

As the years go by and I find myself finally more interested in things like prewar at least for my Chicago Cubs collection - I remain astounded even in a downturn at how ridiculously expensive everything is - even in low grade. I'll get over it, but that's my true grievance.

Happy Holidays All!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I would love love to get confirmation on this statement. The insurance company maybe, but I am pretty sure the police did not weigh in on this.

C'mon. Who are you to doubt the honesty of a company selling product they don't have?

[Eric72]

These days, so little discussion on the main page is actually about prewar baseball cards.

That bothers me somewhat.

[Golfcollector]

My grievances:

1) Not having a separate Category called “Bitching Session" – where moderators can move posts that turn into arguments between 2-3 people and give them their own section to play paper/scissors/rock in.

2) Why can't we just all enjoy the cards, the collecting and the knowledge...Sometimes we ALL do this effectively...other times...not so much.

[JollyElm]

Two grievances...

WAR and Peace

1. Never in my life has anyone tried to convince me of something or tried to prove they were right by trotting out the theoretical stat of WAR.
I have played baseball and softball my entire life with people who love the game. The number of conversations we've had based on the theoretical stat of WAR?
ZERO!!!!!
Yet, every single thread here immediately (and endlessly) turns into "My theoretical stat of WAR beats your theoretical stat of WAR!!!" by people who seemingly have never dug into the batter's box even once in their lives.
I'll take the 'dirt' guys' opinions about players (especially the ones whose careers we witnessed first hand) over the computer screen 'data' guys any day of the week, because the knowledge of the f*cking game is in their very souls, and not just something read off of their phones.

Stop suckling on the teet of the almighty WAR mother, and come up with something else once in awhile!!!!!!!


2. Lately, it seems that there are more and more new-ish members who constantly flood the board (Collectorism: "Board Swarmers") daily with arguments and BS aplenty.
It's constant!!!!
Seeing their avatar, your only thought is, "Okay, who is this a-hole quoting and snarkily going after now???!!!"

(As you're reading this, I'm sure member names and avatars immediately raced to the forefront of your brain, amirite??)

It'd be nice if those folks would just STFU and help return the site to a more peaceful (with normal bitching/complaining/arguing levels) environment.


And using HAR (holidays above replacement), it's probably best (due undoubtedly to the vast majority of members celebrating this particular holiday) that I wish everyone a Merry Christmas!!!
But, to not f*cking rely solely on HAR, I will also say Happy (my preferred spelling) Chanukah!!


And to all, a good end of grievances...

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Two grievances...

WAR and Peace

1. Never in my life has anyone tried to convince me of something or tried to prove they were right by trotting out the theoretical stat of WAR.
I have played baseball and softball my entire life with people who love the game. The number of conversations we've had based on the theoretical stat of WAR?
ZERO!!!!!
Yet, every single thread here immediately (and endlessly) turns into "My theoretical stat of WAR beats your theoretical stat of WAR!!!" by people who seemingly have never dug into the batter's box even once in their lives.
I'll take the 'dirt' guys' opinions about players (especially the ones whose careers we witnessed first hand) over the computer screen 'data' guys any day of the week, because the knowledge of the f*cking game is in their very souls, and not just something read off of their phones.

Stop suckling on the teet of the almighty WAR mother, and come up with something else once in awhile!!!!!!!


2. Lately, it seems that there are more and more new-ish members who constantly flood the board (Collectorism: "Board Swarmers") daily with arguments and BS aplenty.
It's constant!!!!
Seeing their avatar, your only thought is, "Okay, who is this a-hole quoting and snarkily going after now???!!!"

(As you're reading this, I'm sure member names and avatars immediately raced to the forefront of your brain, amirite??)

It'd be nice if those folks would just STFU and help return the site to a more peaceful (with normal bitching/complaining/arguing levels) environment.


And using HAR (holidays above replacement), it's probably best (due undoubtedly to the vast majority of members celebrating this particular holiday) that I wish everyone a Merry Christmas!!!
But, to not f*cking rely solely on HAR, I will also say Happy (my preferred spelling) Chanukah!!


And to all, a good end of grievances...

Happy Holidays, my friend. In addition to always just cracking me up, your posts are a very bright spot in a sometimes bleak world when I take it all into consideration.

I hope your 2025 is everything you ever dreamed about, and that everything you could ever imagine on your card wantlist happens. Cheers!

[raulus]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It'd be nice if those folks would just STFU and help return the site to a more peaceful (with normal bitching/complaining/arguing levels) environment.


And using HAR (holidays above replacement), it's probably best (due undoubtedly to the vast majority of members celebrating this particular holiday) that I wish everyone a Merry Christmas!!!
But, to not f*cking rely solely on HAR, I will also say Happy (my preferred spelling) Chanukah!!


And to all, a good end of grievances...

Reminds me of my new favorite quote, from the President of Argentina:

"Long live freedom, damn it!"

[jingram058]

WAR is total BS.

Card grading is total BS.

Know it alls, in fact, don't know it all.

Now we can get back to it being a hobby.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by jingram058

WAR is total BS.

Card grading is total BS.

Know it alls, in fact, don't know it all.

Now we can get back to it being a hobby.

And plenty of us think your myriad opinions are total BS.

My hobby never went anywhere. Congrats on getting back to whatever yours is.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

And plenty of us think your myriad opinions are total BS.

My hobby never went anywhere. Congrats on getting back to whatever yours is.

I think jchcollins can go fuck himself.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I think jchcollins can go fuck himself.

Triggered much?!

You have a good holiday man.

[JimC]

Bruhhhh this debate again???? This topic is like quicksand guys. Walk around.

Besides, Festivus is for the airing of new grievances. I got a lot of problems with you people!!

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I don't have time to explain the nuance of property law to you, but just know, that property is not a physical object according to the law. It is a group of intangible rights. A thief cannot take a property interest. Therefore, the owner still retains all of the rights he previously had to the stolen property. If you go down that road, you can see how the auction can lawfully run without criminal law implications (although civil ramifications can develop depending what steps are taken at the conclusion of the auction).

Further, there are fundamental legal differences between an individual fraudulently selling something, and a consigner, under contract to sell a property right on behalf of the owner of those rights. There just are. You don't have to understand or accept it. But it's just how the law works.

Irrelevant! Selling something you know full well is stolen and might well be gone for good is absolutely unethical. It's sleazy and wrong!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

There is a reason both the police and the insurance company said to run the auction. There are a lot of legal rights at play here from many different parties. Running the auction and sorting out the fallout in court later was the only valid play from a legal standpoint.

I find the idea that a guy from Ohio with the word "lawyer" in his screen name would believe a story about how an insurance company and "the police" both served as legal counsel to an auction house with an important legal decision to make to be quite funny.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jingram058

WAR is total BS.

WAR is great for an owner looking to build a winning team. It's not so great for determining who belongs in the HOF or who the MVP should be in any particular season.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by G1911

And you think it is wrong for an individual, but perfectly alright for a corporation, and you cannot understand why some people would not draw different lines for different people/groups but have ethic based on the act, not the thing committing said act?



And you think it is perfectly honest to run fake auctions for items one doesn't have, but only if that is a corporation doing it (otherwise, if it was honest independent of the thing doing it, then there is no reason an individual wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing)?



Even if one supports it, running auctions for things one does not have and cannot possibly deliver on is "dishonest". I think we all, at some level, must be cognizant of that.

"Cannot possibly deliver"?

The majority of the cards were since recovered and delivered. No?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I would love love to get confirmation on this statement. The insurance company maybe, but I am pretty sure the police did not weigh in on this.

According to the SCD article you posted to the Memory Lane thread, ML states that the Strongville police asked ML not to publicly confirm the theft while their investigation was ongoing. There is some nuance to that statement, but it seems to me that the police were encouraging ML to keep the auction going, or at least preferred that it continue.

This information was communicated by ML, sure, but assuming it is true, it does show that ML was working with their insurers and the police while the auction was ongoing. I really don't see how their actions can be fraudulent if they are working with the police.



Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

According to the SCD article you posted to the Memory Lane thread, ML states that the Strongville police asked ML not to publicly confirm the theft while their investigation was ongoing. There is some nuance to that statement, but it seems to me that the police were encouraging ML to keep the auction going, or at least preferred that it continue.

This information was communicated by ML, sure, but assuming it is true, it does show that ML was working with their insurers and the police while the auction was ongoing. I really don't see how their actions can be fraudulent if they are working with the police.

Why would anyone take the owner of Memory Lane at his word for anything? The guy literally spent years in prison for being a con artist. LOL

[brianp-beme]

My grievance is that for some, Festivus is celebrated all year.

Instead, Happy Holidays and have a great New Year.


Brian

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Why would anyone take the owner of Memory Lane at his word for anything? The guy literally spent years in prison for being a con artist. LOL

I hear you. If the Strongville police says something different, I would believe them over ML. Or if one of the consignee or buyers of the stolen cards contradicts ML then I would give them weight.

But I haven't heard anyone with knowledge of the facts that is disputing either the letter that ML sent out, or SCD's reporting.



Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I hear you. If the Strongville police says something different, I would believe them over ML. Or if one of the consignee or buyers of the stolen cards contradicts ML then I would give them weight.

But I haven't heard anyone with knowledge of the facts that is disputing either the letter that ML sent out, or SCD's reporting.



Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Back after a nice holiday vacation. And this post is now on page 2

I am assuming we will see some of the buyers post their wins right? The cards were sent back to memory lane recently.