Even the so called good guys...ugly hobby?

Peter_Spaeth · #1 05-15-2009, 07:06 PM

In those cases the rule itself sets forth the loophole. Not so here.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 05-15-2009, 07:09 PM

We could have a new forum rule. No posting private emails except when it is for the greater good. That would work.

calvindog · #3 05-15-2009, 07:13 PM

Well, but this is a vintage baseball card chatboard in which the community at large sets the rules. And consideirng we're all in agreement that fraud in our hobby is bad and exposing it is good, the consenus was that it was important that the email be released and Kevin exposed.

Also, this forum is not actually a democracy; Leon runs it and runs it according to how he sees fit.

Edited to add: Perfect, Peter. Now let's apply that rule retroactively.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 05-15-2009, 07:14 PM

I started by saying I expected I would be in the minority on this, but I doubt I am the only one and that it is otherwise a consensus.

calvindog · #5 05-15-2009, 07:16 PM

True -- I suspect you, Kevin and Elkins think alike on this issue. You're definitely not alone, you're correct.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 05-15-2009, 07:17 PM

Lol.

calvindog · #7 05-15-2009, 07:18 PM

We both need to find a hobby or something.

egbeachley · #8 05-15-2009, 07:24 PM

I consider myself an impartial third-party in that I know none of the persons involved. My gut feeling is that the comment made by Kevin was solely bravado and not meant as fact.

But I'm not 100% certain. Hence I lean towards Peter in that a rule against the posting of emails is a good idea. So I guess we have a minority of 4.

Abravefan11 · #9 05-15-2009, 07:27 PM

Could the situation with Kevin have been addressed without posting the actual email?

I know it wouldn't have had the same "Wow" factor, but could we have gotten to where we are now without it?

wonkaticket · #10 05-15-2009, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Could the situation with Kevin have been addressed without posting the actual email?

I know it wouldn't have had the same "Wow" factor, but could we have gotten to where we are now without it?

Tim great question! By the way great post on the T206 "Doves"!

I thought about that the problem is that Kevin has been so Secret Squirrel in the past I thought what would I accomplish with a phone call? I mean what would his answer be?

"Kevin I have this email I was CC on so are you defrauding net 54 members that you dont like or were you just talking out of your you know what?"

What would his answer be to that...yes Wonka I'm running a whole scam here's how I'm doing it...LOL

I really wrestled with this feel free to ask one of the many other forum members and Leon who I ran this by prior to posting. I openly asked should I do this?

I know Kevin has folks send him cards from this forum and I don't know who he's dealing with off line so in the end I felt folks should be aware. If it was trash talking and pure lies...uhh ok dont buy it but whatever.

But I stand behind my gut feeling that it wasn't purley a lie and even if it was there's always a little truth in lies..IMO

Cheers,

John

P.S. Mental note never attend a holiday mixer with attorneys.

calvindog · #11 05-15-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by egbeachley

So I guess we have a minority of 4.

Well, 3; I'm not sure Elkins gets a vote here.

egbeachley · #12 05-15-2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Well, 3; I'm not sure Elkins gets a vote here.

I'll support that!

daviddbreadman · #13 05-15-2009, 08:33 PM

I am an outsider here. No one ever responds to what I say but here is the bottom line. I know neither party. You cannot take a private email literally. You have no idea of the intention of the writer. And for any person to post a private email publicly is done so in a biased manner to forward their own agenda. I say this without agreeing or disagreeing with the consensus take on the email as proffered here. As a matter of point, its inappropriate and misleading. One has no idea what is in the head of the person and the motives of the person typing the email at the time it was typed.

A short story: I work at an office where instant messages are monitored by a female worker for content. A close male friend of mine and I were joking about an episode of "The Apprentice" a few years ago. There happened to be a lot of female bickering in that particular episode. This female "monitor" not knowing my relationship with him and our joking manner took great offense when I (truly) jokingly typed to him that "women don't belong in the workforce" and she took me literally as an outside observer.

Separately, after returning from the potty and typing to him that I was so impressed with my creation that I had the duty to and decided to leave it for the next caller, did I really do this even though I typed it?? Only I know.