Rogue REA employee on eBay?

Originally Posted by JP

Not at all contradictory.

In one case, he doesn't win the auction, but contacts the winner of the auction to try and get the card. (fine)

In the other case, he doesn't win an auction, but then contacts the seller to try and get the card instead of the rightful winner. (not fine)

Dean sounds like he has his ducks in a row....welcome, Dean!

I just reread this and you are right JP. I will edit that out. Sorry for that.

[Doug]

I've officially started my morning with a migraine trying to catch up on all the posts since I went to bed last night. I wonder if I can get a sick day...

[PolarBear]

Ok, I read through this. One point that has not been nailed down is that DJR claims that he contacted smgsmg1968 and Dean replied from this ebay account.

Dean denies this is his account. However, he doesn't deny using the account or replying to DJR from the account.

I think we need an answer from Dean on that question. If he denies it, then we can give DJR the opportunity to produce the emails he received.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Ok, I read through this. One point that has not been nailed down is that DJR claims that he contacted smgsmg1968 and Dean replied from this ebay account.

Dean denies this is his account. However, he doesn't deny using the account or replying to DJR from the account.

I think we need an answer from Dean on that question. If he denies it, then we can give DJR the opportunity to produce the emails he received.

I vote for letting this one go. It pretty clearly doesn't tie back to Rob no matter what, and that seems the only reason it was of possible interest to begin with.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I vote for letting this one go. It pretty clearly doesn't tie back to Rob no matter what, and that seems the only reason it was of possible interest to begin with.

Wow, who would have thought the voice of reason would come all the way from Boston? Seriously, we have enough problems/criminals in this hobby. I applaud the starter of this thread but I think at this point, 100 posts later, we should probably focus instead on those individuals and auction houses who are actually ripping us off -- and there are no shortage of them.

[Rob D.]

Words posted more than once by one of Net54's more valued members:

Trust no one.

(Of course, I'm not sure all of the original words were spelled correctly, but you get the idea.)

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Words posted more than once by one of Net54's more valued members:

Trust no one.

(Of course, I'm not sure all of the original words were spelled correctly, but you get the idea.)

Wait, are you saying there is only "one" of them?

[botn]

The question I posed several times in this thread, as was done by others, is how did DJR, David, know for certain that smgsmg1968 was Dean. He has yet to address that question. FWIW, as of the end of Feb 2010 the registered user on smgsmg1968's account was not Dean. I find that to be highly irresponsible for David to casually toss the shill bidding allegation into the mix absent proof.

Many who do not sell cards for a living fail to understand the impact it can have on those who do when making statements about their business practices on a public chat board. Comments which are framed as factual when really are nothing more than conjecture or opinion need to be avoided. I see this happen even by some of the more respected members of the board. Remember this is someone's livelihood you place at risk.

Just because you have internet access does not mean you should be using it. Think before you post, people. Really now. This board serves as a great watchdog service but does sometimes cross the line and become unfair and abusive.

[DJR]

Any reasonable person would have reached the same conclusion and assumed shill bidding. Dean told me via email he was smgsmg1968 and then used his hobbyguynj account to bid on smgsmg1968's auctions. I am only posting the facts and not opinions about what transpired. If Dean is not smgsmg1968, he is a proven liar (is this really debatable) and this is simply not my problem. As REA customers, this should rub us all the wrong way. Hopefully Dean learns from being exposed as a liar.

If Dean is / was so quick and comfortable lying for his and/or his 'friends' personal gain for a measly $100 or so, placing his reputation and REA's in jeopardy, one must wonder what other tactics are utilized when $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000 are on the line. Is it too much to expect REA employees to tell the truth? This is likely why Mr. Lifson felt the need to address this issue and apologize. Hopefully Mr. Lifson has taken the necessary steps to prevent REA employees from repeating these actions.

[calvindog]

Greg, as we all know people can be sued for libel. Problem is, truth is a defense to any such action. If the sterling reputations of the scumbags who get trashed on this site are at risk, they can avail themselves of the legal system. I'm sure they won't mind if their bidding records are divulged during the discovery phase of the lawsuit, especially if they have nothing to hide. Problem is, they have plenty to hide as as we both know.