Absolutely deplorable actions by a fellow forum member!

[JP]

Yes, Jamie, it appears Joe is calling you a liar. It's pretty easy for him to call it like he sees it. I also am calling you a liar. If you think the email you sent to me, that you just posted, is "upfront" then you're never going to get it. You lied by ommission. Those cards aren't "for sale". That makes it sound like you can just buy them from someone for a fixed price and you're done. You were deceptive by not mentioning it was in an auction. And no, I didn't know from the start you didn't actually have the card. But like everyone else, including two moderators who asked for proof and weren't answered, I suspected as much. Your email to me and everyone else shouldve mentioned the auction, and how winning the cards weren't guaranteed...

[Leon]

Hey Jamie
We don't need this to go on forever but JP is correct here. You still aren't seeing the point. Your email is not helping your cause. No one said you were "scamming" someone. What everyone has said is that you weren't being truthful and honest. It seems as though you still aren't accepting of that fact. A light, misdirected apology to make it all go away won't quite do the trick. I guess my main thing now is that you seem to be skirting the real issue with each post.

How can you say "I was upfront with you from the second I spoke with you."? Of course you said you had to buy it but you didn't say you would have to "win" it in auction first. IF you had said that this whole thread probably wouldn't have started as then you would have been truthful. I can't imagine asking for a buyer for a card, that I still have to win in auction, and then thinking if I don't win it I can just say I am sorry and will make it up in the future. That is all wrong, imho. best regards

[Potomac Yank]

He doesn't want to get it!

[danc]

Just came home from ham, german potato salad, pees (while not all the "riligeeous", had to celebrate the ressurection of Jesus and I read...this.

If you play the stock market, you look at this thread in a different way. You use monies and own companies that you don't own and own them in spec. Especially if you trade in options.

If his intent was an "iron-clad" guarantee that this card could be sold in X amount of days for X amount of dollars, then the person not owning the card was in fact gambling, in which if the price extended beyond what he had hoped for part of the duo and he bailed, he would be in the wrong for sure.

Saying "Sorry guy, I can't come through" in not an option if you guarantee something. So if you pay $5,000 for the lot, you HAVE to agree to sell it to this gent for the agreed upon price.

I'm not saying what he did was right, nor is the practice, but if better prepared, with more disclosure (you disclosed jack from what I read), it could have benefitted both parties and this could have been avoided. Oh well, Happy Easter!

DanC

[T206Collector]

....Jamie's "point" is unless he takes someone's money and doesn't deliver a card then he is basically free to do whatever he wants by way of deception.

But the lack of monetary damages here is mostly beside the point. If he had taken the money without delivering the cards -- and what may have happened here is that he was going to take the money to help pay for the lot before he actually had the cards in hand -- that would have been criminal, of course. That would have been theft.

But what really happened here is he tried to play the board with a lack of information, to try to run up interest in an auction he wanted to participate in without actually disclosing the auction. He was actually hoping to save money on this.

I would want to know the maximum bid he was willing to make. Let's see, get someone to commit to $1,300 and then hopefully the auction only goes to $2,000, then I get an UZIT for $700. And if the auction goes to $2,100? No worries -- I don't have to be the highest bidder. I can just say, sorry Mate, didn't buy the card, don't send me any money.

My take is he was playing the board to try to get an UZIT at a discount. That's my take on it.

Jamie, you really should have known better...

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

My take is he was playing the board to try to get an UZIT at a discount. That's my take on it.

Jamie, you really should have known better...

This is exactly how it reads to me as well...the clincher was when he told Jon C that he'd take $1400 for it. He seemed to be playing potential buyers against one another on a card that he could not guarantee he would win. Imagine if he'd gotten an offer high enough to win the entire lot that guaranteed him to actually make money and keep the other Uzit. This is totally immoral.

Dan