How would you react to a personal attack (by SGC)?

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Don't mention it. And thanks for chiming in again.

Hey you too Todd.

I'm just glad our discussion of this topic didn't get in the way of you first post (#85) and your two cents/opinion of enough being said on the subject, way to add to the thread very solid.

[nolemmings]

Again no problem. While I believe that I have heard enough on the subject, I'm even more certain I have heard enough from you. Most of all though, I'm glad to see you're chiming in again.

[wonkaticket]

Yawn, the thread is about the discussion of the Levy's Brown Old Mill and why they felt SGC was doing them wrong. If you have heard enough pick another thread..just a thought. Or perhaps we should drop it when you decide it’s enough?

As for chiming in I’m done chiming in on the Levy’s and the card that I stand by. However my chiming in applied to the topic at hand not your dinky input, that I can chime in on.

Once again thanks for adding to the discussion Todd and sharing with us all that you’ve heard enough from me.

[nolemmings]

Jeez, John always glad to hear from you. Particularly warming when you give the prefatory two or three lines about how you like and respect the poster and go way back and yaddy yaddy and then follow that with four or five excoriating shots at him anyway. All for the good of the hobby right? Just gettin' to the facts Anderson Cooper Wonka. Certainly not the kind of thing you could handle off line, right? Glad you're here for us. God bless America. Where would we be without you?

[wonkaticket]

Todd, at least now you actually post something relative to the thread.

If it was your disgust with my method of bringing this up perhaps you could have posted your thoughts the first time (or offline me LOL) vs. #85 posts in you deciding to act like the boards floor manager regurgitating my own post stating I shouldn’t post on any more on this and making your snide comment.

Speaking of snide comments I think that is what this whole thread started about SGC making snide comments to Hank and Scott calling them out. Scott then proceeded to state some facts of which he conveniently left out some major details. Did I bring them up sure did could I have brought them up offline yes, just as Scott could have handled this offline with SGC.

Sorry I stand by my confusion on this whole thing and am very disappointed in what appears to be simply the Levy’s passing off a questionable card behind a slip. Especially when these guys of all folks should know the sting of a bogus card in a holder, and have all the knowledge to avoid any doubt on a card such as this.

If my outline of events and details is wrong I welcome the correction and will admit and apologize if I’m wrong.

Also if I’m the only person on here who is confused by the whole list of details provided, and I’m the only one left scratching their head over why collectors as advanced as the Levy’s would represent this card as they did. Then I stand alone and I’m ok with that.

It’s board where we can post on topics and post opinions, Scott had no problem brining up the subject on a public forum and listing his side hoping for support or a rally against SGC. Why should I not list my thoughts or details in the same public manner? If you think I’m doing Scott & Hank dirty that’s cool I respect your views. However I'm on topic, I welcome discussion, I presented details and welcomed correction from Scott and I’ve not been vulgar or disruptive in any way nor am I anonymous.

I will add for the record I’ve also done right by Hank & Scott too for the record so I think this is bit deeper than me taking cheap shots at them for kicks.

Cheers,

John

[danmckee]

Todd what gives? I must have missed your post in the T206 museum Chan thread that you heard enough about that thread.

If you think the facts are off base here then that is ok as you have a solid right to your opinion.

But facts shouldn't be hidden because of who the parties involved are.

You are a good guy Todd, I have always had great dealings with you but I do not understand why you would take this stance in this thread.

Dan