After paying their dues, should hobbyists who committed fraud be allowed back ?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

The Stuff Trumps All phenomenon has always been a strange one to me Although I do understand it, it's never been difficult for me to not bid on things that I know were stolen or walk away from a lucrative deal if not treated with proper respect by the other party. Both scenarios have happened more than once, and it was easy to take my money and leave the situations. I don't think myself morally superior to anyone else for doing so; guess I just find it easy to say "No, thanks" knowing another interesting deal will always be around the next corner.

[Republicaninmass]

Must be why 1914 cjs sell for less with Probstein.....

[mq711]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s not a court of law. We can choose to associate or not with people who scam us. It seems clear to me. I don’t deal with scammers and fraudsters, convicted or unconvicted(the vast majority). It seems a common sense policy to avoid headaches and getting robbed.

I get a free speech argument that even the most detestable should be allowed to speak. I don’t disagree with it, if there was a rule that speech of any kind is allowed and anyone may speak. Letting more scammers into the BST seems to be an unnecessary disaster to create though.

This response summarizes my opinion also.

[Bobbycee]

NO flippin 'way!

[cornhusker]

Hope I'm not a hypocrite for leaning NO to this while still advocating for Pete to be allowed eligibility to the HOF.

If you are gonna "screen" membership and don't flag covicted fellons who have negativly impacted your hobby... why screen?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

The Stuff Trumps All phenomenon has always been a strange one to me Although I do understand it, it's never been difficult for me to not bid on things that I know were stolen or walk away from a lucrative deal if not treated with proper respect by the other party. Both scenarios have happened more than once, and it was easy to take my money and leave the situations. I don't think myself morally superior to anyone else for doing so; guess I just find it easy to say "No, thanks" knowing another interesting deal will always be around the next corner.

I don't disagree with you as I have walked away many time from deals. The problem is that even if we walk away, there always seems to be someone in line behind us willing to do the deal. Again, the STUFF is what matters to the majority. Lots of rich guys out there want a Jeter signed jersey on their office wall. They have no idea what a Jeter sig looks like. Magically a piece of paper appears with a hologram and fancy printing that says it's real and up on the wall it goes.


Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[cornhusker]

...the biggest, mean 'n' ugly 'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things of them sat next to me on the group W bench and said "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said I didn't get nothing. I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage. He said "what were you arrested for, kid?" And I said, "littering."

And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kind of things, till I said, "and selling doctored baseball cards on the internet". And they came back, shook my hand, And we had a great time on the bench, talking about crime, mother stabbin, and all kinds of groovy things.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I don't disagree with you as I have walked away many time from deals. The problem is that even if we walk away, there always seems to be someone in line behind us willing to do the deal. Again, the STUFF is what matters to the majority. Lots of rich guys out there want a Jeter signed jersey on their office wall. They have no idea what a Jeter sig looks like. Magically a piece of paper appears with a hologram and fancy printing that says it's real and up on the wall it goes.


Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

But there is some sense of schadenfreude when that person gets burned. I seem to recall one village idiot on the 52 bowman musial from pwcc. who subsequently went back and bought pwcc cards which were also trimmed.

Myself, I found a "good deal" from Frank Prisco auctions. He absconded with about 50k from various collectors and never shipped the items. Last time it happened, 10 years prior, he just filed BK and nobody could collect. I'm hoping there is a special place where he will sort 88 donruss commons in his hell loop

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

But there is some sense of schadenfreude when that person gets burned. I seem to recall one village idiot on the 52 bowman musial from pwcc. who subsequently went back and bought pwcc cards which were also trimmed.

Myself, I found a "good deal" from Frank Prisco auctions. He absconded with about 50k from various collectors and never shipped the items. Last time it happened, 10 years prior, he just filed BK and nobody could collect. I'm hoping there is a special place where he will sort 88 donruss commons in his hell loop

Indeed, I recall that buyer celebrating his purchase here with a rather smug air, and telling us how smart he was to review his purchases beforehand with Brent. He did seem somewhat chastened after the card was exposed, but not long afterwards was right back at it.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

But there is some sense of schadenfreude when that person gets burned. I seem to recall one village idiot on the 52 bowman musial from pwcc. who subsequently went back and bought pwcc cards which were also trimmed.

Myself, I found a "good deal" from Frank Prisco auctions. He absconded with about 50k from various collectors and never shipped the items. Last time it happened, 10 years prior, he just filed BK and nobody could collect. I'm hoping there is a special place where he will sort 88 donruss commons in his hell loop

Hey. I never said we were smart. LOL.
Some people just ignore that bad people exist when temptation reaches a certain point. The thrill of the hunt for collectibles is addictive. We have all felt that rush of adrenaline at one point of another. Perhaps it made us buy something a little risky because "what if it's good?" Or perhaps it's made us bid higher than we know we should in an auction because we got caught up in the emotions of the auction. Bad people take advantage of people's vulnerabilities. I am sure most of us have fallen pray to this at one point or another. It happens.

I thought the focus of prison/incarceration, of any type, was punishment and rehabilitation. So, serving their time, means they finished their punishment. Do they deserve indefinite punishment? Is there a chance for rehabilitation or not? . If we believe that someone has served their time, should they not be given a chance to show they are rehabilitated?
Now I am not some pie in the sky romantic that is saying this just to virtue signal. I think that some former bad actors should be given a chance. Again, perhaps probationary after Leon has determined that he believes they would be a net positive for the board. Sometimes, we can learn from those who broke the rules about how they did it and how perhaps we can safeguard ourselves from the next bad guy. Look at a guy like Kevin Mitnick. Was one of the very first computer hackers. He went to jail for 5 years and now is a world renown Cyber Security expert that consults with major corporations and gives lectures. (If you ever want to be really scared watch one of his lectures on youtube and see how easy it is to steal your info)
Ultimately, its a decision for the owner of any group like this to determine their level of comfort.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Hey. I never said we were smart. LOL.
Some people just ignore that bad people exist when temptation reaches a certain point. The thrill of the hunt for collectibles is addictive. We have all felt that rush of adrenaline at one point of another. Perhaps it made us buy something a little risky because "what if it's good?" Or perhaps it's made us bid higher than we know we should in an auction because we got caught up in the emotions of the auction. Bad people take advantage of people's vulnerabilities. I am sure most of us have fallen pray to this at one point or another. It happens.

I thought the focus of prison/incarceration, of any type, was punishment and rehabilitation. So, serving their time, means they finished their punishment. Do they deserve indefinite punishment? Is there a chance for rehabilitation or not? . If we believe that someone has served their time, should they not be given a chance to show they are rehabilitated?
Now I am not some pie in the sky romantic that is saying this just to virtue signal. I think that some former bad actors should be given a chance. Again, perhaps probationary after Leon has determined that he believes they would be a net positive for the board. Sometimes, we can learn from those who broke the rules about how they did it and how perhaps we can safeguard ourselves from the next bad guy. Look at a guy like Kevin Mitnick. Was one of the very first computer hackers. He went to jail for 5 years and now is a world renown Cyber Security expert that consults with major corporations and gives lectures. (If you ever want to be really scared watch one of his lectures on youtube and see how easy it is to steal your info)
Ultimately, its a decision for the owner of any group like this to determine their level of comfort.

I asked the same questions earlier on. The consensus: no, there is no forgiveness, or rehabilitation, nothing that will satisfy the investors and collectors in the net54 world. If you transgress with baseball cards, you carry that forever. No right or wrong with this, it just is what it is

[Peter_Spaeth]

For me, case by case basis and I would probably give a fair number of people a second chance as long as the community understood the prior offense.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For me, case by case basis and I would probably give a fair number of people a second chance as long as the community understood the prior offense.

This is kind of what I am thinking as well.

[JollyElm]

Here's a compromise. How about having a scarlet 'F' for "Fraudster" covering their avatar?

And their screen name shall be Hester Unprynnecipled.

[HobokenJon]

This isn't particularly related to anything. I just love this old clip from "Stripes." It felt on point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGfzWwT-35M

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Sometimes, we can learn from those who broke the rules about how they did it and how perhaps we can safeguard ourselves from the next bad guy. Look at a guy like Kevin Mitnick. Was one of the very first computer hackers. He went to jail for 5 years and now is a world renown Cyber Security expert that consults with major corporations and gives lectures. (If you ever want to be really scared watch one of his lectures on youtube and see how easy it is to steal your info).

+1

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by cornhusker

...the biggest, mean 'n' ugly 'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things of them sat next to me on the group W bench and said "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said I didn't get nothing. I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage. He said "what were you arrested for, kid?" And I said, "littering."

And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kind of things, till I said, "and selling doctored baseball cards on the internet". And they came back, shook my hand, And we had a great time on the bench, talking about crime, mother stabbin, and all kinds of groovy things.

Great post!

[G1911]

I don't think forgiveness is a synonym for treating someone as if X didn't happen entirely.

I forgive the guy who tried to invade my home. But if I see him coming up the walkway, I won't greet him with a warm beverage and a handshake. Maybe he's had a change of his heart and has been rehabilitated in a heartwarming final act of the story in a Oscar bait feature film presentation, but we all know the odds.

I'd forgive a guy who defrauded me, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to do a deal with them again. Maybe he's a good old honest fellow who has accepted the light into his once Grinchey heart, but we all know the odds.

If there's no separation between speech and the BST, which has already been stipulated, it seems quaint to me to state that we must forgive by allowing them to do deals with people who surely will not all know their record and what they are probably getting into. It's just setting up an environment to take an area lately littered with scammers into a place where the knowledgeable stay away from and folks who don't know everyone's history get scammed, while adding 0 benefit. If it was stated as a possible allowance of a particular, single person that could be debated, it might be different, but as a blanket policy for hobby scammers and fraudsters, why would anyone think opening the floodgates could possibly lead to a somehow more positive outcome than a policy of not allowing universally acknowledged scammers and fraudsters?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think forgiveness is a synonym for treating someone as if X didn't happen entirely.

I forgive the guy who tried to invade my home. But if I see him coming up the walkway, I won't greet him with a warm beverage and a handshake. Maybe he's had a change of his heart and has been rehabilitated in a heartwarming final act of the story in a Oscar bait feature film presentation, but we all know the odds.

I'd forgive a guy who defrauded me, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to do a deal with them again. Maybe he's a good old honest fellow who has accepted the light into his once Grinchey heart, but we all know the odds.

If there's no separation between speech and the BST, which has already been stipulated, it seems quaint to me to state that we must forgive by allowing them to do deals with people who surely will not all know their record and what they are probably getting into. It's just setting up an environment to take an area lately littered with scammers into a place where the knowledgeable stay away from and folks who don't know everyone's history get scammed, while adding 0 benefit. If it was stated as a possible allowance of a particular, single person that could be debated, it might be different, but as a blanket policy for hobby scammers and fraudsters, why would anyone think opening the floodgates could possibly lead to a somehow more positive outcome than a policy of not allowing universally acknowledged scammers and fraudsters?

I think many of us are saying the same thing in opposite directions. Having Leon select those that might be worth the risk is what I suggested from the start. I am not saying it should be a free for all.

[Republicaninmass]

I'm of the ilk of someone defrauds me, I will never buy rondell them another card. I explain they can ask a 3rd party if they want to conduct a transaction

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Absolutely not. Similar to the way an individual in say the finance industry is barred from practicing again after conviction and completion of sentance and/or payment of a fine.

I agree with this. At a minimum I would say they should be barred from the bst.

[Mozzie22]

Absolutely Not. Honestly cannot understand how anyone would disagree with this.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cornhusker

...the biggest, mean 'n' ugly 'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things of them sat next to me on the group W bench and said "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said I didn't get nothing. I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage. He said "what were you arrested for, kid?" And I said, "littering."

And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kind of things, till I said, "and selling doctored baseball cards on the internet". And they came back, shook my hand, And we had a great time on the bench, talking about crime, mother stabbin, and all kinds of groovy things.

Every year on Thanksgiving.....good ole Alice's..
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

guthrie,arlo.jpg

Originally Posted by leon

every year on thanksgiving.....good ole alice's..
.

[lowpopper]

hey remember that kurt russell movie about the scientists in antarctica?

[abothebear]

If you take the “should” out of it, and make an issue of what one wants, I wonder if that would clarify the discussion. It doesn’t need to be a matter of “should”. This isn’t the only place on the internet for hobbyists, and even if it was, it isn’t an institution of laws, or a convention of philosophers. Making it an issue of “should” elevates the matter higher than it belongs. This is a hobby site run by private individuals. What do the people here want to be the case in this matter? Maybe you like second chances, maybe you want the people that served the consequences for their actions to have earned a clean slate, maybe you just don’t want to mess with it, maybe you want these guys to go suck an egg. They’re all the same as far as “should” goes.

Like jingram058 said, “there is no right or wrong in this, it just is.”

What I want is to not mess with it. No hobby ex-fraudsters. If Leon wants to make individual exceptions, then there you go.

[Misunderestimated]

The word "hobbyist" seems a tad kind to me in this context. I think the more accurate (and generally less positive) term is dealer or seller. we are not generally talking about collectors when we talk about people who have been found guilty of business fraud and paid their societal dues for it. That doesn't mean that they don't know more about the hobby than many of us (self included) and can't contribute knowledge it's just a point that should be made...

After getting that off my chest --> I'm willing to give these "hobbyists" one strike (as Jay and then others wrote above) before banning them for good...
I don't think this is an option so I didn't answer the poll question.

Also can someone please post an appropriate card of someone who was suspended form baseball and came back after serving their suspension - maybe AROD ???

[pokerplyr80]

The card collecting community is a relatively small one. And this site is probably a relatively small percentage of the collecting community. It just seems to me if you committed a serious enough offense against others in the hobby to be convicted of fraud, you do not belong on this site. Or in the hobby at all for that matter.

I'm in favor of second chances in general. But why would we as a community want someone who committed fraud again others in the hobby on this site with a chance to do the same thing again to us? I just don't see much of a benefit, and I do see the potential for it to end very badly.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

The card collecting community is a relatively small one. And this site is probably a relatively small percentage of the collecting community. It just seems to me if you committed a serious enough offense against others in the hobby to be convicted of fraud, you do not belong on this site. Or in the hobby at all for that matter.

I'm in favor of second chances in general. But why would we as a community want someone who committed fraud again others in the hobby on this site with a chance to do the same thing again to us? I just don't see much of a benefit, and I do see the potential for it to end very badly.

what jesse said

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

The card collecting community is a relatively small one. And this site is probably a relatively small percentage of the collecting community. It just seems to me if you committed a serious enough offense against others in the hobby to be convicted of fraud, you do not belong on this site. Or in the hobby at all for that matter.

I'm in favor of second chances in general. But why would we as a community want someone who committed fraud again others in the hobby on this site with a chance to do the same thing again to us? I just don't see much of a benefit, and I do see the potential for it to end very badly.

And we've been through this with at least one member who was called out by another member for fraudulent ebay listings but he claimed it was his brother who had control of his ebay account and that he would never do something like that to the hobby he loved so he was allowed to stay. Fast forward a few years and he was caught again doing the same exact thing and again he denied it before finally admitting doing it on a much smaller scale than it actually was when undoubtable evidence was posted. It turned out he was also trying to sell some of them on the BST here.

Surprisingly some members still came to his defense maybe they're also some of the yes and I don't care votes in this thread.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

what jesse said

I also agree w Jesse. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Attachment 541675

"Coming into Los Anglees, bringing in a couple of keys, please don't touch my bags if you please, Mr. Customs man." AG

[Joe Hunter]

OK to post, but NO BST.

[Vintagedeputy]

I spent 12 years in law enforcement locking criminals up.

I'll just leave that right there.

[Snowman]

The best answer isn't listed as an option in the poll. The answer *should be* "it depends". Not all crimes are equal, and not all former criminals are equal either. Also, who gets to decide what a "hobby criminal" even is to begin with? None of this is black & white.

Also, as far as banning someone from the B/S/T section but not the rest of the forum goes, that is pretty easy to do with Xenforo forum software, I don't know about this forum's software though? I ran a forum a few years ago where I had some members who were only allowed to post in the B/S/T threads and others who were only allowed to post anywhere BUT the the B/S/T threads.

Perhaps it is also worth pointing out that there is no shortage of people in this hobby who would like to see other collectors canceled for the "sin" of soaking a card in water or flattening down a lifted corner with their fingernail.

There are even people who actually think that cracking a card out of a graded slab and resubmitting it with a different grading company is dishonest behavior that must be punished.

This hobby is absolutely bonkers sometimes. If we are talking about Bill Mastro (who else could it possibly be?), then I would be ecstatic to have him in the chat. There are few people in this hobby that have as much knowledge worth sharing as he has.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

Also can someone please post an appropriate card of someone who was suspended form baseball and came back after serving their suspension - maybe AROD ???

The Boss was suspended, for what? Tampering with Dave Winfield was it? He came back, sure enough. This card is apparently from this year's Topps Heritage set (not mine, but it is an actual card).

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mozzie22

Absolutely Not. Honestly cannot understand how anyone would disagree with this.

And I cannot understand how anyone could possibly hold your viewpoint. It just comes across as remarkably ignorant to me.

Really? Nothing else matters to you? What if this person completely turned their life around and now works for the FBI to help identify fraudsters? What if they no longer buy or sell any cards at all and only want to contribute to discussions to share their hobby knowledge and any lessons they learned from making mistakes in the past? You're really not interested in anything they might have to say? Really?

People who see the world in black & white drive me insane.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snowman

And I cannot understand how anyone could possibly hold your viewpoint. It just comes across as remarkably ignorant to me.

Really? Nothing else matters to you? What if this person completely turned their life around and now works for the FBI to help identify fraudsters? What if they no longer buy or sell any cards at all and only want to contribute to discussions to share their hobby knowledge and any lessons they learned from making mistakes in the past? You're really not interested in anything they might have to say? Really?

People who see the world in black & white drive me insane.

I'll just leave this here, because it makes me chuckle every time...

[MailboxBaseball]

I voted no.

To me Net54 is sort of a close knit community, almost a "baseball card family" of sorts, even though I'm sure many will consider that to be an overstatement.

Paying a debt to society is one thing, but learning from their mistakes and changing their lifestyles and mindset is completely a separate topic.

No one is saying these people shouldnt be allowed back into the hobby. They can buy, sell, or trade at any card show or other website in the world. But if they have defrauded people in the past, I think we should take at least the minimal steps to protect this special site.

Many of us have done some pretty insane deals over $10-grand on this site by paying via friends and family. When I tell my friends that, they ask "are you crazy???" haha.

If we don't have trust here when doing a deal, what do we have?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'll just leave this here, because it makes me chuckle every time...

I'd be interested to learn why you think that applies here.

I'd also be interested to learn how you managed to attach your entire screen along with a 100x200 pixel image of what you were actually attempting to attach.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by MailboxBaseball

I voted no.

To me Net54 is sort of a close knit community, almost a "baseball card family" of sorts, even though I'm sure many will consider that to be an overstatement.

Paying a debt to society is one thing, but learning from their mistakes and changing their lifestyles and mindset is completely a separate topic.

No one is saying these people shouldnt be allowed back into the hobby. They can buy, sell, or trade at any card show or other website in the world. But if they have defrauded people in the past, I think we should take at least the minimal steps to protect this special site.

Many of us have done some pretty insane deals over $10-grand on this site by paying via friends and family. When I tell my friends that, they ask "are you crazy???" haha.

If we don't have trust here when doing a deal, what do we have?

Simply being a member here does not automatically grant one trust though in the B/S/T forums. It still has to be earned. I've even sold cards to people that didn't know me at all and who weren't about to trust a new member, so I just sent them the cards and said, "pay me after you receive it if you like the card and want to keep it. If you don't, just send it back".

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'd be interested to learn why you think that applies here.

I'd also be interested to learn how you managed to attach your entire screen along with a 100x200 pixel image of what you were actually attempting to attach.

Pretty big fail, I know.

[MailboxBaseball]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Simply being a member here does not automatically grant one trust though in the B/S/T forums. It still has to be earned. I've even sold cards to people that didn't know me at all and who weren't about to trust a new member, so I just sent them the cards and said, "pay me after you receive it if you like the card and want to keep it. If you don't, just send it back".

Yeah, and that's sometimes how it goes, depending on how interested the seller is to make the deal happen.

New sellers have to build some positive feedback or people to vouch for them if needed, as it goes in many clubs - whether online or in person.

So are you saying that prior fraudsters/criminals should be allowed to sell on here, but with the condition that they mail the card out first prior to receiving payment?

If you are, then that's not a bad suggestion. I just don't see how it would ever be enforced here unless the person volunteers the information.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by MailboxBaseball

So are you saying that prior fraudsters/criminals should be allowed to sell on here, but with the condition that they mail the card out first prior to receiving payment?

If you are, then that's not a bad suggestion. I just don't see how it would ever be enforced here unless the person volunteers the information.

I don't know. It would really depend on what they did and what they're trying to sell now, in addition to countless other factors for me.

For example, if Gary Moser wanted to sign up here, I would absolutely be in favor of allowing him to post, but I probably wouldn't want him selling BVG 10 Joe Mantana RCs in the B/S/T section lol. But if Bill Mastro signed up and decided he wanted to help kids complete their low-grade raw vintage sets at kid-friendly prices, I'd be all for it. There are just too many possibilities to say definitively one way or the other what I would do if it were my decision to make. It would be a case by case basis for me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Is it only hobby crimes we care about in keeping this community clean? What about embezzlers, financial sector fraudsters, sex offenders, drug offenders, and so on? How far is this exclusion going?

[Mozzie22]

Originally Posted by Snowman

And I cannot understand how anyone could possibly hold your viewpoint. It just comes across as remarkably ignorant to me.

Really? Nothing else matters to you? What if this person completely turned their life around and now works for the FBI to help identify fraudsters? What if they no longer buy or sell any cards at all and only want to contribute to discussions to share their hobby knowledge and any lessons they learned from making mistakes in the past? You're really not interested in anything they might have to say? Really?

People who see the world in black & white drive me insane.

What if, what if, what if. I am not interested in anything someone has to say that has tried to screw over other collectors, period. This world you live in where a person screws over others and then suddenly realizes they've done wrong and repents sounds like a nice place to visit. Do I just click my heels three times to get there?

Something tells me you're about to have a really terrible Tuesday!

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How far is this exclusion going?

Dodger fans...

[Leon]

Yes, it is only hobby crimes. I am not sure that was perfectly clear.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is it only hobby crimes we care about in keeping this community clean? What about embezzlers, financial sector fraudsters, sex offenders, drug offenders, and so on? How far is this exclusion going?

[Mozzie22]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I don't know. It would really depend on what they did and what they're trying to sell now, in addition to countless other factors for me.

For example, if Gary Moser wanted to sign up here, I would absolutely be in favor of allowing him to post, but I probably wouldn't want him selling BVG 10 Joe Mantana RCs in the B/S/T section lol. But if Bill Mastro signed up and decided he wanted to help kids complete their low-grade raw vintage sets at kid-friendly prices, I'd be all for it. There are just too many possibilities to say definitively one way or the other what I would do if it were my decision to make. It would be a case by case basis for me.

Wow! Btw, thanks for that Bill Mastro hypothetical! I think everyone needs a good laugh from time to time. UNBELIEVABLE...and sad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Yes, it is only hobby crimes. I am not sure that was perfectly clear.

I think I'd rather hang and shoot the breeze with a hobby criminal than a sex offender, myself. Case by case makes much more sense to me, as stated.