Nominating RICK STARR 9 9

[Foolkiller]

5 minutes ago, manetteska said:

Sorry not following thru on a sale where payment was already sent made him not like us. I guess it’s our fault. 

I'm not saying you guys are in the wrong or anything else, but it's over.  He'll be added, and won't sell here, and it doesn't matter.  That's the ultimate thing.  His choice (or consequence is) he won't sell here anymore -- or at least for a long while.  But that doesn't mean he won't still be interacting.  I agree that the self policing is valuable but more importantly this community gets to decide how it wants to deal with things.  That's your choice and it's been made -- apparently -- by the majority.  

The rest about whether he should respond, or make things right or whatever, without getting into my personal views on it, is irrelevant.  The majority has made its decision, let's just get on with it.  

[thewritestuff]

37 minutes ago, Foolkiller said:

This is a lot of posts about something that I think really isn't worth it at this point.  Adding him based on the letter of the law is hard to argue with, even though I personally wouldn't do it nor do I think appropriate.  But there seems to be a majority who would add him and if that's the case, that's the community's decision.  The probation list isn't the be all end all and there'll be plenty of people who will deal with John regardless of this issue.  I say just end the discussion add him, and everyone move on at this point.  the philosophical argument isn't going to really change anyone's mind and the reality is, it's going to have almost no impact on him at all, as I think he's soured on ever selling here again anyway, so what difference does it make to add him.  Probably none, so let's just do it and be done with it.  

I agree.

[manetteska]

43 minutes ago, Foolkiller said:

This is a lot of posts about something that I think really isn't worth it at this point.  Adding him based on the letter of the law is hard to argue with, even though I personally wouldn't do it nor do I think appropriate.  But there seems to be a majority who would add him and if that's the case, that's the community's decision.  The probation list isn't the be all end all and there'll be plenty of people who will deal with John regardless of this issue.  I say just end the discussion add him, and everyone move on at this point.  the philosophical argument isn't going to really change anyone's mind and the reality is, it's going to have almost no impact on him at all, as I think he's soured on ever selling here again anyway, so what difference does it make to add him.  Probably none, so let's just do it and be done with it.  

You say this as if he is nominated on a technicality. What he did, or didn't do, is pretty cut and dry based on the rules, and you, being a dealer/member who's opinion people respect, continually saying you don't care dilutes the integrity of the marketplace. If a "respected" member doesn't care about people breaking the rules, why should I, or why should I follow them in the first place?

24 minutes ago, Foolkiller said:

I'm not saying you guys are in the wrong or anything else, but it's over.  He'll be added, and won't sell here, and it doesn't matter.  That's the ultimate thing.  His choice (or consequence is) he won't sell here anymore -- or at least for a long while.  But that doesn't mean he won't still be interacting.  I agree that the self policing is valuable but more importantly this community gets to decide how it wants to deal with things.  That's your choice and it's been made -- apparently -- by the majority.  

The rest about whether he should respond, or make things right or whatever, without getting into my personal views on it, is irrelevant.  The majority has made its decision, let's just get on with it.  

Are not you also adding to the "unnecessary discussion" but coming in here to defend your friend based on a personal relationship versus the matter at hand?

You have already quite clearly told us your personal views on this multiple times. In fact, in that first quote up there you say you "personally wouldn't [add him] nor ... think [it] appropriate."

This is the topic for a discussion on his nomination; if you don't like people discussing the nomination, I don't know what to tell you.

[KCOComics]

31 minutes ago, manetteska said:

You say this as if he is nominated on a technicality. What he did, or didn't do, is pretty cut and dry based on the rules, and you, being a dealer/member who's opinion people respect, continually saying you don't care dilutes the integrity of the marketplace. If a "respected" member doesn't care about people breaking the rules, why should I, or why should I follow them in the first place?

Are not you also adding to the "unnecessary discussion" but coming in here to defend your friend based on a personal relationship versus the matter at hand?

You have already quite clearly told us your personal views on this multiple times. In fact, in that first quote up there you say you "personally wouldn't [add him] nor ... think [it] appropriate."

This is the topic for a discussion on his nomination; if you don't like people discussing the nomination, I don't know what to tell you.

I think his point is,  there is no need to continue the back and forth. 

Everyone has said their peace. Let's move on,  hope this gets resolved amicably,  and if not there is no need to keep arguing. The majority has made their opinion known. 

 

[thewritestuff]

1 hour ago, skypinkblu said:

Brian, I know you mean the best for your friend, but there is a 3 day waiting period for a reason and the benefit would be his. He's obviously lurking, you can see when you look at his profile. So waiting the full three days, should not be harmful.

@thewritestuff I still think you are taking a risk not canceling the check, if he receives it and has a change of heart then you can pay him with PP or Zelle or something else, but you are not at risk, there is a lot of mail fraud right now.

 

As always, I appreciate your advice, and will do so ASAP.

[Bird]

it is a community message board...people like to post and chat...so there is value not only in the content of the posts but also in the posting itself...posting to tell others to move on demonstrates the joy of posting without recognizing and respecting it for others  

in other words, post away people! 

 

[comicdonna]

The 72 hour mark has passed.  

[thewritestuff]

Again, I want to thank everyone who took the time to read my nomination of RICK STARR to the Probation List, as well as the many folks who responded both here and in private.

To state it as succinctly as possible, I would like RICK STARR (John Tomlinson) added to the list.

Other than his one response in this thread, I have not heard from RICK/John since posting this nomination. He's made no effort to rectify this issue, and has NEVER made an attempt to seek an alternative outcome...

Obviously I wish things had worked out differently. In the end, only the seller knows precisely why he made the decision to renege on the sale, and he's not talking. So I am moving on...

If the attention from this thread and/or being on the Probation List helps to prevent this (or any other) seller from pulling a similar stunt in the future, then the hassle of this experience was worth it for me. 

I don't think I have anything else to say on the matter, except that I learned a few things from the experience, and one can only hope the seller did as well...

Edited October 31, 2020 by thewritestuff

[crassus]

Rick Starr has been added to the PL

[kav]

16 hours ago, Bird said:

in other words, post away people! 

I'm posting away!!

[Red84]

37 minutes ago, kav said:

I'm posting away!!

Away

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/29/2020 at 10:55 PM, G G ® said:

Absolutely excellent post Steve. I congratulate you my friend. 

[Xenosmilus]

This was an exhausting read 😂

[gunsmokin]

6 minutes ago, 333 said:

I just read the whole thing myself  These threads are great for figuring out who has integrity and who is a hand-holding Kumbaya-singing puzzy.

Figured that all out in 3 days? You are ahead of the curve.

[Beige]

delete

 

Edited November 7, 2020 by Beige

[thewritestuff]

Epilogue:

 I want to post a quick update that I just received my unopened envelope (containing my check for payment) from RICK STARR/John T.

My envelope was postmarked on October 14, however, John attached a note stating that he received it on October 31.

Hopefully this ties up any loose ends...

 

 

[Randall Ries]

On 11/8/2020 at 1:32 PM, thewritestuff said:

Epilogue:

 I want to post a quick update that I just received my unopened envelope (containing my check for payment) from RICK STARR/John T.

My envelope was postmarked on October 14, however, John attached a note stating that he received it on October 31.

Hopefully this ties up any loose ends...

 

 

I have a feeling he received the check in a timely fashion, changed his mind about selling the book, claimed he never received the check and just kept it hoping things would blow over, then send the check back claiming late delivery of the check.

[namisgr]

Unless you have insider knowledge, maybe that's the way it was, and maybe not.  It remains plausible that after not receiving the check after two weeks, only then did the seller decide to keep the book.  Only the seller knows for sure, and I wouldn't presume to ascribe fact or motive without knowing.

One loose end I wanted to address is the 30 day time window for transactions to be completed.  If I were a buyer sending a check or a seller accepting one, I'd expect that two weeks is the reasonable time frame for seller to receive payment, unless buyer and seller have agreed to a time payment arrangement before the deal was considered to have been completed.  It takes up to a week for a check to clear and up to a week for an order to be shipped and received, both of which contribute to the 30 day transaction period.  Perhaps flexibility with the 30 day deadline during a time of problematic mail service would be helpful.

Edited November 15, 2020 by namisgr

[Red84]

7 hours ago, namisgr said:

Unless you have insider knowledge, maybe that's the way it was, and maybe not.  It remains plausible that after not receiving the check after two weeks, only then did the seller decide to keep the book.  Only the seller knows for sure, and I wouldn't presume to ascribe fact or motive without knowing.

One loose end I wanted to address is the 30 day time window for transactions to be completed.  If I were a buyer sending a check or a seller accepting one, I'd expect that two weeks is the reasonable time frame for seller to receive payment, unless buyer and seller have agreed to a time payment arrangement before the deal was considered to have been completed.  It takes up to a week for a check to clear and up to a week for an order to be shipped and received, both of which contribute to the 30 day transaction period.  Perhaps flexibility with the 30 day deadline during a time of problematic mail service would be helpful.

The 30-day time period is not an end date whereby a seller can say, your check didn't arrive so I'm canceling. The 30-day period is there in the event that a buyer/seller disappears and never proceeds with finalizing the deal. It permits the other participant to move forward, either freeing up the cash or freeing up the book.

The seller never claimed the slow arriving check as a reason for his decision to not honor the deal. And as stated previously, that would be pretty rich if he did claim the slow arriving check as the reason for cancelling given that his terms of sale required a check or money order to be mailed in the middle of a once in a century pandemic.

[Dr. Love]

At $1900, the pricing was most definitely low on the 7.0 White.  There was a 7.5 OW with a small chip off the bottom right corner that was listed on HA around the time of the board sale.  Maybe that had something to do with the change of mind?

It just sold for...$4560.

So John's pull back just doubled in price, conservatively.