Bill Nelson Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 I hope this thread has run its course and that both sides can now return to whatever it is we do best here.. BTW, Looks like JC could have used a spot of nail varnish. Not since Landa Wandowska flashed her fingers at me from across a room have I see such dainty hands. Wanda Landowska had dainty hands? She brought a full, vigorous technique which modernized harpsichord playing which had been light and delicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Beat Steve Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) Thanks Kevin, I wasn't sure about moderators then. My other point was that while perhaps it is good to have more information (even for a seller) - it does not seem fair if that info is not correct. Please be careful. This is a door that VERY MUCH swings both ways. If it were so that each and every seller always gives 100% correct information about the item for sale and prices them exceedingly fairly then your statement would be totally true. But are all sellers always 100% fair and accurate? If somewhat doubtful practices aren't occasionally commented upon (which doesn't happen very often anyway), would this be fair towards those who are not aware of all there is to be aware of in this buying? I do realize that you may very well have been unduly targeted but all this isn't a totally clear-cut black-and-white affair where the sellers always are the innocent and the commentators are the bad guys. Like I said, some sellers being the way they are, some kind of corrective isn't the worst thing in the world in those cases where it is clearly called for. BTW, (and this is just a question, not any kind of reproach), didn't you - in the case you invoked - add your own reply to set the record straight (e.g. about actual non-availability of the record elsewhere) in good time before your sales chances were "killed"? I know I would have done so. Edited June 11, 2010 by Big Beat Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 A couple of years ago, I tried to sell an Andrew Hill import cd on this board for the price I paid for it. Immediately some posters began to attack my price, saying it was available on other sites for less. Now this information might have be useful to me in order to adjust my price, but when I went to check the other sites, not one had it available and the shipping costs for one site made it roughly equal to the price I offered, which the poster who mentioned it had not noticed. Bottom line, I felt some posters were pissing all over my sale without having their facts straight and it basically killed the sale. At that time, there were no comments from any moderator on the Board. Were there "moderators" back then? I think it was just Jim and his brother. There was certainly no J.A.W. which is the biggest difference now. Hans is doing a good job keeping the board the way Jim wants it. Thanks Kevin, I wasn't sure about moderators then. My other point was that while perhaps it is good to have more information (even for a seller) - it does not seem fair if that info is not correct. That's rather unfortunate and that is why it's a good policy not to complain about buyer and sellers publicly because once a reputation is ruined it's hard to get back, especially if not all information is correct. The best thing to do is handle this by pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted June 16, 2010 Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 Clarifying in the written rules that discussion about "high prices" is not allowed and that publicly displaying PMs is not allowed is really the "fix" I see that should be initiated. Jim has just added the "no commenting on the prices of wares"-rule to the Forum rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted June 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 Clarifying in the written rules that discussion about "high prices" is not allowed and that publicly displaying PMs is not allowed is really the "fix" I see that should be initiated. Jim has just added the "no commenting on the prices of wares"-rule to the Forum rules. Excellent! Thank you Jim!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Moderator - i understand why Trane's post was deleted from felser's Evan Parker with strings for sale thread - he commented on the price (albeit indirectly. What i do not understand is why was my post (which warned him of his indiscretion) deleted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 We'll take care of the warnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 We'll take care of the warnings. sigh - more "unwritten" rules about what can and cannot be said on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 I think it's obvious that when a post is deleted, a reaction to just that post is no longer relevant and can be deleted too, the more so since it will no longer make any sense on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Moth, flame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Moth, flame. indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Status quo ante Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Don't you think your post would've looked rather odd without the first post commenting on the price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Don't you think your post would've looked rather odd without the first post commenting on the price? perhaps - but that is besides the point. whim and caprice should not be a basis to delete posts IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Don't you think your post would've looked rather odd without the first post commenting on the price? perhaps - but that is besides the point. whim and caprice should not be a basis to delete posts IMHO. No, that is exactly the point - see also my earlier post (#84). Whim and caprice have nothing to do with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 and FWIW my post - which did not violate ANY rule was deleted without explanation or the courtesy of communicating with me in any manner. hey it's not the BP oil spill or the firing of the NPR guy - it's just my pet peeve. SNAFU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 on the other hand, we often see in advanced societies how the insertion of external contracts effects the rising costs of doing business with third parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 I think it's obvious that when a post is deleted, a reaction to just that post is no longer relevant and can be deleted too, the more so since it will no longer make any sense on its own. as determined by whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 the rain in spain often goes down the drain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 I think it's obvious that when a post is deleted, a reaction to just that post is no longer relevant and can be deleted too, the more so since it will no longer make any sense on its own. as determined by whom? The admin or a moderator - see forum rule 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 I think it's obvious that when a post is deleted, a reaction to just that post is no longer relevant and can be deleted too, the more so since it will no longer make any sense on its own. as determined by whom? The admin or a moderator - see forum rule 1. exactly my point - that rule MHO is being abused. The rule states: The Organissimo Forums support the notion of free speech, although the definition of "free" is defined by the owners and operators of this board. We reserve the right to edit, delete, or otherwise moderate any post we deem inappropriate at any time for any reason. my post was neither inappropriate nor was their "any reason" other that whim/caprice for its deletion. Hey - it's good to be king! 'nuff said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 This is seriously worth a complaint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 (edited) This is seriously worth a complaint? not if the deleted post is not deleted from my post count! but seriously jim - who checks the checkers? Edited October 26, 2010 by Bright Moments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts