Bedroom Dealers/Flippers

Bridgehouse

JerkMoans said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

So just so I understand this, is it going to become forum policy to name and shame?

Aw c’mon. It’s been literally DAYS since we had a good, old-fashioned witch hunt.

I’d prefer a new, modern, a la mode witch hunt. 

WiresDreamDisasters

Bridgehouse said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Bridgehouse said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

LMAO.

Naming and shaming people who buy things and then sell them??!

Yeah good one.

Come on now, Mr Sensationalist Headline, this is about naming and shaming people who buy with lies, sob stories and cajoling sellers and don’t declare they are traders, and then sell for obvious profit without paying taxes.

So just so I understand this, is it going to become forum policy to name and shame?

Yep. I’m starting with you. If anything goes wrong anywhere I’m going to name and shame you. 

My name is Drew, and I have no shame. Listen to my fucking band.

www.bridgedisaster.co.uk

mikem8634

WiresDreamDisasters said:

LMAO.

Naming and shaming people who buy things and then sell them??!

Yeah good one.

Pure carnage. Straw everywhere!

WiresDreamDisasters

ZenOvertone said:

mcsdan said:

to lighten things a tad...I'm sure some of you remember Kev "nocaster" from the musicradar days. He was the ultimate flipper albeit not for profit. When I was selling my fender bassman he snapped it up within 20 mins of posting the for sale thread. He subsequently sold it again about 4 hours later, even though it hadn't been sent to him yet, for the same price he'd paid me. He just went through lots of gear and really was the ultimate GAS man.

I remember struggling to post various amps/whatever to Kirkcaldy that Nocaster hoovered up within an hour of posting online only to sell on within a short time (thrill of the chase perhaps!), he went into pedal kits & building for a while I seem to remember too (pre Pedalparts/Fuzzdog world domination)

Whatever happened to that dude? I remember selling and buying from him in equal measure.

I trade way less than I used to. Just can't be arsed with it really. Would rather keep my stuff and build a collection.

Bridgehouse

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Bridgehouse said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Bridgehouse said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

LMAO.

Naming and shaming people who buy things and then sell them??!

Yeah good one.

Come on now, Mr Sensationalist Headline, this is about naming and shaming people who buy with lies, sob stories and cajoling sellers and don’t declare they are traders, and then sell for obvious profit without paying taxes.

So just so I understand this, is it going to become forum policy to name and shame?

Yep. I’m starting with you. If anything goes wrong anywhere I’m going to name and shame you. 

My name is Drew, and I have no shame. Listen to my fucking band.

www.bridgehousedisaster.co.uk

FTFY 

Hattigol

JerkMoans said:

Hattigol said:

All three people I've blocked have now commented - a full house!

How can you tell?  

It shows that they have commented but doesn't show what they have said. Although I can always guess it is:

a) pointless 
b) idiotic
c) spoiling for an argument. 

Or in the case of one of them,

d) all of the above. 

Bridgehouse

Hattigol said:

JerkMoans said:

Hattigol said:

All three people I've blocked have now commented - a full house!

How can you tell?  

It shows that they have commented but doesn't show what they have said. Although I can always guess it is:

a) pointless 
b) idiotic
c) spoiling for an argument. 

Or in the case of one of them,

d) all of the above. 

You know a-c are basically the reason for the internet, right?

Hattigol

Bridgehouse said:

Hattigol said:

JerkMoans said:

Hattigol said:

All three people I've blocked have now commented - a full house!

How can you tell?  

It shows that they have commented but doesn't show what they have said. Although I can always guess it is:

a) pointless 
b) idiotic
c) spoiling for an argument. 

Or in the case of one of them,

d) all of the above. 

You know a-c are basically the reason for the internet, right?

For some, yes 

WiresDreamDisasters

Engaging in a thread but disagreeing with the prevailing notion is spoiling for an argument now ... lmao, yeah okay. Looks like we've got a genius here!

Basically I just have a problem with labelling people with scant evidence. But if this is going to be - for lack of a better term - "policed" based on behaviour rather than subjective assumptions, then I'm cool with the direction you guys are taking it in.

But you can't expect everyone to just be silent on the issue. We all have a range of opinions, and we are all part of this community.

mikem8634

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Engaging in a thread but disagreeing with the prevailing notion is spoiling for an argument now ... lmao, yeah okay. Looks like we've got a genius here!

To be fair, you didn't disagree with the prevailing notion, you disagreed with a version of it that absolutely nobody suggested.

WiresDreamDisasters

mikem8634 said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Engaging in a thread but disagreeing with the prevailing notion is spoiling for an argument now ... lmao, yeah okay. Looks like we've got a genius here!

To be fair, you didn't disagree with the prevailing notion, you disagreed with a version of it that absolutely nobody suggested.

It was suggested right in the opening gambit mate. Hattigol wants to name and shame people.

And that's the thing I have an issue with.

Bridgehouse

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Engaging in a thread but disagreeing with the prevailing notion is spoiling for an argument now ... lmao, yeah okay. Looks like we've got a genius here!

Basically I just have a problem with labelling people with scant evidence. But if this is going to be - for lack of a better term - "policed" based on behaviour rather than subjective assumptions, then I'm cool with the direction you guys are taking it in.

But you can't expect everyone to just be silent on the issue. We all have a range of opinions, and we are all part of this community.

It’ll be dealt with like any other issue. Evidence based Modmin decision and then only publicised if sanctions  are made in the interventions thread.

WiresDreamDisasters

Cool, groovy. 

mikem8634

WiresDreamDisasters said:

mikem8634 said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Engaging in a thread but disagreeing with the prevailing notion is spoiling for an argument now ... lmao, yeah okay. Looks like we've got a genius here!

To be fair, you didn't disagree with the prevailing notion, you disagreed with a version of it that absolutely nobody suggested.

It was suggested right in the opening gambit mate. Hattigol wants to name and shame people.

And that's the thing I have an issue with.

Nothing wrong with having an issue with that, it's a contentious issue. But it wouldn't have been difficult to present the reason why accurately and not reduce it to a reason that nobody was advocating.

WiresDreamDisasters

mikem8634 said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

mikem8634 said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Engaging in a thread but disagreeing with the prevailing notion is spoiling for an argument now ... lmao, yeah okay. Looks like we've got a genius here!

To be fair, you didn't disagree with the prevailing notion, you disagreed with a version of it that absolutely nobody suggested.

It was suggested right in the opening gambit mate. Hattigol wants to name and shame people.

And that's the thing I have an issue with.

Nothing wrong with having an issue with that, it's a contentious issue. But it wouldn't have been difficult to present the reason why accurately and not reduce it to a reason that nobody was advocating.

Which I most definitely didn't do. Please point out where I reduced something to a reason that nobody was advocating? Because I'm not seeing it.

The two relevant posts I made:

LMAO.

Naming and shaming people who buy things and then sell them??!

Yeah good one.

and...

So just so I understand this, is it going to become forum policy to name and shame?

Here's the relevant bit from the OP:

Should we be naming and shaming them here? I think we can all name a few of them. I think it would be fair to let anyone names here have right of reply and people should really be sure of their ground before naming anyone. Rule 1 still applies…

All looks above board to me????

Legionreturns

I get the naming bit, but how do you apply shame to someone who has none? 

(Asking for...me!) 

mikem8634

No problem.

WiresDreamDisasters said:

mikem8634 said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

mikem8634 said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Engaging in a thread but disagreeing with the prevailing notion is spoiling for an argument now ... lmao, yeah okay. Looks like we've got a genius here!

To be fair, you didn't disagree with the prevailing notion, you disagreed with a version of it that absolutely nobody suggested.

It was suggested right in the opening gambit mate. Hattigol wants to name and shame people.

And that's the thing I have an issue with.

Nothing wrong with having an issue with that, it's a contentious issue. But it wouldn't have been difficult to present the reason why accurately and not reduce it to a reason that nobody was advocating.

Which I most definitely didn't do. Please point out where I reduced something to a reason that nobody was advocating? Because I'm not seeing it.

The two relevant posts I made:

LMAO.

Naming and shaming people who buy things and then sell them??!

Yeah good one.

and...

So just so I understand this, is it going to become forum policy to name and shame?

Here's the relevant bit from the OP:

Should we be naming and shaming them here? I think we can all name a few of them. I think it would be fair to let anyone names here have right of reply and people should really be sure of their ground before naming anyone. Rule 1 still applies…

All looks above board to me????

Nobody suggested that people are named and shamed for buying things and selling them. The reason why was much more nuanced and contextualised than that.

Bridgehouse

Legionreturns said:

I get the naming bit, but how do you apply shame to someone who has none? 

(Asking for...me!) 

I believe there’s a new government scheme where you can get 60% of your shame back if your ability to give two fucks is affected by the ‘ronas

WiresDreamDisasters

mikem8634 said:

No problem.

WiresDreamDisasters said:

mikem8634 said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

mikem8634 said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Engaging in a thread but disagreeing with the prevailing notion is spoiling for an argument now ... lmao, yeah okay. Looks like we've got a genius here!

To be fair, you didn't disagree with the prevailing notion, you disagreed with a version of it that absolutely nobody suggested.

It was suggested right in the opening gambit mate. Hattigol wants to name and shame people.

And that's the thing I have an issue with.

Nothing wrong with having an issue with that, it's a contentious issue. But it wouldn't have been difficult to present the reason why accurately and not reduce it to a reason that nobody was advocating.

Which I most definitely didn't do. Please point out where I reduced something to a reason that nobody was advocating? Because I'm not seeing it.

The two relevant posts I made:

LMAO.

Naming and shaming people who buy things and then sell them??!

Yeah good one.

and...

So just so I understand this, is it going to become forum policy to name and shame?

Here's the relevant bit from the OP:

Should we be naming and shaming them here? I think we can all name a few of them. I think it would be fair to let anyone names here have right of reply and people should really be sure of their ground before naming anyone. Rule 1 still applies…

All looks above board to me????

Nobody suggested that people are named and shamed for buying things and selling them. The reason why was much more nuanced and contextualised than that.

OK. Fair enough.

I still think the idea of naming and shaming people is douchey.

Snags

I'd like to name and shame @WiresDreamDisasters for giving me advice on a bit of kit, then offering to sell me his old one for a fair price, and for it turning out to be incredibly useful. 

The bastard.