[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Name them and be damned!
>Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 09:21:47 EST
>From: Billinet at aol_com
>Subject: Re: Cheaters
>Robert said, in part:
><< For the sake of harmony here and respect of each other,
>people need to
> decide for themselves if embarrassing fellow members of this forum
> it. So someone reniged on a trade agreement.... is exposing that
> persons worth the public humiliation? >>
>I was ready to let this thread go, but since Robert quoted me and
>that quote I will respond.
Can I jump in before this gets out of hand (I've seen it happen too many times not to recognise the symptoms); I didn't read any criticism into what Robert said, I think you may be being a little sensitive here.
>IMHO, what the cheaters did was more than reneging on a trade
>They took advantage of the trust that exists among members of this
>in the process weakened that trust. And they are still out there,
>unidentified, possibly waiting for another opportunity.
I absolutely agree with you here, if everybody on this list sent $5 for packing to somebody offering "free plants" that somebody could make big bucks. The ONLY way this sort of trade can work is on trust and the thing which REALLY surprises me is that nobody has mentioned names yet. Stop pussy footing around (I can say this from the safety of the European judicial system) and tell us who has reneged, I for one want to know who is untrustworthy, even if I don't expect to receive anything in the way of trades.
What happened to the freedom of speech? I am astonished that a legal system can be so f....d up that it appears impossible for someone to say "This guy promised to send me x,y,z for $$$" or "I sent this to ABC and the guy hasn't paid me for the postage" Without fear of crippling court costs. One reason why I came to Spain rather than the US.
Purely to avoid a flame war starting out on criticism of different legal systems I will now add that I mean no personal criticism of anyone on this list and that none was intended.
>They read this list and have seen these posts. They have had ample
>opportunity to contact the injured parties, and maybe they have. But
>haven't, then they should be publicly identified, even if it might
>"embarrass" them, the poor things.
>My opinion only, of course.
Get your free email from http://www.graffiti.net
Powered by Outblaze