Crazy Now Across The Street ... 2 2

[ksteelheader]

My sister-in-law is incredible...she would look at all this, shake her head, tuck her lower lip in and simply respond, "Same *spoon*, different day!"

 

It's just about like life, day by day!

[ldhair]

Hi Ken.

I thought you getting banned had much to do with just timing. They had just laid down the law and things were hot for a few days. Several that pushed the rules even a bit got banned. For the record, I voted yes, only because I felt you got caught up in a hot zone and pushed back. Maybe too much. I don't know.

 

 

 

[Fletcher]

The fact that the ksteelheader poll across the street continues to exist underscores the hypocrisy of Don Willis and is a testament to the veracity of my original post.

[$ilverHawk]

As an independent "lurker" ATS and active participant here your statements are right on point.

 

Any fair minded individual would conclude that DW wants to negate any posts that are not in line with the corporate mantra.

 

Politics as usual.

 

$ilverHawk

 

 

[gmarguli]

The short answer is that I was banned, primarily because I had spoken out against the "first strike" designation.

 

The longer version ....I had been warned about it, subsequently discussed it (if memory serves me correctly, in a neutral fashion) in a thread, was then accused of "bashing" PCGS, was told not to post for at least a couple of weeks and not to tell anyone why I wasn't posting. I asked to be shown how/where I had bashed PCGS, but did not receive a response. I was fine with not posting, but not without being able to let my friends and acquaintances know why. So, I made a post, stating what had transpired. And I was banned.

 

The fact that when you started posting again and used the word FRAUD to describe First Strike might have made them view your post in a less than neutral fashion.

[MarkFeld]

The short answer is that I was banned, primarily because I had spoken out against the "first strike" designation.

 

The longer version ....I had been warned about it, subsequently discussed it (if memory serves me correctly, in a neutral fashion) in a thread, was then accused of "bashing" PCGS, was told not to post for at least a couple of weeks and not to tell anyone why I wasn't posting. I asked to be shown how/where I had bashed PCGS, but did not receive a response. I was fine with not posting, but not without being able to let my friends and acquaintances know why. So, I made a post, stating what had transpired. And I was banned.

 

The fact that when you started posting again and used the word FRAUD to describe First Strike might have made them view your post in a less than neutral fashion.

Your time line is off - the use of the word "fraud" in a question I posed in a thread title was what caused me to get the original warning I mentioned. And by the way, I answered my own question regarding "fraud" by saying "Of course not".

 

Some time later/just before I was banned, at the time I was accused of "bashing" PCGS, as I already mentioned, I was posting in a neutral fashion.

[kryptonitecomics]

Mark it's only a matter of time before NGC finds out what a trouble maker you are....and then it will be off to the ICG boards with ya

[gmarguli]

The short answer is that I was banned, primarily because I had spoken out against the "first strike" designation.

 

The longer version ....I had been warned about it, subsequently discussed it (if memory serves me correctly, in a neutral fashion) in a thread, was then accused of "bashing" PCGS, was told not to post for at least a couple of weeks and not to tell anyone why I wasn't posting. I asked to be shown how/where I had bashed PCGS, but did not receive a response. I was fine with not posting, but not without being able to let my friends and acquaintances know why. So, I made a post, stating what had transpired. And I was banned.

 

The fact that when you started posting again and used the word FRAUD to describe First Strike might have made them view your post in a less than neutral fashion.

Your time line is off - the use of the word "fraud" in a question I posed in a thread title was what caused me to get the original warning I mentioned. And by the way, I answered my own question regarding "fraud" by saying "Of course not".

 

Some time later/just before I was banned, at the time I was accused of "bashing" PCGS, as I already mentioned, I was posting in a neutral fashion.

 

You probably are correct, but my memory of it was that after your few week vacation you came back and made the post with the joking title including fruad and the "Of course not" comment in the body of the post. I'd search their forums to find out the actual time line, but like many posters, all those posts seemed to have disappeared.

[MarkFeld]

The short answer is that I was banned, primarily because I had spoken out against the "first strike" designation.

 

The longer version ....I had been warned about it, subsequently discussed it (if memory serves me correctly, in a neutral fashion) in a thread, was then accused of "bashing" PCGS, was told not to post for at least a couple of weeks and not to tell anyone why I wasn't posting. I asked to be shown how/where I had bashed PCGS, but did not receive a response. I was fine with not posting, but not without being able to let my friends and acquaintances know why. So, I made a post, stating what had transpired. And I was banned.

 

The fact that when you started posting again and used the word FRAUD to describe First Strike might have made them view your post in a less than neutral fashion.

Your time line is off - the use of the word "fraud" in a question I posed in a thread title was what caused me to get the original warning I mentioned. And by the way, I answered my own question regarding "fraud" by saying "Of course not".

 

Some time later/just before I was banned, at the time I was accused of "bashing" PCGS, as I already mentioned, I was posting in a neutral fashion.

 

You probably are correct, but my memory of it was that after your few week vacation you came back and made the post with the joking title including fruad and the "Of course not" comment in the body of the post. I'd search their forums to find out the actual time line, but like many posters, all those posts seemed to have disappeared.

My memory isn't the greatest. But in this case, it's quite clear with respect to precisely what preceded the ban.

[mommam17]

Mark, to the best of your recollection, did you or did you not, order the break in at Watergate??

[Fletcher]

100

[WoodenJefferson]

100

 

Not many threads attain this level of prosperity here...curious, Fletcher, are you banned from posting ATS?

 

Reason I ask, don't see much of you over there much anymore.

[physics-fan3.14]

100

 

Not many threads attain this level of prosperity here...curious, Fletcher, are you banned from posting ATS?

 

Reason I ask, don't see much of you over there much anymore.

 

You want a hundred post thread... I can think of at least three topics that will guarantee you a hundred posts.

[cpm9ball]

Mark, to the best of your recollection, did you or did you not, order the break in at Watergate??

 

Impossible! His diapers were being changed at the time.

 

Chris

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, are you banned from posting ATS?

 

Reason I ask, don't see much of you over there much anymore.

 

Yes

 

 

 

[IGWT]

Some time later/just before I was banned, at the time I was accused of "bashing" PCGS, as I already mentioned, I was posting in a neutral fashion.

 

I claim credit for egging Mark on.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, to the best of your recollection, did you or did you not, order the break in at Watergate??

 

Impossible! His diapers were being changed at the time.

 

Chris

I wish, I think

 

Some time later/just before I was banned, at the time I was accused of "bashing" PCGS, as I already mentioned, I was posting in a neutral fashion.

 

I claim credit for egging Mark on.

What did you do? Say "I double dare you to talk about first strike"? Edited March 22, 2010 by MarkFeld

[RareSov]

do it !!

 

Hi PCGS,

 

I was wondering about this "First Strike" label. Is this just so you can make more money, and make coins graded by YOUR service appear better and worth more, because some collectors are fooled into thinking these coins are the first ones the mint actually struck ?

 

Or is there more to the story ?

 

[IGWT]

[What did you do? Say "I double dare you to talk about first strike"?

Double dog dared you.

[IGWT]

Let's see if I can find your last post in that Codder thread. Here it is, in response to mine (emoticons changed to reflect the different boards):

 

Would Codder's posts have been acceptable if he had accused PCGS of Fraud™ instead of fraud?

 

Link

[MarkFeld]

Let's see if I can find your last post in that Codder thread. Here it is, in response to mine (emoticons changed to reflect the different boards):

 

Would Codder's posts have been acceptable if he had accused PCGS of Fraud™ instead of fraud?

 

Link

Thanks. I checked and believe that I was very well behaved in that thread.

[CaptHenway]

Howdy, boys.......

[Bugmann1974]

Good to see you on this side of the street CaptH.

[Fletcher]

And ... what does a CaptHenway???

[WoodenJefferson]

And ... what does a CaptHenway???

 

deja vue

[SkyMan]

Hey CaptH, good to see you!

[coinman23885-migration]

The short answer is that I was banned, primarily because I had spoken out against the "first strike" designation.

 

The longer version ....I had been warned about it, subsequently discussed it (if memory serves me correctly, in a neutral fashion) in a thread, was then accused of "bashing" PCGS, was told not to post for at least a couple of weeks and not to tell anyone why I wasn't posting. I asked to be shown how/where I had bashed PCGS, but did not receive a response. I was fine with not posting, but not without being able to let my friends and acquaintances know why. So, I made a post, stating what had transpired. And I was banned.

 

The fact that when you started posting again and used the word FRAUD to describe First Strike might have made them view your post in a less than neutral fashion.

 

I'll play devil's advocate for a minute. After all, even if that is what Mark had written, he would be correct. Just because a coin was produced within X number of days doesn't mean that it was one of the first few coins struck from an individual die - the true litmus test of whether or not the coin is legitimately a first strike. By using the designation, the TPGs have cheapened the term. I think there will be market repercussions for other "special" designations in the future as a result of a distrust of novel labeling. Even if the term "FRAUD" was used, it is ridiculous to suspend someone for telling the truth. I would call this unbridled censorship "commercial tyranny".

 

Furthermore, I think PCGS only targets people that it views as a threat (i.e. those will significant numismatic credentials). I've criticized PCGS's tortious new guarantee policy and I haven't so much as received an angry PM from Don. Since I'm not a dealer with a 5-6 figure spending budget and not someone influential, they don't really care about me! If anything, I would argue that the ban is actually an 'honor' in that it means that PCGS legitimately believes that you have enough influence and importance to view you as a threat. Additionally, I'm not sure what DW believes he is accomplishing: it is exceptionally easy to create a new board ID should any banned member want to return.

[cpm9ball]

And ... what does a CaptHenway???

 

About one pound if you take the hat off.

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

Howdy, boys.......

 

Welcome to the neighborhood, Cap'n!

 

Chris

[BillJones]

I just checked in over there to see that they locked a thread about ordering the Boy Scout commemorative silver dollars. I don’t see anything negative about PCGS on it. So I’m a bit perplexed. The lock looks capricious to me.