No I understand, I didn't mean it as an attack. I was just pointing out that alerting people to a potential scammer is a far different situation than posting that someone blocked you on Facebook.

I think my post was misinterpreted, Lucille. I wasn't claiming that you were arguing that this post was useful, I was simply (in my own way) saying that posts about scammers actually have utility while this one clearly doesn't. I was merely using your statement as a starting point for my argument, not necessarily as the point I was arguing against. If that makes sense?

It's all good.

I have learned something from this thread. Snowflake isn't just a political term. Who get's scammed in this industry? And by who? I don't get scammed any more. Why? I do my homework. I have a feeling that if I ordered something from Jim, I'd be a satisfied customer. Why? Because I'd know the animal wasn't a product of a deal with the likes of Manny or whoever. Why? Because I did my homework. No dog in this race. Good points on both sides. Just sayin'.

David, I think you were out of line posting a link about Manny on Jim's personal FB page. I can understand the concern, but a private message probably would have been a lot more appropriate. I know I don't like drama on my own FB page. Maybe Jim just didn't want that kind of debate there? True, he didn't express concern about Manny to you, but as I've said, you kind of attacked him first and even so he was at least polite to you.

Scammers and bad people are the worst, but.....I also hate seeing a decent person get attacked unfairly. I'm not sure that I would say Jim is showing "questionable ethics". Maybe if the thread title said "Jim S - unfriended me on FB because he didn't agree with my post" this would be a more balanced statement.

Perhaps I did not approach my initial inquiries in the most tactful manner, that much I admit to. Why? Because frankly I did not care to. Jim is not an actual "friend" of mine, nor do his feelings matter to me, personally. My filter has grown smaller as I have aged, and I tend to call things how I see them. Obviously, people have issue with that. Again, my concern for such things is minuscule at the best of times.

Looks like Jim is again refusing to acknowledge or answer my questions regarding the deal he screwed the pooch on involving the Spectre deal. I wonder why that is?

Why is it that such an alleged outstanding member of the community cannot offer good reason why he stiffed a customer on a trade? Surely if he is as flawless as some claim him to be this should be an easy/quick solution.

You couldn't be further off the mark. "Butthurt" never once played a part.....as I've stated before, I do not know Jim personally, therefore I have absolutely zero emotional investment in my interactions with him. I only made this post after he basically bragged about dealing with known criminals, and thinking to myself "Man, if he deals with people like that knowingly, and TELLS people about it, how would he handle a situation with an unhappy customer?" After I made this thread, I found the post about the deal gone bad with the Spectre trade which seemed to lend a decent amount of credibility to my concern.

I know some people disagree with my motives.....Dan Graybeal expressed those motives/concerns in a very affluent manner earlier in the thread. I find it quite shocking that the point intended is flying over the heads of so many folks posting here. I only hope the interpretation is not lost on those who read but may not comment here.

I don't think the point is flying over anyone's head. Most of us are just seeing this thread for what it is.

Your interpretation of the conversation and events and reality are not coinciding with one another. You tried making a big deal out of something that's literally insignificant.

Should he have refused Manny repaying him because after they had done business, Manny screwed people over? Is that what would have made him a good guy? I don't understand what you think he should have done in that situation. Are you claiming he's no longer entitled to what's owed to him just because the other party did bad things? Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

I just want to make sure we clarify this little nugget. Your "concern", as you put it, is that because Jim has done business in the past with people who ended up doing bad things, that Jim must be a bad guy himself. Despite there being zero evidence of this, and a multitude of people saying the exact opposite. Ok.

So somehow, a deal gone bad on a specter lends credibility to your claim that Jim dealing with people who later do bad things makes him bad. Brock Wagner was the person who gave Jim the specter that turned out to be a YB. So are you saying Brock Wagner is a bad guy to watch out for? I'm sure Brock would love to discuss that claim with you, as it's a pretty wild accusation to make based on absolutely nothing.