Bad Guy Garret Smith ( Scammer )

[hhmoore]

Your exact words, in case you forgot..."the people in Pakistan are not speeding up BECAUSE OF YOUR COMMENTS". Like I said, back peddling.

Chris, it seems you read something extra in that statement. There were no capital letters for emphasis in Garrett's version. Perhaps it is because you are more heavily invested in this thread than I am; but I didn't interpret his statement to read that the people in Pakistan are going to slow down because of your comments, or that they made a conscious decision not to try harder specifically because of this thread...my take was this thread isn't impacting things on that end. FWIW, I suspect that statement is nothing but the cold, hard truth.

 

[Chris Kennard]

Chris, it seems you read something extra in that statement. There were no capital letters for emphasis in Garrett's version. Perhaps it is because you are more heavily invested in this thread than I am; but I didn't interpret his statement to read that the people in Pakistan are going to slow down because of your comments, or that they made a conscious decision not to try harder specifically because of this thread...my take was this thread isn't impacting things on that end. FWIW, I suspect that statement is nothing but the cold, hard truth.

I don't recall even hinting that that statement was based on my comments. Why are you addressing me specifically? You made it clear that "tired crap" was only entertained because of post reports. I don't see that energy being as useful as if it were spent addressing the bad guy in this thread.

 

[Big Time Reptiles]

It's like the guy that said "your not worth a pimple on my behind" that was stated 4 months ago and now the guy has left me 25 or more negative Karma's and spends every waking minute trying to find some way to destroy me[/b].
Garrett

Garrett,
No one is trying to destroy you, and no one needs to, YOU'VE DONE A BANG UP JOB, ALL BY YOURSELF.

Ever heard the saying, He's his own worst enemy, go look in the mirror, that's your worst enemy. Don't try blaming anyone else for your demise.

It's time you realize, YOU CREATED this MONSTER.

Lynn Peterson
Big Time Reptiles

 

[Chris Kennard]

Chris, it seems you read something extra in that statement. There were no capital letters for emphasis in Garrett's version. Perhaps it is because you are more heavily invested in this thread than I am; but I didn't interpret his statement to read that the people in Pakistan are going to slow down because of your comments, or that they made a conscious decision not to try harder specifically because of this thread...my take was this thread isn't impacting things on that end. FWIW, I suspect that statement is nothing but the cold, hard truth.

Lynn has made me aware, painfully for the honest guy he is, that I may have misconstrued not only that statement, but yours as well. My apologies. I get what you're saying now. That being said, we would have to concede that a Pakistani deal actually exists.

 

[hhmoore]

Why are you addressing me specifically?

How about...because it was your post that I quoted; and, (IMO,) you were the one that appeared to be putting a twist on a simple statement.

I don't recall even hinting that that statement was based on my comments.

What?? This thread is choking your logic, Chris.
You quoted a post of Garrett's and responded. I quoted your response, and expressed that I thought you may have read more into it.
If you're bent because I'm looking at this thread again, tough - I've been given reason to do so. Don't worry, it won't last long.

 

[hhmoore]

I'm actually somewhat surprised that Lynn was able to bring himself to do that; but I appreciate him explaining it to you, nevertheless. I was tweaking my last post when you made yours - so you can pretty much disregard it.

 

[Big Time Reptiles]

The best one is, it's the BOI'S fault, the Pakistani read this thread, and that's why he hasn't shipped

I interpreted what he stated wrong, that's not what he meant.

MY BAD! I get it now.

My sincerest apology!

Lynn Peterson
Big Time Reptiles

 

[Chris Kennard]

How about...because it was your post that I quoted; and, (IMO,) you were the one that appeared to be putting a twist on a simple statement.


What?? This thread is choking your logic, Chris.
You quoted a post of Garrett's and responded. I quoted your response, and expressed that I thought you may have read more into it.
If you're bent because I'm looking at this thread again, tough - I've been given reason to do so. Don't worry, it won't last long.

Obviously, I was saying that Garrett's statement that the Pakistanis weren't speeding up because of comments made, were not due to my comments specifically. This thread has not choked my logic, but in light of me me not being the first to touch on that point, yet the first you addressed...

 

[Big Time Reptiles]

I'm actually somewhat surprised that Lynn was able to bring himself to do that; but I appreciate him explaining it to you, nevertheless. I was tweaking my last post when you made yours - so you can pretty much disregard it.

Harald,

Why were you surprised?

When I'm wrong, I'll admit in a heart beat, I make no qualms about it.

Do you think know me?

Lynn Peterson
Big Time Reptiles

 

[Chris Kennard]

I'm actually somewhat surprised that Lynn was able to bring himself to do that; but I appreciate him explaining it to you, nevertheless. I was tweaking my last post when you made yours - so you can pretty much disregard it.

Suprised? Why?

 

[Chris Kennard]

Once again, just wondering why a guu who has insulted me more tjan once here has made an effort to entertain a post made by me after displaying his annoyance of being basically forced to read this thread because of "post reports". Did someone report the post I submitted that you responded to? Or was I singled out?

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Mis Osage? That warrants an infraction.

The team is well aware of what warrants an infraction and what does not. Better than most, in fact.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Somebody should take this opportunity to scam Garrett Smith back and see how he likes it. Not a thing he could do about it.

I disagree with this manner of advocacy for this particular situation.

 

[Chris Kennard]

The team is well aware of what warrants an infraction and what does not. Better than most, in fact.

I am well aware of that. Was I wrong?

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Chris, Garrett made no statement of cause and effect where this thread was the cause and processing of the order by a Pakistani party was in any way slowed as the effect. His words indicate that the thread has had no effect on said processing. Harald was explaining this and I also agree with him that that is true. There is simply no connection there that would elicit a pause or diminished speed. The bloated nature of this thread, had there been any potential for it, is another mark against that effect. Signal to noise ratio is very, very rough for this BOI discussion.

As for why people are not coming forward to unify on a side, whether for or against, it is because of that bloated nature from repetition and bickering. Many people want to go on about their days. Not have their time embroiled in squabbles. Not get accused or have it implied that they are somehow bad people for doing business of any sort with the subject of the thread. They probably just do not want the hassle. Also, it may be that not every customer/partner/investor/what-the-heck-ever of Garrett's involved in a long-term importation deal is dissatisfied and they may simply not want to find themselves stained in some way by publicly participating in this. Calling out people for what appears to be a desire to not be publicly involved probably just makes some folks hunker down like startled limpets.

I feel badly for Michael, however, there are some issues with this situation that Michael has engineered for himself. If he agreed to a very long-term deal, then he is to honor it. If he breaks it or wants out, that is tough if he committed to it. I have seen him agree to things and then reverse commitments here. If someone pitches some alternative deal at me or accepts an alternative deal from me and then I set that deal in motion and tie up funds to do so, that is not some harmless or small thing. It is not changing an order at a drive-through. Not everything is easily reversible. Not everything can be redirected after being set in motion. Do I feel Michael is owed? Absolutely. Has this taken a long, long time? Indeed. Do I feel that Michael has contributed to the situation in some way? Bet on it.

Frankly, I do not feel anything positive has been changed for Michael through the evolution of this thread. I do appreciate that he brought the issue forward, though. I wish it could have played out better - exactly because it could have.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

I am well aware of that. Was I wrong?

You can use the report post function for posts you consider to be in violation. Making a post about it instead of reporting a legitimate violation is an impotent exercise. The public audience does not issue infractions. The moderation team does. The post alone reaches the public and does not appreciably accelerate our evaluation and potential response. Our evaluation decides what happens regardless, so bringing it to our attention is the most value-added activity to engage in when feeling an infraction may be warranted.

 

[Chris Kennard]

You can use the report post function for posts you consider to be in violation. Making a post about it instead of reporting a legitimate violation is an impotent exercise. The public audience does not issue infractions. The moderation team does. The post alone reaches the public and does not appreciably accelerate our evaluation and potential response. Our evaluation decides what happens regardless, so bringing it to our attention is the most value-added activity to engage in when feeling an infraction may be warranted.

I am well aware that I can't issue infractions. I merely stated my opinion. Given the harsh, no toleration for name calling, type warning issued in this thread, I thought it to be a no-brainer that the blatant insult in question was a clear violation. Again, was I wrong? Did Garrett get a pass? Or was the clear cut warning just for those who oppose Garrett?

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

I am well aware that I can't issue infractions. I merely stated my opinion. Given the harsh, no toleration for name calling, type warning issued in this thread, I thought it to be a no-brainer that the blatant insult in question was a clear violation. Again, was I wrong? Did Garrett get a pass? Or was the clear cut warning just for those who oppose Garrett?

The answer to your question of it being wrong (incorrect) is like asking if sunlight is good or bad. It is both good and bad. You were correct in that it qualified for consideration and you were incorrect in how you made that known instead of making the superior choice of reporting it as others may have.

Whether Garrett got a pass or not is not your business. It is his and ours unless somebody makes it public. However, with the very slightest amount of detective work, I bet you could make that determination for yourself.

Let me help you understand something regarding your last question there. This is not about who takes what side of the issue in this. I both support and come down hard on both sides. Your question encapsulates an implied accusation. Do not seek to find the level of tolerance for that.

 

[hhmoore]

Once again, just wondering why a guu who has insulted me more tjan once here has made an effort to entertain a post made by me after displaying his annoyance of being basically forced to read this thread because of "post reports". Did someone report the post I submitted that you responded to? Or was I singled out?

Typing Mis had you calling for an infraction...should I call for one because you referred to me as a guu?

As for my recent participation, as I indicated in my recent post, I've been given a reason to look..and, as also stated, it won't last long.
As far as my response which quoted your post, what I was stating has been explained to you, why do you still have an issue? Because I responded to you, and you've been offended by my expressed thoughts in this thread? You feel singled out? I've already explained why I responded to your post; so, again, I'm not sure why you are questioning it. Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that I scrolled back to the last thing I read, and moved forward from there...if so, you should not make such assumptions. I've expressed a relative disinterest in this thread, so I have no interest in "keeping up". I started at the last post, and scrolled back. I saw your quote of Garrett's comment, and your response...I scrolled back to Garrett's post to see if he'd put that same emphasis on this words, and initiated my response. If other people made the same post, yours wasn't singled out...it was simply the one I saw.

 

[hhmoore]

I am well aware that I can't issue infractions. I merely stated my opinion. Given the harsh, no toleration for name calling, type warning issued in this thread, I thought it to be a no-brainer that the blatant insult in question was a clear violation. Again, was I wrong? Did Garrett get a pass? Or was the clear cut warning just for those who oppose Garrett?

Chris, I'm not sure why you feel entitled to harass Nickolas, or any other moderator; but enough warnings have been posted about taking questions about infractions, their administration, etc to feedback. Nobody seems willing to that...but THAT is where the answers lie. I'm quite tempted to give you a few days off; but your apparent contempt for me, and your approach toward Nickolas may well be coloring that, so I'll let others look at this.
I should point out, though, that should you continue with these disruptive posts, you will incur infractions. Further, if you continue addressing Nickolas in that manner, I will remove you and deal with any fallout later.