This is a long post as many of my are; however, this was one heck of a thought about post as I wrote it. Again let me point out that it expresses my thoughts and my opinions on the matter. I am not saying that these are necessarily factual, and open them to debate gladly. I am not trying to demean anyone or anger anyone, just trying to discuss this topic intelligently. As I am trying to reamin respectful, I would ask others to do the same. Thanks.
People, Chris has the right to deal with whoever he wants to, and then the right to post about it here.
So what is the point? Is this trying to say that the others who have posted in this thread did not have the right to reply, as Christopher had his right to make a post? This is a public style forum. Anyone can register (who has not been banned) and then post. If someone does post a thread on faunaclassifieds, then others can and usually will respond to it. That is the whole point of discussion forums. Yet as I see it, Christopher, right from his initial post, makes an attempt to shut up anyone whom would disagree with him, and allow me to quote him:
Truth is gold. So all who wish to argue or disagree can save their breath, no drama is needed.
Ah yes, isn't truth golden. But is it that way only when it is Christopher's brand of truth? If you really believe that "truth is gold" then why try to avoid seeing the whole truth of the matter about the person in question? Your opinion of your deal with Neil may be true, but others are also likely to be expressing the truth even in posts that disagree with your own. The truth has many facets just like a finely cut diamond, and should we look at a diamond only one way we may miss its total beauty. Then again, if we look at a diamond only one way, we may see only a beautiful side of it and miss its terrible flaws - or may see only its flaws and see only the beauty. That is the nice thing about a dynamic discussion - it turns things around so at least most of the sides are seen (one of the reasons I would like to see Neil post at least on this thread if possible is so virtually all of the sides can be seen).
I make an honest contribution to the BOI and it just calls out to those who wish to create drama.
Another interesting thing is that if someone posts a controversial subject, then it will get a lot of controversy, at least in the world wherein I live - and that is not necessarily drama. I believe Christopher acknowledged that this would create controversy himself, yet some seem to think that the controversy is uncalled for - even Christopher himself. In fact, as I see it, he berates us as essentially being dramatists! It is not uncalled for. There are more than one side to this story, and when you write about such a subject, and then admit you knew it would generate controversy, you should at least accept the fact that the controversy is not unwarranted but is due to diametrically opposed opinions that may all have at least some validity. I agree - there is nothing wrong with Christopher posting his good guy post - he has the right. But there is something wrong with him berating others who post and referring to their posts as garbage. Why are their thoughts less valid than his own. Why are his (at least to him) apparently golden and everyone whose disagree with him trash? Some the best posts I have read on these forums disagreed with mine (although I usually go back and forth quite a bit before admitting to that - just ask Clay D. about a recent thread we were involved in).
I do agree that anyone calling Christopher a fool, or being otherwise rude to him, for having bought from Neil is being rather disrespectful. Then again, I have seen repeatedly where Christopher has been, in my opinion, quite disrespectful to others. I guess that gets people riled up and to becoming rude also. I don't know who started it - but the rude thing should stop. I thought his answer to my post was rather flippant myself. He seems to indicate I had nothing of value to contribute if I read it correctly. He seems rather arrogant about making that point, not just to me but to others. I beg to differ - I find most of the posts quite on target and informative. They are, either in favor or against, but still about the original subject 'a good guy post for Neil Gubitz'. As for saying that the thread has derailed, that is not true in my mind. The thread started with a good guy post about Neil, because of a good transaction with Neil. Then others posted bad about him. That is not derailment, that is discussion. The discussion is dynamic and it changes a bit here and there and it also expands and contracts in its scope - but it always comes back to whether Neil is a good guy or a bad guy. That is as on track as any locomotive at full steam can be.
Glenn, I do not think Neil should be allowed back here. He had his chance and blew it. Then he had his chance and blew it.
I do think Neil should be allowed back to post his defense - if only to be allowed access to this one thread in order to defend himself. The reason I think so is because I am convinced it would settle things for Christopher as he seems fairly reasonable even if none too polite. As I said, if Neil is the same old Neil he will hang himself in short order - of that I am absolutely positive. I am not afraid of seeing Neil defend himself to learn that he possibly has changed. I think others may be afraid to accept that he may have changed. For myself, I do not believe he has changed, and I now have my reasons which I am not sure I am at liberty to discuss herein, but that is just my opinion - another fart in the wind so to speak. (Way too many references too farts in my posts here - wonder what that is all about? LOL).
In "MY" opinion, You can make 100 great transactions with 100 Very happy customers and 100 great posts on Fauna, but when you knowingly conduct Dishonest, Selfish, and Ultimately bad business 1 time, you are not a "Good Guy" PERIOD! "Good Guys" do not conduct themselves in the manner that Neil has been proven conduct himself in the past. PERIOD!
As for whether or not Neil or anyone else will remain forever bad because of their past transgressions - I do not agree with that, although I agree that the person who posted it should be allowed to express his opinion. I am not a liberal by a long shot, but I do believe that people can change for the better. If someone does make a radical change and starts to do only good guy things - well then as I see it - he/she has changed into a good guy. I have arrested more people in my career than I would like to recall, and put a lot of them in jail for pretty long times. I don't think to many of them have changed for the better. If I had to guess - I would say maybe 5% at most but that is only a guess. The change usually comes about (in the great majority of cases that do change) right after the first arrest or as a result of the first arrest (this is not a guess but based upon what I seem to remember from one of my Forensic Psychology classes). If the shock of what is happening does not take place then it likely never will. The odds of anyone seeing the light, after they have once been caught and then later offending again, are very small. In the case of Neil, he allegedly had repeated bad deals, got caught, and then reformed only to revert to more bad deals. Using my analogy of an arrested person, in my opinion, Neil does not have the odds in his favor as to becoming a good guy. It is possible nonetheless, after all: the possible does not necessarily always arrive with the probable! This is one of the things that give us unexpected results in life, and that keeps life interesting.
In all of these posts, I have noted something quite curious. Some of the most oft seen responders are not responding to this thread. Where are the Webslave and the moderators on this topic? Is there a reason you guys are not posting? Am I smelling a lawyer here or maybe a team of lawyers? (Yes I have been in law enforcement way too long.) Are you guys mum because of a law suit? If so - it would be nice of you to let others know before someone else winds up involved. Obviously I missed, or have forgotten, some thread about Neil because I did not realize he had been banned - I thought he was only asked to leave of his own volition. By the way: I bring up lawyers and law suits because I have not seen anything else on these forums that has ever kept Ritchie L. from replying (LOL - no disrespect intended but you guys, especially Ritchie L. are usually on everything like white on rice so why be shy here). This has really gotten my curiosity level up high and put me on alert as to be pretty careful as to make sure I am stating everything as my opinion. What goes on here?
Best regards,
Glenn B
:laugh: