Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (
More info?)
Scott -
I'm replying here now only because you posted here. My followup
earlier today was sent when I read the message you posted, which was
well after I had sent you the email you refer to, and was before I
received your reply.
As perspective to others reading this, Scott offered last week some
plastics, a few of which were free and a few of which were for sale.
A few days after he posted, I saw the posting (I get to the newsgroup
only occasionally) and replied. He ended up sending me email (with
some pictures) which arrived earlier this week but could not be viewed
from where I was (my email reader when away from my computer is a text
only reader). I was out at clients offices away from home for two
rather intense days monday and tuesday, and spent sunday out helping
my wife in her business and thus was for the most part not home to do
my normal email reading until today. I spent much of today replying
to the accumulated emails, including the one from Scott from earlier
in the week, and then went to read the newsgroup where I saw his
posting, and replied to it.
My posting was not in any way intended to cast him as a bad
individual. I was just intending to flag a miscommunication, and had
made note in my posting that I had sent him an email earlier in the
day and was awaiting his reply. I didn't want to have others jump in
to claim the parts and complicate what I presumed was at that time
just a simple miscommunication between Scott and I.
It was after I posted that message that I received the response from
him regarding my private email. He confirmed that the fireball
plastics were in a condition other than what I wanted, and also told
me that he had offered the Ro Go and Lawman plastics to others and was
waiting to hear if they wanted them. He apparently had the impression
that I did not want them.
Shortly after he sent that reply privately, he then posted the message
I am replying to here.
So, with the perspective out of the way, my reply to Scotts public
posting is:
Scott,
As I had explained in my private email earlier today (before I was
aware of your posting on the newsgroup) I had been out of the office /
away from home Monday and Tuesday working on issues at a clients
office (I also spent most of Sunday out helping my wife in her
business) and had been unable to view your email with pictures due to
my remote mail reader being a text only viewer. As a result I did not
view that particular email until my return to my home office today, at
which time I sent the reply you received previously. While your email
was sent sometime Sunday, I could not view it until at my home mail
reader. My delay, which I acknowledged in my private email.
My reply to that email was sent totally not related to your newsgroup
posting of earlier today. At the time I sent the email reply I had
not yet read the newsgroup posting. It was only after the reply was
sent, and before I received your response, that I saw what you posted
in the newsgroup. My response to that was only intended to stop this
from getting more complicated due to others wanting the parts that I
had thought we were already dealing on. There had been no "takers"
posting in the newsgroup, and I had hopes that letting folks know that
there was something in process would head off more complications from
other parties coming into it. The intention was to help, not hurt.
It was only after I posted that I received your reply letting me know
you had offered them to others and were waiting to hear back if they
wanted them.
I had emailed you privately, and was not trying to take the issue
public on the newsgroup. Your posting which I am replying to,
however, did certainly do that, which is why I am replying in this
forum.
I am also mailing via private email a copy of this posting so you are
aware of it in the event you do not see it on the newsgroup.
You certainly have the right to do what you wish with the plastics. I
had thought that my previous email had followed your instructions and
was the first of the "first come first serve" respondents. From your
sunday reply, I got the impression that you confirmed that. Obviously
we're seeing this from different perspectives, and you don't see it
the same as I do.
If you wish to continue this via email, I'm happy taking it there. If
you want to continue it in the public forum, I'll respond there too.
But if you do, please send me a copy in email so I know to go looking
for it in the newsgroup.
And for those reading this who see it as a silly thing to have show up
in the public forum, I certainly agree. But since it is here, I'd
like to take a moment more of your time to suggest that if folks try
to presume that folks have good intentions instead of bad, things go a
lot better overall -- whether in public or private. We all
(hopefully) have lives outside of the newsgroup, and outside of
pinball, and sometimes those lives take precedence over our pinball
stuff.
I, as do others, often have times where my work or family makes
demands on my time that have to be met. In some cases, this can delay
a pinball transaction for a few days. I've often seen folks go to the
newsgroup immediately when a bit of patience would have taken care of
things. In another thread I read today, someone jumped on a seller
for a lack of response on an item when the seller had no reason to
even have known of it yet. The seller did respond, in a timely manner
and not related to the newsgroup posting, and then got bashed. Not
fair.
So, a general appeal for calm and reasonableness from folks in their
transactions. Give folks time to respond. When a deal seems stalled,
ask whats up rather than jump to conclusions. And give folks the
courtesy of an email and time to reply before taking things to the
newsgroup.
Thanks!
- Greg
On 17 Aug 2005 16:06:44 -0700, "pinsatiable" <beatty1821@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Greg,
> What's odd is not hearing from you for 3 days and wanting these
>plastics to go. I had emailed people and told them they were claimed,
>but after not hearing from you for 3 days, I assumed you had decided
>against them. Suddenly after I reposted them as being available, I had
>an email from you asking about them after others had asked for them. I
>emailed you and explained that I was sorry for making the assumption
>that you were not interested, but I know if someone had something I was
>interested in for free, I wouldn't leave them hanging for 3 days and
>then make a post in the newsgroup that put said person in a negative
>light. I am sorry you didn't get the plastics, but that should have
>been handled between you and I, not here on the newsgroup.
>Scott
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram