Cleaned coins- just as much as uncleaned.

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Detecto92, Apr 22, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 20, 2020
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    not illegal but not particularly ethical unless you fess up
     
  4. desertgem

    desertgem Senior Errer Collecktor

    I have closed the thread! No Mas !!
     
  5. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    Not locked yet.
     
  6. imrich

    imrich Supporter! Supporter

    [QUOTE="Jerame Lawson, post: 4141795, member: 110798"1889 P MORGAN SUPERB GEM BU+++30+INCH BLACK MIRRORS! BLACK&WHITE DMPL! NR #15126(no this is a scam...1889 p so so common current bid 735.00 upgraded ...sure would like one of you knowledgeable people to key me on how this is done..[/QUOTE]

    I believe if you talk with an attorney, he will inform you that anything that can't be proven in a court by a qualified individual, may constitute fraud. If the coin hasn't been "certified" upon a slab with the statements you post in auction, it may constitute fraud. The element that you apparently lack is either not knowing law, or lack of understanding law.

    Regardless, you'll probably find that your unqualified opinion doesn't constitute fact in a court of law. You can state: 1889 P MORGAN, but the remainder is believed subjective opinion.

    I also believe several statements by your critics are also unqualified subjective statements/opinion, as statutes proper identification and complete wording haven't been cited.

    I would advise you to heed critics warnings, as you have now been objectively informed to seek counsel, or state a notice of your comments being opinion. You may also want to determine legality of altering "Legal Tender" for resale in excess of the items "face value".

    JMHO
     
  7. imrich

    imrich Supporter! Supporter

    I realize that the power of administration is questionable, maybe without justification. However, I believe it's reasonable to allow an explanation to all what may constitute legal/civil discourse. It appears apparent that many lack understanding of proper communication. I believe an independent civil explanation has been presented for civil postings.

    We may not like the opinions of others, but our constitution allows same when within the constraints of civil legislated communications (i.e. slander Et Al).

    JMHO
     
  8. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    Of course, I'm pretty sure that @desertgem is not a governmental agent, or at least that he's not acting in that capacity here.

    There is no Constitutional right to make Peter host anyone's speech.
     
  9. desertgem

    desertgem Senior Errer Collecktor

    The rules are specific that discussions of B/S/T must be in the classifieds and that they are not threads that can have discussions, that must be in PM. By continually adding eBay directions to specific items he seemed to be selling, he violated the rules. It was that action that material was removed and the thread stopped. Doug may decide to re-open or send it far away. If you do not like the opinions and actions of the moderator , he is the one to contact.

    Me a government agent ?? :) NO WAY IN H........ Jim
     
    imrich and C-B-D like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page