Deal gone bad on superior cues site
- Thread starter pookster
- Start date
I'm from Indiana. Here, we use what we see and hear, combined with common sense, to make our judgments. Perhaps you've never been involved in a civil matter, there is neither a pre judgment of guilt or innocence. Based upon the testimonies given, with a smattering of facts and combined with minimal response from Martin or Don, it appears Martin is guilty of poor customer service and Don of misrepresenting his cue to the OP. Since you brought up the Justice system, why don't you present some evidence that supports your case?
careful, you'll be taken to task for having such a crazy belief. :wink:
best,
brian kc
Not necessarily. It's pretty common in a civil case for the defendant to counter sue, often for a frivolous law suit. Therefore, both sides bear a burden to prove their case.
Go read post #21. It was on his site. Nobody is disputing that. He wasn't the person selling it. Seriously go read it.
fixed that for you :wink:
Pookie plays solid wood Cues.
He plays for 12K at times. He I am sure made it clear as glass he did not want a Cue with a weight bolt. Besides that since when does he bought it mean he is stuck with whatever he is sold sight unseen.
Pure crap calling a high stakes money player out on something he always requests.
If you played one tenth as well as the Pookie you might have a clue.
Stealing is what I see. Selling crap that is unwanted by hook or crook.
I said crook,
Nick
He plays for 12K at times. He I am sure made it clear as glass he did not want a Cue with a weight bolt. Besides that since when does he bought it mean he is stuck with whatever he is sold sight unseen.
Pure crap calling a high stakes money player out on something he always requests.
If you played one tenth as well as the Pookie you might have a clue.
Stealing is what I see. Selling crap that is unwanted by hook or crook.
I said crook,
Nick
The man has his own website and posts pictures on here and his site religiously and he can't post a pic of a text? Take a picture of them with a camera and post. Not hard and no way he doesn't know how to do that. I am not choosing a side as I can see the validity of both sides.(provided there actually was a disclaimer) Right now Martin is being shown as a liar as well and he can post pics that could show he isn't a liar.(provided the texts exist) Personally, I would have posted pics of that right off the rip. Since they haven't been posted, everything is tilting the scale against him.
Question, other than Martin claiming there was a disclaimer, did ANYBODY else see it? Was it supposedly in the description? Was it at the very bottom of the screen in micro-letters?
Last edited:
Go read post # 241 Seriously go read it !!!
Whats your point? This whole thing is F'ing stupid. He said she said. Bottom line. Cue was listed on superior cues with a disclaimer that it wasn't being sold by superior cues.
I feel sorry for Martin. He didn't do shit to deserve the crap he is taking.
Seriously the lynch mob people here are a bunch of idiots.
MArtin has a duty of care that he owes to his customers. It is greater than the duty of care he owes to one in a situation like pookie's because there is a direct benefit to both parties.
Martin's involvement- hosting the sale on his site- makes him a party to the transaction, like it or not, disclaimer or not.
Just because a business states it has no liability does not make it true.
Pookie said he doesn't expect Martin to refund him, he ony wanted his influence with Don. Don is clearly the one in the wrong here.
Its not just that you typically fail to defend consumers but you also tend to reside on the far edge of things.
I don't see anyone here calling Martin a thief or stating that he "guilty" of any kind of crime. We're not all piling on Martin.
Only that...
1. He should have made sure that any 3rd party would be accountable when he allowed his property to be used as a catalyst for a deal.
2. Should reconsider arbitrarily using disclaimers as its not good business. Plus the positives of this would be a much higher level of trust when his customers use his site.
3. Have some degree of moral empathy when one of his clients gets burned via his site.
Again we don't live in a perfect world and I will be the first to stand up and say that in a perfect world it would always fall on the shoulders of the consumer. Buyer beware and so forth. But how many times do we have to go down this road for people like you to realize that in today's market there is no such thing as a perfect world and the best way to ensure good business is to protect the customer at all costs.
"If you make a purchase off my website I will back it"
Why is that so hard?
Is that not the kind of assurance customers are looking for?
The impression I got was the 'disclaimer' was reference in the listing that the cue was being sold by Don and that a prospective customer should contact him, not Superior, for further.
To me, the word 'disclaimer' conjures up thoughts of formal legal wording that seeks to define liabilty for given scenarios.
as much as I would like to, I can't spend any more time on this thread. I've said what I wanted to.
I'll leave you and anyone else who cares, with this thought.
No one has all of the facts, and that is a fact.
A lot of speculation and gut feelings are being substituted for facts.
When someone's rep is being publicly challenged, and especially someone who makes their living selling cues and is being called out on AzB, then I think the standard needs to be higher than guesses and gut feelings based on an incomplete story.
All we do know at this point is Martin didn't return Pookster's calls or texts. And that Pookster did a deal with a guy named Don and wasn't happy with the cue because it was not accurately described. And that Pookster funded the purchase with paypal using the gift option sohe has no recourse.
That is what we know for facts.
Is Martin's decision to ignore Pooksters calls and texts enough for his name and business to be dragged through the mud?
or for people to presume he is guilty of more? what more?
C'mon guys. before you soil someone's rep, make damn sure you have it right.
and make sure the punishment fits the crime; that it's not an o-v-e-r-r-e-a-c-t-i-o-n.
I've seen less poisonous threads over someone who flat-out stole.
I think it would have been nice if Martin called Pookster back even though he was under no obligation to do so since the deal was between Pookster and Don. And this is why I asked both guys to post their text messages because this might shed some light on why Martin didn't call back. Or not.
Neither guy has posted them.
My main point is that a man's rep should not be tarnished unless it is proven that it's deserved. Prove guilt with facts.
GL to pookster; I really hope he gets this deal unwound.
I am officially done.
best,
brian kc
Last edited: