bluebook inc.
- Thread starter icon
- Start date
iconcue said:here we go again! fred you are still giving me the feeling that you don't care for me
i gave an honest in response to your question.
I never asked you a question. That should say something about you and your response. Answering phantom question. If I was some kind of psycho analyist, I'd say you just need to hear yourself speak.
I did add value. I was up front in saying that I already hated the thread. That got at least one person to have the balls to say the same thing. Then I explained to you at your request why I didn't like the thread. If you think that doesn't constitute adding value, then I don't think you know what adding value is about.
And I'm not asking you any questions, so don't answer any.
Fred
icon
Banned
this is what is was responding to fred " hope you got something out of it."Cornerman said:
your are correct that it is not in question form but i felt the need to reply kinda of like you did to my post #29 which was also not a question.
and i still dont feel you added anything of value to the thread despite your own high opinion of yourself.
i'm far from the first person on this forum to think you post in a condescending, smug manner. and i sure dont think it takes balls to do that.
actually quite the opposite.
but since you are intent on taking this thread over for you own purpose i shall abandon it to you!
jef
Amazing. You posted a blatant falsehood about me, and you proved that you didn't understand my statement. That's why I responded. Unlike you, I never said that I am answering your "question."iconcue said:this is what is was responding to fred " hope you got something out of it."
your are correct that it is not in question form but i felt the need to reply kinda of like you did to my post #29 which was also not a question.
Strawman. No surprise. Anything I know about this game and its history is due to others before me and their generosity in sharing. I'm quite sure I pressed that point previously. I am a nobody.
Yes, you're not the first to completely misread my post and force me into a defensive mode, all so you can call me "condescending." It happens all the time. It stems from the same issue: misreading and failure to own up to it.
You are simply amazing. It's been your posts that force me to respond. You are leading this thread, but blaming it on me would be the simple out. You asked me questions that forced me to answer as I did. I guess you're no longer a rookie.
Fred
thepavlos said:
This idea sounds great in a normal world, what you seem to miss is the fact that in this business everyone is out for themselves. Other then Tate I have never seen anyone willing to give away info for no profit. There are many people who know things about Bushkas and they choose to keep the info all to themselves, one can only quess as to why and most guesses come up with using the info to rip others off. The sad thing is that this info will be burried with these people and in 20-30 years from now authenticating a Bushka will be very sketchy, I'd say buy them know from people you know and trust.
Jim
Cornerman said:
the Q, "you don't drive a stick?" almost always follows knowledge that the askee doesn't. it's usually a statement of slight amazement.
"i never learned to drive a stick."
"what! you don't drive a stick?"
no one ever asks " you don't drive a stick?", first off. it is always, "do you drive a stick?"
Cornerman said:
I don't really want to jump into this, but I do want to address this point.
I have heard this description from a couple of sources and I don't think it's even close to being accurate.
Jeff is an expert in certain areas, particularly in photography and his knowledge of certain of high end cues and makers. He has experienced things most of us have not because of his ability and desire to own the top end.
I have referred high end collectors to him and they have received what I considered to be accurate guideline valuations and very responsive communications. He has many connections, excellent resources, and he has freely shared his knowledge with me and with others.
He knows the market and the values. He is an astute collector.
Sorry, but there is no way I would call Jeff a rookie.
Chris
bruin70 said:
I agree.. It is impossible to make a accurate book.. We dont need a stinking book..
We have the internet and can see what cues sell for..
Also this cue community is so small that most of us are only 2 friends away from being connected..Meaning if you wanted, you can find out what someone pays for a cue..
The cue business flourished without the book and will continue to do so without new ones..
Just my opinion.. Probably not a popular one..
Mike
JimBo said:
Thank you Jim!
Truly, everyone would benefit by being ethical and contributing to the positive experiences of collecting. I mean, it's fun - why is everyone so stressed out?
My goal is to have fun and to also create greater interest in our very interesting hobby. Look at the stories people have - it's a colorful game with colorful characters.
Every day it seems someone is sending me a new catalog or picture or letter or some bit of useful information. I do get first crack at some pretty nice examples, so I can't complain.
Anyway, I'm having a blast. If it ever resembles work, I'll quit.
Chris
iconcue said:
well,,,there's the cuemakers assoc site. there are other devoted sites(like art sites) that allow indivisuals to set up a homepage of their wares.
if people are intimidated by too much or lack of,,,info, then knowing that there's a go-to site would be awesome. thing is, there would arise a confilct if cuemakers setup a homepage at a site that has posters posting negatives. i'm wondering if a website is much easier than any kind of publication.
Last edited:
bruin70 said:
Exactly. So, it does no good to ask in the negative unless you already thought the answer was, "no." Hence, I hate questions asked in the negative... because regardless of the true answer, the asker already had assumed the negative.
Ergo, the question:
Do you want to see improvements in the Blue Book?
is a lot more acceptable and open to a response to me compared to:
You don't want to see improvements in the Blue Book?
or
Don't you want to see improvements in the Blue Book?
The latter two already start with the assumption that the askee doesn't want to see improvements. I"m not down with that.
That's what I was saying.
Fred <~~~ oh the semantics of it all
Rookie to the internet forums, rookie on debating (it ain't all arguing, rookie), rookie at many things. I was referring to being a forum rookie. He's making the same mistakes now that all veteran posters who love to post without fully understanding what they're rebutting. So now he's a veteran and being a forum goof.TATE said:
All of these might be fine and good, but none of it preclude his being a rookie in cue collecting. He's new in the arena. He knows that. That doesn't mean he doesn't have certain knowledge and certain experience. But he's still green. That's a simple fact and not an insult. How he takes it either makes posters pounce or let it go.TATE said:
I mean you have on one side several posters who have been collecting high end cues for over 10, over 15, over 20 years. Should Jeff be considered a newby compared to them, or someone with the same depth of experience?
Then I wouldn't expect you to call him one.TATE said:
Fred
Last edited: