JimBo said:
Joe I haven't skipped over anything, I asked you too do what I did, post the picture of the cue Bill copied, yes it's clear to see it's a Szamboti stlye cue, if you post me a picture of a Boti with the same number of points and the same inlay pattern I will be happy to call it s copy and speak out about how wrong it is. Where is the original it's copied from?
I don't have to do what you asked, because I know that you know its a Szamboti copy. You and I both know the cue has Szamboti trademark patterns. Had Szamboti had a line of cues like Gina, I am sure I would be able to locate an exact copy. But thats not the case here. Of course you could always admit you don't know a Szamboti and then prove that you are an idiot.
JimBo said:
It's not my place to tell a second hand story, but make no mistake he knew he was stealing a design and he did it to make a point, was it wrong? Yes in my opinion it was without a doubt wrong and in this case it's a basic SW design the woods don't matter, I don't need to see an exact SW to say it was a theft, but in the Szamboti/Schick I would need to see an original and you have yet to show it.
And I should tell a second hand story about Mottey and Gina? Nice to ask someone to do something you don't have the balls to do on your own. Again, I know you know what a Szamboti looks like and the fact is
before you found the matching Gina's you were all over Phillippi.. so what makes this different? Obviously we know what it is... does this sound familiar..
"The fact is I can post a picture of 10 cues and anyone who has been around cues for more then 3-5 years would look at them and in 1 minute be able to name who made the cues without seeing any makers mark or signatures. So tell us all now, who made these Ginacues???"
This is exactly my feeling on the Schick / Szamboti cue. Funny how we are supposed to take your word for it, BEFORE you posted Lucky's link. You are real stand up Jimbo, this is another showing of your double standard.
JimBo said:
We?? We want to hear?? Who is this we?? I've said it already a hundred times Joe, it's not up to me to decide, but you are so far off it's not worth trying to explain.
Yeah "we". Multiple people have asked YOU for your definition. If you are moaning and complaining then it IS up to you. The fact that you don't want to divuldge an amount, is proof the second you try to define it, you know I am going to stick it straight up your a$$.
JimBo said:
You want to make claims about being around pool since you're 14 and what a big expert you are yet you aren't man enough to admit that Phillippi stole those designs, anyone who takes you serious is a joke in my book,
Really? I have said here NUMEROUS times that these cues are Gina inspired. Again you aren't paying attention and again you are trying to twist the truth.
Same on the Schick, you and I both know where that cue got its design from, be a man and admit it.
JimBo said:
you want to play both ends, first you claim it's fine to copy cues then you aren't man enough to say yup those are copies so what. How bout you stand behind your convictions.
Its not about being a man, its about knowing the definition of the word COPY.
Something you have shown you don't know. You use "copy" and "almost identical" as if they are synonomous, and they aren't. So if you show me that the Phillipis are indeed "copies" I will say that they are. You have YET to do that. I am purely standing behind my convictions, they are inspired.
JimBo said:
I'm not trying to be some all mighty know it all, it's not up to me to decide what makes up the design, but I do have the eye to spot a copy and the balls to point it out, unlike you.
See here is where you are wrong again... and yes you post ongoing garbage like this so you can sound like a know it all, besides the point. But you have the eye to spot something that looks like another thing, but they are not "copies". Do yourself a favor and buy a dictionary.
JimBo said:
I've already said it, just ask Phillippi where they came up with that idea and I bet they say "we took it from the Ginacue" when you are some 1/2 ass wannabe salesman you learn to double talk and interchange words like Inspired instead of the truth which is "stole". I think it's obvious to anyone with a brain that in this debate you have the agenda, I on the other hand just have an educated and informed opinion, I don't take part in this behavior nor do I profit from it, you on the other hand have made your name here on it.
Stole, yeah sure I will buy that. BUT they aren't copies. The one thing you cannot distinguish and for some reason you refuse to use the real world definition. I have no agenda, and I sell what I like, just like you collect what YOU like. The fact is I like classic cues, hence the name of the site. But still a man with convictions like you so strongly show here, would never buy from one of these thieves, right? Oh wait.. you own multiple Waynes so we know that its just a paper thing with you.
JimBo said:
No you're trying to profit from this behavior and trying to protect your boss, are you worried if you speak the truth you'll have to pay to get into VF Expo this year?? Maybe you won't be able to add a sig line and try to get that extra attention and credibility you strive for?
This is by far the most idiotic thing you posted yet. I profit from selling cues I LIKE, do you get it now? If I liked CNC cues, I would sell them. But we know my stance on those so you will NEVER see me buy one from a cuemaker direct. I speak what I believe, the fact Mark and I happen to like the same style of cues is a testament to our friendship and like tastes. BTW since we aren't doing VF this year you idiot, again you show your uncanny knack of talking about things you know nothing about.
JimBo said:
You can disagree, but that's not what you're doing. You see Joe to disagree would be to post your opinion (it's ok to make copies of any cue) and then to give your opinions as to why, stand behind your words and back them up with facts.
Been there done that.. then it was disagreed with, and I disagreed back and here we are now...
JimBo said:
What you have done here is try to make this personal, you've tried to lie and say I flip flopped you tried to lie and said I was protecting friends and big names, but really all you've done was to make this more personal then it had to be. You keep trying to attack me and I'll keep exposing you for the fool you are.
Thats not true at all.. I asked basic questions. You know what I got.. "oh the link don't work" but for 2500 other people the link worked. You're full of crap, and I will say it again, you were shown multiple examples of cues that fall into the same category as these Phillipi's, yet you didn't say crap. And it was pointed out by more people than ME. 20-30 posts later, you say something negative about TW. WHat happened, you finally get the ok from him to say something. Oh I remember, it came with the disclaimer that there was a reason.. good move. Now someone with the "educated opinion" about cues would surely be able to spot a Szamboti style cue when its shoved under your nose, but maybe I think to much of you.
JimBo said:
I still love you and hold no ill will and I still consider us friends.
Ditto.. my Demi Moore bit*h..
JimBo said:
I've told you before it's not an exact copy of the cue, for that to be done the joint and wrap and pin would all have to be the same, the bumper and woods would all have to match.
No this is the first time you are saying that its not a copy.. for a copy to be a copy it has to be exact, thats the definition. So if they aren't copies, what are they?
JimBo said:
What I have been talking about from day one was the design, and if you can't tell it's the same design I really have no way to explain it to you, sorry it's not my job to explain what a design is to you, You're not dumb Joe just stubborn I'm talking about designs and every time I do in your head you are interchanging that word with counterfeit or exact copy and those just aren't the words I intended for you to read, someone can't take a complex design recreate it and change the wrap and say it's a whole different cue or it's just inspired.
No, your first post "There are certain cues and certain designs that you can tell from across the room, to copy them is stealing and not flattery," you wrote copy and thats what you said. I am not interchanging words with anything, you said copy, and its still incorrect. Yes they can.. they changed enough of the cue to say that they could say the designs were inspirations from Ginas. They changed the rings, colors, some subtle design items that looking at the cues closely, you can see they made changes. No one will confuse these cues with Gina's. In fact if you go to Phillippis website you will see that there is a Gina inspired cue, in their "line".
JimBo said:
You want to pretend to be some big shot insider and pretend to know the butterfly story (even though you're not at liberty to talk about it LOL) then you would know that cue was 10X further from a copy then the cues in question here and if you really (as you claim) know the outcome you'd agree with me 100%.
I disagree, that cue is as close as these. the cue was different enough to say it was Gina inspired. That being said I believe you know exactly what I know and the copy issue was a small part of the problem.
Joe
