You had to taunt me with that crack! What I find unacceptable is the way everyone assumes the cuemaker is wrong without knowing the facts! What I've been saying but you seem to be too obtuse to understand is that you have no idea how long the cuemaker has had the cue to begin with. You have no idea what their intentions are! He did not confiscate the cue, it was sent to him! He was obviously wronged if his logo was counterfeited. He has the right to explore his options before returning the evidence. Has anyone said that the cuemaker has refused to return the cue? NO. He just hasn't returned it yet!
It people like this that keep cuemakers, players and other people of value away from these forums. Before you interject your moral integtity to a thread you should at least read the original post well and not substitute your opinion and suspicions for fact and use that as a basis to crucify another human being. Now I'm done, I've got better things to do than try to reason with the unreasonable!
Sherm-
As I said in my earlier posts, I have NO intimate knowledge of the details here. I do, however, read quite well. I know who the cuemaker in question is. And while I can't go so far as to speculate what her motives or intentions are in this ordeal, you seem quite comfortable doing that very thing. I at least made it clear that my conclusions were drawn based on the
information given... that a cue was sent in to a cuemaker for authentication and to have some work done to it. Upon determining the cue to be a fake, the cuemaker decided to confiscate the cue and said they were not returning it. Rather that act high and mighty telling ME to reread the posts, perhaps you should. Fuji-whopper's posts on the first page are pretty clear. He may or may not be leaving information out of this, but still, his statements on the first page alone seem to have been pretty clear.
If you would like to take the 'its pople like this' stance, well, I can do the same. It was very clearly stated from the onset that the cue in question was confiscated and that no real explanation or offer for recourse of any kind was offered. This was what led me to draw the conclusions I have. If the cuemaker's intent was to pursue a legal matter and thus, she needed the cue in question as evidence of some sort, that is perfectly understandble. However, this must be made clear to the cue
owner who, for all intents and purposes, is just as much of a victim here as the cue
maker. It was the
OWNER who was duped into purchasing something that was
NOT what it was claimed to be. Thus, he is at a loss here.
I'm sorry you feel its people like us who keep posters of value away. I can only respond to that by saying that your extreme bias in defending a fellow cuemaker to the death all the while ridiculing all of us for our actions (despite the fact that the conclusions you seem to have drawn ignore the facts presented), is as much a statement of who YOU are and how YOU run a business as it is another point as to 'what is wrong with forums like these'. Spin it however you like... keeping a cue without offering recourse, compensation, explanation, etc.. is just plain wrong. As I have said many times, there may be more to this story. But my assessment is based on the information given. Your judgments seem clouded by bias all the while ignoring the details presented. If this is how you operate, good luck with your business.