BAD- [strike]MeatyBacchus478[/strike] frankp

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank, you haven't done anything to make this right, because there is only one action that you can do to make this right; issue a full refund.

He doesn't have to tell you that through e-mail, he has said so, the mods have said so, and 90% of the members here have said so in this thread. One of the reasons that parties involved in a Feedback thread communicate in the thread is so that there is no question about where they stand or what was said, and the fact that you're trying to move this from a Feedback thread (which you started by the way) to e-mail, and then using the fact that Meat isn't answering your e-mails as justification for doing exactly what everyone told you not to do is ridiculous.

... and oil doesn't hurt anything. Have you ever washed a dish? Run some water on it, clean the knife, and apply oil where you see fit. You will never be able to tell that the knife was oiled or washed. You can use gentler methods if you'd like, but running water will not rust or patina carbon steel, so 3V and 4V will be fine - and it will be just the same as you sent the knife.

You've really put yourself in a bad light here Frank, and I'll always remember you as someone with a poor reputation. This thread will be here forever, and if I see you dealing in other arenas I will link other parties involved to this thread - they're going to come to the same conclusion everyone else has. The Feedback forum usually narrows the burden of proof down to the party that is in the wrong, and when the evidence is there the majority of people will weigh in with an educated decision; I hope you realize that despite what the maker says or what happens from here on out, you're in the wrong and have ruined your reputation because you did not give a refund after the mods and the mob came to the agreement that a refund is what was called for. The oil is not an issue, the issue is that you've blatantly disregarded the verdict that was levied, and are still parading around like the injuste inposuit .
 
frankl might not be on the same level as lui kang I see some similarities. Pretty much 100% of forum activity is on the exchange.
Possibly skirting a dealership membership..? I don't know. But there's definitely no forum contribution.
 
okay , i hear ya karda. Stil i gotta say i wouldn't use the liu hang situation as an example of how the moderators do their jobs. That dude broke forums rules on a regular basis for ever and NOTHING ever got done. It took forever for blade forums to finally kick him out, not a very good look if that was on a job application or as an example of a perfect working system. as far as i know frank made some bold statements w emotion ,overlooked sharpie and disagreed that the buyer observed all the rules himself where is the broken rule that constitutes such ban wagoning and drastic comparison from a mod. i understand you want to avoid having another liu kang fiasco on your hands but i don't think we should over compensate and jump on people who have had a great rep up until one bad situation.

I have to say Karda - comparison to lui Kang in this instance is a little absurd. This is an isolate dispute between two well respect participants - not a pattern deceit or abuse of the forum over a number of years. While none of us want to see the type of behavior that lui Kang exhibited again - IMHO to continue to paint frankp with the same brush is irresponsible and has only ensured the other members will not weigh the situation on its own merits but on the actions of an individual whose is not even involved.

And I will say many MANY members here will have a similar participation profile to frankp - me included - it does not make me or the rest of us Liu Kang equals.

JD

If one is here for the sole purpose of flipping knives with no participation in the rest of the forum, they might want to rethink their motives for being here: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/announcement.php?f=892&a=23

Your friend was given every opportunity to salvage the situation and his reputation. In fact he was instructed to.
He decided to march to his own drum and that comes with consequences for the good of the community.
We simply cannot allow those who would take advantage of the membership to do so. Despite it taking so long for Liu Kang to be banned, some lessons were learned there. Lessons none of us care to have repeated.

Frankp now sleeps with the fishes.
 
@revdevil

Hey rev, I appreciate your response and your insight. Personally I find you and the other mods do quite a good job overall, and I for one appreciate that.

I do agree that frankp listed the knife incorrectly, irrespective if the original buyer bought the knife direct from Jake, he did not and that would, in most if not all circumstances, mean the knife was like new and not "new direct from maker".

That said, and as i understand it, frankp fully informed Meat that he was not the original purchaser of the knife and that knife was sold to him by another member who received it from Jake (I believe both email strings - the one provide by Meat and the one provided by frankp support this) and thus did not attempt to defraud him by claiming the knife was new - nor is Meat claiming that he purchased the knife under false pretenses in that it was new from the maker - the fact that both posters and mods keep bring up the issue of how the knife was described in the initial post doesn't seem germane to the issue between Meat and frankp - but the very least frankp should receive a warning to ensure that future posts adequately reflect the sales history / purchase history of the individual items. That said it does hammer home theft that I need to be extremely careful about how I post my next sale.

As for 30 minutes of inspection i personally don't think it's my place to comment on the length of time that is appropriate for someone other then myself to inspect a knife - I personally know if a knife is "for me" the moment I open the package, hold it in my hands, and flick it open the first time. If it is not something I intend to keep, I take pix and put it up for sale (although I am a bit of a hoarder and tend to keep just about everything). I will also say that I have noticed things about a knife days later, if not weeks later, once I have used them, flipped / flicked them incessantly etc - and sometimes this is bad other times its good.

I truly don't believe that either party was malicious in their actions, what I do believe however is that Meat had buyers remorse, and after accepted the knife he chose to sell it as he had others on the way in - something I am sure many of us do to keep this hobby interesting.

Upon noting the slop in the blade in the closed position he chose to call the blade "defective" and return it.

This is the point at which i would have gone a different way. Meat has stated that he currently has three knives in with Jake - I assume for refurbs or tweaks - if it had been me, and i had 3 knives currently with the maker I would have contacted Jake and asked for his opinion as the maker - is detent "slop" a makers defect - and if so can it be fixed. (I can only assume makers defect as I don't how we as users would cause that type of behavior). Once I received comment from Jake I would have reviewed the options available to me - discuss repair, contact frankp with Jake's insight and discuss a mutually satisfactory outcome, sell it and discuss the "issue" with the new buyer.

Either way, what's done is done and now we as a community need to deal with that. So the question remains "what would I do?".

Simple - I would expect both parties to accept responsibility for the way this proceeded and come to some type of mutually acceptable resolution - as I mentioned earlier I don't think either party is in the right - nor do I believe that either party can continue to say "not my issue" given what they have both laid out.

If that fails I have little doubt that there are plenty of members on this forum who would be happy to buy the knife - now, or after a trip to Jake.
 
Last edited:
Will Meaty be getting his money back? I hope so, but it doesn't look good for him. This Frank guy may have just screwed him over.
 
I read it all. All 11 pages. Painful to say the least, BUT, as a new member, it reaffirms why I and many others end up here and want to be a part of it all.
1. We love knives
2. We act with honor and integrity.
3. Mods keep everything going smoothly and bad behavior is eventually not tolerated.

Thanks to all the mods and the members, and thanks to Spark for making it all possible.
 
If one is here for the sole purpose of flipping knives with no participation in the rest of the forum, they might want to rethink their motives for being here: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/announcement.php?f=892&a=23

Your friend was given every opportunity to salvage the situation and his reputation. In fact he was instructed to.
He decided to march to his own drum and that comes with consequences for the good of the community.
We simply cannot allow those who would take advantage of the membership to do so. Despite it taking so long for Liu Kang to be banned, some lessons were learned there. Lessons none of us care to have repeated.

Frankp now sleeps with the fishes.

@revdevil

I am somewhat amazed at the expedited outcome of this dispute.

I understand that Liu Kang's actions were unacceptable and did a significant disservice to the community here at large - but again I don't understand your continued projection of Liu Kang's actions on this particular situation.

I have little doubt that the continued inferences to "Liu Kang" type actions immediately and negatively impacted the overall view of the community on this issue - which as I understand it is not what moderators are here to accomplish.

Not every dispute - and I am sure there are a number of them on a daily basis - is a new Liu Kang waiting to prey on unsuspecting members, and abuse the forum as they see fit.

To ban a member based on one transaction that is, IMHO, not completed yet seems a little heavy handed and appears to be more of a reaction to previous mistakes made by the forum then the merits of the current issue.

Oil, detent slop, sharpie aside, the buyer (as far as I can tell) had no issue with original sales post - and I find it surprising that as a moderator you chose to "pull up" the language from the post and chastise frankp publicly. While u personally may have issue with the way frankp advertised to continue to threaten and chastise him publicly all but assured that the rank and file members would follow your lead.

As posted previously, I think both parties created issues in this instance - and as such both parties should be held responsible for eventual out come - something all but impossible now that you've seen fit to ban one of the participants.

I may not have had a dog in this fight originally - but it certainly seems one sided at this point - irrespective of anyone's merits or faults
 
Oh, this was all one sided. Frank was wrong.....from start to finish. Started with him. Ended with him. Buyer not perfect, but consistent, logical, and polite. Frank ..... Well.....just like the song "I did it my way".

Oddly, he started making this all public....and shown the light on himself. Another big mistake...by him again.

Kudos to the mods :thumbup:
 
I understand that Liu Kang's actions were unacceptable and did a significant disservice to the community here at large - but again I don't understand your continued projection of Liu Kang's actions on this particular situation.

I have little doubt that the continued inferences to "Liu Kang" type actions immediately and negatively impacted the overall view of the community on this issue - which as I understand it is not what moderators are here to accomplish.

Not every dispute - and I am sure there are a number of them on a daily basis - is a new Liu Kang waiting to prey on unsuspecting members, and abuse the forum as they see fit.

I may agree with the fact that the comparison to Liu Kang seemed a bit over the top. Liu Kang was a very special kind of scumbag with zero integrity and morals, pure and simple. He was nothing more than a greedy two faced piece of trash who was only out to make a few extra bills on other people's demise.

To ban a member based on one transaction that is, IMHO, not completed yet seems a little heavy handed and appears to be more of a reaction to previous mistakes made by the forum then the merits of the current issue.

Oil, detent slop, sharpie aside, the buyer (as far as I can tell) had no issue with original sales post - and I find it surprising that as a moderator you chose to "pull up" the language from the post and chastise frankp publicly. While u personally may have issue with the way frankp advertised to continue to threaten and chastise him publicly all but assured that the rank and file members would follow your lead.

As posted previously, I think both parties created issues in this instance - and as such both parties should be held responsible for eventual out come - something all but impossible now that you've seen fit to ban one of the participants.

I may not have had a dog in this fight originally - but it certainly seems one sided at this point - irrespective of anyone's merits or faults

Now this I have to disagree with you. FrankP made a fool of himself out here. It was pretty clear that he was trying to avoid into accepting the knife back for a refund. He acted very unprofessionally and was caught changing his story quite often. I think the mods made the right decision in banning him. However I kind wish they would have done it after everything gets solved with Meaty.
 
All self-inflicted wounds

Hey Paul

While i don't disagree that frankp chose an untenable position in hopes of winning what i can only surmize was a piric victory, I can only wonder that opinions would have been more moderate and less venemous had the moderators acted in a more "moderate" fashion.

Having been a moderator on another extremely large forum, I learned how quickly my personal opinion could sway the opinion of the group - right or wrong as it may be.

Contiuned threats (and now action) by Karda to ban frankp and the ongoing references to Lui Kang type behavior all but garaunteed that the general membership would not "step out of line" and question the opinion / decision of those who hold the keys to the promised land (so to speak).

Personally, I find it hard not to believe that a number of other members will now keep silent in cases where they feel they have honestly been wronged for fear that this type of action be taken against them - and I don't believe that is good for anyone.

JD

PS - you still over on TZ? After I got my DSSD I basically lost interest in getting a new watch lol.
 
@revdevil

I am somewhat amazed at the expedited outcome of this dispute.

I understand that Liu Kang's actions were unacceptable and did a significant disservice to the community here at large - but again I don't understand your continued projection of Liu Kang's actions on this particular situation.

I have little doubt that the continued inferences to "Liu Kang" type actions immediately and negatively impacted the overall view of the community on this issue - which as I understand it is not what moderators are here to accomplish.

Not every dispute - and I am sure there are a number of them on a daily basis - is a new Liu Kang waiting to prey on unsuspecting members, and abuse the forum as they see fit.

To ban a member based on one transaction that is, IMHO, not completed yet seems a little heavy handed and appears to be more of a reaction to previous mistakes made by the forum then the merits of the current issue.

Oil, detent slop, sharpie aside, the buyer (as far as I can tell) had no issue with original sales post - and I find it surprising that as a moderator you chose to "pull up" the language from the post and chastise frankp publicly. While u personally may have issue with the way frankp advertised to continue to threaten and chastise him publicly all but assured that the rank and file members would follow your lead.

As posted previously, I think both parties created issues in this instance - and as such both parties should be held responsible for eventual out come - something all but impossible now that you've seen fit to ban one of the participants.

I may not have had a dog in this fight originally - but it certainly seems one sided at this point - irrespective of anyone's merits or faults



-zero interest in the community here

-all but a handful of posts in the exchange

-insists on paypal gift

-sells a pre-owned knife as "brand new from maker"

-instead of offering a refund suggests that the buyer damaged the knife and should be sent back to the maker for inspection and/or repair

-accuses the buyer of being deceptive

-ultimately refuses a refund

-gets banned



Where is the injustice here?
 
Hey Paul

While i don't disagree that frankp chose an untenable position in hopes of winning what i can only surmize was a piric victory, I can only wonder that opinions would have been more moderate and less venemous had the moderators acted in a more "moderate" fashion.

Having been a moderator on another extremely large forum, I learned how quickly my personal opinion could sway the opinion of the group - right or wrong as it may be.

Contiuned threats (and now action) by Karda to ban frankp and the ongoing references to Lui Kang type behavior all but garaunteed that the general membership would not "step out of line" and question the opinion / decision of those who hold the keys to the promised land (so to speak).

Personally, I find it hard not to believe that a number of other members will now keep silent in cases where they feel they have honestly been wronged for fear that this type of action be taken against them - and I don't believe that is good for anyone.

JD

PS - you still over on TZ? After I got my DSSD I basically lost interest in getting a new watch lol.


Seriously? I personally think that the mods do a great job here and specifically did so in this thread. It wasn't until post 100 that a mod threatened to ban. It wasn't until post 190 that a mod compared frankp to Liu Kang. I doubt that influenced anyone's opinion.

Like always in these GBU threads, the mods did what was needed and did it well.
 
-zero interest in the community here

-all but a handful of posts in the exchange

-insists on paypal gift

-sells a pre-owned knife as "brand new from maker"

-instead of offering a refund suggests that the buyer damaged the knife and should be sent back to the maker for inspection and/or repair

-accuses the buyer of being deceptive

-ultimately refuses a refund

-gets banned



Where is the injustice here?

+1. Totally agree.
 
okay , i hear ya karda. Stil i gotta say i wouldn't use the liu hang situation as an example of how the moderators do their jobs. That dude broke forums rules on a regular basis for ever and NOTHING ever got done. It took forever for blade forums to finally kick him out, not a very good look if that was on a job application or as an example of a perfect working system. as far as i know frank made some bold statements w emotion ,overlooked sharpie and disagreed that the buyer observed all the rules himself where is the broken rule that constitutes such ban wagoning and drastic comparison from a mod. i understand you want to avoid having another liu kang fiasco on your hands but i don't think we should over compensate and jump on people who have had a great rep up until one bad situation.

Hey Paul

While i don't disagree that frankp chose an untenable position in hopes of winning what i can only surmize was a piric victory, I can only wonder that opinions would have been more moderate and less venemous had the moderators acted in a more "moderate" fashion.

Having been a moderator on another extremely large forum, I learned how quickly my personal opinion could sway the opinion of the group - right or wrong as it may be.

Contiuned threats (and now action) by Karda to ban frankp and the ongoing references to Lui Kang type behavior all but garaunteed that the general membership would not "step out of line" and question the opinion / decision of those who hold the keys to the promised land (so to speak).

Personally, I find it hard not to believe that a number of other members will now keep silent in cases where they feel they have honestly been wronged for fear that this type of action be taken against them - and I don't believe that is good for anyone.

JD

PS - you still over on TZ? After I got my DSSD I basically lost interest in getting a new watch lol.

Are you being threatened for having a dissenting opinion on this matter? Has anyone else been threatened for having one?
Your rhetoric sounds nice and all, but it is just a fallacious and untenable as frankp's position of righteousness was.
I'm pretty sure 31hrs is pretty darn moderate.
In the end it wasn't my decision to give this forum, it's membership and moderators a big "screw you".......
If you are one of his "friends" that he spoke of giving him advice, it was pretty poor advice.
 
Seriously? I personally think that the mods do a great job here and specifically did so in this thread. It wasn't until post 100 that a mod threatened to ban. It wasn't until post 190 that a mod compared frankp to Liu Kang. I doubt that influenced anyone's opinion.

Like always in these GBU threads, the mods did what was needed and did it well.

Well said.

Most people here are not sheep....an inference to such is a bit insulting. The facts were clear and oddly the more frank talked the more he dug a hole.
Almost every one here but Frank, knew what was needed to make this right. Maybe he did know? He however refused. He defied everyone and everything.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top