Jump to content

UWisconsin77 = Thief/Scammer


Voltron

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Must be the season for fraud, I filed a PP dispute this morning. Granted, it's a pretty minor one ($30 + some parts) but it's the annoyance of it that irks me.

I can't understand anybody scamming on headphone forums. It's just not enough money to make it worth it IMO. But scamming Nate is really stupid. That's really killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Insert <stupid stupid stupid> emoticon here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, GO GET HIM! Nothing will scare the shit out of him like a nice letter from a lawyer.

Or a nasty letter from an angry lawyer. It is disheartening to see members of a forum cheating other members, I view participating forum members as more trustworthy than your average web store. I hope this UWisconsin person comes around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened?

Against my best judgement I'll try to translate my position in English...:palm:

I was minding my own business until I read a mod very agressively accusing the scammed members of not taking the first steps toward their own protection. In short the members were not respecting the buyer beware principle.

In that case, the weakness of the feedback update protection system was obvious and had led many members to fall in that jerk trap long after the mod staff knew about the first scamming operations.

I'm usually a nice guy but when Highwaystar started lecturing me about my unwanted interventions, I lost part of my cool and simply began asking general legal questions that were lacking in the Head-Fi review of that case.

Two of many examples:

When a member has already been reported as a muti-scams offender to the mods, and despite the fact that the buyer beware is always in effect, do a website can let this member run freely because the administrators think it's best to let the flow of communications with his numerous past victims untouched?

Knowing that, is it possible to negate any involvement just by referring to a member obligation to protect himself?

I think you know my answers....;)

On a more positive note, they are acting more strongly these days.

Amicalement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that sentiment. I'd rather defend myself and go to court for it than die because I didn't try.

Well, it doesn't really say anything about defending himself. I'd be curious what the numbers are on people stopping crimes against themselves by carrying and/or using a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting is that I just noted that the date of those trose49 threads coincides with the time he was ripping off jdimitri for $1000 and claiming money problems.

A head-fier owes me $1000+ and couldn't (/wouldn't) pay me back.. - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio

He seems to be quite an active member on that gun forum. hmmmm. soooo tempting.....:jacob:

Edited by boomana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legally owned guns aren't really used in crimes. There are quite a few statistical studies to show that.

Don't be worried about the people that legally own guns (even when they buy them for self defense). Worry about criminals.

Anyway, not the place, so I'll drop it.

Edited by grawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against my best judgement I'll try to translate my position in English...:palm:

I was minding my own business until I read a mod very agressively accusing the scammed members of not taking the first steps toward their own protection. In short the members were not respecting the buyer beware principle.

In that case, the weakness of the feedback update protection system was obvious and had led many members to fall in that jerk trap long after the mod staff knew about the first scamming operations.

I'm usually a nice guy but when Highwaystar started lecturing me about my unwanted interventions, I lost part of my cool and simply began asking general legal questions that were lacking in the Head-Fi review of that case.

Two of many examples:

When a member has already been reported as a muti-scams offender to the mods, and despite the fact that the buyer beware is always in effect, do a website can let this member run freely because the administrators think it's best to let the flow of communications with his numerous past victims untouched?

Knowing that, is it possible to negate any involvement just by referring to a member obligation to protect himself?

I think you know my answers....;)

On a more positive note, they are acting more strongly these days.

Amicalement

To be fair to Ken (Highwaystar) I think it must be noted that at the time williamgoody was an upstanding member of the community and had been for quite some time plus it was the first time Head-Fi had to deal with anything of that magnitude. I used to talk with williamgoody on a fairly regular basis and I bought a Meta42 from him, when I opened the package I was surprised to find he had even thrown in a decent RCA to mini cable without my knowledge. Up until all hell broke loose this seemed to be pretty much the norm with him, then all of a sudden he just seemed to turn into a completely different person. It still weirds me out to this day.

Edit: Come to think of it that Meta42 was supposedly Justin's first amp build. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.