[sdiy] Re: [AH] BAD Trader: Peter Grenader

[cheater cheater]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Dennis Verschoor <modular at gmail.com> wrote:
> It really surprises me that when Peter gets what he asks for someone comes
> up for him.

Dennis, not defending Peter. But if we want to do this tar and
feather, let's do it in a way that leaves no way out for the bad guy.

>> then next time someone might stop liking, say,
>> Rozzbox (who I'd just had an interesting conversation over email with)
>> or MOTM or Wiard, and will start posting bullshit here and everyone
>> will believe that.
>
> you're not defending him, but you imply that we are posting "bullshit"?

No friend, I said 'someone' specifically to disconnect this from
anyone here. Please don't read into this.

>
> How does posting a receipt, showing that you bought something, for instance,
> show on any level that the actual claims are true - that Peter HASN'T done
> something?

It shows that you're relevant to the situation and actually have a
voice in the conversation.
I've seen too many threads on too many mailing lists where people
started teaming up and mobbing. Then various unbased claims were made
('that guy is an X') and then the focus of the situation, which right
now seems to be to prove that Plan B has bad business practices. So
let's just close the band train doors for the casual flamers before
they show up.

>
> The argument - that we should provide proof of something that someone else
> has failed to do, because someone else at some point might post dishonestly,
> is just ridiculous.
>

Or, it is just treating everyone equally and expecting good
performance when you're making a very big claim that can really mess
up someone's life. I think in this case Peter G is to blame; the
important point is that skipping this rational check can become a
habit, and a habit that allows casting people out easier is not good.

>
>
>> So I think it's better by principle to show some
>> sort of proof that establishes you can actually speak out about the
>> issue at hand.
>
> Sorry - but, in my case, for instance, I don't feel like I need to try to
> find the person who sold it to me (who is also a long time member, but
> hasn't been around here much of late) and get him to verify that he handed
> it to me. I believe that most people here trust that I'm not making up the
> entire story.
>

Cool, and so do I. But out of courtesy, could we have a little bit of
proof? Just any minimal amount?

> I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this here - where someone
> is essentially calling a bunch of long time members liars.

I've never done this. I'm just trying to clench the community's fist
before it punches Plan B, because posting stories without any proof is
only a halfway effort. If someone comes with this thread to Plan B and
asks him about it, he can go and say 'those people are crazy, i mean
who posts on the internet anyways? they haven't shown any proof this
has happened anyways. they're just making it up' - let's stop this
situation before it happens.
As you've seen Plan B uses mind tricks to manipulate the situation his
way. With such proof out in the open and public, he won't be able to
do that in this case.

Ross:
> In so much as the internet can be a big time waster, I do not
> believe that the people are BSing in this thread just to hear themselves
> talk, nor do I think this is some sort of conspiracy against this guy.

Neither do I. But let's not leave the guy with any chance to dismiss
the points made here.

Vincent:

> Basic math suggests that someone who had email when he was eleven...would be how old??
Between 12 and 53 years old?

Mark,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Mark Pulver <mark at midiwall.com> wrote:
>
> Okay KIDS - this PeterG thing has gone on for REAL long time, and the AH
> rules are very clear about bad trader/seller posts.

Sorry, I did not realize that going into this sort of conversation is
governed by an AH rule. I'll make note of this, thank you for
correcting me.

> Mr. CheaterD... please refer to the archives, and also refer to the
> character of those people that you're _accusing_ of stringing someone up
> without "proof". If you need any "proof" about these claims, go back through
> said archives where you'll see at PeterG coming out online to defend himself
> the last time this happened.

I'm not saying anyone is stringing up PlanB. I think he's got what is
coming for him. I'm just asking for more solid proof so he can dangle
quicker. Let's not lie to ourselves, there's no chance of retribution.

I think Peter Forrest's post expresses what I think exactly, I agree
with all points in his post.

As far as PlanB goes, I have a small commentary that I will not follow
up on in this thread:
The analog synth crowd is a very small market. People don't know what
they should expect; quite often the customers will show very good will
by letting some things slip just in order to support the company which
is striving to survive. Peter from Plan B abuses this and uses mind
tricks, coertion and abuse in order to arrive at his ends. What I
think might be happening, and that would explain the long shipping
times and his always asking to send back the items, is that he's got
multiple people he's sending the same item. Say person A buys an item,
then returns it for fixing in march 2009. Peter can sell it to person
B, who will return it by May 2009. Person A and B will be promised two
working items in return while only one, broken, item exists. This is
an illegal business practice called short-selling, and is well known
by many people. As for the bullshit explanations from Peter that he
'can't go 3 blocks', well... I think that's not outrageous anymore,
it's past that point. At this instance the person talking to him
should immediately see him for what he is, a dismissive cynic who
wants to get his money, his gear, and then he tells the person
affected to buzz off; in the world of business if you don't have the
money and don't have the merchandise you've basically got a lost case
on your hands. Especially since Peter G knows in the end the user
won't bother following up on this with legal action.

The manufacture, fix and response times obviously show Peter is not
interested in doing any business. Any serious business gives you
updates on your order/project at least every month, and hopefully
every week. My business is currently doing a service worth 5 000 euro
for free for a company (because it helps us as well), but the people
still expect us to report every week, and they are right to do so, and
we do report every week. Simply because it would not be professional
of us not to keep constant communication.

Supposedly PlanB has shipped some good hardware here and there as
well, in big amounts actually. This performance, and the shouting, and
not-picking-up, would only suggest that we're dealing with a bipolar
person. People who take their emotions into business shouldn't be
doing business.

Thanks
D.


On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:59 PM, BrightBoy <jdec at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Here are the rules that a mail-order company operating
> in the United States must follow when taking orders:
>
> http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus02.shtm
>
> If Plan B/EAR isn't following these rules, file a complaint
> with the Federal Trade Commission.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Mark Pulver <mark at midiwall.com>
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2009 11:50 AM
>>To: AH <analogue at hyperreal.org>
>>Subject: Re: [AH] BAD Trader: Peter Grenader
>>
>>
>>No shit.
>>
>>Okay KIDS - this PeterG thing has gone on for REAL long time, and the AH
>>rules are very clear about bad trader/seller posts.
>>
>>There's a history of issues with PeterG, the archives will show it.
>>
>>Mr. CheaterD... please refer to the archives, and also refer to the
>>character of those people that you're _accusing_ of stringing someone up
>>without "proof". If you need any "proof" about these claims, go back
>>through said archives where you'll see at PeterG coming out online to
>>defend himself the last time this happened.
>>
>>KenE had a point in this, public outcry is a good way to flesh someone
>>out... Peter doesn't seem to want to say much this time around.
>>
>>
>>Also, your suggestion about posting other communication is MOST CERTAINLY
>>NOT OKAY to do here. AH is not here to create a battle zone for
>>trader/tradee situations like this. Plus, it's not exactly legal to post
>>private communication in a public forum.
>>
>>
>>
>>Mark - really really trying to deputy this mess.
>>-----
>>Ancient Eyeball Recipe (06:28 AM 3/12/2009) wrote:
>> >
>> >you're not defending him, but you imply that we are posting "bullshit"?
>> >
>>
>>-----
>>steve at polyfather.com (05:17 AM 3/12/2009) wrote:
>> >Hi 'D'
>> >
>> >Well you are a pretty anonymous character yourself, you go first.
>>
>>
>>====================
>>cheater cheater (03:02 AM 3/12/2009) wrote:
>> >> Hi guys,
>> >> I'm really sorry to hear about your problems and don't wish to make
>> >> your claims seem insignificant or untrue, but they're some pretty big
>> >> claims; for this thread to be just, can you supply some proof that you
>> >> are actual Plan B customers? There is a lot of internet drama out
>> >> there and a small manufacturer can be brought down with forged emails
>> >> like this - so can we have perhaps something like photos of you with
>> >> the units, photos receipts, stuff like that? This would add you guys
>> >> credibility in the eyes of an onlooker like me.
>> >>
>> >> On another note, if you have any emails from Plan B that you'd like to
>> >> post, remember that it's OK to do so. Communication from a company is
>> >> pretty much public and you can use it in court openly and can even
>> >> post it to a print newspaper as far as anything is concerned...
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> D
>>
>
>
>
>