Quote Originally Posted by kingjammy24
My post caused Chris Cavalier to say "before someone posts something that can have an adverse affect on someones livelihood, I think they need to be absolutely sure and need to present better evidence.."

So Chris, what do you make of the 'evidence' in this thread, which I see has failed to elicit a comment from you (or Eric) 8 days after it began?
Rudy-

I think it's time to clear up a few things. Your post that you reference in the quote above was brought to my attention and I offered my opinion that your initial post did not seem to provide enough evidence to support the implied claim that the jersey was bad. In fact, one of the two points used (the original comment that "the extra white material on the ends of the sleeves" was an "issue") appears to not be the issue you thought it was. As such, I think my comments were fair in stating more evidence was needed before making an absolute claim that the jersey had the "issues" you suggested.

In fact, that helped bring us to the point we are now. In a later post, I asked if it could be shown that all 49er (and specifically Montana) jerseys from the 1980s can be proven to all have number "1"s that have the "short nose" you referenced. If so, I said I believe that would be conclusive and warrant calling it an "issue". To be clear, I will ask specifically, are you stating that every jersey worn by Montana in the 80s had the "short nose" you speak of? Because your initial post (and the images you provided) appeared not to be conclusive in my estimation. As I clearly stated, I am not saying whether or not the jersey has issues. I stated that, in my opinion, any post which explicitly claims something which has such huge implications should provide very solid evidence. As I also mentioned, if you had made your initial post in the form of a question the dialog would likely have been very different.

As stated numerous times on the forum (this is nothing new), I agree with the statement that it is important for people to differentiate opinions from facts and that they are careful with the claims they make. That should come as no surprise. If that wasn't made clear we would have a forum where people throw accusations all over the place and there would not be much credibility in what goes on here. I am not saying that is what you are doing. I am simply saying I think there should be sufficient evidence when claiming someone's item is bad. It was my personal opinion that your initial post did not provide sufficient evidence to definitely label an item as having "issues".

Now that you point out this thread, do I think some of the comments here should be positioned as opinion rather than fact...yes, I do. Once again, I think we all need to be very responsible with accusations that have far reaching implications. In my opinion, the "IMO" (in my opinion) above, was an appropriate way to position the thought. However, once again, I am only offering my opinion.

I also think it is important to point out a forum rule of which states "No Trolling or Baiting. You will not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. Please do not create meaningless threads with the sole purpose of starting a dispute." Though open to debate, I will assume your post quoted above does not fit into this category. I am making that assumption based my belief that I think you are too smart to bait any member, much less someone so intimately involved with running the site where the forum resides.

Finally, let me reiterate a point I made in my earlier post. Rudy, I think the effort you commit and the skills you have can be a tremendous asset to the hobby. I am merely suggesting that we (all of us) be more aware of the potential implications when sharing our thoughts.

Sincerely,
Christopher Cavalier
CEO - Game Used Universe