Take it to new heights gentlemen. You look like 16 year olds. Nothing constructive going on except the fact that this site hosted fake photos and continues to post garbage in the thread in order to distract from the reality of what has happened.

Oh I am still here watching the display.

No not quite. You guys have successfully set yourselves back within the larger hobby with this stunning display

I may do an entire seminar and use this thread as exhibit A.

what exactly are you a professor of? At what school?

Aww crap, I thought you said “semester” sucks having dyslexia and trying to do this on my phone.. you said a seminar, my bad.

If you have anyone in your life that has actually read through this mess for themselves and took your side, I assure they aren’t your friend because they aren’t being honest with you or themselves. Maybe you just made up your own version to tell them, but if they came here they’d see what really happened.

Id be careful calling Charlie out if I were you. He posted pix from Facebook, period. You have no case against him or anyone else here. I don’t know what unmasking him accomplishes or even means. Most of us here already know who he is! Lol.

Uh, there’s no defamation here. There were many opportunities not to go down this road. As far as I remember from law school defamation would have to be complete lies about someone told to someone else which would damage the character of someone and may lead to financial or opportunity loss.

We were discussing a car.

Some photos of the car appeared on social media and chazman asked the opinion of folks here.

Excuses were made about the photos that didn’t make sense and when people said the excuses didn’t explain the photos to satisfy the community the defender of “the car” was given a chance to produce their own photos to show they were of the wrong car (which was further down the line of excuses)

The original poster became angry and frustrated with the inability to defend against the evidence and began attacking people calling the photos into question and began acting as if anyone believing those photos are real is attacking their personal character.

Yet again the responses were to produce satisfactory evidence and also that everyone agrees the car is very cool regardless and this could just end now.

Blurry zoomed in photos were produced that did not refute the original close up photos and even still showed some of the same flaws through the pixelation and shadows.

Moderators were told to shut the thread down and vague threats and accusations by the original poster started occurring

More photos from the new owner were supposed to appear and evidence clearing the car would show us all we are wrong to be skeptical of the alleged condition of the car. With such confidence that $50,000 would be at stake if anyone wanted to bet. I’m not sure if betting on this forum would be legal.

Some members tried to have a sense of humor about the situation and some still urged this could all stop now

More vague threats from the original poster directed at certain people.

Original Poster asked to leave multiple times.

Original Poster refuses to leave.

Did I miss anything?

You could argue that the car is being defamed to us because someone made fake closeup photos that were uploaded to Facebook, but you can’t defame a car. If that were the case the guy who took he pictures could say you’re defaming his pictures by calling them fake if in case that aren’t fake. Photos also cannot be defamed.

This is more along the lines of people witnessing someone act out in a public forum and then calling them out on it. Anyone that finds this behavior irredeemable is allowed to hold that belief based on the public display by the original poster.

The original poster seems to be confusing the public view of the car with the public view of himself to which the car he’s defending might actually have a better reputation if a car could have a reputation.

The car is very cool and sold for great money at BJ... that’s all I know.

I think dagwood’s hunch might be right. I had a friend that had a low mile flame red and gold hardtop in storage and when I asked him about the car he said he hadn’t even started it in years and something fell on the roof so he needed to fix that someday. He was always really careful with that car too, I was surprised.

Cars can get damaged even in storage. 30 years is a long time, stuff happens. It’s not like the car was in a museum or a showroom..

That would be more believable than the clay bar residue comedy.

If you act a certain way in public, the public can witness the behavior and make an opinion. That’s not defamation. I don’t think a little alleged paintwork from storage damage will affect the future value of the car at all. Everyone has said they still think the car is really cool and could have even fetched more money.

One of my friends is an award winning business lawyer who heads his own firm with partners and from what I’ve heard him say defamation cases are very tough to prove and lawyers don’t usually take them. This would be a ridiculous stretch. You can’t tell people they can’t have an opinion of an object in a public forum.

The arguments are such a reach in this case. Also, if the new owner just came here and posted the appropriate evidence this would end. If there is an opportunity to fix the alleged “damage” and it is purposely avoided that is on the people with the evidence to do so.

If the car is truly what the original poster believes it is if it is inspected by a professional appraiser and tested with a paint meter there would be no “loss” of condition and there is no current loss in value.

No one had defamed Barrett Jackson. When you buy a car it’s up to you to determine the condition. Buy a car sight unseen from a dealer and they’ll even say you should have an appraiser check it out. They will say “to the best of their knowledge” the condition of the car but will guarantee nothing. Same with buying a car at auction which has risk. Buying any car has risk.

I think the photos might affect our opinion of the car, but not the value of the car. It’s still a 344 mile car which is still brand new in many respects.

The original poster could have just stated a long time ago, “Something is wrong with those pictures, I didn’t notice any of those flaws on the car when I detailed it, let me see if I can get my own shots of those areas as I am confident the car was not repainted.”

If the car was gone at that point he could have said, “The new owner took the car, I’ll see if they would be willing to take some pictures to prove that the images from Facebook are not right..”

If the new owner takes the position, “I don’t care what a bunch of thirdgen officianados online think, no thanks”. That’s the end of that.

None of this other stuff would have happened. The original poster took it very personally and considered it an attack on him that there was doubt caused by the photos. It appeared to me the more passionately he was willing to defend his view of the car by threatening and attacking people meant we were supposed to say, “wow, he’s so worked up about this he must be right..” It doesn’t work that way though. Instead people publicly responded to his attacks and threats.

There were so many opportunities to not let this happen and there is still an opportunity to clear the car’s exact reputation with very simple evidence. The value of the car has always been intact.

This would be a dangerous precedent because if people go on to car enthusiast forums and start an argument over a car’s condition, performance, whatever and get everyone to question them based on “believe me or else” logic while throwing vague threats thereby egging on public opinion of their display awarding them damages would be foolish. You’d have to end up removing free speech from Internet forums.

Law is very formulaic, feelings removed. You may “feel” you were wronged, but when the arguments are formulated it doesn’t always add up like you thought and good lawyers don’t take those cases.

The excuses for the photos evolving were odd. I was skeptical of the claybar excuse (I’ve clayed thousands of cars) but said nothing. Then it was a bad flash. Then it was reflections. Then it was a different car (which I entertained until I saw the same reflections). Then it was fake photoshop images (but wait, wasn’t it claybar residue?).

Even pros that buy and sell tons of cars miss little details. He never entertained he might have missed a detail on the car.

No one thinks less of Barrett Jackson
No one thinks less of the shippers of the car
No one thinks less of the car (allegedly touched up but still worth every penny)

The actions of the original poster in a public forum is the only damage that I see. He made choices to burn bridges over closeup photos of a car that sold for a lot of money. There were definitive moments where you could see him lighting the bridge on fire with good people on here and many of us were watching in disbelief.

Self inflicted damage is the only damage I see here.

ha ha.. I won an award for that you know!