82 Iron Duke

iTrader: (21)

Hello Jeremy,
I made a trade with a fellow member, I am trying to post i-trader feedback but I am getting the response I listed in the title?

JT

iTrader: (1)

Is it in the Classifieds section?

82 Iron Duke

iTrader: (21)

Yes, here is the URL:
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/inte...lashlight.html

JT

iTrader: (1)

Who are you trying to rate?

82 Iron Duke

iTrader: (21)

I made the trade with my82roc, I know he didn't start the post but a trade with him was made within the post.

JT

iTrader: (1)

Use this thread:
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/inte...lashlight.html

82 Iron Duke

iTrader: (21)

JT

John in RI

iTrader: (167)

If both parties wrote in the original thread,.... Then why didn't the link to the original thread work ???

JT

iTrader: (1)

You do not have all the facts, John. I edited the thread to allow it to work. The simple answer is, that in the unedited thread, neither party created the thread. And no, that criteria was not changed recently.

John in RI

iTrader: (167)

To me; It sure looks like you simply created a new thread ( #464612 ) by pulling previous posts from an existing thread ( #435775).

So, does this mean that if feedback is to be left based on input in the thread - the feedback can only be left if 1 of the 2 parties STARTED the thread.

Don't have all what facts ?? I asked a simple very question.


P.S. Since you have locked my previous thread for rebuttle & I will never send you a PM..... You will find that my previous post containing your Qoute was not something from a PM - it was pulled directly from your own writings and is publically visible to anyone that looks.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/prob...tml?highlight=


No one has all the facts.... I'll accept your appology whenever your ready.

JT

iTrader: (1)

Yes, that is correct. It has been that way ever since I can recall. The party being rated, or doing the rating, must have started the thread. That was not the case in the first example.

You started the thread, but you were not the party involved.

Don't have all what facts ?? I asked a simple very question.

That's fine, I admit I must have been wrong on that part. We all make mistakes and I never said I was perfect or error free.

But you were wrong on several points. I do not believe I owe an apology when you violated our rules, made incorrect statements and assumptions, and attempted to criticize me personally for all I've done. You've done this multiple times, as I've noted, despite there's a clear rule (which was not written by me) that has been in place for years on this issue.

To me, you may be the one who owes an apology. As I said, I help members every single day. As everyone knows, it is impossible to please everyone. The fact of the matter is, I make efforts to help people, regardless. There have been some who could not leave feedback (and this thread is a perfect example), but I worked around the issue for the member to allow it to work. When people contact me, I do what I can. That is a fact and is plan and simple. It's why I'm here.

Instead of making such an effort to discuss this in a civil, rational and reasonable manner, you chose to make a public scene and criticize me and some decisions just because it didn't suite you. I'm sorry, but that is how I seen it because you clearly started on the offense. This is not the first time you have done this.

And when you state that you will never send me a PM, I think that further shows that you may have an issue that you need to resolve.

When you get to the point that you actually believe changes are being made on a global level, just to "aggravate" you, as you stated, then I think you clearly are taking things too serious and too far. At that point, I think you need to step back, relax and review things if you think anyone is out to get you, as you hinted, by making changes on a global level to just "aggravate" you - 1 out of thousands of other members.

You may think you should be able to "rebuttal", despite you broke the rules already by saying your piece, I'm giving you a final warning and advising otherwise.

Because you're hijacking this thread, and because this thread was already addressed and resolved anyway, this thread is getting locked.

Thanks.