Beware of Dive Chronicles photo contests!

[BDSC]

Go Tar Heels

By the way Allison, I purchased a Top Dawg housing last year at a WW used equipment sale from a nice lady with the same last name who was from Chapel Hill. Didn't know if you two were kin.

 

[El Orans]

At this point, the only post deleted from this thread is my initial one from the first page which was reported.

Which is completely nonsensical, as it is quoted several times in this thread.

 

[ONESPEED]

Everything in moderation, including moderation. Words to live by.

 

[The Chairman]

It would never occur to me to make certain allegations about a photographer without thoroughly investigating...

You mean like the allegations they made about Brad??? It's OK to jump on Brad without an investigation, but we should be silent about the other party? That just doesn't sound fair. So, what WAS my main allegation?

She never paid to enter the contest.

That allegation has been corroborated by not only Backscatter, but also by the photographer in question. How is that "misinformation" Allison?

She might have INTENDED to pay. She might have WANTED to pay. But there appears to be no finalized financial transaction. Without that payment, she has not legally entered the contest. Consequently, there is no contractual obligation for Brad to fulfill if she has not legally entered the contest. Asking for an award without paying the entry fee is simply wanting something for nothing.

Could Brad have run his contest better? Quite possibly, but I never commented on that. I wasn't there to see it run. I only commented on the one thing that I did know: she never paid the entry fee! THAT was the other side to the story! That's the premise on which I have commented, and NO ONE has proven it to be false!

I have made two conclusions about this premise... that the card was "bogus". For the ability to pay for this contest it surely has proven to be. I also said that the photographer wants something for nothing... which will be true to me until she pays the entry fee! One wonders if she would be so keen to pay this entry fee IF she had not won.

It would appear that some people on the internet want only ONE SIDE to be heard. Everyone else who points out a fact is subsequently accused of all sorts of nefarious motives. Wow. Now we add "childish" to the litany of character bashing attributes being levied at me. Is it childish to defend your honor and show the hypocrisy of those who attack it? No one has proven that the one salient fact I presented to be false! Look at how they rail against me drawing my conclusions and how many MORE conclusions they draw in doing so! It's nothing more than an attempt to silence my attempt to deviate from the misinformation about this incident.

dogpile

v. [Usenet: prob. fr. mainstream "puppy pile"] When many people post unfriendly responses in short order to a single posting, they are sometimes said to "dogpile" or "dogpile on" the person to whom they're responding. For example, when a religious missionary posts a simplistic appeal to alt.atheism, he can expect to be dogpiled. It has been suggested that this derives from U.S, football slang for a tackle involving three or more people.

Look at this from our ToS:

Our focus is to advance safety, knowledge and enjoyment within the diving community by encouraging the mutual exchange of experiences, ideas and opinions.

How does the subsequent dog pile on me "encourage" that mutual exchange? It doesn't. That is only churlish behavior on your part when you participate. Could someone have suggested that she had TRY to pay? Someone did, and I had not known that the problem was with the TYPE of card used. Apparently, his staff taking the application had no idea. That does not make Brad or her crooks. That does not give people like BDSC free license to bully me or anyone else to their way of thinking. In fact, if it had NOT been about me, his lambastes would have been a ToS violation and deleted on the spot. Since I don't allow staff to protect me from his kind of inflammatory postings they stay as does yours.

Now, is it your humble opinion that when people accuse me of spreading misinformation, that I simply agree with their misinformation? Perhaps an apology from YOU (I have already made one) would be in order? Or is that only for others to do? Perhaps, if you don't want to make that apology you can show me the "misinformation" that I am spreading.

As an aside... thanks for the PMs from those who agree with me! I fully understand why you don't want to jump into this mess. It's kinda scary! Some people just don't like ALL of the truth to be told and they believe they can silence you by attacking your character and not the facts. Hopefully Snaphappy will divulge the conclusion of this messy episode and we can end it.

 

[Deefstes]

I would still love to know:

1. How can he appoint a winner of a competition if he knows that he won't award the prize? I mean he knew that she hadn't paid, or so he says.
2. Have the other winners of the competition received their prizes or not? I mean ALL of them, not some of them.
3. The other claims of people not receiving their prizes, are they blatantly lying or have they all used Amex to pay their entry fee?

 

[BDSC]

Your are one in a million Pete. Really, one in a million. I love the way you try and twist the words you used to prove your point. Seriously, you are a master at it although I don't know that it convinces anyone but maybe yourself.

By the way, I described you as being arrogant and acting like a kid.

You described yourself as lying, insensitive, a pathetic loser, heinous, dishonorable, worst admin on the planet, and a arrogant SOB.

What do you know. You and I agree on something!

 

[ScubaSteve]

I would still love to know:

Can someone PLEASE answer Deefstes' questions? The answer to "Is Brad really a schiester?" is truthfully answered by those questions. So how about whoever has the answers, post them with sources and we will finally know if something fishy (pardon the UW pun) is or has gone on.

 

[Deefstes]

BDSC, I have to come out in defense of Pete here. You have to agree that he has taken a lynching on this thread second to none and even though I am just as cheesed off with Brad's antics I can't understand what exactly Pete has done to deserve such a lynching.

It appears to me, just looking at the available facts, that the worst he has done have been:
1. Using a phrase which some considers a racial slur. I for one would not have known it to be one and Pete did apologise and remove his post (unnecessarily if you ask me).
2. He claimed to "have done business with Brad and he has never bilked (him) out of money". Surely that's an honest and perfectly acceptable comment.
3. He claimed to "trust him and consider him a friend". Again, nothing wrong with that but I can see why you (or others) would baulk at this statement, if you adhered to an attitude of "my enemy's friend is my enemy".
4. He didn't read the entire thread on WetPixel. Surely that is no sin. I can't believe that I made time to read both threads in their entirety but I certainly wouldn't expect everyone else to do it.
5. He pointed out the fact that there was a problem with the entrant's credit card (fact) and perhaps took some license using the term "bogus card" in a subsequent post.

But seriously, from what I can see in this thread, his using the phrase "bogus card" was perhaps the biggest mistake he made, hardly worth a crucifixion. I'm probably opening myself up for abuse here as well because I'm defending the guy who defended the guy who did wrong (and the friend of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy after all).

But what I'm saying is that Pete is being accused here of a LOT of things he didn't do and you have probably been more vocal than anyone else. So what if he didn't take all the available information into account before making a comment? He simply brought to this thread's attention the fact that there IS another bit of information that has, up to that point, not been mentioned in this thread.

Having said all that, I want to reiterate that guys like this Brad gets right up my nose and I would love to see him being brought to book and I would still love to know what his answers are to:

1. How can he appoint a winner of a competition if he knows that he won't award the prize? I mean he knew that she hadn't paid, or so he says.
2. Have the other winners of the competition received their prizes or not? I mean ALL of them, not some of them.
3. The other claims of people not receiving their prizes, are they blatantly lying or have they all used Amex to pay their entry fee?

 

[Grover48]

The arguments provided by the detractors of NetDoc fall into the classification of arguments ad hominem. They avoid the facts of the case and attack the man or attach the man to ideas that are not supported by facts.

It is easy to nip at the heels of the lead dog when he slows down. NetDoc has provided solid facts in this case and has presented a valid argument. Others have chose to hijack this thread to attack him rather than stay on subject of the contest. The facts speak for themselves. The entry fee was not paid. Th promoter said the prize would be awarded if the fee was paid. Time to put this one to bed and get back to diving.

Come on Spring so the cabin fever folks can get back to living a life out of doors!

 

[BDSC]

BDSC, I have to come out in defense of Pete here. You have to agree that he has taken a lynching on this thread second to none and even though I am just as cheesed off with Brad's antics I can't understand what exactly Pete has done to deserve such a lynching.

It appears to me, just looking at the available facts, that the worst he has done have been:
1. Using a phrase which some considers a racial slur. I for one would not have known it to be one and Pete did apologise and remove his post (unnecessarily if you ask me).
2. He claimed to "have done business with Brad and he has never bilked (him) out of money". Surely that's an honest and perfectly acceptable comment.
3. He claimed to "trust him and consider him a friend". Again, nothing wrong with that but I can see why you (or others) would baulk at this statement, if you adhered to an attitude of "my enemy's friend is my enemy".
4. He didn't read the entire thread on WetPixel. Surely that is no sin. I can't believe that I made time to read both threads in their entirety but I certainly wouldn't expect everyone else to do it.
5. He pointed out the fact that there was a problem with the entrant's credit card (fact) and perhaps took some license using the term "bogus card" in a subsequent post.

But seriously, from what I can see in this thread, his using the phrase "bogus card" was perhaps the biggest mistake he made, hardly worth a crucifixion. I'm probably opening myself up for abuse here as well because I'm defending the guy who defended the guy who did wrong (and the friend of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy after all).

But what I'm saying is that Pete is being accused here of a LOT of things he didn't do and you have probably been more vocal than anyone else. So what if he didn't take all the available information into account before making a comment? He simply brought to this thread's attention the fact that there IS another bit of information that has, up to that point, not been mentioned in this thread.

Having said all that, I want to reiterate that guys like this Brad gets right up my nose and I would love to see him being brought to book and I would still love to know what his answers are to:

While I may not agree with you, I respect your difference of opinion.