Commercialism vs. Community

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

If you REALLY think any laws are "effective", no offense, but you know nothing about legal systems.

Argument by assertion: an intelligent 8 year old can explain why it is frakked, but it's the basis of the libertarian intellectual diet!

Regagrdless, I fundamentally disagree that guns should be pointed at peaceful people in order to force them to sell or not sell anything.

So you wouldn't use force to stop the sale of slaves? Of children to paedophiles? Of poison laced food? Of an h-bomb to al qaida?

Of course I have a soft and well-cushioned life by global standards. Everyone who lives in the USA does.

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

But unlike you I have accepted the fact that life is inherently filled with risk. Because unlike you I don't need to legitimize a monopoly on violence to be comfortable with my life.

Repeating this cliche makes you sound like a Moonie. It's meaningless junk that shows that you have no ability to think rationally, because you are confusing two quite different concepts:

1. The contention that life has an element of risk that can't be reduced to zero

and

2. The question of how well regulation works at reducing risk

This is a huge intellectual fail. You are literally incapable of reasonably rational thought when you make errors like this. This isn't about your political views, it is about the laws of logic.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

watch it, i kill and eat libertarians for breakfast, during which i watch star trek.

Wouldn't it be better to kill the libertarians in advance and smoke cure them? They'd be tastier, last longer, and your mornings would be less hassled, leaving you time to watch a man's SF show like reboot BSG...

[sth]

If you REALLY think any laws are "effective", no offense, but you know nothing about legal systems.

Argument by assertion: an intelligent 8 year old can explain why it is frakked, but it's the basis of the libertarian intellectual diet!

Regagrdless, I fundamentally disagree that guns should be pointed at peaceful people in order to force them to sell or not sell anything.

So you wouldn't use force to stop the sale of slaves? Of children to paedophiles? Of poison laced food? Of an h-bomb to al qaida?

Of course I have a soft and well-cushioned life by global standards. Everyone who lives in the USA does.

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

But unlike you I have accepted the fact that life is inherently filled with risk. Because unlike you I don't need to legitimize a monopoly on violence to be comfortable with my life.

Repeating this cliche makes you sound like a Moonie. It's meaningless junk that shows that you have no ability to think rationally, because you are confusing two quite different concepts:
1. The contention that life has an element of risk that can't be reduced to zero
and
2. The question of how well regulation works at reducing risk
This is a huge intellectual fail. You are literally incapable of reasonably rational thought when you make errors like this. This isn't about your political views, it is about the laws of logic.

3rd reply is spot the **** on.

[sth]

watch it, i kill and eat libertarians for breakfast, during which i watch star trek.

Wouldn't it be better to kill the libertarians in advance and smoke cure them? They'd be tastier, last longer, and your mornings would be less hassled, leaving you time to watch a man's SF show like reboot BSG...

i pretty much have to blend them up into a smoothie and add a bunch of fruit and yogurt. not even a good smoking is going to hide the sour flavor of self-importance. good source of protein though.

oh and for the record, the person who convinced me to start watching BSG was a woman, not a man

[jdcarpe]

It's not our fault that we libertarians happen to be right most of the time. Being enlightened can be such a burden, sometimes.

Actually, response #3 sounds like someone making excuses to me. If I were black, I wouldn't want someone else making excuses as to which school I attended, the conditions in which I was raised, or the prison system targeting my racial/ethnic group.

But I think we've strayed a bit off topic.

[sth]

Actually, response #3 sounds like someone making excuses to me. If I were black, I wouldn't want someone else making excuses as to which school I attended, the conditions in which I was raised, or the prison system targeting my racial/ethnic group.

OMFG. this is exactly what's wrong with libertarianism. Sup with individuals perpetuating institutional racism?

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

Actually, response #3 sounds like someone making excuses to me. If I were black, I wouldn't want someone else making excuses as to which school I attended, the conditions in which I was raised, or the prison system targeting my racial/ethnic group.

People who say this are usually the first ones who want special treatment when they have minor hiccups with their life - if they have flu during an exam, hayfever, whatever. But mention that blacks are enormously more liable to go to jail than white Americans for the same, often victimless, offenses and much more likely to go to inadequate schools, and suddenly some white middle class kid is ***certain*** of what he'd want if his life was totally different...

[jdcarpe]

Sup is that black people (and any other race of people) are humans, too. Why must one group of humans be treated differently than another? Aren't the people who see racism to be an issue the same ones who are promoting a racial divide between people?

P.S. I just want to say, it doesn't bother me that either of you have a differing position than mine on these issues. I'm just glad you HAVE an position, and are willing to defend it.

[sth]

Actually, response #3 sounds like someone making excuses to me. If I were black, I wouldn't want someone else making excuses as to which school I attended, the conditions in which I was raised, or the prison system targeting my racial/ethnic group.

People who say this are usually the first ones who want special treatment when they have minor hiccups with their life - if they have flu during an exam, hayfever, whatever. But mention that blacks are enormously more liable to go to jail than white Americans for the same, often victimless, offenses and much more likely to go to inadequate schools, and suddenly some white middle class kid is ***certain*** of what he'd want if his life was totally different...

careful with your first statement there... prime fodder for libertarians who like to avoid the point.

[sth]

Sup is that black people (and any other race of people) are humans, too. Why must one group of humans be treated differently than another?

The point is not that black people are not humans. the point is black people as a group of humans (let alone pretty much every other marginalized group of people) ARE treated differently than others in the US every day, be it by individuals or institutions.

Aren't the people who see racism to be an issue the same ones who are promoting a racial divide between people?

No. racism is a huge issue and there's already a racial divide in this country. You're confusing symptoms with causes.

Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

Sup is that black people (and any other race of people) are humans, too. Why must one group of humans be treated differently than another?

This is missing the point: black people in the US ***ARE*** treated differently - there is an enormous disparity in sentencing for minor crimes for example. What you are asking people to do is to ignore this.

Worse, you are arguing for this via "If I was a black person -" Well, you're not. You're not black, you're not an Auschwitz or rape survivor, and you shouldn't assume that you can imagine how you'd feel if you were. That's not to say anything people in these groups say is correct - but you should argue based on logic, rather than your imagined version of an experience you don't have.

Getting back to those facts:

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/black-americans-given-longer-sentences-than-white-americans-for-same-crimes?news=843984

A new academic study of 58,000 federal criminal cases has found significant disparities in sentencing for blacks and whites arrested for the same crimes. The research led to the conclusion that African-Americans’ jail time was almost 60% longer than white sentences.

 
According to M. Marit Rehavi of the University of British Columbia and Sonja B. Starr, who teaches criminal law at the University of Michigan Law School, the racial disparities can be explained “in a single prosecutorial decision: whether to file a charge carrying a mandatory minimum sentence….Black men were on average more than twice as likely to face a mandatory minimum charge as white men were, holding arrest offense as well as age and location constant.” Prosecutors are about twice as likely to impose mandatory minimums on black defendants as on white defendants.

This single difference alone has huge knock-on effects: because black men are much more likely to be in jail, black families are more likely to be impoverished and traumatized.

And remember: there is no reason even to believe these men are guilty - trials in the US criminal system are almost suicidal because of the lack of resources for public defenders and because of the large increase in sentence for not pleading guilty.

P.S. I just want to say, it doesn't bother me that either of you have a differing position than mine on these issues. I'm just glad you HAVE an position, and are willing to defend it.

That's very open minded. Good for you!

[litster]

<*****slap trimmed>

TheGreatAmphibianPling, you are my GHero.

[demik]

Actually, response #3 sounds like someone making excuses to me. If I were black, I wouldn't want someone else making excuses as to which school I attended, the conditions in which I was raised, or the prison system targeting my racial/ethnic group.

OMFG. this is exactly what's wrong with libertarianism. Sup with individuals perpetuating institutional racism?

there is nothing better than a white male telling you what a minority should think.

as a minority, that **** is hilarious.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

<*****slap trimmed>

TheGreatAmphibianPling, you are my GHero.

Well, gosh, shucks - thank you!

...Just don't ask me how any of this applies to selling rare keycaps at a huge mark-up. But the guy who talked about not becoming head-fi has his head wired on - that site exists only to get people to spend huge amounts of money on complete rubbish. (Eg $200 cables that a blind listening test will prove work no better than the cheapest kind.)

[iri]

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

isn't there equality in the united states?

[Leslieann]

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

isn't there equality in the united states?

HAHAHAHAHAHA
After adjusting for everything, our income inequality is on par with China, Malaysia and Mozambique.

[tp4tissue]

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

isn't there equality in the united states?

HAHAHAHAHAHA
After adjusting for everything, our income inequality is on par with China, Malaysia and Mozambique.

income inequality isn't a problem... Doesn't matter how "rich" you are on paper..

You eat 3 meals a day, poop 1.5 times a day, and live to ~70


WHAT is a problem is the luxury market which causes a great deal of resources to end up as useless trinkets.

[sth]

you always have the answer don't you

[Leslieann]

income inequality isn't a problem... Doesn't matter how "rich" you are on paper..

You eat 3 meals a day, poop 1.5 times a day, and live to ~70

It may not matter when you have money, but to those who are poor, it certainly matters.

As for 3 meals a day, a lot of people in this country struggle for one.

[iri]

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

isn't there equality in the united states?

HAHAHAHAHAHA
After adjusting for everything, our income inequality is on par with China, Malaysia and Mozambique.

i wasn't talking about income inequality

[Leslieann]

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

isn't there equality in the united states?

HAHAHAHAHAHA
After adjusting for everything, our income inequality is on par with China, Malaysia and Mozambique.

i wasn't talking about income inequality

Income inequality often goes right along with other inequality.

Just because we have a black president doesn't mean everything is peachy.

[keyboardlover]

So you wouldn't use force to stop the sale of slaves? Of children to paedophiles? Of poison laced food? Of an h-bomb to al qaida?

Nope. Unlike you I am a peaceful person and unlike you I don't legitimize even my own slavery now. P.S. what is Al-qaeda exactly?

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

That is fair, but global poverty is a very serious problem caused by statism. In fact, I probably care much more about solving this crisis than you. I know that crises of war and poverty are caused by statism, and cannot be destroyed unless the state is; this has been true in all statist societies (and all successful anarchies have created unparalleled equality, until they were destroyed by force).

Repeating this cliche makes you sound like a Moonie. It's meaningless junk that shows that you have no ability to think rationally, because you are confusing two quite different concepts:

1. The contention that life has an element of risk that can't be reduced to zero

and

2. The question of how well regulation works at reducing risk

This is a huge intellectual fail. You are literally incapable of reasonably rational thought when you make errors like this. This isn't about your political views, it is about the laws of logic.

Cliche? Lol. It's a fact that destroys the statist mindset that a monopoly on violence is crucial to preventing risk and you know it. That's why you're getting defensive.
Laws of logic? Do you actually believe that risk in life can be reduced to zero? How? We are human beings! The burden of proof of how well regulation works at reducing risk is up to you, but like I said, I am a peaceful person who doesn't believe in legitimizing a monopoly on violence in order to feel comfortable with my life. Because unlike you, I know, LOGICALLY, that laws do not stop bad people from doing bad things. If it worked, it would work and the writing is on the wall. The worst thing about statism is it legitimizes these bad things, because the same bad things are always ok so long as government does them. Which goes back to war and poverty.

There is nothing statism accomplishes without the real or implied threat of violent force and therefore there's no such thing as government; only a monopoly of violence, legitimized by folks such as yourself. And if you think it works so damn well, then why is it currently working so damn POORLY? The burden of proof is on you sir!

Plus your avatar is Spock, a member of a species that would put Ayn Rand in a mental hospital (rather than having her executed for crimes against literature the way any sane species would.)

Wow, statists are SO violent!

Now, if you'd like to debate this further, please create a new thread or we can do it offline. Derailing this thread doesn't make much sense now does it mr. trollphibian?

As I've said before, there are two types of Geekhackers. Those who want to be left alone, and those who simply will not leave them alone.

[TheGreatAmphibianPling]

So you wouldn't use force to stop the sale of slaves? Of children to paedophiles? Of poison laced food? Of an h-bomb to al qaida?

Nope. Unlike you I am a peaceful person

I'd actually say that you are evil person, because you are willing to allow very large moral abuses to be committed so that you don't have to commit what are at most smaller ones.

and unlike you I don't legitimize even my own slavery now.

Gosh - more meaningless slogans!

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

That is fair, but global poverty is a very serious problem caused by statism.

Again: that's argument by assertion.

I know that crises of war and poverty are caused by statism

This is silly: Singapore is a state entity and peaceful and prosperous, but the Rawandan genocide was a sub-state conflict. Then there is happy, happy Somalia...

Repeating this cliche makes you sound like a Moonie. It's meaningless junk that shows that you have no ability to think rationally, because you are confusing two quite different concepts:

1. The contention that life has an element of risk that can't be reduced to zero

and

2. The question of how well regulation works at reducing risk

This is a huge intellectual fail. You are literally incapable of reasonably rational thought when you make errors like this. This isn't about your political views, it is about the laws of logic.

Cliche? Lol. It's a fact that destroys the statist mindset that a monopoly on violence is crucial to preventing risk and you know it.

Again: argument by assertion.

That's why you're getting defensive.

Actually I'd say I'm more derisory.

Laws of logic? Do you actually believe that risk in life can be reduced to zero?

Ok: you can't read. Once again:

It's meaningless junk that shows that you have no ability to think rationally, because you are confusing two quite different concepts:

1. The contention that life has an element of risk that can't be reduced to zero

and

2. The question of how well regulation works at reducing risk

This is a huge intellectual fail.

..So your the answer to your silly rhetorical question has already been given - which is that no thinks that the state can reduce risk to zero, but that this is a stupid criteria for whether to have a state. Vaccinations, seat belts, parachutes, air bags, etc, don't reduce risk to zero - but you're still an idiot if you jump out of a plane without a parachute because the parachute isn't guaranteed to work *perfectly.*

[keyboardlover]

Apparently YOU can't read. I said let's take it offline or in another thread to not derail this one. I'm not going to reply to you anymore.

Mods, do you agree?

[Krogenar]

I come back one day later to this thread and ... wow. It's like going to bed with Bruce Lee's physique and waking with Chris Farley's body. (May they both rest in peace.) Full on 'The John McLaughlin Group' with sth & co. as Eleanor Clift! So many enticing political tangents to choose from! Some quick comments and then back on topic:

No time for my coruscatingly brilliant political insight? Fine. Skip down to line that reads: *** END POLITICAL TANGENT HERE ***

Hey now, I'm a libertarian. Tread lightly there.

Hey, me too! No wonder you've supplied cogent and useful remarks so consistently! (secret libertarian handshake) For me, there is not always a capital letter 'L' on my 'Libertarianism' cap (Completely free and open borders? No more crazy pills for you!) -- basically I ascribe to the Milton Friedman model of economics because it is readable (enjoyable, even -- if I won the lottery I would drop copies of 'Free to Choose' over black communities) and it actually jibes with my experiences. I believe (as Friedman did) that of all human liberties (sexual, economic, legal, etc.) that economic liberty is the 'base' liberty, from which all other liberties may be derived, if it is allowed. Give people the right to own property (but no other freedoms) and they will eventually pry the other freedoms into being. Seriously, read 'Free to Choose' -- http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607

Economics is often referred to as 'The Dismal Science' but Friedman's book makes it truly enjoyable without skimping or 'dumbing it down'. For most people, the thought of reading about economics is about as appealing as receiving a lap dance from Hillary Clinton, but in this case you would be wrong. Awesome, awesome book written by a Nobel Prize winner.

I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car.

I don't even know which budding young socialist said this, but what a beautifully honest remark. Who cares about the nitty gritty of how we organize ourselves economically -- do I, or do I not get my car? What does your ownership of a car have to do with the utility of capitalism versus socialism? Probably the most beautifully honest non sequitur (so far). That's why discussions of socialism interest me, the truth always slips out, given time.

Someone (guy with the frog avatar) pointed out that keyboardlover "probably has a well-cushioned life" -- as though that was somehow a black mark against him. I've been monitoring some of the other threads and I'm always surprised to see some people (generally the more collectivist-minded members) beating their breasts saying things like, "This hobby hasn't made me any money -- I've lost money on it!" -- again, as though that somehow entitles them to be an OG (original gangster? Their term, not mine. *snicker*) or that the fact that they've lost money is a badge of honor; proof of their superior sincerity and commitment.

What crap. I have a higher respect for the person who makes money off their hobby because (in my experience) you cannot make money unless you provide value to someone else. Hell, I have a higher respect for someone who tries (and fails) to make some money off their hobby because at least they had the stones to try. This is not an endorsement of fraud (selling crap to people), but of how markets work. Keyboardlover, I hope your life gets even more cushier and more comfortable.

watch it, i kill and eat libertarians for breakfast, during which i watch star trek.

Really? I like your swagger sth. Wait, didn't you essentially tap out of our earlier discussion with the 'Man. Look.' statement? Well, I'm a libertarian, so if you want to debate me in some fashion... make it so! Is this the part where I bang my shoe on the table? Also, sth, throw me some punctuation once in a while? You're on a keyboard forum and you can't find the Shift key? (I keed, I keed!) For all I know you're tapping this all out on a iPod Touch. (damned corporations!)

*** END POLITICAL TANGENT HERE ***

What was we talkin' 'bout? Oh right, how to strike a balance between commercial interests of members (and forum owners) while still fostering a non-commercial 'community'?

1. Acknowledge that they are not mutually exclusive and in fact are mutually beneficial to one another.

2. I think it matters how tactfully the forum owners and moderators handle advertisements on the forum. It doesn't have to be crass, or overbearing. Let advertisers know that they will not be getting free passes, soft-pedaled reviews of their products, etc. It should be like a journalism site -- no special consideration to advertisers. Avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest whenever possible.

3. The answer is (in my opinion) more and better communication, not less. After considering jdcarpe's idea about allowing more threadcrapping (negative feedback) I agree. But how to determine what is or is not useful threadcrap? I still think a karmic system could work. If users threadcrap recklessly it should eventually hurt them. If they threadcrap in a positive, useful way, it should help them. So if a user is just a business-hating anarcho-socialist who threadcraps anyone trying to sell for a profit, they would eventually end up being 'ignored' by the community, automatically. So -- more communication, but with auto-correcting consequences for misuse of that new communication. Positive feedback would also have positive consequences in this scenario.

4. I would consider asking community members to donate $5/year to the forum. I have definitely received better than $5 worth of knowledge and guidance and would drop that amount in a heartbeat. In fact, I'll do it today. If they do, give them a nifty profile badge. Or give them a nifty badge for donating stuff, or knowledge. Added five entries to the wiki -- badge time, woo! Get great feedback from buyers/sellers? Badge for you. We would be incentivizing positive interaction. Give the OG elites an OG badge -- whoops, now you can't -- they'll know they're being mollified and instead be peeved. Sorry. Which leads to my next point.

5. Accept that you're not Not NOT going to make everyone happy. Some people bear their unhappiness as a badge of honor, and there's no cure for their colic. Listen to them and then soothe them as best you can and move on. Owners and Admins probably know this already, but it never hurts to repeat it. Some people are always going to view business people in a negative light. Listen to them but please don't be ruled by them.

6. I've been to lots and lots of forums (even been banned from one) and run a small one (20 members) for a few years, and I'm really glad I found GH. The level of discourse here is very high. I'm glad that the mods, admins and owners are letting people vent their fears and frustrations because it's the right thing to do. One of the techniques I use in business when I'm faced with an angry, upset client is to let them vent and then I thank them for complaining.

This usually stops them dead in their tracks because most people don't thank people for complaining. They usually roll their eyes and hit them with some admin conflict-resolution language nonsense. I explain that for every person like them that complains there could be another ten that don't complain ... those other ten people just walk away, without a peep. I've lost those ten people as customers because they just accepted the problem as 'the way things are'. Then I explain that I don't want to lose them, or those ten people. So I sincerely thank them for bringing this problem to my attention -- and usually they become kittens. Sometimes they have nothing concrete to add, but the act of listening defuses them in any event.

So kudos to the admins, owners and mods of GH for listening, that bodes very well for GH's future. (It probably explains GH's present condition as well -- I don't believe in happy accidents.) I've also noticed that some of the member/entrepeneurs have taken a positive attitude towards threadcrapping. They want to be better, and that's also very heartening to see.

Also, someone please start a political discussion thread, if only to save this one!

[samwisekoi]

And with that, can we put this thread aside and talk about keyboards?  Strive for balance and harmony, etc?

Seriously, everyone's opinion that can be changed has been changed.  And/or not so much.

Look there!  Keyboards!  Keycaps!  Geekhackery!

Move along now, move along.  Nothing to see here.  All trolls have been fed, have eaten, or both.  All relevant positions have been taken, attacked, discarded, reviled and/or admired.

Thank you all for coming!

Seriously, please move along.

</thread>

 - Ron | samwisekoi

[Alessandro]

Or perhaps litster could contribute to the community by making each one special and unique?  Then perhaps a Dutch auction in benefit of GH?

Although on a side note to that, you're more than welcome to give Jdcarpe his $63 back if that's how you feel about auctions.

Wait, what?  I don't have Jdcarpe's $63, and I am cool with auctions.  (Jdcarpe, please tell me if I owe you money!)

I said Dutch Auction because (according to my understanding and Wikipedia):

However, all winning bidders need to pay only the lowest qualifying (successful) bid. If there are more successful bids than items available, priority goes to the bidders who submitted their bids first.

So if we had a Dutch auction, everyone would pay the lowest successful bid.  That seemed fairer to me, but any other format is ok as well.

Was I misunderstood or am I misunderstanding?

Seriously, I'll buy the blanks and if litster will do the artwork, all proceeds can go to GH.  Isn't that a good thing?

 - Ron | samwisekoi

Show Image

No, I aplogise for misunderstanding that. :)

Also, I would love to take part, gimme one o' dem smileys.

[baldgye]

It's so strange that people on GH have such a problem blending commercialism with community, they are one in the same. Without people able to make money from this hobby, there wouldn't be shops or people out there providing for people who 'arn't' in the loop already.

From my own point of view, there seems to be only extreme's posted when ever anyone who runs a buisness tries and do it through there own shop, like making money is some great crime...

[iri]

What does your ownership of a car have to do with the utility of capitalism versus socialism?

in socialist times, my granddad had three cars. i own none. *sigh*

[Krogenar]

What does your ownership of a car have to do with the utility of capitalism versus socialism?

in socialist times, my granddad had three cars. i own none. *sigh*

Was he a member of the politburo?

[iri]

What does your ownership of a car have to do with the utility of capitalism versus socialism?

in socialist times, my granddad had three cars. i own none. *sigh*

Was he a member of the politburo?

an emergency vehicle driver.

[davkol]

lol

You guys never disappoint... The first two pages: constructive discussion. The third page: KL advertising his religion, and sth with the positive discrimination stuff. I'm out of here. -_-

BTW I wanted to write an on-topic comment, but I'd just repeat what hashbaz, demik and sth said earlier. I stay away from most parts of GBs/classifieds and GH media for a reason. Profiteering may damage otherwise good relationships. What has been seen, cannot be unseen. (Someone remembers e.g. the MMB vs. Lin sh!tstorm? This stuff is exactly what drives the community feeling somewhere else.)