Guess whose auction got cancelled?

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:19:26 AM UTC-6, Batson D. Belfry wrote:
Three guesses!

I have a copy of your report, Finnan.

"Frank Provasek" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:19:26 AM UTC-6, Batson D. Belfry wrote:
Three guesses!

I have a copy of your report, Finnan.
.................................................. ..............................
Good. Now shove it up your ass, you scumbag.

"Frank Provasek" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:19:26 AM UTC-6, Batson D. Belfry wrote:
Three guesses!

I have a copy of your report, Finnan.

You are full of ****, Provasicko.
You were selling replica coins on eBay, in violation of their prohibition.
And they weren't marked copy, in violation of federal law.
You think eBay's rules are for everybody BUT you.
Now stick a roll of quarters up your ass and jingle away!

On Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:56:57 PM UTC-5, Batson D. Belfry wrote:
"Frank Provasek" wrote in message

...



On Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:19:26 AM UTC-6, Batson D. Belfry wrote:

Three guesses!



I have a copy of your report, Finnan.



You are full of ****, Provasicko.

You were selling replica coins on eBay, in violation of their prohibition.

And they weren't marked copy, in violation of federal law.

You think eBay's rules are for everybody BUT you.

Now stick a roll of quarters up your ass and jingle away!

Frank doesn't have a hole roll of quarters!!!

oly

On Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:56:57 PM UTC-5, Batson D. Belfry wrote:

You are full of ****, Provasicko.

You were selling replica coins on eBay, in violation of their prohibition..

And they weren't marked copy, in violation of federal law.

You think eBay's rules are for everybody BUT you.


This was a 1972 souvenir set of Charles III "reproductions" sold at the gift shop of Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum. They all have the well known WRL mark indicating they are replicas, but also, due to strict counterfeiting laws and cold war border customs issues, they were deliberately made not to resemble any actual coin. The sizes are off, the portraits of the king are whimsical, a fleur de lis looks like a shot glass, inscriptions are wrong -- "Gorgeous Rex"
or "George RJP" (George, Ringo, John and Paul perhaps??)
What is so cool is that I realized that in 1972 the British were making George III "evasion tokens" just like exactly 200 years earlier when the working class sections of England and the American colonies saw George III evasion farthings and halfpennies. Close enough to pass ...indeed enthusiastically accepted by the poor whose demand for small copper coinage was never met by the King and led to "non-regal" coinage that had enough deliberate differences that it avoided being a counterfeit.

I checked with my eBay account rep who said as long as the packaging doesn't call them replica coins, that I don't refer to them as replica coins, that they are not listed in a coin category (I listed them as travel souvenirs) That they were distinctly different from genuine coins, there are no genuine items that look exactly like this (Ebay tells me that they now accept the Daniel Carr reasoning that there is no such thing as a replica of something that does not exist as an original) The obvious presentation on the original package of a history lesson, the affiliation with University of Oxford,...the fact that the 1972 manufacture date grandfathers it forever from any requirements for COPY marking from the 1973 Hobby Protection Act..

I thought I had really done my homework on this listing. With a $10 buy it now I sure wasn't going to cover several hours of my time for research but when there is a neat story about something that can tied back to the past -- the joy of sharing it is foremost.

Too bad Finnan got this one ended, but I am glad to be able to tell the story here.

My ebay rep knows about the longstanding war Robert Finnan had against me (Looks like this happens to a fairly sizable number of people, usually sellers, usually top rated 100% perfect feedback sellers, often the seller doesn't have any record of even one sale to their stalker.

"Frank Provasek" wrote in message
...


snip self-serving blather
Then why was your auction ended by eBay, Fwankie?

On Mar 20, 6:28*am, Frank Provasek wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:56:57 PM UTC-5, Batson D. Belfry wrote:
You are full of ****, Provasicko.

You were selling replica coins on eBay, in violation of their prohibition.

And they weren't marked copy, in violation of federal law.

You think eBay's rules are for everybody BUT you.

This was a 1972 souvenir set of Charles III "reproductions" *sold at the gift shop of Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum. * They all have the well known WRL mark indicating they are replicas, but also, due to strict counterfeiting laws and cold war border customs issues, they were deliberately made not to resemble any actual coin. *The sizes are off, the portraits of the king are whimsical, a fleur de lis looks like a shot glass, *inscriptions are wrong -- *"Gorgeous Rex"
or "George RJP" *(George, Ringo, John and Paul perhaps??)
What is so cool is that I realized that in 1972 the British were making George III "evasion tokens" just like exactly 200 years earlier when the working class sections of England and the American colonies saw George III evasion farthings and halfpennies. *Close enough to pass ...indeed enthusiastically accepted by the poor whose demand for small copper coinage was never met by the King and led to "non-regal" coinage that had enough deliberate differences that it avoided being a counterfeit.

I checked with my eBay account *rep who said as long as the packaging doesn't call them replica coins, that I don't refer to them as replica coins, that they are not listed in a coin category (I listed them as travel souvenirs) That they were distinctly different from genuine coins, there are no genuine items that look exactly like this (Ebay tells me that they now accept the Daniel Carr reasoning that there is no such thing as a replica of something that does not exist as an original) * *The obvious presentation on the original package of a history lesson, the affiliation with University of Oxford,...the fact that the 1972 manufacture date grandfathers it forever from any requirements for COPY marking from the 1973 Hobby Protection Act..

I thought I had really done my homework on this listing. *With a $10 buy it now *I sure wasn't going to cover several hours of my time for research *but when there is a neat story about something that can tied back to the past -- the joy of sharing it is foremost.

Too bad Finnan got this one ended, but I am glad to be able to tell the story here.

My ebay rep knows about the longstanding war Robert Finnan had against me (Looks like this happens to a fairly sizable number of people, usually sellers, usually top rated 100% perfect feedback sellers, often the seller doesn't have any record of even one sale to their stalker.

Oh please. I was just looking at my e-mail spam folder elsewhere, and
I thought "what less than incredible bull****". Then I thought,
"speaking of Bull****tae, let's see if Frank has posted anything more
to RCC lately".

You rely on what the sellers' packaging says for your legal advice???
I'm glad your m-j comes in plastic baggies labeled "medical".

I've been to the Ashmolean many times and have seen and bought some of
the WRL replicas (they have a replica Antoninus Pius bronze that is
killer good looking, and I was weak and thought that I could indeed
throw away another pound or two to help the museum). Further, these
sadd things are currently sold at most tourist places in the U.K..
Actually, these replicas are typically very deceptive and it is too
bad that some American authority hasn't yet turned their attention to
them. Frank's conclusion that the "University of Oxford" endorses
these fakes is also preposterous - but then absurd rationalization
seems to be Frank's life coping mechanism.

oly

"oly" wrote in message
...

Frank's conclusion that the "University of Oxford" endorses these fakes is also
preposterous - but then absurd rationalization seems to be Frank's life coping
mechanism.

It's NEVER Frank's fault according to him.
Frank lists stuff in violation of eBay policy, then dreams up tortured logic to
explain why it's all OK.
It's a conspiracy, it's a stalker, it's Martians - it's anybody BUT him.
Over in alt.marketing.online.ebay, Frank is the butt of jokes and an object of
ridicule (just like here I guess!)

oily wrote:

On Mar 20, 6:28 am, Frank Provasek wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:56:57 PM UTC-5, Batson D. Belfry wrote:
You are full of ****, Provasicko.

You were selling replica coins on eBay, in violation of their prohibition.

And they weren't marked copy, in violation of federal law.

You think eBay's rules are for everybody BUT you.

This was a 1972 souvenir set of Charles III "reproductions" sold at the gift shop of Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum. They all have the well known WRL mark indicating they are replicas, but also, due to strict counterfeiting laws and cold war border customs issues, they were deliberately made not to resemble any actual coin. The sizes are off, the portraits of the king are whimsical, a fleur de lis looks like a shot glass, inscriptions are wrong -- "Gorgeous Rex"
or "George RJP" (George, Ringo, John and Paul perhaps??)
What is so cool is that I realized that in 1972 the British were making George III "evasion tokens" just like exactly 200 years earlier when the working class sections of England and the American colonies saw George III evasion farthings and halfpennies. Close enough to pass ...indeed enthusiastically accepted by the poor whose demand for small copper coinage was never met by the King and led to "non-regal" coinage that had enough deliberate differences that it avoided being a counterfeit.

I checked with my eBay account rep who said as long as the packaging doesn't call them replica coins, that I don't refer to them as replica coins, that they are not listed in a coin category (I listed them as travel souvenirs) That they were distinctly different from genuine coins, there are no genuine items that look exactly like this (Ebay tells me that they now accept the Daniel Carr reasoning that there is no such thing as a replica of something that does not exist as an original) The obvious presentation on the original package of a history lesson, the affiliation with University of Oxford,...the fact that the 1972 manufacture date grandfathers it forever from any requirements for COPY marking from the 1973 Hobby Protection Act..

I thought I had really done my homework on this listing. With a $10 buy it now I sure wasn't going to cover several hours of my time for research but when there is a neat story about something that can tied back to the past -- the joy of sharing it is foremost.

Too bad Finnan got this one ended, but I am glad to be able to tell the story here.

My ebay rep knows about the longstanding war Robert Finnan had against me (Looks like this happens to a fairly sizable number of people, usually sellers, usually top rated 100% perfect feedback sellers, often the seller doesn't have any record of even one sale to their stalker.

Oh please. I was just looking at my e-mail spam folder elsewhere, and
I thought "what less than incredible bull****". Then I thought,
"speaking of Bull****tae, let's see if Frank has posted anything more
to RCC lately".

You rely on what the sellers' packaging says for your legal advice???
I'm glad your m-j comes in plastic baggies labeled "medical".

I've been to the Ashmolean many times and have seen and bought some of
the WRL replicas (they have a replica Antoninus Pius bronze that is
killer good looking, and I was weak and thought that I could indeed
throw away another pound or two to help the museum). Further, these
sadd things are currently sold at most tourist places in the U.K..
Actually, these replicas are typically very deceptive and it is too
bad that some American authority hasn't yet turned their attention to
them. Frank's conclusion that the "University of Oxford" endorses
these fakes is also preposterous - but then absurd rationalization
seems to be Frank's life coping mechanism.

oly

Full as **** as usual oily.

JAM

oily wrote:

On Mar 20, 6:28 am, Frank Provasek wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:56:57 PM UTC-5, Batson D. Belfry wrote:
You are full of ****, Provasicko.

You were selling replica coins on eBay, in violation of their prohibition.

And they weren't marked copy, in violation of federal law.

You think eBay's rules are for everybody BUT you.

This was a 1972 souvenir set of Charles III "reproductions" sold at the gift shop of Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum. They all have the well known WRL mark indicating they are replicas, but also, due to strict counterfeiting laws and cold war border customs issues, they were deliberately made not to resemble any actual coin. The sizes are off, the portraits of the king are whimsical, a fleur de lis looks like a shot glass, inscriptions are wrong -- "Gorgeous Rex"
or "George RJP" (George, Ringo, John and Paul perhaps??)
What is so cool is that I realized that in 1972 the British were making George III "evasion tokens" just like exactly 200 years earlier when the working class sections of England and the American colonies saw George III evasion farthings and halfpennies. Close enough to pass ...indeed enthusiastically accepted by the poor whose demand for small copper coinage was never met by the King and led to "non-regal" coinage that had enough deliberate differences that it avoided being a counterfeit.

I checked with my eBay account rep who said as long as the packaging doesn't call them replica coins, that I don't refer to them as replica coins, that they are not listed in a coin category (I listed them as travel souvenirs) That they were distinctly different from genuine coins, there are no genuine items that look exactly like this (Ebay tells me that they now accept the Daniel Carr reasoning that there is no such thing as a replica of something that does not exist as an original) The obvious presentation on the original package of a history lesson, the affiliation with University of Oxford,...the fact that the 1972 manufacture date grandfathers it forever from any requirements for COPY marking from the 1973 Hobby Protection Act..

I thought I had really done my homework on this listing. With a $10 buy it now I sure wasn't going to cover several hours of my time for research but when there is a neat story about something that can tied back to the past -- the joy of sharing it is foremost.

Too bad Finnan got this one ended, but I am glad to be able to tell the story here.

My ebay rep knows about the longstanding war Robert Finnan had against me (Looks like this happens to a fairly sizable number of people, usually sellers, usually top rated 100% perfect feedback sellers, often the seller doesn't have any record of even one sale to their stalker.

Oh please. I was just looking at my e-mail spam folder elsewhere, and
I thought "what less than incredible bull****". Then I thought,
"speaking of Bull****tae, let's see if Frank has posted anything more
to RCC lately".

You rely on what the sellers' packaging says for your legal advice???
I'm glad your m-j comes in plastic baggies labeled "medical".

I've been to the Ashmolean many times and have seen and bought some of
the WRL replicas (they have a replica Antoninus Pius bronze that is
killer good looking, and I was weak and thought that I could indeed
throw away another pound or two to help the museum). Further, these
sadd things are currently sold at most tourist places in the U.K..
Actually, these replicas are typically very deceptive and it is too
bad that some American authority hasn't yet turned their attention to
them. Frank's conclusion that the "University of Oxford" endorses
these fakes is also preposterous - but then absurd rationalization
seems to be Frank's life coping mechanism.

oly

Full as **** as usual oily.

JAM