Bravo, excellent parody of the forum posts of someone with obvious insecurity issues!

You nailed the sad-yet-hilarious, arrogant, insulting tone! The obligatory one-upsmanship was great and the repulsive condescension at the end was perfect! It's completely and instantly off-putting to any quality people who read it, and signals them that this person has issues and is best avoided.

Very accurate, well done!
.

Pudding Mittens wrote:

Shoot I don’t think you’ve arrived here unless you’ve had at least one good mouth fight or melt down....I got an old fashioned 🌫 verbal smack down from pacman357 in Shakespearean prose. I knew I was home.

ZRX1200 wrote:

The few vendors out there not of the body have all tried and failed miserably to copy the ebayesque habit-forming platform from CI. Looks like they don't really even try, mostly because they don't want to pay for the software engine running CBID. To publish an auction site is one thing, to create bidding logic costs money and time to perfect. A front end linked to a database isn't enough to leave running on it's own because that puts the engine under customer control and that's not where it should be. It's expensive to have people code in name/city generators coupled with minimum sale requirements. Adding in the random item open bids that are excluded from the minimum sale price to allow the closely monitored maximum loss routine to give just enough of an impression that the entire process is truly customer driven is very costly to write and beta. Could CI's fiscal year end in February? Would the last quarter be the one that gets tweaked to generate a 1 or 2 percent end of year push to appease shareholders?

If I were gonna do it, and not keep 100 people on staff to monitor bids etc., I'd pay a one time lump sum (and reasonable maintenance contract) for a well written auction control package that ensured my bottom line sale prices, played off of people's addictions for "deals" while simultaneously programming the auction buying public to believe people are actually paying more than they really are to encourage the easily addicted to change their auction habits and pay more than they want to, thinking they'll never get it for their old price again. Which they won't if the minimum sale price is never lowed again, unless of course they get the random lucky module generated open bid where no one pays attention and their lowball bid wins the item. THAT'S where the real gold is, making those folks believe it truly is uncontrolled and all they have to do is keep exposing themselves to their addiction and eventually they'll get what they want dirt cheap.

Or it could be everyone's spending their Christmas money and they could care less what they pay, aunt sally paid for it anyway!

Titleist wrote:

Or it could be everyone's spending their Christmas money and they could care less what they pay, aunt sally paid for it anyway!

Titleist wrote:

That's couldn't.

I see this error EVERYWHERE CONSTANTLY and it's annoying.

Pudding Mittens wrote:

I've given up on this fight for the more egregious (IMO) there, their, they're and where, were, wear usage. Also the unfortunate infiltration of irregardless into the daily vernacular gets under my skin.

Sunoverbeach wrote:

Absolutely. That one's right up their two.

Sunoverbeach wrote:

Morons are reading our little exchange and are scratching their heads in confusion, because it all looks FINE to them! 🇨🇮
.

Pudding Mittens wrote:

The few vendors out there not of the body have all tried and failed miserably to copy the ebayesque habit-forming platform from CI. Looks like they don't really even try, mostly because they don't want to pay for the software engine running CBID. To publish an auction site is one thing, to create bidding logic costs money and time to perfect. A front end linked to a database isn't enough to leave running on it's own because that puts the engine under customer control and that's not where it should be. It's expensive to have people code in name/city generators coupled with minimum sale requirements. Adding in the random item open bids that are excluded from the minimum sale price to allow the closely monitored maximum loss routine to give just enough of an impression that the entire process is truly customer driven is very costly to write and beta. Could CI's fiscal year end in February? Would the last quarter be the one that gets tweaked to generate a 1 or 2 percent end of year push to appease shareholders?

If I were gonna do it, and not keep 100 people on staff to monitor bids etc., I'd pay a one time lump sum (and reasonable maintenance contract) for a well written auction control package that ensured my bottom line sale prices, played off of people's addictions for "deals" while simultaneously programming the auction buying public to believe people are actually paying more than they really are to encourage the easily addicted to change their auction habits and pay more than they want to, thinking they'll never get it for their old price again. Which they won't if the minimum sale price is never lowed again, unless of course they get the random lucky module generated open bid where no one pays attention and their lowball bid wins the item. THAT'S where the real gold is, making those folks believe it truly is uncontrolled and all they have to do is keep exposing themselves to their addiction and eventually they'll get what they want dirt cheap.

Or it could be everyone's spending their Christmas money and they could care less what they pay, aunt sally paid for it anyway!

Titleist wrote:

I can't believe I did that. COULDN"T. Man am I lazy.

Titleist wrote:

Eh.................all I know is I can get certain items here for less, and in many instances, for FAR less, than anywhere else in the universe.
Same holds true for the other place.
So I shop.......er.......bid........at both.
Just hoping STG doesn’t buy the other place...............that might be a problem as far as getting the occasional awesome deal.........like $11 for a 4oz tin of SPC PP.

KingoftheCove wrote: