Scope Identification
- Thread starter Tomochan
- Start date
plainSight Solutions
Regular
It's a bit perplexing that one would argue the substituition of a lower value scope for a higher value scope, and potentially call into question the motives of someone with a 10 year forum history, and over 230 trades with 100% positive feedback. Particularly when the counter-party is also a long-standing member, with a respectable trader rating.
With North Korea threatening the nuclear anihilation of our southern cousins, the Russians flying bombers off the shores of Alaska, and every BC provincial party threatening the end grizzly bear hunting...perhaps it's time for some de-escalation...
Let's reorient this as one party, "Bucktomcat", likely acting in the best interests of the community and inquiring about a perceived error in representation. The second party, "Tomochan", being a long-standing member with a well-documented history of impeccable dealings (who is also an individual of great personal integrity with a sterling professional reputation) took offense to what was perceived to be a questioning of his motives, and by association, his integrity. As it turns out, the intial inquiry, while perhaps well-intentioned, was in error: the scope in question did in fact have a zero-stop, was the scope pictured, and ultimately resulted in the purchaser receiving more than they bargained on.
However the outcome for "Bucktomcat" and "Tomochan" is seemingly intractible. "Bucktomcat" is grounding his inquiry and arguement on the basis that the scope pictured was a zero-stop model, when it was advertised as a non zero-stop model. Accordingly he has stated that he will only apologize if the pictured scope is identified by NF as a non zero-stop model. This is not possible as "Tomochan" undersold his own scope by mis-identifying it as a non zero-stop model, when in fact it IS a zero-stop model. So on the basis of how the scope was advertised, and "Bucktomcat's" correct identification that the scope did have a zero-stop, "Bucktomcat" feels that he is correct and does not owe "Tomochan" an apology. Opposed to this is "Tomochan's" position wherein he feels he is owed an apology for the implication that his integrity was questioned over a misrepresentative auction.
The reality is that "Bucktomcat's" initial assumption was flawed: he assumed that the auction description (that the scope didn't have a zero stop) was correct, and that the picture was incorrect. In fact the opposite was true. This was further compounded by the tone and errors in "Bucktomcat's" inquiry to "Tomochan":
"Do you have a good picture of the actual scope?
The one pictured is a ZS 22x model I believe"
He asked for a picture of the "actual" scope, and then misidentified the scope in the picture (it was an 8-32). Thus while "Bucktomcat's" inquiry can be understood to be well-intentioned, it is also easy to see how it could offend.
Feedback ratings are here for a reason, and before making a potentially incendiary inquiry with clear implications, discretion and consideration are wise.
As duelling with pistols is forbidden with our Liberal (for the time being) government, an old fashioned call, apology, and acceptance, might suffice.
With North Korea threatening the nuclear anihilation of our southern cousins, the Russians flying bombers off the shores of Alaska, and every BC provincial party threatening the end grizzly bear hunting...perhaps it's time for some de-escalation...
Let's reorient this as one party, "Bucktomcat", likely acting in the best interests of the community and inquiring about a perceived error in representation. The second party, "Tomochan", being a long-standing member with a well-documented history of impeccable dealings (who is also an individual of great personal integrity with a sterling professional reputation) took offense to what was perceived to be a questioning of his motives, and by association, his integrity. As it turns out, the intial inquiry, while perhaps well-intentioned, was in error: the scope in question did in fact have a zero-stop, was the scope pictured, and ultimately resulted in the purchaser receiving more than they bargained on.
However the outcome for "Bucktomcat" and "Tomochan" is seemingly intractible. "Bucktomcat" is grounding his inquiry and arguement on the basis that the scope pictured was a zero-stop model, when it was advertised as a non zero-stop model. Accordingly he has stated that he will only apologize if the pictured scope is identified by NF as a non zero-stop model. This is not possible as "Tomochan" undersold his own scope by mis-identifying it as a non zero-stop model, when in fact it IS a zero-stop model. So on the basis of how the scope was advertised, and "Bucktomcat's" correct identification that the scope did have a zero-stop, "Bucktomcat" feels that he is correct and does not owe "Tomochan" an apology. Opposed to this is "Tomochan's" position wherein he feels he is owed an apology for the implication that his integrity was questioned over a misrepresentative auction.
The reality is that "Bucktomcat's" initial assumption was flawed: he assumed that the auction description (that the scope didn't have a zero stop) was correct, and that the picture was incorrect. In fact the opposite was true. This was further compounded by the tone and errors in "Bucktomcat's" inquiry to "Tomochan":
"Do you have a good picture of the actual scope?
The one pictured is a ZS 22x model I believe"
He asked for a picture of the "actual" scope, and then misidentified the scope in the picture (it was an 8-32). Thus while "Bucktomcat's" inquiry can be understood to be well-intentioned, it is also easy to see how it could offend.
Feedback ratings are here for a reason, and before making a potentially incendiary inquiry with clear implications, discretion and consideration are wise.
As duelling with pistols is forbidden with our Liberal (for the time being) government, an old fashioned call, apology, and acceptance, might suffice.
A sagacious and well thought out opinion Omer.
An apology is all I've asked for and, were one to be offered, it would be wholeheartedly accepted and the matter would be laid to rest. Mr. Bucktomcat may apologize on this thread, via PM or he may call me ( he was given my personal number early this morning and invited to discuss the matter before I went public with the issue).
An apology is all I've asked for and, were one to be offered, it would be wholeheartedly accepted and the matter would be laid to rest. Mr. Bucktomcat may apologize on this thread, via PM or he may call me ( he was given my personal number early this morning and invited to discuss the matter before I went public with the issue).
Homesteader
CGN Regular
- Location
- In a Wallow West of Edmonton.
TA-DA it has arrived. Pretty sure it's safe to say, it was what was originally pictured in the sale ad, and near as I can tell, what I thought I was buying.
It apparently is a Zero Stop scope, so I may figure out how to use that one day, so bonus. Giggidy, Giggidy
Nice piece of glass for sure, thanks, Bob!
It apparently is a Zero Stop scope, so I may figure out how to use that one day, so bonus. Giggidy, Giggidy
Nice piece of glass for sure, thanks, Bob!
Last edited:
is this a secret message to kamlooky
Thanks for posting Homesteader.
I guess I won't hold my breath for the Tomcat fellow to say he is sorry for what he said. Disappointing really - because he claims to be a former military chap I naturally hold him in high regard for his service and really did think he would step up and withdraw his false allegations. While, today much of it seems like a thousand years ago, I do remember when I first had 'pips' on my shoulder that it was impressed upon me that if one was proven wrong an apology was always the right thing to do.
To those who voiced support publicly and via notes I say "thank you".
Bob
I guess I won't hold my breath for the Tomcat fellow to say he is sorry for what he said. Disappointing really - because he claims to be a former military chap I naturally hold him in high regard for his service and really did think he would step up and withdraw his false allegations. While, today much of it seems like a thousand years ago, I do remember when I first had 'pips' on my shoulder that it was impressed upon me that if one was proven wrong an apology was always the right thing to do.
To those who voiced support publicly and via notes I say "thank you".
Bob
Homesteader
CGN Regular
- Location
- In a Wallow West of Edmonton.
HaHa, man you're quick, i deleted that in seconds, as the image came up as text. I tried to copy a picture that said Ta-Da, clearly that was a bad idea, but you and Kamlooky, should be able to copy and paste that to reveal the magic message, lol
