Off topic?

{Note - these posts were split from this thread: http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55165 - Sim'}

Excuse me Sim, but how is illustrating that a poster is blatantly lying off topic? He stated he bought a house which was a flat out lie, yet this is now wiped from SS so as far as anyone who didn't see the posts are concerned, they can still be under the impression that Todo is as truthful as the next poster?

I would like an explanation please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sim, I have to agree with Steve here. ToDo had a barrow to push here and was trying to prove his point with lies. If the other post are to remain deleted then post #37 needs to be deleted as well because that is the most incorrect/offensive post of them all.
 
Sim,

I tend to agree with Steve.....ToDo was caught out misrepresenting something. He said that he bought I house for 290K and claiming it was worth 960K.

This is clearly misrepresenting the truth. ToDo then went on to cry about his privacy being violated....this is afterall a internet property forum.

Censoring stuff does not give a perpective of a conversation warts and all. People should be left to form their own conclusions. There was no slander being directed by Steve to ToDo. As a matter of fact he was given the opportunity to clarify the property in question was in fact not on the Esplanade.

From my perspective....till it is clarified....it leaves doubt on ToDo's credibility stakes. Of course we could be wroing.....but I am old enough to sniff out these sort of things....

My belief is that if you are straightforward and have nothing to hide then...you are pretty much respected on the forum.

Look forward to your response.:D
 
Last edited:
That whole thread got a bit out of hand with all of you comparing who got the biggest "percentage return".

I started deleted posts when A) you really did go off topic, asking about who the poster was the last time he posted on the forums and B) you started badgering someone about proving their claims and about making misrepresentations and then pulling data out of RP Data to try and prove your point - which really wasn't necessary to debate the topic.

What's next, finding a property they really did own, locating the name it was purchased under, doing a search to find other properties they have bought and then posting it all on a public forum? I think not.

Argue the point - not the minutiae of someone's claims. Otherwise, learn to use the ignore feature.

I am fully aware of who this poster's history - and if you have a problem with what they post, use the "report this post" feature and let the moderators deal with it - please don't lower the tone of the forum with bickering and "he said/she said" arguments.
 
Thanks for splitting the posts Sim. Perhaps you could answer the question I posed?

Sorry, this type of things is not what I would ever consider buying. I ran away in disguist after being in Davoren Park for about 5 minutes. But the next day I have bought 2 storey house on the Esplanade in Seaford for $290K. Valued $950K today.

How is pointing out that the poster was lying about the above line off topic? Why does it warrant a deletion? Why is the original lie allowed to remain?
 
Well this is ridiculous. That thread now stays on here for eternity in it's current form. Some lier making 600 k or something.

I'm cranky about this. Did you even read the comments? I'd reckon they were extemely relevant to the thread. That whole thread is now a pile of garbage. Sim, you may as well deleat the whole thread now, get rid of it.

I actually was that cranky, I went onto it to deleat every post I made, as it's all pointless now. However as the rotten thing is locked, I can't.


See ya's.
 
Thanks for splitting the posts Sim. Perhaps you could answer the question I posed?

How is pointing out that the poster was lying about the above line off topic? Why does it warrant a deletion? Why is the original lie allowed to remain?

Unless you have conclusive proof that the person is lying (and a valid reason for pointing it out), then your posts are potentially libelous and should not be allowed to remain. Just because you did a search which turned up no results you are satisfied with, doesn't necessarily mean they lied.

I don't particularly care if someone chooses to lie (or even stretch the truth) about a property they have purchased - this is a largely anonymous internet discussion forum, not a real estate sales office. Don't believe everything you read online.

If you don't believe what they say - you have right to say "I don't believe you" and leave it at that. You do NOT have the right to badger them on a crusade to prove how "evil" this person is because you think you have incontrovertible evidence about them misleading you.

With all due respect - get over it and move on.

Let other people make their own judgements about whether this "new" poster with no runs on the board is to be trusted and their opinion valued above anyone else on this forum.

I have little time or patience for crusaders who take it upon themselves to "out" someone or prove some other point about them. It lowers the tone of the forum and causes more harm than good. You have all been warned.

By the way - I didn't see your (also off topic) posts about the deletions in that original thread until you reported them. Reporting a post or emailing me directly is the correct way of getting my attention. You can also post in the Help and Feedback forum, where I get automatically notified of all new threads.
 
Spot on TC.

According to the logic above, I can proclaim to all and sundry I personally hold in my own name 20M shares in Westfield Corporation. Now if someone checked the Top20 list for WDC and saw that there was no Steve with 20M shares, and points this out it's not 'on topic.' More to the point, the fact that points out I'm lying gets erased and my statement that I own 20M WDC stands???!! :confused:

C'mon Sim. How ridiculous does the claim have to be before proving it's wrong is on topic? What if I claim I own the Sydney Opera House?
 
Unless you have conclusive proof that the person is lying (and a valid reason for pointing it out), then your posts are potentially libelous and should not be allowed to remain. Just because you did a search which turned up no results you are satisfied with, doesn't necessarily mean they lied.

Ummmm yes Sim, it does. Considering A) No house sold for that price B) No house sold for even $100k within that claimed price. How much more conclusive would you like me to get, would a print out of every house on that street for 2yrs either side of his claim suffice?

Anyway, I'll leave it at that cos I can see you're getting peeved and it is your forum. But I must say this is the first time I've ever been disappointed with the moderation of this forum after the thousands of posts I've made and tens of thousands I've read. :(
 
Anyway, I'll leave it at that cos I can see you're getting peeved and it is your forum. But I must say this is the first time I've ever been disappointed with the moderation of this forum after the thousands of posts I've made and tens of thousands I've read. :(

I'm actually a little disappointed that you've let something as petty as a stupid lie (or not?) by a "new" poster get you so riled up. You've generally been a very good quality contributor to this forum, so I was a little surprised with how you reacted to the posts.

Surely it is not that important what this guy thinks or says? Especially given his history?
 
I'm actually a little disappointed that you've let something as petty as a stupid lie (or not?) by a "new" poster get you so riled up. You've generally been a very good quality contributor to this forum, so I was a little surprised with how you reacted to the posts.

Surely it is not that important what this guy thinks or says? Especially given his history?

I only reacted that way Sim because it was (or wasn't :rolleyes:) an obvious lie that took about 2 mins to prove wrong. Believe me I'm used to all the 'new' posters coming around and claiming this and that, and don't believe or listen to a lot of it. However that's only my opinion. If something is wrong and proven to be so - which I can't say in the years I've been here has happened before - then it's just allowed to stand for all to see including newbies 3yrs from now going through the archives. That's ok?

If the poster said he bought a house in Seaford at the same time and has experienced 300% growth I wouldn't have thought anymore of it. His detailed figures however did not make sense which led me to do a quick search. Same as if I claimed I bought a house at Point Piper in 2006 for $300k.

If I know someone is lying, whether it be a 1 post wonder or WinstonWolfe (sorry mate, first experienced poster that came to mind) I will point it out. As you said, given this guys history it doesn't really matter what he's said - but what if instead of popping up again under a new name next month he continues to post and becomes a 'trusted' member of SS in years to come?
 
Have you stopped to think that perhaps there is another explanation? Rather than give the exact suburb, instead for privacy they gave one of the nearby suburbs knowing full well that someone with access to the right data could easily find out full details about them?

Perhaps it was technically a lie, but really more of a deliberate (but relatively harmless) mis-truth to protect the innocent people involved in the transaction?

Have you thought about the ethical implications of searching for private data about someone based on information you read on the internet and then posting about it in a public forum?

It's all not necessarily as black-and-white as it may seem at first.

At the end of the day, I have little doubt as to the collective intelligence of our community and our ability to be able to recognise someone who is full of it as opposed to someone who has some genuine experience and value to offer. I doubt there would be much of an issue with someone in the former category becoming a "trusted" member of the community.
 
Have you stopped to think that perhaps there is another explanation? Rather than give the exact suburb, instead for privacy they gave one of the nearby suburbs knowing full well that someone with access to the right data could easily find out full details about them?

Again Sim, no the figures still don't work. If he bought a normal house 1km back from the Esplanade he could have paid $290k, but that sort of house certainly wouldn't be worth $950k now - he's admitted as much anyway, under the guise of 'privacy' which clearly gets the legals worried.

Anyway, we're starting to go round in circles, we'll have to agree to disagree on this judgement call. Still luv your work keeping SS going mate.
 
Is a poster suggesting that a house at Seaford is worth $950k! I really need a rofl icon, and then this! :eek:

We are talking Seaford, South Australia aren't we; whose nearby suburbs are Moana, Christies Beach, even - Hackham and the likes? Maybe they are confused with Carrickalinga.:p
 
Back
Top