Check out this $3000 "Fodera"!!

[Brad Johnson]

While I do see Brad's point about jumping the gun (and I love to watch him work whether I agree with him or not ), I also see Smerf's point.

I'm not sure how different the overall reaction would have been, but I think the correct course of action (seller) would have been to list this bass as an "Early Vinnie Fodera built bass" or "Pre Fodera brand Vinnie Fodera bass" or something along those lines. I am in the camp of the man not necessarily equalling/being the "brand" as this bass was presented.

Hey, how's it going?

 

[PhatBasstard]

Hey, how's it going?

Not bad, not bad.
Just sitting here, eating my popcorn.

 

[Brad Johnson]

If I am following your line of thinking, then when someone makes a bold, irregular claim and cannot back it up, the proper response is "who knows?

At the risk of being accused of trolling (too many responses in one thread -trolling at least for me)... no. My line of thinking is as follows: When someone makes a bold, irregular but not IMPOSSIBLE claim and IS NOT EVEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BACK IT UP, the proper response is "who knows? Check with the party in question, in this case one Vinny Fodera.

See the difference yet? And remember, this is all fun and games at this point.

Maybe he's telling the truth," and if that is how you operate, that is fine and well, but do not attempt to pass that off as logic. That's called "benefit of the doubt," which is quite unrelated.

"Maybe"?


How the heck is KNOWING that MAYBE is still a possibility illogical? I honestly don't understand how, at this point in the conversation, you can still be sticking on this very simple idea. If MAYBE it's true, the kneejerk accusations and responses were ill-advised at best. Hang 'em first... then see if he's guilty. Maybe he was innocent.

I understand that "logic" all too well.

If you want people to offer benefit of the doubt, say that; do not encourage objectivism and logic, which demand proof. "You all were a bit harsh and could have offered the seller benefit of the doubt long enough to verify his claims," is quite acceptable, and I can support that.

No, you can't accept that, you already said it was illogical.

Remember? No offense but you could easily have this debate amongst yourself... you're clearly on both sides of this issue.

I didn't want people to do anything except exercise a minimal amount of rational thought. That's all. Because if you step back and really think about what you don't know, you likely won't react the same way... unless going off halfcocked actually makes sense to you.

However, passing off illogical methodology (accepting at face value a contentious claim with lack of proof) as logic is not something I can support. And, for the record, stating that early works can look nothing like modern works proves absolutely nothing. If that opens up your willingness to grant benefit of the doubt, excellent. But it is not proof. And, pointedly, if the seller could not prove his claim, the possibility of a scam outweighs the possibility of an unjust accusation--all it cost was a removed listing. If he can verify his claim, then he can relist it, and the issue is resolved. If it is unverifiable, why should he benefit from the claim? How is any of that illogical?

More illogic. Name someone, preferably me D) who accepted the story at face value?



Come up with a name yet?

Also, it is no one but the seller's responsibility to provide the facts on the item. If he cannot, then we are left to conclude what we can with the given information. Yes, he mentioned he was seeking verification, which, again, proves nothing. If he can verify, he can relist, and I doubt anyone will have a problem with that, myself included. The verification, if there is to be any, should have been done before listing to avoid this sort of outcome. Please, elucidate me on the subject of ignorance as it pertains to that method of thinking.

And if the seller is given no opportunity to do so... that's his fault too. Right. It must be, most of this post hinges on that "minor" detail.

Finally, what I equate, quite rightly, does not determine reality, and the same can be said in a reciprocal fashion to you. Your contention appears to be a Fodera is a Fodera is a Fodera, which ignores brand recognition, but is valid as a personal opinion. However, in the realm of selling, anything that strays from direct clarity in description is misleading, which preys upon the buyer. Therefore, assuming that a "mostly right" is good enough is unfair to the buyer, and will not hold up in a dispute over a misrepresented sale (especially through Paypal). There is no disconnection here. If Mr. Fodera says that bass is a Fodera, despite the fact that it looks nothing like a Fodera brand bass, who am I to argue? It's his company. If he considers it a prototype worthy of the Fodera brand, that's not my call to make. However, if he says he built it, but it is not part of the Fodera brand, that it is a "pre-Fodera," would you then argue with him that since he built it, it's a Fodera bass?

My contention is that a bass built by Vinny Fodera that he deems a Fodera most certainly would be a Fodera. And you AGREE. It's as simple as that. The rest of that rambling paragraph was a waste of bits. That's what's so funny about this. You AGREE yet you spent all this time doing what?

Quite simply, since that possibility still remains at this point, acting like it's been ruled out is just plain weird.

Like I said... you really aren't very good at this.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Not bad, not bad.
Just sitting here, eating my popcorn.

Too much?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Um, I don't know if that first part was sarcastic and or baiting, but I'm not here to argue with you, and you don't seem like that type at all.

Quite the opposite.

Anyhow:
Would you mind PM'ing me with some pics/details of your Outlaw? LOVE those!

No, I really wasn't being sarcastic. This is Talkbass and we're doing just that. There's a disagreement about the way this situation was handled. Seems like a friendly one at that. Was it worth discussing? Yes... it appears some of us do think so.


But let me apologize because obviously it was your opinioon and there's nothing wrong with expressing that either.


I haven't taken any pics of the Outlaw yet. It's in very nice shape with the bowtie inlays, sunburst finish and a couple of modules which work fine. Very cool bass (and piece of history) but not one I gig with. I found it and a Kramer DMZ4000 with the wood inlaid aluminum neck at the same time in a local pawnshop dirt cheap. The curse of recognizing old gear

 

[thepontif]

EXCUSE ME! Are you saying Spectors are "weird" looking????

I phrased that a little strangely. I don't necessarily think Spectors are weird looking. That wasn't my point. Sorry abou that.

Joey doesn't think that bass came from them. But without a picture he can't be sure.

 

[thepontif]

To me it's a mattadeer.

What's a mattadeer?

 

[smperry]

What's a mattadeer?

nut'n honey.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

No, I really wasn't being sarcastic. This is Talkbass and we're doing just that. There's a disagreement about the way this situation was handled. Seems like a friendly one at that.

Let's keep it that way and cut out the repeated "not very good at this comments" then

 

[SpamBot]

Brad, I see your point and agree with you but you're clearly just stirring the pot here. Why so confrontational?

 

[Smurf-o-Deth]

At the risk of being accused of trolling (too many responses in one thread -trolling at least for me)... no. My line of thinking is as follows: When someone makes a bold, irregular but not IMPOSSIBLE claim and IS NOT EVEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BACK IT UP, the proper response is "who knows? Check with the party in question, in this case one Vinny Fodera.

See the difference yet? And remember, this is all fun and games at this point.




"Maybe"?


How the heck is KNOWING that MAYBE is still a possibility illogical? I honestly don't understand how, at this point in the conversation, you can still be sticking on this very simple idea. If MAYBE it's true, the kneejerk accusations and responses were ill-advised at best. Hang 'em first... then see if he's guilty. Maybe he was innocent.

I understand that "logic" all too well.




No, you can't accept that, you already said it was illogical.

Remember? No offense but you could easily have this debate amongst yourself... you're clearly on both sides of this issue.

I didn't want people to do anything except exercise a minimal amount of rational thought. That's all. Because if you step back and really think about what you don't know, you likely won't react the same way... unless going off halfcocked actually makes sense to you.



More illogic. Name someone, preferably me D) who accepted the story at face value?



Come up with a name yet?



And if the seller is given no opportunity to do so... that's his fault too. Right. It must be, most of this post hinges on that "minor" detail.



My contention is that a bass built by Vinny Fodera that he deems a Fodera most certainly would be a Fodera. And you AGREE. It's as simple as that. The rest of that rambling paragraph was a waste of bits. That's what's so funny about this. You AGREE yet you spent all this time doing what?

Quite simply, since that possibility still remains at this point, acting like it's been ruled out is just plain weird.

Like I said... you really aren't very good at this.

I'll give you this: you certainly can play to the cheap seats. I'd imagine you are quite the natural politician. Firstly, I can accept differing views, including yours, as reasonable (especially at a personal level), whether or not I deem them logical, as they are not mutually inclusive for me. Also, "reasonable" and "logical" are not the same thing. Let's not forget, we're talking about the pulling of an ad that can easily be re-listed upon vindication--erring on the side of the buyer does little more than inconvenience the seller. Now that the auction is pulled, the seller has all the time he wants to verify the claim, then it can go back up, and no one will be victimized by potentially deceptive ad copy in the mean time. Seems reasonable to me.

Now, I keep sticking on logic, because you called on it, yet you are describing an illogical method. Reasonable to you, certainly, but, again reasonable and logical are not the same thing. I described it as "benefit of the doubt," but could just as easily described it as "faith," as it is the willingness to accept that a contentious claim, with little or no proof to back it up, may be true to a defensible degree. Certainly you cannot view an act of faith as logical? And, I want to state clearly, I don't care if your perspective is logical or not, because that doesn't affect me in the least. All I have been trying to point out is that calling for people to use logic to arrive at an illogical conclusion is a fallacy. I assume that you understand that the burden of proof lies upon the person making a contentious claim, so let me review the process of thought:

Contentious claim is made --> proof to support claim is not provided --> until proof is provided, the only logical assumption is that the claim must remain in contention, because any other conclusion discounts the lack of proof. Again, this is about what is logical, not what is reasonable. I'm sure none of this is a revelation, but I want to be as clear as I can be.

Your point that I agree that with your "contention [...] that a bass built by Vinny Fodera that he deems a Fodera most certainly would be a Fodera" ignores the fact that there was no proof of that being the case, and discounts all the rest of the points based upon that. Do you contend that a seller with a contentious claim and no proof deserves more consideration than any buyers that could potentially be victimized? Is the possibility that the seller was telling the truth more important than the possibility he was lying in this instance? Is the minor inconvenience of re-listing more heinous than allowing a potentially misleading auction take advantage of an under-informed buyer? Is the possibility that the bass is a "Fodera" of greater importance than the possibility that it isn't? This is the point where the disagreement seemingly lies. For me, and for others, the possibility of "it isn't" outweighs "it is" in this instance.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Brad, I see your point and agree with you but you're clearly just stirring the pot here. Why so confrontational?

And here we go again. I'm clearly at fault.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Let's keep it that way and cut out the repeated "not very good at this comments" then

That was an honest observation, Bryan. If you're going to state a point and then contradict it in the same post and then restate the same point again... and do it again after it's been pointed out. Then contradict it... wow. If it were me I'd expect someone to point out the obvious. He chose to engage me based on opposition to my position and the conclusion I came to was based on what I saw. Ignoring your own position makes no sense to me. I guess neither does talking to someone who repeatedly does it.

Then again, maybe I'm not responding to the repeated flip flops, maybe they're not happening... maybe I'm just stirring the pot. I give up.

Thanks for the heads up, Bryan. Seriously. I appreciate it vs. what I usually see.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I'll give you this: you certainly can play to the cheap seats. I'd imagine you are quite the natural politician. Firstly, I can accept differing views, including yours, as reasonable (especially at a personal level), whether or not I deem them logical, as they are not mutually inclusive for me. Also, "reasonable" and "logical" are not the same thing. Let's not forget, we're talking about the pulling of an ad that can easily be re-listed upon vindication--erring on the side of the buyer does little more than inconvenience the seller. Now that the auction is pulled, the seller has all the time he wants to verify the claim, then it can go back up, and no one will be victimized by potentially deceptive ad copy in the mean time. Seems reasonable to me.

Now, I keep sticking on logic, because you called on it, yet you are describing an illogical method. Reasonable to you, certainly, but, again reasonable and logical are not the same thing. I described it as "benefit of the doubt," but could just as easily described it as "faith," as it is the willingness to accept that a contentious claim, with little or no proof to back it up, may be true to a defensible degree. Certainly you cannot view an act of faith as logical? And, I want to state clearly, I don't care if your perspective is logical or not, because that doesn't affect me in the least. All I have been trying to point out is that calling for people to use logic to arrive at an illogical conclusion is a fallacy. I assume that you understand that the burden of proof lies upon the person making a contentious claim, so let me review the process of thought:

Contentious claim is made --> proof to support claim is not provided --> until proof is provided, the only logical assumption is that the claim must remain in contention, because any other conclusion discounts the lack of proof. Again, this is about what is logical, not what is reasonable. I'm sure none of this is a revelation, but I want to be as clear as I can be.

Your point that I agree that with your "contention [...] that a bass built by Vinny Fodera that he deems a Fodera most certainly would be a Fodera" ignores the fact that there was no proof of that being the case, and discounts all the rest of the points based upon that. Do you contend that a seller with a contentious claim and no proof deserves more consideration than any buyers that could potentially be victimized? Is the possibility that the seller was telling the truth more important than the possibility he was lying in this instance? Is the minor inconvenience of re-listing more heinous than allowing a potentially misleading auction take advantage of an under-informed buyer? Is the possibility that the bass is a "Fodera" of greater importance than the possibility that it isn't? This is the point where the disagreement seemingly lies. For me, and for others, the possibility of "it isn't" outweighs "it is" in this instance.

You're absolutely right... I'm done.

 

[Smurf-o-Deth]

It's settled, then...it's a mattadeer.

 

[Roy Vogt]

You're absolutely right... I'm done.

OK, so with the minutiae of details and the argument about semantics in this interchange-I've just gotta ask:
Are you guys Attorneys or IT guys in your non-Bass lives?

 

[Brad Johnson]

OK, so with the minutiae of details and the argument about semantics in this interchange-I've just gotta ask:
Are you guys Attorneys or IT guys in your non-Bass lives?

I neither argued about semantics nor included many details. Neither were necessary. The facts are actually very simple.

I'm a bassist.

 

[Smurf-o-Deth]

OK, so with the minutiae of details and the argument about semantics in this interchange-I've just gotta ask:
Are you guys Attorneys or IT guys in your non-Bass lives?

Since you ask, I have experience in both law (though I am not an attorney) and IT (and hang out with several sysadmins), actually. I majored in liberal arts, though (go go Gadget useless degree!).

 

[Roy Vogt]

I neither argued about semantics nor included many details. Neither were necessary. The facts are actually very simple.

I'm a bassist.

Fascinating-I'd like to be a fly on the wall in your band meetings or rehearsals! Somehow I think you win....

 

[Flaked Beans]

and I'll open one of these right now!