I was asked how this information was "conveyed" to me and to clarify the
phrase "This information was conveyed to me at a later date."
This information was conveyed to me by word of mouth without supporting
documentation by a person who claimed to have first-hand knowledge and
involvement in the deal.
I am not interested in addressing syntax-semantics any further since it
could easily escalate into a sub-debate not related to meteorites,
Adam
On 11/7/2017 6:06 PM, Adam Hupe via Meteorite-list wrote:
In an attempt to be as clear as possible, I must clarify a statement I
posted to the list on November 5th:
The statement below which was made during the debate that escalated into
arguments, was not clearly articulated and could be taken as a single
event, when in actuality, it was two:
************************************************************************
The complaint against you, on the other hand, about self-pairing a Black
Beauty stone, which was never paid for according to the seller, resulted
in a different outcome.
************************************************************************
The part that reads "which was never paid for according to the seller"
was a qualifying statement in regards to the stone and not part of the
original self-pairing complaint to the IMCA. This information was
conveyed to me at a later date.
The IMCA doesn't consider complaints about non-paying parties that
default on agreements.
Adam
______________________________________________
Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and
the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the
Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
