|
What
follows here are the rebuttals, threats, and other correspondence which
Anita Felix' article generated,
presented as they were received. Ed.
August
10, 2005
Upon learning that Mr. X's name, when accessed via search engine leads to
these pages, Soundpost Online has chosen to conceal his identity. This is
not through fear of reprisal - there is none. Rather, these pages are not
intended as a personal vendetta against any individual, but to make the
point that Mr. X's, who would mistake a business transaction that favors
one party at the expense of another as a good deal, vendors who would
adopt "Caveat Emptor" as their personal business motto are out
there.
Anyone
with a compelling need to know the true identity of Mr. X can easily
discover it by contacting the named parties directly. Soundpost Online
will not be a venue for publicly advertising his string instrument
business.
Soundpost
Online has taken no editorial position regarding this case. Instead we
have allowed the parties to say their piece fully, in their own words,
unedited. Soundpost Online has always maintained elsewhere in numerous
articles that good business practices, i.e. fair pricing, full disclosure,
customer care and aftercare, etc. are, and ought to be the norm in the
business, and that it is worth seeking out dealers who adhere to the norm,
and paying for their value-added service. Ed.
-----Original Message ----- From:
x <mailto:x@telus.net>
Hello,
I'm writing this message to all addresses I can find on SoundPost
because of the grievous nature of the problem.
A slanderous link to a soundpost article has only just been removed and
the page on eBay where it was advertised changed. This brings me some
relief.
But unfortunately, Soundpost's posting of my name and address on their
site is a slanderous act, and it is still there (ANITA FELIX'S
ARTICLE).
I don't want to seek an injunction against you as I have read articles on
your site in the past with great interest. But surely, taking one person's
statement as truth without even a query sent for a reply from the
slandered individual, and then posting said statement to the world goes
way beyond the pale. It obviously allows me assured legal rebuttal against
such an atrocity! Why would you do something like this???
You should read my rebuttal below, which was
unfortunately hastily written since I only just found this out but gets
the truth of the matter across, versus Anita Felix's lies and fabrications
and her taking things out of total context. You will see that Anita does
not have the support you think she does. You should go to Maestronet's
Fingerboard:
http://fingerboard.maestronet.com/
and check out the responses to my rebuttal. My work is in education and I
am a fairly well known public figure here. These lies are damning to my
reputation. It is she who is in the wrong, by lying about the facts.
This is a grievous situation and I am requesting immediate action.
Please respond.
Yours,
X
----- Original Message ----- From:
x
<mailto:x@telus.net> To: mattw@worldwidemart.com
<mailto:mattw@worldwidemart.com> Sent:
January 16, 2001 10:48 PM Subject: This is worldwide slander!!!!!
I was aghast at being sent an email pointing me to this
listing on eBay (<http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?
MfcISAPICommand=ViewItem&item=x>
with a link from ebay to the following page on your site <http://www.soundpostonline.com/page3.htm>
. I request an immediate retraction and apology and am in touch with
lawyers on this matter. I must say that this is of global significance and
I hope you are unaware that this slander has been committed against me and
that the consequences are grievous. I am also in touch with eBay, and the
user donuel.
The following is a comment I
posted on maestronet's fingerboard about this matter, if you are the least
bit concerned. (It has been edited on fingerboard to remove references to
the affect that Anita put up the link, I don't believe this was the case):
Well, this is a first for me.
I've always thought that 'assumed guilty until proven innocent' was more
of a joke, not a real product of a spiteful and lying mind. It appears
that I was wrong!
Seems Anita Felix is ticked! Well
she should be...with herself! The only reason I haven't followed suit for
slander is that our lawyer has told us that because we're Y's it
would be futile and/or expensive. And I must state clearly that I'm not
even writing this to change peoples' minds, because what she's done with
her listing on eBay, no matter what her stated reasons, is so beyond the
pale that it would be mind-boggling for any normal person and would put
her in court so fast that her head would spin if we were both in the same
country. So I guess it's obvious that from my perspective, those who have
jumped on the bandwagon to support her on Maestronet have no concern for
the other side of the story and it looks like I guess I'll have live with
the harsh reality of Anita's lies. Hopefully this isn't the case and an
even ear can be lent.
Lies Anita's remarks nevertheless
are! And I will tell you why if only just to put it down for once from my
side. Anita tends to leave out facts, important facts. She tends to become
unreasonable when frustrated and goes behind your back. Then she puts
things the way she wants them, whether they are right or wrong, and no
matter what she leaves out or who she hurts.
One very important thing she
simply leaves out is the fact that I sold the violin with "no
certifications" of any kind and "as is". This was directly
stated in my "Conditions of Auction". I repeat: THE CONDITIONS
OF MY AUCTION STATED "NO CERTIFICATIONS" AND THE VIOLIN WAS SOLD
"AS IS." I never stated the violin was certified as Italian, nor
as a Degani at any time. Is this fraud?? No one I have talked to thinks
so, do you? I may have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning
but last time I checked, a violin had to be certified to be Italian in
order to be genuinely Italian...otherwise it's a matter of conjecture!
My own experiences with the
violin were from the previous seller...another fact Anita so typically has
left out in her slanderous ebay listing (which I have written to have
removed!)... and with a local dealer after I had obtained the violin. The
seller on ebay, one with convincing self-claimed knowledgeable in violins,
seemed to be an honest eBayer with a rather good number of positive
feedbacks, and so I too got the violin through ebay!. He lives in
Washington. This can be verified...it was Item # and I do have
the page saved with pictures of the Degani-labelled violin saved at some
point in the auction because I too thought it looked to be a good deal. So
put those lynches away, or at least point the negative comments at Anita,
not me!
So, I guess I should be writing
the complaint here, not Anita!!???? Strange isn't it?! But 100% true!! Yet
I'm not about to dig up someone who sold me a violin that he also thought
was authentic, just as I did. He sold it without certifications and so did
I. The only problem I see to warn ebayers about is to get good
certification if they are buying an instrument for an investment, and to
ask questions. But if you're taking a chance, what right has anyone to say
anything about any violin someone is selling, as long as they're not
lying, as to it being improperly listed or not??? This escapes me as it's
so obvious and yet no one here seems to have said it!
In fact, after I had good luck
and good response and praise from selling two family heirloom violins on
ebay I thought I would sell the Degani-label. The local dealer thought it
could be authentic and I, because I was told by the seller, and because I
did quite a bit of research on it (everything was given to Anita yet with
the caveat that I gave it no certifications... oh yes...yet another
omitted fact), and because the local dealer thought it could be authentic,
I looked no further. I really liked the sound of the violin, so did the
other players in the string quartet I play in, so did members of the
symphony I play in, and so did members of the bluegrass club at which I
play every second friday. They are friends of mine and they have stated
that they would write affadavits to this effect!
That was enough for me, I didn't
need certification, especially when I was told that it could be up to 5 or
10% of the value. So after getting the deals completed successfully on my
grandparents violins I decided to sell it, and with the money from my
grandparents' (now deceased) two violins I thought I could invest some
more and perhaps get the violin of my dreams (Gagliano, Bisiach, ???)
which I might also find on eBay. Naive obviously, but happy nonetheless.
What is missed here is the time I
put into writing and trying to help Anita after she told me the violin was
appraised for 2/3rds the reserve (oh yes, not half...another interesting
fact lost in it all). I had already put the money down on two other
violins but I was ready to help with an exchange which was all I could
do...another missed fact. I reserved the price of the Degani-labelled
violin for nothing more than what I had put into it since I had bought it
through eBay.
She also neatly misses pointing
out the fact that a close friend of hers phoned my wife and verbally and
emotionally abused her on the phone. I suppose this is understandable to
some readers here in the light of all this, but I'm not that
understanding. He was very rude and upset my wife greatly! This still
chokes me! She misses the fact that I NEVER told her I would be paying her
back after 4 months, but that I worked closely trying to resolve the
matter because I truly felt sorry for her even though she was unbelievably
unreasonable throughout it all. In fact, every quote of the 'document'(?)
she put on eBay is taken out of context, every phrase fabricated into
something else other than it was and every motive of mine twisted until it
fits into her cast of spite. This is the Anita who has initiated this
whole scenario!!! Quite a lady! But don't let me change your minds this
easily...
That Anita got together with the
buyer of the Bailly that she mentions is not surprising in the least! It
just so happened (my bad luck) that both negative comments appeared in my
feedback at close to the same time (the only two I might add, out of
several violins and other items sold with positive praise). But that is a
totally different issue! The Bailly violin sold to her cohort came with an
"attributed to" certification from Phillips of London. This is
true, it can be checked out easily. And this, again, is exactly what I
said in the listing. These lies about a document with so many lines
crossed out that the buyer couldn't read it are total crap! All that was
crossed out on the 'Bill of Sale' (as this is what the listing stated I
would supply, and it is what Phillips informed me is used for any
reference to their certifications) was personal information and the
information on the other violin that I bought at the same time as this was
of no concern to the buyer of the Bailly. I've had such things given to me
before with credit card information crossed out so I know this is typical.
As well, I have an email appraisal from one of Y's largest and most
reputable violin dealers who appraised it at $5000 US or more when I sent
it to him to have some varnish work on it. I have nothing to hide from
this fact. That is also the truth, accept it or not. As usual, I worked
hard supplying answers to any of the questions that buyer gave me, and
gave excellent pictures as I have always done. So when he nonchalantly
said that he looked at it and decided he didn't want it, I politely
reminded him that this was a no return auction. Well, did he ever change.
I don't think that one should have to apologize for selling to anyone that
which, by a recognized authority, is genuine and of value close to its
sale price. This was my information, I'm sticking to it. Both Anita and
her partner in slander, since they are so unhappy, should sell the violins
themselves and try and recoup what they think they've lost.
This only leaves my real thoughts
and feelings on this whole deal. I have sold quite a number of violins and
other items and I've had two unhappy clients. My batting average is still
good. I've helped a number of people, young and old, who are very happy
with what they've got from me. I haven't lied about anything that I'm
aware of in my dealings and I don't and I never will. I invest time in
people, unlike most. I take care in my listings, unlike most (heck, to
even be lambasted as I see in a message above for having a professional
look to my listings...hey, let's get real). The real problem with online
auctions to me are, from my experiences therefore, the people like Anita
who go out of their way to try and pick up an item they think is rare for
an unbelievable price, yet who don't ask any questions (and folks, we're
talking about an ONLINE AUCTION HERE WHERE PEOPLE DON'T SEE EACH OTHER...HELLLLOOOOO!!!)
about return policies, don't asked questions about guarantees or
certifications, don't ask questions as to condition...in short, people who
say "I loved that violin at first sight" and ask no more
questions only to then, when they get the instrument, say 'Oh, I don't
want it anymore'. Sorry, this isn't the life I'm living here. I don't live
in a dream.
Oh yes...I am talking to our
lawyer regarding Donuel.
Comments welcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my rebuttal would be
useful, by all means go ahead and post it. I feel I have basically said
what needed to be said, but it is hard to bear the smear campaign X has launched, calling me a liar. Some people on Maestronet do not read the
facts and have made me out to be the bad guy for coming forth. Lloyd's of
London is not in the habit of giving away money based on hearsay, but not
everyone is capable of reading between the lines, I suppose.
Sincerely,
Anita Felix
-------------------------------------------------------
Hi Melanie,
Please don't post this email. I don't think you quite understand the
gravity of the situation. Someone linked the Anita Felix article to a sale
on eBay and titled it violin 'Horror' and it got several hundred hits.
What people saw therefore when they clicked on the item in the auction was
the article by Anita with MY NAME AND ADDRESS AND EBAY USERID that you put
on your site. This drew my attention to the fact that you published in a
feature article on your site my name and address and userid.
It is criminally negligent to list a person's name and address and not
even contact them. In fact, it falls easily into the legal definition of
slander, especially since Anita's story is mostly fabricated and only one
side of the story.
My purpose in writing the hasty rebuttal was for your information only,
not for you to post it. I gave you no permission to post it. The way it is
written looks like I'm saying that Anita did the link to eBay, but I'm not
saying that. I'm only saying that Anita's story is a lie and that
soundpost is at this moment responsible for posting that story with my
name as a feature article, and I am demanding that any reference to me be
removed, including my rebuttal, and including my name, address, userid,
etc.
I have been in touch with your hosting company Hostroute in the UK and I
have told them that you have posted personal and maliciously defamatory
material as one of their clients and that the libel forms the basis of a
class action slander suit against them as well.
I already know that I am in the right and I don't need an audience on
soundpost to prove it and I don't have the time to contribute any more to
it.
Please consider this carefully and quickly as my patience in this matter
is running very thin. I appreciate Soundpost but I don't appreciate
slander so please remove any references to me before you and Hostroute
hear from our lawyer.
Yours,
X
Dear Mr. X,
If the above is an incorrect spelling of your name, please contact
me immediately so that I may correct it.
You were, and are free to post any remarks you might have regarding
Soundpost Online and its contents on the Soundpost Online message board.
Your letter, and your rebuttal to My eBay Experience have been appended to
the original article as received, and a note thereto has been added to the
home page.
Thank you for your interest in Soundpost Online.
Sincerely yours,
Melanie Hersh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello
Sorry to contact you like this but we have been contacted by someone
called X complaining about the contents of a web page on your
site.
I enclose his message and my response at the end of this e-mail.
Its entirely up to you what you choose to do. I have made it clear to him
that we will not tamper with a clients site content if it is within our
terms of service.
Good Luck!
And if its any consolation, the guy is obviously up to no good and we were
not impressed by his threats......
Regards
Gordon Hudson
Owner
Hostroute.com
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
This message sent via e-gate universal e-mail gateway by
(x@uniserve.com <mailto:x@uniserve.com>)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 at 16:09:38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: X
Message: This is an urgent message!
You are hosting an online system (www.soundpostonline.com
<http://www.soundpostonline.com>) that has a
WebPage at <http://216.147.56.112/page3.htm>
which is totally slanderous and I am pursuing legal action. The writer of
the article, one Anita Felix, gives out my name and address in the
article. She and I have had dealings and she is fabricating the entire
story. My rebutal to this is on Maestronet's fingerboard and she does not
have support of musicians and has made up the story to suit her own ends.
I can't believe this has happened.
As well, someone also took the abovementioned page and linked it to a sale
on eBay for the world to read. This is criminal negligence and has caused
grieve to me and my family.
I demand that any reference to myself, my name, address, ebay userid be
removed or legal suit will follow and I am told that this is a good case.
I'm not blaming hostroute but soundpost's ethics must be seriously
questioned here. Please respond asap.
Thank you
X
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUR RESPONSE:
Hello
I have recieved your e-mail regarding <http://216.147.56.112/page3.htm>
I will take this up with the site owner, but they are not breaching their
contract with us. A web host is rather like a printer in that we are not
publishers and our only involvement in content issues is if they breach
the terms and conditions imposed by our telecom carriers.
This page does not.
Furthermore, we would be in breach of our own privacy policy to interfere
with a clients page content without their express permission, so there is
no possibility of us removing or editing this page. To do so would leave
us open to potential litigation.
You would be better to address the issue to the site owners. I will raise
it with them and await their response. Sorry, if this appears a negative
response, but we have to take a responsible and balanced attitude to these
sorts of issues.
By the way, our web hosting contracts are negotiated under Scots Law which
affords us, as a Scottish based company, with considerable protection
against the sorts of massive legal damages claims which are possible in
North America.
Hopefully this can be sorted out amicably between you and the site owner.
Regards,
Gordon Hudson
Hostroute.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soundpostonline editors,
Just thought I would pass along to you one of the many emails that I have
had that, more than not, support my side of the Anita/X equation, along
with my response to it.
I dare you to publish it.
Yours,
X
---------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Uy" <andrewuy@ms4.hinet.net
<mailto:andrewuy@ms4.hinet.net>>
To: <x@telus.net <mailto:x@telus.net>>
Sent: January 20, 2001 5:05 AM
Subject: Just some thoughts on this matter
Dear X,
I can understand how hurt you are with what was broadcasted world-wide,
casting a shadow on your reputation. I think each of you have reasons for
upset on what had happened. If I were Anita, I think I might also ask for
a return and refund. But definitely, if I cannot have it, I will not, for
a sum of $3500 publish such harsh remarks world-wide, to condemn somebody.
If I were you on the other hand, if Anita persist on her refund, I will
just refund her, getting over everything, satisfying a customer, which I
never know may be someone of help to me later on. If I understand
correctly from your letter, your information about that violin came from
another seller whom you bought the violin, and obviously you were
disappointed, prompting you to re-sell the violin, quoting the same
information which made you decide to buy the violin in the first place.
Anita obviously feel the same way after acquiring the violin, but feels it
not right to re-sell it again using the same information that disappointed
her. What I am seeing here is 2 different perspectives, both of which, I
might say, is correct.
1. Anita sees that business deals ought to satisfy the customer, and the
seller needs to do something to that effect. Anita thinks that even if she
gets all the information asked for, but on getting the product finds it
below her expectations, it is refundable, at least within a certain period
of time. That is why we have stores that allows return of goods for a full
refund within a reasonable period, with no question asked.
2. You on the other hand is someone who believes that a buyer is entitled
to all information on a product, and the seller should provide
all that is asked for, and the buyer is responsible for judging the
accuracy of the given information, and to make a decision whether to buy
or not to buy, and once made, is responsible for his decision.
Well, what is here are 2 perspectives, both correct. Problem arises when
the buyer and seller do not have the same perspective. One appeals to the
emotion, the other is just plain business dealing. Just like buying
stocks, you are responsible after making the decision for the buy, NO
REFUND.
Legally, though, I think you are more on the right. You did not force
her to buy. Even if the information were false, she made the decision.
She after all has to decide if the information were correct.
This argument can go on forever, one appealing to the emotion, another
appealing to reasons. To end it up though, I think if you can correct the
harm done by asking for a public apology, it is not worth the time and
money to act legally, with that sum of money. If I were you, I will demand
for a public apology, and I will just have her refund.
Take care, and hope everything goes well with you. It is really
depressing to have your character put down in a world-wide announcement.
Andrew
andrewanyutsai@netscape.net
<mailto:andrewanyutsai@netscape.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "x" <x@telus.net <mailto:x@telus.net>>
To: "Andrew Uy" <andrewuy@ms4.hinet.net
<mailto:andrewuy@ms4.hinet.net>>
Sent: January 20, 2001 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Just some thoughts on this matter
Dear Andrew,
I thank you for your thoughts. I think that what you say is probably the
most common opinion. This is important to keep in mind because it probably
reflects best what people see as the major issues. However, the issue for
me is far more personal and more complex. To refund Anita now is, from my
perspective, a genuflection to the greater wrong. The negative feedback
has been put in, despite the fact that I did everything in my power to
inform her that the violin was not certified in any way and that it had no
avenues for refund, being sold as is. She went out and enlisted a totally
different buyer to help her cause, despite that the circumstances were
entirely different and they were two entirely different violins. Now she
has put my name and address and eBay userid in an article which slanders
me. It has a number of lies and fabrications in it. The damage, imho, is
done. The greater damage has been done by her. To refund her now is to cut
off my nose to spite my face. There is a major difference here between
Anita's actions and my own. I followed the law and am bound by the law.
She is willing to go beyond the law for revenge. This is an extremely
critical point. One can question another's honesty, that isn't a problem.
She can question my honesty all she wants, but the law is the law. Her
questioning of my honesty is only her opinion. But for her to extract
revenge by then going and seeking to end my survival possibilities (both
on eBay and elsewhere) by slandering me is why we have laws in the first
place. The simple fact that you, a person I don't know, can come into my
private life and tell me your thoughts is mindboggling to me. I am a
private person with a quiet family. I don't mean to sound harsh here (and
don't get me wrong I do appreciate your comments), but please try to
understand. I have done nothing wrong legally and yet you and other people
are now connected to my life and passing opinion on me. What would you
think if it was you and you started getting email from people you didn't
know??
The auction was totally legal, there is not question on this matter. So
although Anita's motives can be explained they cannot be excused by bowing
down to them. She lost in her accusation of fraud via the dispute system
on eBay, and she withdrew after we had both stated our sides of the story.
But now she has gone beyond the law, and her use of slander along with
Soundpostonline's publishing of it to the world without one word mentioned
to me is up there as the greatest injustices every done to me in my life.
I am sorely disappointed in Soundpostonline for allowing such an article
to be published. What next, a picture of myself and my family with morphed
guns pointing to our head?? Is this legal also? What after that???
I feel the system has let me down and I am seeking a legal way through
this at this point in time because there seems to be no other principle or
ethical value being extolled here. And I totally expect another injustice
to happen from Soundpostonline's editors in the future. Surely, anyone
would know that there are two sides to any story and that simply repeating
the rumour of what one person tells you is something you just don't do,
under any circumstances. This reduces Soundpostonline to little more than
a 'Star Weekly' mentality, having nothing worth the effort nor the serious
concern of one to follow their views. They have no morals, no sense of
scope, and are simply looking for trash. And I know, from the comments of
people of Maestronet and by others, many are now thinking the same thing.
Obviously Anita Felix and Soundpostonline and its editors have no scruples
and are willing to commit whatever crimes they wish to push their agendas.
Plus, the complexity is greater because there were several coincidences.
One, it was only because she had delayed several months before putting in
her negative feedback, that when she did, it was right after my only other
negative feedback put in by another buyer. This looks doubly bad for me
because they both conspired and used their comments to suggest that I had
some kind of scam system going on. This was totally the opposite of
reality and both cases were unique.
And second, yes, I did originally buy the violin through ebay and even
used pretty much the same HTML and language as the original (at least
through eBay) seller used when I sold it. This was because I was new to
listing and I thought it looked professional. It was not because of a
scam, or something I invented because I was unhappy with the instrument.
The value of the instrument to me, was also sentimental value. I am not a
dealer. I had sold no violins that I had bought before this point. I had
been very happy with the Degani-label violin. I kept it for almost a year
not even thinking of replacing it. It was only when I began thinking that
I could sell the heirloom violins (and I never said the Degani-label was
an heirloom) and the Degani-label that I thought I might be able to trade
up byalso selling it.
To suggest that Anita doesn't want to sell the violin to keep the circle
going is to me, frankly, quite ludicrous. It is a violin, it can be sold.
It is a good violin, all the better to sell it for someone else who could
use it if she doesn't want it. $3000 (my reserve, and very little more
than what I'd paid for and put into the instrument) for a Degani-label
(Anita told me she was told by Ishfin's that the label was authentic)
violin with good projection and a warm sound that does surpass some
Cremonese violins is not that much to pay. I have heard some modern
Italian, even made in Cremona, and the Degani-label does sound better than
them. I'm not exaggerating, this is not only my opinion but is the opinion
of others who have done sound comparisons with me, and generally, it is
fairly common knowledge that not all makers made their violins of the same
quality. One Gagliano can sound fantastic, the next garner only a luke
warm reception. This is fact. So Anita could, quite easily, sell the
violin for it's appraised value, or put it on consignment. I know it would
sell.
Third, I had other bidders bidding on the violin. They had not even
asked about any questions about it and would no doubt have been more than
happy with it, just as I had. Why should I be caused to lose the sale to
them now because she wants a refund? That is the nature of an auction and
a serious reason why she shouldn't be refunded. She bought an instrument
"as is" from me, bidding 'against' other interested buyers (who
I would have much rather sold it to). Let's not confuse the issue, this
was not a store sale, it was an auction. Laws cover auction sales much
differently than retail stores. Should I get her to pay taxes too? I think
not. It was the first time ever in my life that I had sold a violin that I
had previously bought on the Net. I wasn't a big or a small dealer, I was no dealer at all.
Fourth, Anita told me she was a professional and knew professional dealers. Why didn't she show the pictures to them???? One of the them
phoned and verbally abused my wife, why didn't she show the violin
pictures to him? They were good pictures as I take great time in working
on my pictures. She didn't see the colors in the violin when she got it
she says. Well, she sure didn't look very hard. I had numerous comments on
the beautiful patterns and colors of the instrument.
As Sherlock Holmes said, when you go through all the possibilities and are
left with only one, no matter how bizarre it sounds it must be the truth.
The truth is that Anita Felix wanted the Degani-label because she thought
it was going to make her rich, and when the appraisal didn't go the way
she wanted it to go, she cried "wolf".
So, Andrew, I don't think the issue comes down to 'reason' vs 'emotion'. I am very emotionally tied to this situation now but I exercise
reason in the last instance, as we all do. All law is based on the average
'reasonable person'. Whether that person is emotional or not is not really
the issue. Anita has things she can do just like anyone else: she can sell
the instrument (a smart move), she could try and prove fraud (which is
ridiculous), she could accept her mistake and let it make her wiser, or
she lower herself as a human being and slander someone. It is clear what
kind of 'emotion' Anita is using.
I could go on forever because
there are just too many differences
between myself and a person like Anita. Hopefully Andrew you can see this
now also.
Yours,
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Stefan,
I have just reviewed X's rebuttal and the remarks on Maestronet.
It is clear that on this open forum people will make judgments about the
veracity of the information and will draw independent conclusions. I would
like to briefly clarify a few points. Please feel free to print this in
its entirety.
It is true that a friend of mine who is very knowledgeable about instruments offered to straighten this situation out over the phone. In an
effort to help, he acted emotionally and I heard later he was rude to X's wife when he called. When I learned that he was hotheaded, I asked
my friend not to call again and to let me solve the situation. I called
and wrote a note of apology to X's wife for my friend's behavior. I did
not feel this unfortunate incident was important in supporting the facts
about the violin and did not include it in the article. However, I feel I
must now comment as I do not condone this kind of behavior and felt it was
best to keep an open line of communication.
The other buyer that X refers to as my "cohort" was a person
unknown to me who is in a similar situation to mine with X. He
was not a person that I sought out, but someone who contacted me in an
effort to provide support.
The fact is the violin is not a "20th Century Modern Italian" as
it was represented. Lloyd's of London insurance found in my favor based on an
examination of the auction listing and an expert appraisal from a well
regarded San Francisco violin shop that supports this fact.
I wanted to warn people about the possible downside of buying an
instrument sight unseen from an auction. It was an opportunity for
something good to come from all this misfortune.
Anita Felix
------------------------------------------------------
Dear Anita,
Perhaps you could post this
(above letter) to the Soundpost Online message board, or we could do it
for you, if you prefer. That way it will reach the people you want it to,
and probably not those from whom you'd rather not hear anymore, i.e. X, and his supporters. The point you make is an excellent one, and
judging from the latest posts on Maestronet, you have already made it, and
it has been heard. More dialogue would not be useful here, and might erode
the solid gains you have made toward alerting folks to the rules of good
business, and of what is fairness, common decency and honesty.
Mr. X also sent a threatening letter to our web hosting service,
Hostroute, a chap in Lothian, Scotland. He immediately defused the
situation, and then sent us a letter saying, with characteristic British
dryness, that he hadn't paid the complaint much heed, since it sounded as
though X was "up to no good." Indeed!
Melanie Hersh
|
|