Nude Kings: banker.com "it did not sell.....want it?"

[deter]

And you know for a fact that there was not a mutual recission of the agreement?

That does not rise to the level of posting in "People to avoid dealings with". Someone reported a deal. It looks to you like the deal was not made. You have no further information, yet you accuse someone of unfair business practices by posting in the warning forum or, as another poster suggested, some violation of law. That's not responsible.

And it is responsible to ACT like a big sale happened when it didnt ?

"someone" didnt just report a sale ..the "someone" was INVITED to report by RS; just so you understand the facts

 

[jberryhill]

"someone" didnt just report a sale ..the "someone" was INVITED to report by RS; just so you understand the facts

And just so you understand the facts, I was several feet away from "someone" when the sale was announced.

And it is responsible to ACT like a big sale happened when it didnt ?

Believing someone is a jerk and saying "I think X is a jerk" is fine. But ACTING like a big sale happened is not something that anyone can sue you for. What GeorgeK and others here have done is to suggest illegality of some kind - that's defamatory.

And, yes, two people can agree to a sale, and then later mutually change their minds (as long as it was mutual). GeorgeK has NO reason to believe this didn't happened, but he calls it "fishy". Now if Ron Jackson is standing there when it happens, then he can report what he saw happen in dnjournal.

But if I ACT like I made a big domain sale when I didn't, then, yeah, I'm full of crap. But how does that harm you or anyone else sufficient to justify a posting in the "warning" forum?

 

[David G]

Perhaps it was financed and not paid for yet?

P.S. I really do not see why Domain King would need to fake a sale? Suspect Moniker was involved in the sale and Monte is uniquely well known for offering financing. It's possible seller is still offering it for sale as the money may not have changed hands yet. Just my 2 cents.

 

[deter]

And just so you understand the facts, I was several feet away from "someone" when the sale was announced.

So do you have inside knowledge to what actually is going on ?

How many of these people do you represent and dont you feel obligated to post a disclaimer ?

 

[GeorgeK]

I didn't suggest illegality (that was someone else). Just that the PR didn't match what's happening. An informational post to know ALL the facts, not just the PR, around folks like that I think is appreciated by most. Just like various communicate.com 'sales', which also didn't show up on DNJournal because the WHOIS changed. Yet, this one did.

I think if I went around saying I was married to Britney Spears, a fraction of folks would think I'm a kook, and want to make sure every 't' was crossed, and 'i' dotted when doing deals. You live by PR, you die by PR.

 

[Ed30]

I think if I went around saying I was married to Britney Spears, a fraction of folks would think I'm a kook

I'm sure she'll get around to all of us eventually :-D

 

[GeorgeK]

But if I ACT like I made a big domain sale when I didn't, then, yeah, I'm full of crap. But how does that harm you or anyone else sufficient to justify a posting in the "warning" forum?

It harms the entire industry, when things like that happen, especially when the "crap" is among people who are supposed to be at the top of the game, and who slam their enemies far worse.

One specific example of the harm is it raises prices (and costs) for those who are seeking out other domain names to add to their portfolios, because prospective sellers will point out those other announced "sales" and adjust their expectations and negotiating stances accordingly.

For example, men.com at $1.32 million is one thing, but then if folks also knew the full story at the time that it included dirtyjokes.com (and perhaps other consideration that we don't know about), that would LOWER the value of the men.com piece of transaction, and thus get less press and not affect other sellers' perceptions of the values of their own holdings. Read all the spin by Domain King, and you can tell he's a net seller, not a net buyer, who wants domain values inflated (i.e. someone who is buying domains isn't going to be going around saying candy.com is worth $50 million -- it would make others want more to sell their own domains).

Now we learned on another forum that apparently business.com was paid for in stock and "funny money". History might be different, if their PR didn't affect the market.

This is a market, and folks are entitled and deserve *accurate* reports of sales, and warnings when there's something that hasn't lived up to its billing.

 

[mole]

I agree. It seems many people are trying to manipulate the price of .COM to further their own ends, and rightfully so. I would do the same if I had 4,000 .COM names. I think this is really a non-issue, george, since this is the way the life pony kicks whether anyone likes it or not. Say anymore, and your posts will be edited and deleted.

 

[deter]

It's Illegal in the Stock Market to hype stocks then sell into that hype, I could very easily see a compentent law firm working that same angle against hype in the Domain industry.

But even without taking that route , these sales that dont happen or happen but with an * is simply more ammunition for those outside the Industry to point out what a slimey industry this is and they would be correct.

 

[GeorgeK]

Exactly --- look at all the eNom Club Drop auctions that went awry, as items get re-auctioned 10 or 15 times. This market wasn't affected by this information, even if one wasn't in that particular auction?? I think all auction participants have to be wary, when they see announced auctions fall apart.

 

[David G]

....Now we learned on another forum that apparently business.com was paid for in stock and "funny money". History might be different, if their PR didn't affect the market......

Isn't it amazing how business.com terms were kept secret for so many yrs! I do believe that sale is the one which started the dot com gold rush at the time. If the facts were known it may have never happened to such a degree. I do recall business.com got me excited and more in to buying domains at the time so it was very influential on many of us I suspect.

I still maintain there is no obvious reason for domainking to fake a purchase. $41K sounds like a lot of $ to us but in his major league it really is not greatly significant, IMO. See my prior posts re possible financing being delayed for some odd reason, which BTW is little more than a guess.

 

[mole]

I think all auction participants have to be wary, when they see announced auctions fall apart.

Let it be. A fool is born every minute. Thank god for morons.

 

[GeorgeK]

The only info I can add is after the registrant told me what I posted in the first message (whether I wanted it), I made an offer BELOW $41K, which he was considering, and even asked whether I'd consider partnering in a joint venture (which I very rarely do, except under exceptional circumstances). That seemed even stranger to me, i.e. why consider offers *less* than $41K??

 

[chatcher]

(I promised myself I wouldn't get into this mess, but can't help myself)

...and perhaps other consideration that we don't know about...

That's the key, "we don't know". We don't know the details of every transaction, because it's really none of our business. When real estate sells, we don't know the details. We see the sale price recorded in the deed, but we don't know what other motivation the buyer or seller had. I've inquired about domain names and had the owner ask me what I plan to do with the name. That implies the price might vary according to the buyer's plans. When I buy a car and get x dollars for the trade-in, is that an accurate estimate of what the trade-in was worth? If I buy a car and get a rebate, how much did I really pay? The fact is most domain name sales are not even reported, so we have a very cloudy view of market value. Sellers and buyers who disclose their sales do so for a variety of reasons, as do those that do not.

Read all the spin by Domain King, and you can tell he's a net seller, not a net buyer, who wants domain values inflated (i.e. someone who is buying domains isn't going to be going around saying candy.com is worth $50 million -- it would make others want more to sell their own domains)

I don't know if he buys more or sells more. I do know he is buying. As far as him being a proponent of the value of domain names, that is pretty much indisputable. Are you suggesting we all try to downplay the value of domain names until such time as you are finished acquiring names, and then let the secret out?

...folks are entitled and deserve *accurate* reports of sales

Who made up that rule? Folks are not entitled to any such information. The fact that Ron Jackson is trying to make the information available to folks, when the information is hard to obtain, hard to verify, and subject to a lot of criticism is something to be applauded, and I think anyone who bets their ranch on any particular data point is either idealistic or naive.

It may just be my interpretation, but your posts do not come across as neutral, informational, posts.

 

[jberryhill]

So do you have inside knowledge to what actually is going on ?

How many of these people do you represent and dont you feel obligated to post a disclaimer ?

Ah... let's play "question John's motives" - a fun game the whole family can play.

No, I have no inside knowledge, and if by "these people" you mean anyone involved in the alleged transaction, then no, I don't represent any of "these people". If by "these people" you mean people on this thread, then, yes, I have in the past represented someone on this particular thread, but it is someone with whom I disagree on the subject being discussed. Happy now?

It's Illegal in the Stock Market to hype stocks then sell into that hype, I could very easily see a compentent law firm working that same angle against hype in the Domain industry.

That's absurd. Securities fraud is a very specific statutory offense involving false information pertaining to the company in whom the securities are being offered. "Puffing" in sales is normal, and something very different. If I say that "bankers.com" is worth a gajillion dollars, then it doesn't matter.

Aside from which, neither you, George, nor anyone else here has convinced me that there wasn't a mutual recission here.

This is a market, and folks are entitled and deserve *accurate* reports of sales, and warnings when there's something that hasn't lived up to its billing.

Then post some *accurate* information about what happened with this transaction.

 

[mole]

and I think anyone who bets their ranch on any particular data point is either idealistic or naive.

I totally agree. it is hard to obtain and verify actual sales figures i.e.paper money floating in inner circles ala business.com. Its very well hidden, and trails carefully wiped clean.

 

[GeorgeK]

I did, John. I posted that something hasn't lived up to its billing. I posted that the seller said it did not sell, and asked whether I wanted it. I posted that the seller is considering my offer LOWER than $41K and wanted to do a joint venture. I posted that it's still for sale on Sedo (a member of this forum, and a sponsor of T.R.A.F.F.I.C.). Sherlock Holmes often has fewer clues to work with, but I'd wager would still be able to draw conclusions that this transaction is "of interest" to the domain community.

Either it happened, or it didn't. If it didn't, shouldn't those who hyped the transaction as a "completed deal" explain themselves?? They certainly used the media for publicity, and then expect to walk away as if nothing happened?? If an eBay seller did the same, and then we find out later there was no sale, what we would all be saying?? Or an auction at Christie's, or a failed corporate takeover in the securities market, or ....?

If this matter isn't up for a discussion on a Domain Name forum, I don't know what is.

BTW, if there was a mutual recission, in your scenario, John, why wouldn't that not be of interest to domainers??

 

[jberryhill]

Exactly --- look at all the eNom Club Drop auctions that went awry, as items get re-auctioned 10 or 15 times. This market wasn't affected by this information, even if one wasn't in that particular auction?? I think all auction participants have to be wary, when they see announced auctions fall apart.

Yes... and look at eBay auctions that don't work out... someone must be manipulating the market value of useless crap!

I'll confess. You've all been fooled into this domain madness by hype, when the secret of making real money has been hidden from you.

Yes, it's time we told them about.... Alpaca Farming:

http://www.ilovealpacas.com/investment.shtml

Alpacas are not inexpensive, ranging from $10,000 to $40,000 for breeding females and $5,000 to $35,000 for high quality males. High quality proven males with exceptional offspring have sold in excess of $200,000. In many cases, financing your alpaca purchase can be done right on the farm as many alpaca breeders offer financing.

 

[GeorgeK]

Everyone remember the Properties.com story?

http://www.sedo.com/links/showhtml.php3?Id=196&language=e&partnerid=14228&tracked=1

Schwartz says, "One or more of the parties is not being truthful, and the Federal Court system is the best way to get to the bottom of the matter. No question this is a valuable internet property. The appraised value of properties.com is in excess of $1 million and some have appraised it for as high as $3 million. That gives a lot of reasons for someone to have an agenda and why everyone is so anxious to give me my money back but not tell the story that is really going on with properties.com. If this domain was in fact stolen, then someone needs to be held accountable. The authorities should prosecute the offender and send a message that stealing internet property will land you in jail. If the domain is not stolen, then it rightfully belongs to me, and I want it transferred back."

 

[chatcher]

Everyone remember the Properties.com story?

Apparently it was settled:

Domain Name: PROPERTIES.COM

Registrant:
Virtual Dates Inc
Box 4357
Boynton Beach
FL
US
33424

Administrative Contact:
Schwartz, R (NIC-2211)