AA/SDS recasting issue...

[jeezycreezy]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 13 2006, 12:25 PM
Just goes to show what the motivation and drive behind the anti-SDS group always revolves around...money, payoffs and cutting deals.

Always?

Huh.

I disagree.

I'm not anti-AA so much as pro-truth...but if I must be pigeonholed I guess I am a #7 type detractor.

I don't belong to or associate with a group of detractors.

I don't benefit from this financially.

I didn't pay anyone off nor did anyone pay me.

I haven't cut nor will I cut any deals as a result of my posting in these threads.

I don't know anything about anybody but myself and my dealings with AA.

If I am an X-Files type conspiracist, it's only inasmuch as I believe the truth is out there...I'm just pretty damn sure it's not on sdsprops.com.

I bought the hype surrounding his stunt helmet. I later came to realize I didn't get what I paid for. I later sold it at a loss.

As such my posts are merely driven by a need to try to prevent other people from potentially feeling ripped off (not saying everyone will be -- I'm sure AA has more happy than unhappy customers). That's all.

Sorry, but it bugs me when some people make sweeping generalizations to dismiss the detractors as armor makers or their pals, or part of some great conspiracy on the OTForum, or whatever.

I'm just a lone Canadian nobody who doesn't see AA's products to be what he says they are: Accurate.

Put simply, to me:

- The SDS stunt looks like the prototype.

- Elements of his armor look like the work of other people.

Do I really have to have what I see so plainly with my own eyes confirmed by a court of law before I can express my concerns?

And how would the court case prove or disprove whether or not AA recast GF's work?

I'm not overly interested in the case and skim most posts to do with it, but I thought the gist was whether or not he had the rights to produce likenesses of copyrighted Star Wars characters, not where he got the molds to do so.

I agree with voice in the crowd. Maybe someone should propose a course of action to help get this thread back on track.

Cheers.
TJ

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by TK765@Jan 13 2006, 07:48 AM

Looks like you missed one......

7. Those that bought into the hype and fraudulent description, paid their $850, for a substandard, fragile, see-through, easily cracked, vac-formed piece of plastic that when they started showing up was obvious to those that have studied every trooper picture to death and have experience with the process, realized it had so many differences from a screen used helmet that it couldn't be from the original molds.  Unfortunately the supposed "nice guy" would not refund the helmets because it had been "too long".  Those that will do everything they can to help others not make the same mistake and know exactly what they are buying.

[snapback]1157816[/snapback]​

Nah. You see, mine list is much more general and covers a broader range of individuals.

See my Detractors #3. Covers you perfectly.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 13 2006, 08:57 AM
Gavidoc,  your view of the Supporters...........just plain sucks...  People like you who are so cut off from anyone else's viewpoint can't see even a glimmer of another opinion.  Don't worry you are in good company. 

1.  I never said or felt that I wanted AA to stick it to anyone.(Unless it's proven has the rights he truly believes he does).  And I do think he believes it with every fiber of his being(my personal opinion).

2.  I have never even been offered a discount or a kickback for my support of the poor guy.  I didn't ask for one.......I won't get one.......I may not ever get his great offerings for that matter.  $$ always comes up short when I try to buy it somehow. 

3.  Though I do believe he is the original maker and possibly the grandfathered owner of all the recasts to follow (If the courts agree),  I don't in any capacity think his items are of lesser value than any other ST items on the market.  Actually for an ANH costume..........his stuff seems to beat the living hell out of anything I've seen to date (again my opinion). 

Gav,  you and I have agreed on some issues in the past, and disagreed on others,  but your blanket statements about all supporters and all detractors leaves me with a  feeling of nausea.  A handful of your detractor buddies,  (in my opinion), are of poor character and have little or no ethics within them.  I'm quite  suprised and disappointed that you, of all people, don't see ANYTHING negative about those you have thrown in with.

[snapback]1157862[/snapback]​

Well said.

And I think, as Jeezy pointed out, that those of us who are referring to the lists are being a bit sweeping because the few that are honestly trying to work out how they feel about SDS are getting "forgotten" due to the other arguments taking place here.

Frankly I don't think there is anything more that can be said. The topic, again, has been run into the ground. The only question that has yet to be answered is Chris' at this point. So I don't think there is any reason for either "side" to post any more with comments, innuendo, suppositions, etc. about SDS since obviously it doesn't do any good.

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 13 2006, 09:57 AM
Gavidoc,  your view of the Supporters...........just plain sucks...  People like you who are so cut off from anyone else's viewpoint can't see even a glimmer of another opinion.  Don't worry you are in good company. 

Gav,  you and I have agreed on some issues in the past, and disagreed on others,  but your blanket statements about all supporters and all detractors leaves me with a  feeling of nausea.  A handful of your detractor buddies,  (in my opinion), are of poor character and have little or no ethics within them.   I'm quite  suprised and disappointed that you, of all people, don't see ANYTHING negative about those you have thrown in with.

[snapback]1157862[/snapback]​

I'm always willing to add categories to better define the individuals involved in a generalized sense.

In your case, you'd be a Supporter Category #4.

Supporter Category #4: Those who think it's awesome that the original creator of the ST Armor has started to make his product again. You see nothing wrong with competition and view it as more chefs in the kitchen means more variety.

My detractor buddies? I'm more of an independent. I skirt the line between both sides while stepping on each side dependent upon the situation. I agree with you that some of the detractors of poor character but can't chime in on the ethics part. Negativity is subjective unfortunately. I'm sure there are some who view your views as negative and something that goes against what the RPF used to stand for by your open support of AA/SDS efforts.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by gavidoc+Jan 13 2006, 09:14 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gavidoc @ Jan 13 2006, 09:14 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-vaderdarth

@Jan 13 2006, 09:57 AM
Gavidoc,  your view of the Supporters...........just plain sucks...  People like you who are so cut off from anyone else's viewpoint can't see even a glimmer of another opinion.  Don't worry you are in good company. 

Gav,  you and I have agreed on some issues in the past, and disagreed on others,  but your blanket statements about all supporters and all detractors leaves me with a  feeling of nausea.  A handful of your detractor buddies,  (in my opinion), are of poor character and have little or no ethics within them.  I'm quite  suprised and disappointed that you, of all people, don't see ANYTHING negative about those you have thrown in with.

[snapback]1157862[/snapback]​

I'm always willing to add categories to better define the individuals involved in a generalized sense.

In your case, you'd be a Supporter Category #4.

Supporter Category #4: Those who think it's awesome that the original creator of the ST Armor has started to make his product again. You see nothing wrong with competition and view it as a healthy competition.

My detractor buddies? I'm more of an independent. I skirt the line between both sides while stepping on each side dependent upon the situation. I agree with you that some of the detractors of poor character but can't chime in on the ethics part. Negativity is subjective unfortunately. I'm sure there are some who view your views as negative and something that goes against what the RPF used to stand for by your open support of AA/SDS efforts.

[snapback]1157874[/snapback]​

[/b]

I definitely am a #4 then, as I think it's amazing we are fortunate enough to be able to get ST helmets (and maybe others) from one of the guys who actually was there back in '77 and had an actual hand in creating (one way or another) something for ANH. Except for Ralph McQuarrie and his artwork and Don Bies helping out with the R2 Builders, I can't think of any other actual person involved with ANH who is involved with fandom and offering a product too boot.

 

[gavidoc]

Mikey,

Just answer one question for me. What do you mean by the PK/D? Are you referring to a Blade Runner gun? Give me a Cliff Notes version of what you're talking about to jog the old noggin.

As for your list...It seems to me that you took my general list and broke it into subcategories of the categories. Your list could be listed as: a, b, c etc. under some of mine.

And technically, you'd fall under 2 categories, not one.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 13 2006, 09:21 AM
Mikey,

Just answer one question for me. What do you mean by the PK/D? Are you referring to a Blade Runner gun? Give me a Cliff Notes version of what you're talking about to jog the old noggin.

As for your list...It seems to me that you took my general list and broke it into subcategories of the categories. Your list could be listed as: a, b, c etc. under some of mine.

And technically, you'd fall under 2 categories, not one.

[snapback]1157881[/snapback]​

Yep, Blade Runner gun. Ask the fellows at Prop-Ed about it, I'm sure they have some interesting memories and can refresh yours.

And just remember John, fence sitting can be dangerous, especially if it's barbed wire.

 

[vaderdarth]

Gavidoc, I'm sure there are plenty of detractors who think I'm Evil. I'd bet that the good majority of those just don't like anyone disagreeing with their own viewpoint.

I like to think of myself as a guy who believes you are innocent until proven guilty. And one who gives just a tad more credit to a guy who worked on ANH versus certain individuals who have been known to "mislead" their customers either about their own product, their presentation of their product, or their true reasons for offering their product.....not to mention their hidden motives, right here at the RPF. Every man, if he firmly believes he is right, should be given the benefit of the doubt until he 1. proves his claim or 2. Loses everything he owns in spite of his convictions.

If you think my views on this are Idiotic, Moronic, Misplaced, Evil, Unconventional, Wrong, Pathetic, Troublesome or any combination of the above...........then that is your OPINION and you are certainly entitled to it. If that is how you think the RPF should be conducted............not allowing others to also voice their beliefs(when they seem to disagree with your own).........then I have to add that my OPINION, is that you were never the man for the job in the first place.

 

[NEKROFANATIC]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 13 2006, 10:20 AM


I definitely am a #4 then, as I think it's amazing we are fortunate enough to be able to get ST helmets (and maybe others) from one of the guys who actually was there back in '77 and had an actual hand in creating (one way or another) something for ANH.  Except for Ralph McQuarrie and his artwork and Don Bies helping out with the R2 Builders, I can't think of any other actual person involved with ANH who is involved with fandom and offering a product too boot. 

"fortunate enough"? We pay a very handsome price to AA so he can sell us molded plastic, basically. He is doing no one but himself a favour. Lets all get a little real about this. AA IS a business man who's sole interest is in making a buck. Formed plastic and some stickers and paint do not cost $700+ to buy materials, form and sell.

That being said, I own a stunt and whilst it looks pretty on the shelf, I certainly do not feel fortunate having shelled out hundreds of dollars for what amounts to a mass produced plastic helmet.

What we ALL (thats you naysayers AND boosters) know that AA has been a tad loose with his advertising of his work. There is no debating that. Sure it stinks. Sure it takes away from the value of the work. But, is it unethical? Maybe, maybe not, after all he IS out to make sales and money so a little misrepresentation of the truth is going to go a long way for those not members here.

I believe the BEST post in this thread has been jeezy's previous and that I have to agree with his assessment that AA is doing some 'questionable' things in regards to how he makes and markets his gear. Seeing how jeezy has no dog in this fight, I value his opinion as it mirrors my own and I'd bet the vast majority of RPF members.

Now, to stay on topic...Seeing how AA is not a member here, that no members here sell his work, I feel the position is that there is no position. Until such a time that one of the two above reverses itself, there is nothing that a mod can do except, well, mod. We can't ban him and we can't ban members selling his work as there are none. All we as a community can do is take the info we have at hand and do with it what we will and hope that the 'welfare' of the RPF membership is priority #1...

 

[gavidoc]

Yep, Blade Runner gun. Ask the fellows at Prop-Ed about it, I'm sure they have some interesting memories and can refresh yours.

Yeah. Never owned a Blade Runner gun Mikey. Never involved in a Blade Runner gun project. Is that when everyone got their panties in a ruffle over some bannings we did?

If so, I only regret that I didn't just ban the individuals and be done with it. How does my actions there affect what should be viewed as the "right thing to do"? If anything, I failed to do the right thing then. Learned from the mistake and hope that the Staff will also learn from that mistake (even though they haven't yet).

What's unfortunate is that it doesn't look like you've learned from your mistakes. In a way I feel you have a "What's in it for me" syndrome.

If that isn't what you're referring to, just come out and say it. I have nothing to hide in regards to my past actions. We're discussing the ethics of a seller. Based on my track record as a former seller of product, I feel I have every right to say what I have and not have it brushed to the side because it doesn't go along with what you feel.

 

[vaderdarth]

Nekrofanatic,
I'm gonna also say that I'm less than thrilled with AA's past marketing plans........and do wish he would have been more "accurate in his descriptons" from the get go. Lots of AA supporters have voiced this point in past threads. Does it take away from the value of his product??? That is still quite debatable depending on who you ask.

Is his hunk of plastic worth more or less than other TE derivative hunks of plastic???? Depends on who you ask.

Does that matter here???? Not really. An item is worth what you think it's worth. If you feel your hunk of plastic is worth less than what you paid............sell it. Be patient.........somone will meet a reasonable price. Even if it's only to save shipping from the UK.

I think your last paragraph is about as fair as any I've heard in this discussion.

Dave

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 13 2006, 10:42 AM
If you think my views on this are  Idiotic,  Moronic,  Misplaced,  Evil,  Unconventional,   Wrong,  Pathetic,   Troublesome or any combination of the above...........then that is your OPINION and you are certainly entitled to it.    If that is how you think the RPF should be conducted............not allowing others to also voice their beliefs(when they seem to disagree with your own).........then I have to add that my OPINION,  is that you were never the man for the job in the first place.

[snapback]1157905[/snapback]​

Hmmmm.....No worries as I don't personally categorize your views as " Idiotic, Moronic, Misplaced, Evil, Unconventional, Wrong, Pathetic, Troublesome or any combination of the above....."

As for not allowing others to voice their beliefs, just take a look at my banner and my signature. That sums up my views on that issue quite clearly IMO.

As someone I know always says (and yes he's a guy) "Opinions are like nipples. Everyone has 'em. Bad opinions don't want to be heard like hairy man nipples don't want to be seen. Good ones on the other hand."

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by NEKROFANATIC+Jan 13 2006, 09:44 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NEKROFANATIC @ Jan 13 2006, 09:44 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 13 2006, 10:20 AM


I definitely am a #4 then, as I think it's amazing we are fortunate enough to be able to get ST helmets (and maybe others) from one of the guys who actually was there back in '77 and had an actual hand in creating (one way or another) something for ANH.  Except for Ralph McQuarrie and his artwork and Don Bies helping out with the R2 Builders, I can't think of any other actual person involved with ANH who is involved with fandom and offering a product too boot. 

"fortunate enough"? We pay a very handsome price to AA so he can sell us molded plastic, basically. He is doing no one but himself a favour. Lets all get a little real about this. AA IS a business man who's sole interest is in making a buck. Formed plastic and some stickers and paint do not cost $700+ to buy materials, form and sell.

That being said, I own a stunt and whilst it looks pretty on the shelf, I certainly do not feel fortunate having shelled out hundreds of dollars for what amounts to a mass produced plastic helmet.

What we ALL (thats you naysayers AND boosters) know that AA has been a tad loose with his advertising of his work. There is no debating that. Sure it stinks. Sure it takes away from the value of the work. But, is it unethical? Maybe, maybe not, after all he IS out to make sales and money so a little misrepresentation of the truth is going to go a long way for those not members here.

I believe the BEST post in this thread has been jeezy's previous and that I have to agree with his assessment that AA is doing some 'questionable' things in regards to how he makes and markets his gear. Seeing how jeezy has no dog in this fight, I value his opinion as it mirrors my own and I'd bet the vast majority of RPF members.

Now, to stay on topic...Seeing how AA is not a member here, that no members here sell his work, I feel the position is that there is no position. Until such a time that one of the two above reverses itself, there is nothing that a mod can do except, well, mod. We can't ban him and we can't ban members selling his work as there are none. All we as a community can do is take the info we have at hand and do with it what we will and hope that the 'welfare' of the RPF membership is priority #1...

[snapback]1157909[/snapback]​

[/b]

NEKRO I think that was the best damn post here. Yes, we are paying him some good money and there is no doubt he's in it for the bucks (like most...). I think you summed it all up nicely about this entire discussion and the conclusion (frankly I would consider your post the best conclusion possible.).

 

[AnsonJames]

Originally posted by NEKROFANATIC+Jan 13 2006, 03:44 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NEKROFANATIC @ Jan 13 2006, 03:44 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 13 2006, 10:20 AM


I definitely am a #4 then, as I think it's amazing we are fortunate enough to be able to get ST helmets (and maybe others) from one of the guys who actually was there back in '77 and had an actual hand in creating (one way or another) something for ANH.  Except for Ralph McQuarrie and his artwork and Don Bies helping out with the R2 Builders, I can't think of any other actual person involved with ANH who is involved with fandom and offering a product too boot. 

"fortunate enough"? We pay a very handsome price to AA so he can sell us molded plastic, basically. He is doing no one but himself a favour. Lets all get a little real about this. AA IS a business man who's sole interest is in making a buck. Formed plastic and some stickers and paint do not cost $700+ to buy materials, form and sell.

That being said, I own a stunt and whilst it looks pretty on the shelf, I certainly do not feel fortunate having shelled out hundreds of dollars for what amounts to a mass produced plastic helmet.

What we ALL (thats you naysayers AND boosters) know that AA has been a tad loose with his advertising of his work. There is no debating that. Sure it stinks. Sure it takes away from the value of the work. But, is it unethical? Maybe, maybe not, after all he IS out to make sales and money so a little misrepresentation of the truth is going to go a long way for those not members here.

I believe the BEST post in this thread has been jeezy's previous and that I have to agree with his assessment that AA is doing some 'questionable' things in regards to how he makes and markets his gear. Seeing how jeezy has no dog in this fight, I value his opinion as it mirrors my own and I'd bet the vast majority of RPF members.

Now, to stay on topic...Seeing how AA is not a member here, that no members here sell his work, I feel the position is that there is no position. Until such a time that one of the two above reverses itself, there is nothing that a mod can do except, well, mod. We can't ban him and we can't ban members selling his work as there are none. All we as a community can do is take the info we have at hand and do with it what we will and hope that the 'welfare' of the RPF membership is priority #1...

[snapback]1157909[/snapback]​

[/b]

If you're using 3mm styrene and you're buying 8 foot by four foot sheets it would cost approximately €50 to make a Trooper costume.
Of course this doesn't include forming, electricity,labour,trimming time,etc.

 

[Clutch]

Originally posted by NEKROFANATIC@Jan 13 2006, 08:44 AM
Formed plastic and some stickers and paint do not cost $700+ to buy materials, form and sell.

I feel taken advantage of now.

 

[vaderdarth]

Good point Gav.

Let's not drag what it costs to make a prop replica into this discussion please. I knew full well what a sheet of plastic cost when I paid for my GF suit. It does't reduce it's value just because the raw materials cost pennies on the dollar versus the price I paid. It's worth every cent to me and that is the beauty of consumers being allowed to spend their dollars as they wish. I wouldn't give a plug nickel for any variety of other prop reps on the market............but that is my own view and it reflects the value the pieces have to me and me alone.

Time is still money, and though it doesn't take as much time to make a vacuformed suit of armor as it does to make other more complex items...........it isn't worthless either. It's worth whatever the "buyer" says it's worth Period. If he deems it worth less than the asking price.........he moves down the street.

This is simple stuff. We gotta stop voicing our outrage when a vendor puts a high price tag on an item. I find myself doing the same thing from time to time and we need to get beyond it. It's not fair to the vendor. If he wants a million dollars for it, no matter the reason, he should get his million if some guy feels he wants to part with a million dollars in exchange for the item.

Just because it's not a good value to you or me...........doesn't mean it's not a good value to someone.

Dave

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 13 2006, 06:25 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 13 2006, 06:25 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Jan 13 2006, 01:46 AM
Wow I would like to comment on that list especially number

Supporters:

Those who have actually talked to the man and found him to be decent, honest,        and nice.

Or those that talked to that man and got a helmet below retail. Which makes me question their motives for support.


Detractors
1. Those who don't like the idea the man might get pissed at all copyright offenders and clamp down thereby shutting down their businesses.

No more like professional contractors that don't want to see some guy make their work harder thanks to violating the spirit of the work that was hired for.

2. Those who see their own ability to make ST items diminish with the success of the source because finally someone who actually deserves to make money off his own ideas is.

Lol I don't make anything off ST stuff and I just don't like the ethics of the business model.


3. Those who have bought his stuff and found it actually is better than theirs and more accurate and hate him for it because they couldn't get in on it.

And how about those that can see the signature through the helmet. Or bought it under the misleading ad copy.

4. Those who have themselves recast, copied, modified, or defended others but won't in this case because there is direct competition.

Once again not included in that bunch

5. Those who fanatically defended other makers of props when accused of the very same actions that SDS is being accused of and are now attacking SDS with the exact same fanaticism (ie: hypocrites).

Can't say I am in that category either

6. Those who don't own an SDS prop, never will own an SDS prop, never even tried to communicate with AA, never planned to own an SDS prop, but just want to stir up s**t because they enjoy it.


Or how about those of us that was going to buy an SDS and got soured by the poor business practices

[snapback]1157738[/snapback]​

:lol God it's so easy to get you guys all into some X-Files conspiracy tizzy with one small statement. Just goes to show what the motivation and drive behind the anti-SDS group always revolves around...money, payoffs and cutting deals. And how fast "judgement" is passed without knowing a thing about what has transpired, for how much, when it happened, etc. No wonder they are so convinced that AA is a thief, liar, and crook. They know everything about everybody.

The rest isn't worth getting into because I said my position and beliefs on all of them before. The merry-go-round is getting dizzy.

[snapback]1157823[/snapback]​

[/b]

X-files right Mike. My point is that your objectivity on this issue is quite slanted. So you talked to the guy and got yourself a discount on his product. That really makes your objectivivity on this questionable. I on the other hand have nothing to gain either way on this. I also have the legal and professional ethics background to see things based on the facts. Mike you may have talked to the man and thought he was a decent guy. However I seem to remember you saying the same thing about Chip Wallace at one time. Heck if you would have met my Uncle Abe who proabably ran the shadiest used car lot you would have been one of his defenders as well. My point is Mike I have not yet truly seen you take a very objective look at anyone elses point on this discussion. Instead of calling peope the Prop Ed gang why not truly read and address these points. .

 

[NEKROFANATIC]

VaderDarth...I have no qualms about paying a large sum of my hard earned cash on a prop, replica or otherwise and I don't have ANY issues at all regarding material costs. My post was not supposed to reflect that. What I DO have an issue with is paying a large sum of money for something BECAUSE it was described as something it truly isn't. When I bought my first f/x suit (Also my first 'prop' - Damn you Blufive.. ) I knew what I was getting, a representation of a ST armour. Way cool. How could it not be. But in the intervening years, the RPF has led me to seek and refine my small collection. the SDS helm was supposed to be the defining centrepiece of most collections. A ST helm straight off the original molds. Original in EVERY way except it was not a screen-used or production piece. It WAS supposed to be original in every sense of the term. It was advertised as such. Promoted as such and everything we were told claimed as much. The price offered was fair considering what you WOULD get, who was making it, and how it was to be made. Well now, fast forward a year and so, we know NOW that the original claims aren't 'quite' true. Thus, what we have is not 'exactly' what we paid for. Thats my beef...

I'm not prepared to get rid of my stunt at this time. The responses it illicits from anyone who see's it and is told its 'provenance', is reason enough for me to keep it for now. Its still a great looking helm, I like it, its just not what was advertised.

I didn't bring up the pricing issue because I thought the price was high, only to illustrate that the old adage, "you get what you pay for" doesn't really apply here. There is not one person on this forum who doesn't feel agitated and a little put out when they buy something and when it arrives, its NOT what is advertised. This forum is rife with threads complaining about these things. (think the MR Rocketeer helm which MR properly pulled to correct)

I hope that clears up my previous post a bit.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Darbycrash+Jan 13 2006, 11:05 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darbycrash @ Jan 13 2006, 11:05 AM)</div>

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 13 2006, 06:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Jan 13 2006, 01:46 AM
Wow I would like to comment on that list especially number

Supporters:

Those who have actually talked to the man and found him to be decent, honest,        and nice.

Or those that talked to that man and got a helmet below retail. Which makes me question their motives for support.


Detractors
1. Those who don't like the idea the man might get pissed at all copyright offenders and clamp down thereby shutting down their businesses.

No more like professional contractors that don't want to see some guy make their work harder thanks to violating the spirit of the work that was hired for.

2. Those who see their own ability to make ST items diminish with the success of the source because finally someone who actually deserves to make money off his own ideas is.

Lol I don't make anything off ST stuff and I just don't like the ethics of the business model.


3. Those who have bought his stuff and found it actually is better than theirs and more accurate and hate him for it because they couldn't get in on it.

And how about those that can see the signature through the helmet. Or bought it under the misleading ad copy.

4. Those who have themselves recast, copied, modified, or defended others but won't in this case because there is direct competition.

Once again not included in that bunch

5. Those who fanatically defended other makers of props when accused of the very same actions that SDS is being accused of and are now attacking SDS with the exact same fanaticism (ie: hypocrites).

Can't say I am in that category either

6. Those who don't own an SDS prop, never will own an SDS prop, never even tried to communicate with AA, never planned to own an SDS prop, but just want to stir up s**t because they enjoy it.


Or how about those of us that was going to buy an SDS and got soured by the poor business practices

[snapback]1157738[/snapback]​

:lol God it's so easy to get you guys all into some X-Files conspiracy tizzy with one small statement. Just goes to show what the motivation and drive behind the anti-SDS group always revolves around...money, payoffs and cutting deals. And how fast "judgement" is passed without knowing a thing about what has transpired, for how much, when it happened, etc. No wonder they are so convinced that AA is a thief, liar, and crook. They know everything about everybody.

The rest isn't worth getting into because I said my position and beliefs on all of them before. The merry-go-round is getting dizzy.

[snapback]1157823[/snapback]​

X-files right Mike. My point is that your objectivity on this issue is quite slanted. So you talked to the guy and got yourself a discount on his product. That really makes you quite objective on this. I on the other hand have nothing to gain either way on this. I also have the legal and professional ethics background to see things based on the facts. Mike you may have talked to the man and thought he was a decent guy. However I seem to remember you saying the same thing about Chip Wallace at one time. Heck if you would have met my Uncle Abe who proabably ran the shadiest used car lot you would have been one of his defenders as well. My point is Mike I have not yet truly seen you take a very objective look at anyone elses point on this discussion. Instead of calling peope the Prop Ed gang why not truly read and address the points. .

[snapback]1157978[/snapback]​

[/b]

So you are stating as "facts" the following:

...your objectivity on this issue is quite slanted.
...you talked to the guy and got yourself a discount on his product.

Did I say what the deal was? If I got them directly from him? When I bought them? How much I actually paid? Or what our conversations (via email, which total maybe a whopping six, btw) were about? More assumptions I see. Perfect examples of how much some of you assume things and actually know nothing. You, nor any of the ones who jumped all over my one little sentence know a thing about my purchase of the helmets nor what happened. But, like everything else anti-AA, you assumed and immediately you judged. That is the problem with many in the anti-AA camp and what I and others have against such definitive statements and decisions based on nothing more than assumptions.

And FYI another tidbit...I bought the helmets at the beginning of summer, loooong after all this started and I was posting in these threads. And actually I bought the helmets because of the threads as the more they were analyzed, the more convinced I was that AA created them (even if part is considered off a "prototype").

You just made it painfully obvious that you are hardly objective at all.

And again with the EDC bit eh? Nice...gee...I wouldn't have a clue who would bring that up. Chip isn't the swiftest businessman in the boat, without a doubt, and I was not the only person (hardly.) who admitted to "liking" him (didn't know liking someone was a crime), nor was I alone in trying to help others get what was theirs or refunds. But like the rest of those who like Chip we realized it was futile to help him anymore and so stopped. Make whatever new assumptions you want about it (and I'm sure you will), but again that's all they are...assumptions. But of course we also have vilification of a good deed based on the opinions of a very ignorant few. I love how hypocritical you and some are about this. First you applaud me helping these people out, getting them their refunds or items if I can, but as soon as I'm no longer a part of your select little "club" I'm suddenly slammed as if I was helping him to sell things (even though I was one of the first to post it was a mistake, and I told Chip that straight out and he was really blowing it). Of course anything I say doesn't mean anything because I'm not part of the "group think" anymore.

Once again, painfully obvious there is little to no objectivity at all in your comments.

And I have addressed the points and noted what people have said throughout this thread. If you've noticed, those that haven't declared themselves self-proclaimed experts in the law, professional conduct, and knowing all there is to know about AA's transactions with LFL, what actual sources and information he has or LFL has, what is "original" etc. I have no issues with at all. They are being open-minded and objective, not closed-minded and determined that no matter what they are right and everyone else who doesn't agree with them is wrong.

Frankly Ben, you've straddled that barbed wire fence and fallen right on it too many times for me to even consider that anything you do anymore is objective and without some influence as well.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Oh, one more FYI...I will no longer derail this thread with outside issues being raised from the Prop-Ed people about EDC, etc. The question is about SDS and AA, not about me nor long past issues. So leave the baiting at the bait shop and let's get back to the original question presented to the Anti-AA crowd.