[meteorite-list] Clarification Of A Clarification

[Adam Hupe]

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 at meteoritecentral.com
> https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>