<div class='quotetop'>(TK1536 @ Jun 21 2006, 05:42 PM) [snapback]1265489[/snapback]</div>
Matt G's response...
[link removed by synasp]
TE is a banned member, so posting a link to his words is giving him a voice here (although I understand the intent of posting the link is to shed light on the issue, but please refer to what I said earlier)
[/b]
His response is all over the map, but I'll try and sort through it:
1) Apparently he drove to LA, instead of flying. Okay, I don't remember that, but come to think of it, maybe he wouldn't fly with it? Who knows. His travel arrangements are of tangential concern here, I think...
2) He says I wasn't there when the GG artist asked to use the scan. He's right, I wasn't there. The "artist" called me on the phone shortly thereafter, and told me they wanted to use the scan. He said Matt was cool with it. I already said this; I've never said they didn't ask to use the scan. I said they DID, and sometime after that, they decided not to use it for some reason. He goes on to talk about further compensation/arrangements with GG that I have no knowledge of. I didn't know he'd asked them for compensation or anything. Frankly, I don't collect busts so I didn't care. I think here he's defending a point I didn't make, and isn't germaine. I know they thought he was kind of a kook, but hey, aren't we all.
3) He mentions a "super secret deal" I had with GG? Does anybody know where he got this, what it's about, or how it's relevant? I don't know of any such deal.
4) He says we never had a verbal agreement not to use the scan. Of course, we did, and now it's "He Said/He Said". Great. Of course, if he's telling the truth, then it means I bothered even mentioning it here for apparently no reason, and with nothing to gain. I've not asked for money, nor for runs to stop, I just said I was disappointed, and I am. Additionally, he copy and pasted an email (by the way, isn't that dirty pool?) in which I'm calmly telling him I saw the scan mentioned here and was concerned because clearly it wasn't supposed to be public knowledge. Now, I'm no Columbo, but isn't that email actually reinforcing my point that we had a deal?. I didn't make an outright accusation in the email because at the time, it was mentioning the scan, NOT the production of helmets. But even the knowledge of it publicly surprised me.
5) He goes on to say that apparently I think he's making "tons of money" off the helmets. I have never addressed, in any way, what he is or isn't making off the helmets. I've never brought up money, or the runs themselves. EVER. I don't want any money.
6) Apparently, if I'd gotten the scan done sooner, it would've been $1500 instead of $5k. Okay, if he says so. I never regretted the 5k and never asked for anything, so I don't know how that's relevant.
Matt's certainly right when he says there is truth and there is whole truth. And the truth is that he has a lot to lose - apparently - by being called on this, whereas I have nothing to gain. I only happened upon this thread by accident, and have since learned it's been around awhile, and I had an explicit agreement with Matt not to use the data in this way. He was INTENSELY concerned about me doing precisely what he's done with the data.
In situations like this, I think it's wise to look at who stands to lose and who stands to gain. I have asked for nothing, and want nothing. I have not mentioned it to defame or slander Matt, who prior to my knowing of this, was totally solid with me. It's too late to do anything, and I've asked for nothing to be done. I posted to express my disappointment, which has now unfortunately been compounded with being called a liar.
Our deal was not to use the data in this manner. And despite his violation of that agreement, I will continue to honor it.
I am disappointed by his response, but I suppose no longer surprised. Why wouldn't a person who would betray an agreement like that not just go the next level, deny everything and call me a liar? The answer is, he would, and did.
Oddly enough, we're right back to where we were at the end of my original post. Matt broke our agreement, and tough **** for me. End of story. One thing I will say, though, Matt... karma's a bitch. But only if you have a conscience.
_Mike
P.S. Just one little bit of SWEET, sweet irony... earlier I had prepared another post - I didn't bother posting it, in the end - in which one of the things I mentioned was that sometimes in exchange for getting "inner sanctum" info and items, we have to keep our mouths shut. We have to honor confidences. I went on to say that we have a choice to make in those instances: what's more important to us, being "king of the hill" on some forum, or having a piece that we alone get to fawn over from time as part of our collection without being able to use it for bragging rights, lest we betray a trust. I'd say Matt's attack on Gino as "always following in [Matt's] shadow" says about as clearly as you could ask for, exactly what Matt's in it for. Hint: it isn't to honor confidences.
