=Third Reich Irminsul Candle Holder Estand =

[Killerbee]

You are not the only one who thinks this way Jim
Best
John

I'm glad many others think the same, but I guess Thorsten B doesn't care to much about his name or reputation. Very confusing IMO

"Silence gives consent." So runs an ancient maxim of common law, and from that maxim flows a widely applied legal principle: the rule of tacit admission. And such silence can later be introduced at trial as an indicator of guilt. Thorsten knows what he is peddling here and that for me makes it 1000% worse IMO.

On the helmet forum, I guy was expelled for trying to sell a fake SS helmet on ebay... not even on the WAF.... yet, he was crucified and the moderators took action. But I give credit to that guy for at least talking about his actions in that thread. Give him points for that.

Although this item "sold" to a fellow member is not in the realm of a SS helmet (different animal)... it does live in the same zoo.

Jim

[Capt. R]

I'm glad many others think the same, but I guess Thorsten B doesn't care to much about his name or reputation. Very confusing IMO

"Silence gives consent." So runs an ancient maxim of common law, and from that maxim flows a widely applied legal principle: the rule of tacit admission. And such silence can later be introduced at trial as an indicator of guilt. Thorsten knows what he is peddling here and that for me makes it 1000% worse IMO.

On the helmet forum, I guy was expelled for trying to sell a fake SS helmet on ebay... not even on the WAF.... yet, he was crucified and the moderators took action. But I give credit to that guy for at least talking about his actions in that thread. Give him points for that.

Although this item "sold" to a fellow member is not in the realm of a SS helmet (different animal)... it does live in the same zoo.

Jim

Jim, there are a couple things here that are not necessarily true. Maybe in contract law when people have acted in a certain way or have a history of dealings such as when your cable company renews your contract without asking you f you want to cancel for another term, but there are just as many instances where the opposite is true. Courts have also explicitly adhered to another general principle that silence does NOT equal consent. In part, this is why a defendant does not need to take the stand in his own defense and this fact that he doesn't speak cannot be considered by the jury as an indicator of guilt. Also, the police need clear consent before they conduct a search or else risk a challenge on 4th amendment grounds. One fnal example, if the police ask a foreign speaker if he understands his rights, his silence cannot be implied to mean he agrees. There are many more but my point here is that Thorsten's silence is jsut that....silence only. Maybe he thinks you a dolt and doesn't care to respond to you? Maybe he missed the posting? Just something to think about. Not that I am in disagreement with you on certain aspects of what you say, I just thought I would mention this because I would hate it personally if everyone judged me on what I did NOT say or did NOT do!

[Killerbee]

Jim, there are a couple things here that are not necessarily true. Maybe in contract law when people have acted in a certain way or have a history of dealings such as when your cable company renews your contract without asking you f you want to cancel for another term, but there are just as many instances where the opposite is true. Courts have also explicitly adhered to another general principle that silence does NOT equal consent. In part, this is why a defendant does not need to take the stand in his own defense and this fact that he doesn't speak cannot be considered by the jury as an indicator of guilt. Also, the police need clear consent before they conduct a search or else risk a challenge on 4th amendment grounds. One fnal example, if the police ask a foreign speaker if he understands his rights, his silence cannot be implied to mean he agrees. There are many more but my point here is that Thorsten's silence is jsut that....silence only. Maybe he thinks you a dolt and doesn't care to respond to you? Maybe he missed the posting? Just something to think about. Not that I am in disagreement with you on certain aspects of what you say, I just thought I would mention this because I would hate it personally if everyone judged me on what I did NOT say or did NOT do!

Capt. R... I know where you are coming from but I think you are missing the point here. I'm referring to an ancient maxim of common law... not the modern laws that poor characters can "hide" behind. I call it the rules of the jungle... or you can say the gentlemen laws of good, honest character. And Thorsten B doesn't have to answer any of my questions... it is the question of others on this forum. I'm not alone here. Further, I could care less what he thinks of me...remember, I'm not on trial here... Thorsten B. is and his actions. Questioning me or my concern is not material here. You are looking in the wrong direction. A wrong has been potentially committed here to another forum member and it is surprising to me why haven't many others have not demanded more clarification or consistency applied to this matter like many other matters that have expelled people. And why haven't you asked or demanded any explanation of Thorsten's actions here? Why? Why are we protecting Thorsten's actions here? In my opinion, Thorsten should answer to these questions regarding this item. Answer to the forum, not me. I'm just very bothered by all this. Any man of "GOOD" character would... and I assume you would agree.

Jim

PS. And Yes, Thorsten B has seen this thread hundreds of time. I've seen him on this thread the same time I have been. The maxim holds true until otherwise proven wrong.

[Michael Fay]

sometimes silence speaks volumes

Jim, there are a couple things here that are not necessarily true. Maybe in contract law when people have acted in a certain way or have a history of dealings such as when your cable company renews your contract without asking you f you want to cancel for another term, but there are just as many instances where the opposite is true. Courts have also explicitly adhered to another general principle that silence does NOT equal consent. In part, this is why a defendant does not need to take the stand in his own defense and this fact that he doesn't speak cannot be considered by the jury as an indicator of guilt. Also, the police need clear consent before they conduct a search or else risk a challenge on 4th amendment grounds. One fnal example, if the police ask a foreign speaker if he understands his rights, his silence cannot be implied to mean he agrees. There are many more but my point here is that Thorsten's silence is jsut that....silence only. Maybe he thinks you a dolt and doesn't care to respond to you? Maybe he missed the posting? Just something to think about. Not that I am in disagreement with you on certain aspects of what you say, I just thought I would mention this because I would hate it personally if everyone judged me on what I did NOT say or did NOT do!

But,
just as the mods have pointed out time and again that WAF is not a democracy, WAF is also not a court of law. I would say it is a court of collecting peers, at best. Real courts have teeth to enact real punishments. WAF has little in the way of teeth...all WAF has is (or once had) an honor system.Real courts, while slow, do have court enforced limits on how long it takes for any party to respond. And this term has surely expired.

I was taught by the old timers here that if you sell somthing on WAF, and there is any question about the item, you immediately address it to the best of your ability one way or another within a day(at the most a few days).
If a seller did not act in any way (ie did not respond and defend ,or declare innocence, ignorance or apologize) they were judged in the court of WAF peers as much less than honorable, and not one to ever do business with.
All inferred from the silence. Any responce now would only be a form of a much too late attempt at damage control.

[maestro]

But,
just as the mods have pointed out time and again that WAF is not a democracy, WAF is also not a court of law. I would say it is a court of collecting peers, at best. Real courts have teeth to enact real punishments. WAF has little in the way of teeth...all WAF has is (or once had) an honor system.Real courts, while slow, do have court enforced limits on how long it takes for any party to respond. And this term has surely expired.

I was taught by the old timers here that if you sell somthing on WAF, and there is any question about the item, you immediately address it to the best of your ability one way or another within a day(at the most a few days).
If a seller did not act in any way (ie did not respond and defend ,or declare innocence, ignorance or apologize) they were judged in the court of WAF peers as much less than honorable, and not one to ever do business with.
All inferred from the silence. Any responce now would only be a form of a much too late attempt at damage control.

[Matthäus Klein]

I'm glad many others think the same, but I guess Thorsten B doesn't care to much about his name or reputation. Very confusing IMO

"Silence gives consent." So runs an ancient maxim of common law, and from that maxim flows a widely applied legal principle: the rule of tacit admission. And such silence can later be introduced at trial as an indicator of guilt. Thorsten knows what he is peddling here and that for me makes it 1000% worse IMO.

On the helmet forum, I guy was expelled for trying to sell a fake SS helmet on ebay... not even on the WAF.... yet, he was crucified and the moderators took action. But I give credit to that guy for at least talking about his actions in that thread. Give him points for that.

Although this item "sold" to a fellow member is not in the realm of a SS helmet (different animal)... it does live in the same zoo.

Jim

agreed

[mrec27777]

this piece is spot welded ,either by MIG or TIG ...either way ...appears to be a REPRO ......

[Killerbee]

I guess we will never get our answers... here is a thread that address this matter further in regards to Thorsten.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=541745&page=6

I just scratch my head on why we allow this behavior from some but not others.

Jim

[whscharfschütze]

Good news regarding this spoof: Mod tries to contact the buyer:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=522570

[Matthäus Klein]

Good news regarding this spoof: Mod tries to contact the buyer:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=522570

Glad to hear there's some followup by WAF moderator on various WAF member concerns regarding this issue.

[Michael Fay]

triage for the hobby

airing these distasteful aspects of the hobby are required reading. This will protect "the hobby" to some extent.
Keeping it hidden and out of the public eye would only encourage more damage to the hobby as incurred by this type of problematic behavior.

Many on WAF have no stomach for calling out unsavory situations.
I laud those who do.
They perform WAF and the hobby a public service.