Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 193

Thread: "Sinker" on Sigs

  1. #41

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by docbennett
    Quote Originally Posted by LSchefman
    To my mind, these accusations are unfounded and a bit obnoxious.

    PRS clearly had no motivation whatsoever to mislead a soul.
    Les....and you know this, how?? When was the last time you had dinner with Paul and discussed his marketing strategy and the intentions behind his representations?
    When was the last time those accusing PRS of fleecing them talked directly to him about this (other than on a public forum)?

    I have no need to have dinner with Paul to realize this, and frankly, Paul would never invite me to dinner anyway. He doesn't know me from Adam. PRS had no motivation to mislead anyone because they don't have to in order to sell fancy guitars; people get excited about what they label "private stock" etc.

    The people on this thread might have chosen a less loaded word; how about "I think PRS made a mistake." And they might have shown PRS a little respect and raised the issue privately with customer service in the first place instead of trying to embarrass and pressure PRS publicly.

    Quote Originally Posted by docbennett
    Les...are you positioning yourself to be the next legal council for PRS?? :lol:
    Bennett, you know otherwise.

    I can't turn this into a lynching; as you can see I'm the only one in the lynch mob!

    I think the shoe is on the other foot. This thread wasn't started to have a discussion about wood types. Words like "misled" and "cheated" get thrown around for a purpose: to publicly pressure and get something out of PRS.

    "Oh, we didn't mean intentionally cheated. We just mean...cheated." How nice of you.

    And the joke, to me, is that pretty much to a person, these folks say, "Yes the guitar is fantastic." Gee, they got totally screwed by buying a fantastic guitar! How terrible!

    You say that you're allowed to discuss this and express opinions; well, so am I. You accuse me of being judgmental -- yes, of course I am! All day, every day!

    So Bennett, do you have your tin foil conspiracy hat on, and what are you going to demand from PRS for having been duped into buying your excellent guitar?

    Get out the torches and pitchforks, we're going to storm the castle!!! Wooo!
    I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken...

    Website: http://www.elfxi.com

  2. #42

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by Twinfan
    I have a question on this subject. Why has the reference to "sinker" mahogany been removed from the Private Stock Signature run specs on the PRS website?
    Maybe they just want to put the issue to bed.
    I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken...

    Website: http://www.elfxi.com

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,496

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Les...once again, you have missed the point.

    We can criticize the company for failing to make proper disclosures, and still "love the product".

    Try these on for size:'

    1) You marry a girl, but have certain religous principles with regard to premarital sex. You find out at a later date that she was NOT a virgin when you married her. You still love her..you still enjoy having sex with her. But, you feel that you were misled. You don't leave her. You still want her. But....you still feel you were misled.

    2) (maybe this one is closer to home, Les) You still love your Dali Lithograph. but, when you try to sell it, you are told "NO...it's a fake...one of those signed by an imposter". You still love the image...you can't tell the fake from the original litho...but, you feel duped and misled.

    Maybe not perfect examples. But, what we have here is a concept of misrepresentation. Not necessarily intentional. but, you seem to be overly zealous about defending the company's position.

    I have the COA. they definitely, clearly, obviously misrepresented the wood. Is it a big deal? Not to me. but it is to others. What you were toldupon purchase, is NOT what you received. And...I can personally vouch for the hype this "sinker wood" was being touted as, by several dealers, when it was first released.

    Les..why do you have a problem acknowledging this? Again...we can love the product..but criticize how it was presented to the buying public. I have no intention of requesting a refund or exchnage. However, I would think that owners like "Twinfan" would have a case, if they were determined to return it for the price they paid.

  4. #44
    Bobble Head Moderator JMintzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Potomac, MD
    Posts
    1,403

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    And round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows...

    ---Jamie---

    My Gear

  5. #45
    Recovering Bass Player ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! 's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1985
    Posts
    5,104

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by docbennett
    Fact: there are some out there who would seek to turn a debate into a lynching.
    Unfortunately, you're right. It is human nature to run toward smoke and look for the fire. But I wonder, have you noticed anyone in the crowd holding an empty gas can and an expended match?

    No one is hiding from this topic, Gentlemen. You are good men with big hearts. When you throw logs on this fire, you become a puppet (for the aforementioned arsonist) and your emotional reactions diminish the power of your important opinion.

    The Truth can stand on its own.
    One Life

  6. #46

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by docbennett
    Les...once again, you have missed the point.
    The fact that I have a different point of view from yours doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying. Both on the surface, and what's really behind your thinking.

    I notice that you use the term, "not necessarily intentional." Which means, of course, "possibly intentional." All of your examples speak to intentional misrepresentation: the girl knows for sure she's no virgin; the fake art work; the use of the term, "duped and misled." Please don't pretend otherwise. Not very hard to read between the lines, you're very transparent.

    As I have maintained all along, there's a very deliberate meaning to this thread, and it ain't a kindly, gentlemanly claim that PRS made an unintentional mistake, and oh my gosh, can something be done?

    Look, I believe Paul in the video. You and others don't. It's really that simple.

    So I say do not lynch the man.
    I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken...

    Website: http://www.elfxi.com

  7. #47

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by JMintzer
    And round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows...

    Didn't you post something like this before? Aren't ya ever gonna stop doing this ad infinitum?
    I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken...

    Website: http://www.elfxi.com

  8. #48
    408 Sig Club President Twinfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    456

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by LSchefman
    This thread wasn't started to have a discussion about wood types. Words like "misled" and "cheated" get thrown around for a purpose: to publicly pressure and get something out of PRS.

    "Oh, we didn't mean intentionally cheated. We just mean...cheated." How nice of you.
    I didn't start this thread, nor am I trying to "get something out of PRS". I'm just giving my personal viewpoint as part of the discussion.

  9. #49
    Bobble Head Moderator JMintzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Potomac, MD
    Posts
    1,403

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by LSchefman
    Quote Originally Posted by JMintzer
    And round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows...

    Didn't you post something like this before? Aren't ya ever gonna stop doing this ad infinitum?
    No, I posted a gif of someone banging its head on the computer.

    That didn't make an impression, so I decided to end the pain...


    Jamie
    ---Jamie---

    My Gear

  10. #50

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by JMintzer
    Quote Originally Posted by LSchefman
    Quote Originally Posted by JMintzer
    And round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows...

    Didn't you post something like this before? Aren't ya ever gonna stop doing this ad infinitum?
    No, I posted a gif of someone banging its head on the computer.

    That didn't make an impression, so I decided to end the pain...


    Jamie
    Haha, I promise to stop now. Really, This time I will.
    I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken...

    Website: http://www.elfxi.com

  11. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,496

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by LSchefman
    Quote Originally Posted by docbennett
    Les...once again, you have missed the point.
    I notice that you use the term, "not necessarily intentional." Which means, of course, "possibly intentional."
    Hoo boy. It also means possibly unintentional. You sure do use words to suit your purpose and to fit your arguement...even when they don't apply.

    I realize that you are no longer practicing law. However, this thread reminds me how much I enjoy being a forensic expert and destroying the opposing attorney while being cross examined.

    I guess that must be my second favorite hobby behind playing the guitar. :lol:

  12. #52
    Bobble Head Moderator JMintzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Potomac, MD
    Posts
    1,403

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by docbennett
    Quote Originally Posted by LSchefman
    Quote Originally Posted by docbennett
    Les...once again, you have missed the point.
    I notice that you use the term, "not necessarily intentional." Which means, of course, "possibly intentional."
    Hoo boy. It also means possibly unintentional. You sure do use words to suit your purpose and to fit your arguement...even when they don't apply.

    I realize that you are no longer practicing law. However, this thread reminds me how much I enjoy being a forensic expert and destroying the opposing attorney while being cross examined.

    I guess that must be my second favorite hobby behind playing the guitar. :lol:
    Are we done "destroying" yet?


    Jamie
    ---Jamie---

    My Gear

  13. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,496

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

    The Argument Sketch



    A man walks into an office.

    Man: (Michael Palin) Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

    Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?

    Man: No, this is my first time.

    Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

    Man: Well, what would be the cost?

    Receptionist: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

    Man: Well, I think it's probably best if I start with the one and then see how it goes from there, okay?

    Receptionist: Fine. I'll see who's free at the moment.

    (Pause)

    Receptionist: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.

    Man: Thank you. (Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

    Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?

    Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...

    Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!

    Man: What?

    A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

    M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!

    A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

    M: Oh! Oh I see!

    A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

    M: Oh...Sorry...

    A: Not at all!

    A: (under his breath) stupid git.

    (The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.)

    Man: Is this the right room for an argument?

    Other ManJohn Cleese) I've told you once.

    Man: No you haven't!

    Other Man: Yes I have.

    M: When?

    O: Just now.

    M: No you didn't!

    O: Yes I did!

    M: You didn't!

    O: I did!

    M: You didn't!

    O: I'm telling you, I did!

    M: You did not!

    O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

    M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.

    O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.

    O: Anyway, I did.

    M: You most certainly did not!

    O: Now let's get one thing quite clear: I most definitely told you!

    M: Oh no you didn't!

    O: Oh yes I did!

    M: Oh no you didn't!

    O: Oh yes I did!

    M: Oh no you didn't!

    O: Oh yes I did!

    M: Oh no you didn't!

    O: Oh yes I did!

    M: Oh no you didn't!

    O: Oh yes I did!

    M: Oh no you didn't!

    O: Oh yes I did!

    M: No you DIDN'T!

    O: Oh yes I did!

    M: No you DIDN'T!

    O: Oh yes I did!

    M: No you DIDN'T!

    O: Oh yes I did!

    M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!

    (pause)

    O: Yes it is!

    M: No it isn't!

    (pause)

    M: It's just contradiction!

    O: No it isn't!

    M: It IS!

    O: It is NOT!

    M: You just contradicted me!

    O: No I didn't!

    M: You DID!

    O: No no no!

    M: You did just then!

    O: Nonsense!

    M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!

    (pause)

    O: No it isn't!

    M: Yes it is!

    (pause)

    M: I came here for a good argument!

    O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

    M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

    O: Well! it CAN be!

    M: No it can't!

    M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

    O: No it isn't!

    M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

    O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!

    M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.

    O: Yes it is!

    M: No it isn't!

    O: Yes it is!

    M: No it isn't!

    O: Yes it is!

    M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

    O: It is NOT!

    M: It is!

    O: Not at all!

    M: It is!

    (The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.)

    O: Thank you, that's it.

    M: (stunned) What?

    O: That's it. Good morning.

    M: But I was just getting interested!

    O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.

    M: That was never five minutes just now!!

    O: I'm afraid it was.

    M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....

    O: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

    M: WHAT??

    O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

    M: But that was never five minutes just now!
    Oh Come on!
    Oh this is...
    This is ridiculous!


    O: I told you... I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!

    M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.) There you are.

    O: Thank you.

    M: (clears throat) Well...

    O: Well WHAT?

    M: That was never five minutes just now.

    O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

    M: Well I just paid!

    O: No you didn't!

    M: I DID!!!

    O: YOU didn't!

    M: I DID!!!

    O: YOU didn't!

    M: I DID!!!

    O: YOU didn't!

    M: I DID!!!

    O: YOU didn't!

    M: I don't want to argue about it!

    O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!

    M: Ah hah! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!

    O: No you haven't!

    M: Yes I have! If you're arguing, I must have paid.

    O: Not necessarily. I *could* be arguing in my spare time.

    M: I've had enough of this!

    O: No you haven't.

    M: Oh shut up!

    (Man leaves the office)

  14. #54
    Recovering Bass Player ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! 's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1985
    Posts
    5,104

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by docbennett
    ...this thread reminds me how much I enjoy being a forensic expert and destroying the opposing attorney while being cross examined.
    Quote Originally Posted by JMintzer
    Are we done "destroying" yet?
    One Life

  15. #55
    Senior Member Dirty Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Confusion (NY)
    Posts
    1,888

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Well I think that just about does it guys...I haven't really participated in any of these threads (well other than to pledge my love of pie)...I think this has clearly moved from intelligent conversation to one of besting the other person and hurting others feelings...especially how this has spread to multiple boards. I've waisted enough of my life reading about this. Where I come from when something like this happens among friends we tell each other to #$%# off one last time and then shake hands and grab a beer...there are good people on both sides here...probably should think about a ceasefire IMHO.
    -Bob

  16. #56
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    23

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by cwhenke
    OK, so I'll start by saying that I have read this thread in three different locations. I don't have one of the guitars in question, so this is what I think some of you are saying:

    PRS as a company, with its experts in wood (Paul himself has acknowledged using the same wood buyers for many, many years because they are so good at finding the best woods), should have known better than to use an industry definition in an incorrect way. I think a lot of this has been targeted directly at Paul himself because of the video, but I think it really comes down to the idea that someone within PRS should have caught it before it was advertised that way.
    Absolutely correct. This is called Negligence.

  17. #57
    Recovering Bass Player ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! 's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1985
    Posts
    5,104

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyMoonsRJT
    Well I think that just about does it guys...I haven't really participated in any of these threads (well other than to pledge my love of pie)...I think this has clearly moved from intelligent conversation to one of besting the other person and hurting others feelings...especially how this has spread to multiple boards. I've wasted enough of my life reading about this. Where I come from when something like this happens among friends we tell each other to #$%# off one last time and then shake hands and grab a beer...there are good people on both sides here...probably should think about a ceasefire IMHO.
    Foul ball, Bob!

    Man rule #2641 clearly states... you cannot invoke "pie" without declaring a flavor.
    One Life

  18. #58
    Senior Member Dirty Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Confusion (NY)
    Posts
    1,888

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by ACE
    Quote Originally Posted by cwhenke
    OK, so I'll start by saying that I have read this thread in three different locations. I don't have one of the guitars in question, so this is what I think some of you are saying:

    PRS as a company, with its experts in wood (Paul himself has acknowledged using the same wood buyers for many, many years because they are so good at finding the best woods), should have known better than to use an industry definition in an incorrect way. I think a lot of this has been targeted directly at Paul himself because of the video, but I think it really comes down to the idea that someone within PRS should have caught it before it was advertised that way.
    Absolutely correct. This is called Negligence.

    Maybe...or...it could have been an oversight...a mistake...an unfortunate set of circumstances.

    I just wish the rhetoric could be toned down...obviously everybody should be allowed their opinion. I just think people need to calm down a bit.

    My personal experience with PRS as a company is that when mistakes are made they fix them and typically go above and beyond...they care about their clients...the end consumer/user tremendously.
    -Bob

  19. #59
    Senior Member Dirty Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Confusion (NY)
    Posts
    1,888

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by Hans
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyMoonsRJT
    Well I think that just about does it guys...I haven't really participated in any of these threads (well other than to pledge my love of pie)...I think this has clearly moved from intelligent conversation to one of besting the other person and hurting others feelings...especially how this has spread to multiple boards. I've wasted enough of my life reading about this. Where I come from when something like this happens among friends we tell each other to #$%# off one last time and then shake hands and grab a beer...there are good people on both sides here...probably should think about a ceasefire IMHO.
    Foul ball, Bob!

    Man rule #2641 clearly states... you cannot invoke "pie" without declaring a flavor.

    APPLE PIE...Cinnamon and Brown sugar...vanilla ice cream...lip smackin gooey good.

    God I love pie!!!
    -Bob

  20. #60
    Recovering Bass Player ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! 's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1985
    Posts
    5,104

    Re: "Sinker" on Sigs

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyMoonsRJT
    APPLE PIE...Cinnamon and Brown sugar...vanilla ice cream...lip smackin gooey good.
    What???? WRONG!

    Everyone knows it's pecan pie.

    Regular Pecan, Bourbon Pecan, Chocolate Pecan... whatever. As long as you submit to me and confess to everyone that I am right.

    Don't make me call in my expert witness, DocBennett. He will destroy you. :twisted:

    :mrgreen:
    One Life

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •