Bark and Jack

[samuel019]

So apparently all of us are keyboard warriors that hide behind our avatars and have no credibility when talking about a serious matter but his friend that had a similar experience when dealing with Horology House is. What a joke.


https://youtu.be/0IOA9U0pgSA

[Cesium137]

That’s not the way I took what Adrian said, but you may be more sensitive than I am.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by samuel019

So apparently all of us are keyboard warriors that hide behind our avatars and have no credibility when talking about a serious matter but his friend that had a similar experience when dealing with Horology House is. What a joke.


https://youtu.be/0IOA9U0pgSA

He has a point and you shouldn't take his point so personally.

[kieselguhr]

I don’t watch his videos because my ideology behind the hobby is vastly different from his.

Having said that, his definition of credibility with regard to sources is not entirely wrong. He can’t trust the opinions of strangers on a forum. So instead he turns to a primary source which happens to be his friend which in his point of view has more credibility. That’s how I interpret what he’s saying anyway.

[georgekart]

In my opinion, what you perceive he is saying is that each one of us is lying to suit our own narrative. What I feel he is saying is that anything online can be manipulated and you never know who you can and can not trust (as evidently shown by the situation that sparked this in the first place). If, for example, you were choosing which restaurant to go to, and one had 4.9 stars while the other had 4.1 on GMaps. But everyone you knew, including your friends and relatives said they enjoyed the second one way more, where would you go? I'd go to the second one. Similarly, anyone on forum can create some fake evidence showing that someone is full of shit. You could get a fake watch, take pictures near the same real watch, write up a Whatsapp txt file and post it online to discredit someone. Now if you did this, I think it would be pointed out quickly if that was not the case, but still, the fact is you can't trust everything on the internet. Therefore, I understand why Adrian would trust someone he personally knows and feels like he can trust(once again, knowing someone doesn't mean that you can trust them 100%) over people online whom he doesn't know and thus can not trust to the same extent.

EDIT: typo

[AF_Rob]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

I don’t watch his videos because my ideology behind the hobby is vastly different from his.

Having said that, his definition of credibility with regard to sources is not entirely wrong. He can’t trust the opinions of strangers on a forum. So instead he turns to a primary source which happens to be his friend which in his point of view has more credibility. That’s how I interpret what he’s saying anyway.

That's how I took it as well. The OP hyper focused on one statement in a 20+ minute video.

[Galaga167]

I reckon Adrian was very reasonable and if anything disclosed more than he had to about his relationship with Chris from Horology House.

[Oodles of Noodles]

He got into it with a couple of people in the giant HH thread. Understandable he would feel defensive about that, but yeah I think he's a bit in the wrong here. Barely anyone was trying to go after other youtubers, that's preposterous. 99% of the thread was trying to stop Chris and make him face the music.

I still support Adrian and his content though.

[DCheeta]

I have to agree with him. Obviously we trust our friends more than we trust anonymous people on the internet.

[Ben.McDonald7]

I thought it was a very well done video and I took what he said completely differently than the OP. I think his point about not wanting legal issues with slander claims is entirely valid.

Sent from my VS996 using Tapatalk

[samuel019]

Guys the point I was trying to make was how he seemed to discredit all the evidence on those 52 pages that had some damning evidence as alleged versus his friends recollection as fact. I mean come on, the WhatsApp text being possibly faked or done by anyone. The face value statement he made that it didn’t sound that bad. Really? A guy being strung along for 3 months is ok/not that bad. That We hide behind by our avatars and all that evidence wasn’t credible in those same 52 pages.

If I’m being sensitive then so be it. I just know that there’s a wealth of knowledge on this forum by the many many members and to discredit them as all alleged when there were numerous posters that all had the same experience when dealing with HH. Sorry that all sounds like pretty factual and not speculation or alleged.

He’s entitled to his opinion and so am I. Right, wrong, or indifferent.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by samuel019

Guys the point I was trying to make was how he seemed to discredit all the evidence on those 52 pages that had some damning evidence as alleged versus his friends recollection as fact. I mean come on, the WhatsApp text being possibly faked or done by anyone. The face value statement he made that it didn’t sound that bad. Really? A guy being strung along for 3 months is ok/not that bad. That We hide behind by our avatars and all that evidence wasn’t credible in those same 52 pages.

If I’m being sensitive then so be it. I just know that there’s a wealth of knowledge on this forum by the many many members and to discredit them as all alleged when there were numerous posters that all had the same experience when dealing with HH. Sorry that all sounds like pretty factual and not speculation or alleged.

He’s entitled to his opinion and so am I. Right, wrong, or indifferent.

What Adrian said was that on its face, the problem doesn't look that bad. A guy bought an authenitc watch, he got another kind of watch, then the seller refunded the money.

Then Adiran "unpacks" the sordid details of the actual interaction, which is where the devil always is.

I see no need to rehash the issue here when there is a massive thread on the board already.

[cerendigit]

Originally Posted by samuel019

I mean come on, the WhatsApp text being possibly faked or done by anyone. The face value statement he made that it didn’t sound that bad. Really? A guy being strung along for 3 months is ok/not that bad. That We hide behind by our avatars and all that evidence wasn’t credible in those same 52 pages.

I don't agree with you.

I think he has the right to discredit 52 pages (or 2000 pages) of evidence on an internet forum.

I think he has the right to chose to believe his friend.

I think neither of those is particularly unreasonable.

I do chose to believe that the evidence that was presented on those 52 pages is legit.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by samuel019

I just know that there’s a wealth of knowledge on this forum by the many many members and to discredit them as all alleged when there were numerous posters that all had the same experience when dealing with HH. .

You’re totally right. But Adrian doesn’t spend time on this forum as much as we do. To him, were strangers.

[Koolpep]

All of the evidence presented in the forum thread could have been created. Highly unlikely but possible. By journalistic standards it’s not enough. However, it’s a great indication of what’s happening and certainly enough for people to form an opinion. I have no reason not to believe the presented evidence was legit. But it’s not confirmed or forensically proven.

So I think the point he was making, while initially feeling a bit snuffed by it too, is legit. He is putting literally his face out there. We don’t.

[Randomgary]

I didn't take it as you have. I thought the video was pretty good tbf

[Zakalwe]

The B&J video was fine. He was initially sceptical - exactly like several of the commenters on the first 2-3 pages of the original thread - and was eventually persuaded having read more and then had it confirmed in his mind by a friend with first-hand experience. All perfectly rational stuff. Regarding the “keyboard warriors” thing; bear in mind that there were posters on that thread who were basically accusing other watch YouTubers of either being complicit in HH’s scamming or being scammers themselves and the B&J channel was name-checked in those accusations. I reckon I’d bristle in the face of that kind of stuff n’all.

We are no longer able to compare the perfectly reasonable B&J video with how not to do it: JustBlueFish Watch Reviews posted a half-arsed, barely partially informed video on the subject that he had to take down.

[Brew]

I agree with him. I also would take the word of a friend over a bunch of 1s and 0s on the internet. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Signed,

10011011

[Brenngun]

I didn't hear anything in his video that was discrediting actual evidence. I did hear him point out the fact that it could be created if someone had a mind to do so. He also went on to say that he felt the information posted on TRF was factual (minus the kneejerk pitchfork in hand comments) and that ultimately it is the end of HH.

His overriding message near the end is something we should all support. His anger toward the perpetrator for doing this and the result of placing a black mark on a community that often times relies on truthfulness and honor to exist.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by georgekart

In my opinion, what you perceive he is saying is that each one of us is lying to suit our own narrative. What I feel he is saying is that anything online can be manipulated and you never know who you can and can not trust (as evidently shown by the situation that sparked this in the first place). If, for example, you were choosing which restaurant to go to, and one had 4.9 stars while the other had 4.1 on GMaps. But everyone you knew, including your friends and relatives said they enjoyed the second one way more, where would you go? I'd go to the second one. Similarly, anyone on forum can create some fake evidence showing that someone is full of shit. You could get a fake watch, take pictures near the same real watch, write up a Whatsapp txt file and post it online to discredit someone. Now if you did this, I think it would be pointed out quickly if that was not the case, but still, the fact is you can't trust everything on the internet. Therefore, I understand why Adrian would trust someone he personally knows and feels like he can trust(once again, knowing someone doesn't mean that you can trust them 100%) over people online whom he doesn't know and thus can not trust to the same extent.

EDIT: typo

Originally Posted by AF_Rob

That's how I took it as well. The OP hyper focused on one statement in a 20+ minute video.

Originally Posted by DCheeta

I have to agree with him. Obviously we trust our friends more than we trust anonymous people on the internet.

Originally Posted by Brew

I agree with him. I also would take the word of a friend over a bunch of 1s and 0s on the internet. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Signed,

10011011

Originally Posted by Cesium137

That’s not the way I took what Adrian said, but you may be more sensitive than I am.

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

He has a point and you shouldn't take his point so personally.

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

I don’t watch his videos because my ideology behind the hobby is vastly different from his.

Having said that, his definition of credibility with regard to sources is not entirely wrong. He can’t trust the opinions of strangers on a forum. So instead he turns to a primary source which happens to be his friend which in his point of view has more credibility. That’s how I interpret what he’s saying anyway.

Originally Posted by Randomgary

I didn't take it as you have. I thought the video was pretty good tbf

Yep. Unless you’re either easily offended or looking for another internet fight on the same topic it’s hard to see it any other way. It’s the internet. There seems to be some really good people here on trf but I’ve met or talked to a grand total of three in person, that I know of. The rest of the posters here, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, their opinions and statements carry little to no weight If they conflict with people I actually know.

However when they are in agreement over time with my views or others I do know than that posters credibility certainly grows. But nobody should be basing their opinion on one thread on a forum they rarely if ever read. I didn’t even recognize 2/3rds of those posting on that thread and I hadn’t read anything previously from the OP or the buyer. I had however heard of the low life scam artist who previously had a good internet rep. See how tricky it all is?

Let’s face it. As great as TRF is there have been people banned here for using multiple usernames, IP address etc. There was even one prolific poster, who came back multiple times each time with a new name that had many entertaining stores all of which were an exercise is creative writing.

So nothing this YouTuber said is offensive or necessarily untrue. Additionally, the Internet loves a lynch mob and nothing will kill an “Internet you tubers celebrity’s ” credibility, if it’s even possible to have any to begin with, faster than to jump on the bandwagon without first doing due diligence. All he was basically saying is I feel comfortable commenting on this situation because I personally know someone in a similar situation and I’m not just basing this on anonymous strangers. Good call on his part.

[barkington]

[QUOTE=samuel019;10357770]So apparently all of us are keyboard warriors that hide behind our avatars and have no credibility when talking about a serious matter but his friend that had a similar experience when dealing with Horology House is. What a joke.





I knew that comment would be taken the wrong way. Ironically, the Rob, the original poster of the HH thread got it.

I know 2-3 of you personally, they rest of you I haven’t a clue who you are. Therefore I can’t take your statements as being credible. It would be different if everyone wrote under their own real names a long with something that validates their message.

For example: if Rob from Watch Pro writes a message with his professional mug shot as the avatar, then that’s a credible message.

But if “Dayt0na75” writes a message with a Rolex logo as an avatar, then no that is not a credible message.

No offence was meant by it. It’s simply the fake that I am the sharer of information, and if I don’t know the source, then I can’t trust it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aquaholic_user]

[QUOTE=barkington;10365214]

Originally Posted by samuel019

So apparently all of us are keyboard warriors that hide behind our avatars and have no credibility when talking about a serious matter but his friend that had a similar experience when dealing with Horology House is. What a joke.





I knew that comment would be taken the wrong way. Ironically, the Rob, the original poster of the HH thread got it.

I know 2-3 of you personally, they rest of you I haven’t a clue who you are. Therefore I can’t take your statements as being credible. It would be different if everyone wrote under their own real names a long with something that validates their message.

For example: if Rob from Watch Pro writes a message with his professional mug shot as the avatar, then that’s a credible message.

But if “Dayt0na75” writes a message with a Rolex logo as an avatar, then no that is not a credible message.

No offence was meant by it. It’s simply the fake that I am the sharer of information, and if I don’t know the source, then I can’t trust it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems honest about the hole situation and I enjoyed the questions and answers. The whole HH fake Daytona thread is blown out. I've never seen more ONE posts in the same thread before. Almost like people were just creating accounts to either bash him or give him credit. Feel terrible for all that were involved if this is a "ponzi scheme".

SM-N960U

[037]

Originally Posted by barkington

It would be different if everyone wrote under their own real names a long with something that validates their message.

You might consider posting an "about" page on your website and Youtube account since all it says anywhere about you is that your name is Adrian. You're literally just as anonymous as anyone else here.

That's not meant as a slight but simply to point out that this goes both ways. It's difficult to complain about anonymity when you yourself are equally anonymous.

[Fleetlord]

[QUOTE=barkington;10365214]

Originally Posted by samuel019

So apparently all of us are keyboard warriors that hide behind our avatars and have no credibility when talking about a serious matter but his friend that had a similar experience when dealing with Horology House is. What a joke.





I knew that comment would be taken the wrong way. Ironically, the Rob, the original poster of the HH thread got it.

I know 2-3 of you personally, they rest of you I haven’t a clue who you are. Therefore I can’t take your statements as being credible. It would be different if everyone wrote under their own real names a long with something that validates their message.

For example: if Rob from Watch Pro writes a message with his professional mug shot as the avatar, then that’s a credible message.

But if “Dayt0na75” writes a message with a Rolex logo as an avatar, then no that is not a credible message.

No offence was meant by it. It’s simply the fake that I am the sharer of information, and if I don’t know the source, then I can’t trust it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have no idea who you really are either?

Your name might be Paul....who knows???

This thing is silly drama. The HH guy got caught up running some basic scams. (Sending Out fakes and the old. I shipped it...oops they lost it routine, when he had never shipped anything).....has all happened before and will certainly happen again. Not shocking in the least. Pretty cut and dry con man stuff.