gopherblue
Straight Flush
No. Shame on you. You should retract/delete your first quoted statement.I couldn't read the entire thread...
Shame on you Pastor. When something looks too good to be true, it usually is.
For you to deny you are in possession of stolen property should go against everything you are supposed to stand for.
Edit: I read the first 2 pages and went back and read the rest. I was moving too fast here in that there is a plausible case where the Seller purchased those chips at a Customs auction.
There is no—repeat NO—reason to conclude the chips were stolen. You owe @luv2breformed a public apology, since you publicly slandered (technically, libeled) him.
Stop saying the chips were stolen. If you are going to say that, then prove it. Otherwise, the only appropriate way to refer to them is “Luv2breformed’s chips.”
Folks, let’s all cool our jets here. All this conjecture about the chips is just that: conjecture. Based on the facts, while these may be the chips from the shipment that went missing, we don’t know that. We can’t even conclude that it is likely that they are the same chips. And even if they are, there is still no evidence whatsoever as to how the eBay seller came to own them. Anyone throwing around the word “stolen” is jumping to conclusions not supported by any evidence.