.... "a couple of dealers mention to me at the national, that its the biggest scam going today" .... joe pavlik

Stu; That's the direct quote that has everyone upset.... not the question "Is the building fund really needed?" We can all debate that building fund need question until next year's convention ... but to post an unsubstantiated RUMOR about a Building Fund SCAM is completely another matter ... and I think you know the difference.

If your intent is simply to wind a few watches, then you have succeeded.

I wonder if you would have taken the same position if Joe had instead posted that some dealers mentioned to him at the national convention last week about a crime a very close member of Stu Grant's family had committed?

Why is it I have this strong feeling that I don't think that you would be upholding Joe Pavlik's right to free speech in that scenario?