Quote from: wunkbone on January 27, 2015, 03:33:32 AM

Quote from: smoothie on January 27, 2015, 03:28:43 AM

Quote from: wunkbone on January 27, 2015, 03:24:22 AM

Quote from: smoothie on January 27, 2015, 03:21:05 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 27, 2015, 03:08:48 AM

@ Tecshare,

We were talking about who has the burden of
proof, not whether the evidence presented
was absolute proof or speculative.

Switching the point of argument is a weak
tactic that will not work on me.

You keep saying you want proof, and not
theories and speculation. Where is the
proof that WC has any hand carving skill whatsoever,
let alone being a 'master carver' ?

In my view the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on WC as he made the claims first that his pieces were all "HAND CARVED".

Asking him to prove that isn't much to ask if he is legitimate.

But so far we have no proof of his claims being valid. Only more doubt from his video he posted and his immature way of responding to critics.

I would disagree with this. He should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Absent any proof/evidence that he is in fact being dishonest he should not be under any obligation to prove anything.

If everyone needed to prove they were telling the truth about their product to a trustworthy person then it would be impossible for anyone to ever become trustworthy in the first place

I've worked with a laser engraver and his work does look laser engraved so I told him directly what I thought. See my long post above where I approached him nicely about it in dec 2014.

So no you can't say there wasn't any evidence that he was being dishonest as he already has been proven dishonest by saying he never said he does original/custom work but then I have found several of his own posts where he clearly and strongly implies he does do original work...just to find out he uses clip art off of the internet. So no...he now has reason to be doubted as he misrepresented himself as an artist that does original/custom work.

Burden of proof is on WoodCollector.

Like I said, if there is evidence against him then he needs to prove his case. However just because he makes some claim does not mean that he otherwise needs to prove himself.

And this is where hopefully we can agree that he misrepresented himself previously.

This is why things also got called into question. So I still stick to it that WC has the burden of proof.