eBay vrs42?

From: Jim Battle <frustum_at_pacbell.net>
Date: Sat Feb 12 09:38:35 2005

Vintage Computer Festival wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, vrs wrote:
...
>>I think it is important to treat sellers of classic equipment well -- we
>>want there to be more of them, not less.
>
> So we should now all feel pity for the sellers and require everyone to bid
> on every item no matter whether we like it or not, just so the seller can
> get the highest price possible? Taken to the logical ends, this is
> basically what you're arguing.

Why stop there? If you are going to put words in his mouth, why not
claim that vrs was really implying that we all need to provide sexual
favors for the sellers? Treating someone well or with respect in no way
means that we have to do more than that.

Taking things in the limit is great for calculus, but it can backfire in
the real world if applied incorrectly, like here. Imagine going to a
barbershop and asking him for a trim. You fall asleep in the chair and
wake up with a bald head. Why get mad? He just took your request to
its logical end.


...
>>I'd be essentially unable to pursue the hobby without them -- there just
>>aren't enough collectors and equipment known to me personally. Without
>>connections, I'd still have just the one bare-bones 8/i that I started
>>with. (I still might not have been willing to toss it, but I bet others
>>who could never hope to fix it would have.)
>
> That's no reason to force everyone to bid one every item so that the
> seller's can become wealthy. They aren't entitled to anything.

You are putting up a strawman argument to make it easy to knock down.
Vince nor I claimed anybody was forced to bid on every item. This is
the third of fourth time you or eric has made this exact statement when
nobody has made that claim.

> Ugh.
>

agreed.
Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 09:38:35 GMT