eBay vrs42?

From: vrs <vrs_at_msn.com>
Date: Sat Feb 12 14:35:00 2005

From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf_at_siconic.com>
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, vrs wrote:
> > > > If, as a consequence, the Rembrandt goes for $1 (or any other
rediculous
> > > > price), I would say that was clearly unfair to the seller.
> > >
> > > Unfair? It depends on what side you're on. Unethical or illegal?
Not at
> > > all.
> >
> > OK, you lost me. How can fairness depend on which side you're on and
still
> > be called fairness?
>
> PERHAPS it is unfair to the seller, because they didn't get what they
> might have wanted, but it is fair to the buyer, because they scored big
> time.

Then we have identified a difference in our usage of the term "fair". I had
presumed fairness meant that everyone got what they were expecting. I
believe a seller at auction has a right to a contest for his item. That's
why he's agreed to be there.

    Vince
Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 14:35:00 GMT