On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, vrs wrote:
> 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.
Ok, I'll admit "fair" was misused here. But as long as the marketplace
was fair then the seller has no valid basis upon which to complain.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 15:41:03 GMT