Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The E-Bay HOLTON


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by JoeS on January 16, 2003 at 20:45:58:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The E-Bay HOLTON posted by Frank on January 16, 2003 at 17:24:14:

Its not just Ebay. In fact this covers any case where a bogus bidder is there just to push up the price past what it would legitimately bring .

I think the place that I am and the place that other's are on this in the way this issue is viewed is not resolvable. I know that shills are illegal, and I don't do it. However, I think laws that protect people from their own lack of smarts or savvy are not particularly helpful. Such laws simply keep people from ever becoming smart or savvy and encourage them to whine to some authority when their lack of experience gets them in trouble.

The reason that I highlighted your quote is that the definition of "legitimately" is interesting (even more interesting than Bill Clinton's definition of "is"). I am now talking in circles, so this will be my last post on the topic, but if a bidder is shill-ed by someone else and is willing to outbid the shill in order to acquire an item, that bidder "legitimately" was willing to pay that amount - "otherwise" or not. Think about it outside the "legal" box. If shill-ing can be argued to be immoral, shouldn't state lotteries (taking advantage of people's addictions), the taxing of addictions (alcohol, tobacco), and taking people's assets and redistributing them to others who didn't earn them in order to stay in power also be made illegal? (ie. The right to take advantage of individuals is reserved for governmental bureaucracies.)

Joe "Let's talk about tubas." S.


Follow Ups: