 | | McDonalds set
|
|
Hard to believe: (URL) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Do what I did and when you see these sorts of things, leave neutral feedback pointing out how to get the item. I may get feedback bombed but I don't really care... I'm a big brick. What I thought was cheezy on this one is that he's using the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Steve (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) against the seller because he/she should be allowed to get what they can for what they have but don't you think consumers would be a bit better informed? I don't know... Eric Remove ".nospam" when replying by E-mail. The New England LEGO Users (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Not that I need to defend myself but I got one free with an order so I put it on E-Bay. If someone wants it, they are free to buy it. I did not mislead anyone in the description. As for Larry, I have kept out of the discussions regarding how much of (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Wow! It IS Glen or a very high fidelity facsimile. Well, I'm not taking my feedback back, not that you can anyway. We've been through this and I think that while suckers don't deserve an even break I just don't think that people I LIKE should (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Now that I have calmed down somewhat from what Larry did, I do owe him an apology. Larry, I am sorry for calling you a sh_t, especially in from of everyone. I disagree with your logic of leaving nuetral feedback on items you feel are selling for too (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I have no issue with selling something on eBay or anywhere else for the highest price you can get. My issue is in doing so in a way that is not full disclosure. Go see this listing: (URL) knows exactly how I got that set. He chose, as an informed (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Another option, wait until the auction finishes, then send email to the 'losers' telling them where they can get the item for a LOT less money... "A fool and their money are soon parted", perhaps?? JG (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Not bad. Except that to do so is a violation of eBay TOS as i understand them. And I think that the TOS apply to you as a reader of eBay content whether or not you actually have an ID there. So not an option for me in addition to being more (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Glen Tannenbaum wrote in message ... <snip> (...) E-Bay (...) <snip> I am not usually one to get myself in the middle of an impending flame war, however there is one thing that bothers me in this listing. Nowhere in this listing or in the picture is (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Ok. After reading all your responses to my listing on E-Bay, I do see that I was amiss in the way I posted it. I am sorry for those I affended and I do promise to not do it again. I do not want to get in a flaming war with Larry or anyone else who (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) That's big of you. (no sarcasm intended..) It's even a bit MORE than I would do. There is nothing wrong with selling something that is commonly available. Were I you in this situation I would merely add information that the set is avaiable and (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Here's another one. (URL) claim that it's hard to find. Also no bids yet... (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) While I understand the sentiments, wouldn't it be better to contact the seller first? I'd imagine it is possible that people may make claims that are misleading, simply because they themselves were misinformed and believed what they were (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I'm curious as to which catalog this was in. I haven't seen it and Huw's database shows it as a 1999 set, free with any order of $75 or more. (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
It's in the fall catalog, which I haven't seen yet, but which some people have. Greg M posted a scan of it. I am anxious to get that catalog because supposedly it also has the happymeal sets pictured in it. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Yes, the happy meals sets are pictured, and I'm pretty happy with them. They use lots of plates, they look like they are styled for the 5-7 age range, rather than the all-brick style of the 3-5 range. But those slopes printed with the McDonald's (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Not mine, I expect they might add a bit more detail to a full sized restaurant model. Rob +---...---+ | Rob Farver - rfarver@rcn.com | | (URL) | | (URL) | +---...---+ (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) It does, but don't get too excited - all 8 are in a tiny picture about 3" x 3". The McDonaldland characters are faces printed on 2x3 low slopes. Ronald McDonald has a red & yellow helicopter. Birdie has a pink, white, and yellow seaplane. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I got an offline question about TOS (which means Terms of Service) and where it is. (URL) section 5 for the rule against offering bidders items. At least that's how I read: "You may not email bidders in a currently open auction being run by a (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) You may well be right but it's more work. Presenting facts ONLY via feedback seems easy. No judgement of the seller is implied. The TOS (which I posted a link to just now) talks of feedback extortion. I think if no communication is made, no (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I would definitely argue that pointing out a retail outlet that is selling something that is being auctioned is definitely NOT siphoning. You gain nothing by pointing out that S@H (or Kmart, TRU, etc) has something available. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Quite simply, many bidders treat neutral feeback as being negative. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Lar, Here is one more example of arbitrage. They are in abundant supply over the phone. Noe, they are in abundant supply on eBay. And note, the price HAS come down... :-) Mike Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) After looking a the picture carfully I have noticed something very interesting. The blue,red,yellow boat is just above Grimaces car thing. Grimaces "car" has darker colored slopes that appear to be violet. It is the same picture so we can't (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Seems the feedback system is broken, then. (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Here is a picture of the new set: (URL) find a high percentage of the pieces to be useful pieces. I like it! -- Have fun! John AUCTION Page (More soon!) (URL) Page (URL) & IG88888888 on AOL Larry Pieniazek wrote in message (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Just to close the loop on this.... I got an email from someone in eBay administration. They told me I had been reported for bid siphoning and that eBay position on posting neutral feedback with information on where the item is available is that it (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Weeeelllll... I know I'm walking into the same old debate as before! But it seems SO clear cut to me. In my opinion Heinz doesn't have the right to the drug. If this drug really truly is somehting Heinz is incapable of inventing for himself, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) I honestly don't know, I just read it again and I wasn't sure. But under my rather strict morality, anything that I do with intent to evade a clear prohibition that I have agreed to abide by(1), is not OK, no matter if it's explicitly (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Larry Pieniazek (<37EF7D5C.F29409B@v...ager.net>) wrote at 14:21:16 (...) I presume the TOS says something about providing email addresses to third parties? (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Yes, it's a classic Kohlberg dilemma. [1] I think you can make a good argument for _either_ response being the high moral ground, depending on your framework of morality. 1. In Europe, a woman was near death from a very unusual kind of cancer. (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Mayhap I'm confused. How is this a moral dilema? James (URL) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) [2] (...) Agreed. No moral situation here. (possibly an ethical one, but that's a different debate, and this case doesn't have enough information to make an ethical judgement). However, I'm fairly certain I can make a good case for the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Arguably, Heinz could come up with some kind of spiced tomato sauce, and sell vast amounts of it so that others may enjoy spearing it all over their fried potatoes, pizza dough, and spaghetti noodles. *THEN* he could afford the $4,000... (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes: That's ok, it's really not your style. James (URL) propagator of stupid "spot-the-reference" posts (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Neither more nor less, because they are not actually different things. Right to life and right to property are the same thing. ALL rights are property rights in my schema. The "right to life" as I see it is my right to dispose of my life as I (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) As with all these little morality puzzles, we don't have enough facts to conclude that. For all we know, Heinz skipped buying health insurance to cover the drug because he wanted to go bowling, or because he needed the money to pay his last (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) No, it was to increase the level of information in the market place. I WANT sellers to dig out rare sets, and I want buyers to buy them. If they are blowing their money on stuff they can get at retail, they're not spending their money on rare (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Old debates die hard :) (...) I certainly agree here. Heinz doesn't appear to me to have any right to the drug; and neither does his wife. Rights don't really seem to dictate proper ownership in this case other than the druggist. After all, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) So in your schema, right to property is more important than right to life. (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) This is why Libertarianism breaks down because mean people suck. Not all people are good. If *everyone* had a good heart, people would be able to respect property rights AND each other's needs as well. But as it is, a heartless Bunghole is (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) All of these are irrelevant to the main thrust. The druggist's motivations for not selling are not important. (...) Why? (...) Allow me to draw a parallel hypothetical situation. There is a natural disaster, and several people are left in a (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
|
(...) You're going to have to give me a *little* more to go on here... (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Hmm... Important to Hienz's claim on the drug? No. They're not. Hienz has no claim to the drug if he hasn't acquired it from the druggist in some manner (trading/selling/performing services/etc.. not threats or beatings, etc., though) Is it (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) The druggist is clearly and willfully taking action that is harmful to a human life. If you consider that immoral, then it is immoral. His motivations do not matter. Even if he is (under his moral code) preventing a greater evil (for example, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
|
(...) obscure------^ (...) Chris DeBurgh, Spanish train. "...But I think I'll give you one more chance, said the Devil with a smile. So throw away that stupid lance, it's really not your style." James (URL) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I think what this is really about is how highly do you rate property rights. Larry seems to be arguing that the right to property superceeds everything else. It's impossible to say what's right in this hypothetical situation, since so much depends (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Not exactly. More like it IS everything else. Any right I recognise, ultimately, is a property right or can be reduced to one. (...) Well, here we go round the mulberry bush again, :-) but as I stated in the past, I don't accept the above as a (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37EFDE75.DDFD13...ger.net... (...) actions... let's (...) Larry, you know, I read your message about how low some of the auction prices in SeriousCollector are. As a result I went to (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Ulterior motives (was Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) This was troll bait, right? :-) You've seen me try to raise prices before. (cf the great blue train window thing) Realise also that I suspect that the great acquisition mode phase may be ending for me... my house is bursting and I am starting (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Ulterior motives (was Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Here's a data point for you There have been two 6990s auctioned off on SC. The first one had a box but had some missing pieces. The condition of the set is pristine, almost brand new. All the missing parts save one control stand and 4 1x2 (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Ulterior motives (was Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Ditto. (...) I haven't been paying attention lately(1), but for quite a while I was watching SC and Ebay prices, and they were generally comparable. Within a few percent, in fact. Although I will confess that I tossed (IMO) extraneous data (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Even you are a little squeamish about the druggist's behaviour: "If I were he I'd work out a payment plan blah blah blah" And yet you cannot find anything morally wrong in it, either. It all works out logically (why he is justified to (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ulterior motives (was Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Oh, don't count us out yet, Larry! We've got a lot of new member-friendly features coming soon, not to mention a bunch of great Lego... like five new blue hopper cars :-) Derick (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) I think the issue Libertarians have with government regulation about standards, quality, and labels is not with intent. We're willing to grant, for the sake of argument, good intent(1). Our issue is just that they don't, by and large, actually (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) There is a difference between holding and even publicising an opinion that the druggist is a slug, and using force to require him to sell the drug. There is nothing wrong with that opinion even being wrong (in the examples Larry stated of (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Well, I think my view on it is that it's required in order to be moral... We don't 'require' people to be moral, but if they're not, then people like me call them jerks. They're not unjust, per se; they are certainly within their rights, but (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) who clicks on anything on the web page that they were directed to by an outside link. At a quick glance, every page seems to have the following statememt: Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the eBay User Agreement ---...--- Where (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Hmm. I think there is a fundamental difference in the way we determine morality. See below. (...) How can I, or you, or anyone, accurately judge someone's intent? It is impossible to empirically determine intent. Actions can be observed, (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Yep. What it really means is I can't judge you. Only you can judge you. I can do my darndest to try, and usually, in our society, we can do a pretty good job of determining someone else's intent. We don't always get the details right, and (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I don't want to dwell on the morality topic, since it seems that it's being beaten into the ground. But I will say this: I think that the highest form of morality stems from compassion - the ability to experience the suffering of others as if it (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Determining intent can only be inferential, not observational. This makes judging by intent inherently less impartial than judging by actions. (...) I do not trust myself to judge anyone's intent.(1) I am not omniscient, and I will never know (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Do you think morality is internal (only I can determine if I am moral), or external (you can determine if I am moral)? If external, then who defines morality? (...) I disagree. Only the druggist can determine if he has a moral obligation to (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
|
(...) I think competitive improvement requires the postulate of an informed, active consumer base, which does not seem descriptive of America today. Frankly, when I see ads for "Pumpernickel limestone shampoo - the tingle tells you it's better than (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Well, to the absolutest of my theory, yes. I have no grounds for assuming anyone else's intent, and have no basis for proof. But the point is that it usually does seem to work. That is, usually, I can judge someone's intent fairly well. But (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Doesn't have to be taken to an extreme. If I happen to see a total stranger kill someone, I know what has happened, but not why. (...) Sorry, being unclear in the interests of brevity(1). You were saying (paraphrase warning!) that you felt (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
|
(...) Granted. No one said it would be easy to move in the direction I'd like to see us move in. But in turn I'm sure you'd admit that the potential is there for the regeneration of such a base. (...) I'll claim that there are some examples but not (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
|
(...) Of course there's a potential, but such a regeneration would not be in the interest of manufacturers, so I wouldn't count on them to foster it by providing the public with balanced information unless required by law. This is part of my problem (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) And that's really why I feel the need to judge by intent. If I see one person kill another, I can see the action, but not the intent. Perhaps the killer had no idea he was killing, or whatever. His intent could concievably be such that his (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
|
(...) I heard a good one a few weeks ago... Three engineers, a mechanical engineer, a chemical engineer, and a Microsoft engineer, are riding in a car when the engine quits. The mechanical engineer suggests a rebuild of the engine. The chemical (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
|
(...) Reading some of your posts, I see that you carefully differentiate self-defined "morals" and socially defined "ethics." The problem I have with this dichotomy is that it is impotent (no "r") to avoid imposing one's own morality on others. If I (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Hmm. Ok, fair. That's a difference in how we define morality. To me, morality is a matter of the conscious mind. Unless, of course, we're defining the subconscious differently, but I'm >not< going there! ;-) (...) Ah yes, but that doesn't mean (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
|
(...) Of course people develop their moral code. But no two people are going to have the same code, which means that no one individual can know wether someone else is acting morally. (I took some leaps of logic there) (...) I do not claim to not (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
This afternoon, in a fit of madness and general misanthrope (from spending the morning at the car dealership, getting repairs, and then the DMV for a drivers license renewal) and upon seeing a thread on rtl about the extremely high priced $11.00 (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) :) yeah, the subconscious is tough... (...) Ok, I can see that... Hmmm... maybe it would be fairer to say that the law can be 'bad'. Not *morally* bad, but ill-concieved. In other words, a law becomes less and less 'good' (ethically good, you (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I wonder if I'll hear from that guy as I do have a lot listed there that points out pretty clearly that it is available via S@H: (URL) got one bidder who didn't read it very closely. Sent an email and he has since retracted. Now I have another (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Ulterior motives (was Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) <snipped monorail & boat examples> (...) Hmm. Neat. The castle sets currently there seem to be fetching about equivalent prices to what I'm used to seeing. The 6009 is higher on SC, and the 6044 and 6038 are higher on e-bay, but they're all in (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | eBay rules (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) I went to that URL and the fifth section no longer contains that text. The only relevant rule seems to be the following: 5.5 Manipulation. Neither bidders nor sellers may manipulate the price of any item nor may you interfere with other user's (...) (25 years ago, 3-Nov-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
