| |
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Eric Joslin writes:
> > .barter
> > Exchange of goods for goods -- rather than goods for money.
> > (The word "trade" has too many different meanings.)
>
> Heh. Good luck trying to pin down an english word that means "trading
> goods for goods" that can't in some way be construed to invlove money.
> I can haggle over a price with you and call it bartering, after all. :D
Yeah. OK, how about .swap? Well, that's probably too close to what
.jambalaya is about.
Anyway, hmmm...maybe there doesn't even need to be a barter/swap/trade group.
After all, how many posts have you ever seen where someone says they want to
trade something (not money) for something (not money)? And even trades are
often rounded out with a bit money on one side or the other if the deal isn't
even.
Someone could just as well post a trade offer to .wanted if they were looking
for something and wanted more LEGO and not money in return. The .forsale
name seems to imply goods in exchange for money, but .wanted doesn't
necessarily imply that. What do you think?
> I think these groups would be better defined than the current system, and
> therefore represent a step forward as opposed to a step back, or a change
> just for the sake of change (step sideways?).
Well, I hope they wouldn't be change-for-the-sake-of-change! :-) This would
pretty much make the OBO vs. SBA issue go away, although there *might* be a
need for a third .forsale group for negotiated sales that aren't really
auctions.
--Todd
> Which is my way of saying I think it would be a good thing.
>
> eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
