Subject:
|
Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Mar 1999 20:20:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1048 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ...
{snippity doo dah}
> I don't think it is unethical. BMS, (1) unethical would be
> e-mailing the high bidder, and telling him you'll sell him one for less
> instead. That would be asking someone to back out of an implied(written?
> spoken? electronic?) contract. You're just one of the hazards of dealing • in a
> free market. :)
Posting to the group serves the same purpose doesn't it?
> Discourteous is a bit different, and the seller might have had an argument
> there (2), but he certainly undercut any moral authority he may have had by
> calling you a parasite.
I've retracted that comment in the interests of continuing a constructive
debate :)
> > My current position is that there are multiple sellers and buyers
> > in Lugnet, that all threads are available to all, and that
> > artificially keeping the price high for one seller by waiting
> > for the auction to finish is worse for the community than • ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > is bringing out the set when the price exceeds my sell price.
>
> Uh-oh - I'd watch it - that's a dangerous phrase!(3) ;-)
>
> 1:by my standards
> 2:by asking you politely to start your own thread
>
> 3:anyone who doesn't get the reference can hunt down repeated flamings in
> .debate a few weeks back (thread=CFD: e-bay)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
