26 May
2013
26 May
'13
2:25 p.m.
On Sun, 26 May 2013, Liam Proven wrote:
On 26 May 2013 08:53, Tothwolf <tothwolf at
concentric.net> wrote:
You missed my point.
My point was how this (currently unnamed) middleman took advantage of Mr.
Hatfield and paid him only $40,000 for the Apple I while not telling him
what he expected to turn around and immediately auction it for. Mr.
Hatfield certainly took the news better than most people would have (at
least in his public statements), but that still doesn't make what that
"middleman" did right or ethical.
Vintage Apple-1 Sells for Record $671,400
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/vintage-apple-1-sells-for-record-6…
Whoever bought the thing from Mr. Hatfield earlier this year really should
be ashamed of himself. I for one hope someone out there could at least send
Mr. Hatfield one of the Apple I replicas.
Why?
An object is worth what someone somewhere is willing to pay for it.
That's what "worth" means. I don't see how something selling for a lot
of money is worse than something selling for very little money,
really.
I mean, I personally think Mark Rothko paintings are boring pointless
blodges of colour, totally lacking in any artistic merit. However, I
understand that they sell for many millions. That is not a problem for
me.
My preferred intepretation is that it just means that there are a lot
of fashion-following rich idiots out there, rather than that I have no
taste. :?)