16 Sep
1999
16 Sep
'99
noon
Upon the date 03:44 PM 9/16/99 -0500, George Currie said something like:
Hmmm, that could be. Except my thought is that the seller is rather
"Creativity Challenged", to coin a new politically correct expression.
If another party came along with an email to him stating he's 'giving it
away' at $2.3k and said it should be around $7k and he panicked and setup
that foo.bar monkey business and bought back his machine, then that is
plain unethical. He should have done some more research on its value before
starting the auction.
foobar|foo.bar, sheesh.
Regards, Chris
-- --
Christian Fandt, Electronic/Electrical Historian
Jamestown, NY USA cfandt(a)netsync.net
Member of Antique Wireless Association
URL: http://www.antiquewireless.org/
Second, the
basic rules continue to hold. Which are:
- You offer something for sale, you have the option of setting
a reserve price and a minimum bid.
- When your auction ends, if the highest bid was above
your reserve then you _MUST_ sell the item to the highest
bidder. REGARDLESS OF HOW THE AUCTION ENDED.
Speaking of this point, did anyone catch the auction for the Xerox
Star? Talk about weird endings, it was around $2100 (reserve not
met) until the very end, when suddenly a $7000 bid comes in
(reserve met). But get this, the alias of the high bidder is almost
exactly the same as the seller (seller was foobar, buyer was
foo.bar). Sounds like maybe the second place bidder actually hit
the reserve ($2300?) and the seller decided that he didn't want to
sell it so put in a massive bid under a diff. alias?