A LART is needed (was: VCF 4.0)

-> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Bill Dawson wrote: -> > -> > > Aaron Nabil <nabil(a)SpiritOne.com> -> > . . . -> > -> -> > -> -> > -> And I'll make one up... -> > -> -> > -> Vendor X hauls a bunch of stuff down to VCF n, some of which he sells. -> > -> People are interested in what he has, but aren't willing to pay what he -> > -> thinks are reasonable prices. He has a warehouse of the stuff, realizes -> > -> that there is going to be a VCF n+1 and that the same people will be there -> > -> and the value of his warehouse of stuff will only go up. If he gives his -> > -> stuff away, those will simply be sales he won't make next year, and he may -> > -> be creating the impression that if you wait long enough everything will be -> > -> "free" or "any offer accepted" at the end, thus driving down sales and -> > -> prices even further. So he throws things in the dumpster, taking care to -> > -> smash them extra hard on the way in. -> > -> -> > -> That's a prefectly reasonable rationale, and the Vendor X doesn't become -> > -> any more "unreasonable" or less "sane" or "logical" becuase he didn't -> > -> hand out a leaflet explaining what he was doing. -> > -> > This isn't a reasonable rationale at all. Again, with greed as the -> > prime motivation here, what appears to others as irrational actions -> > occurs. Just because the seller has a reason for his actions doesn't -> > make it reasonable, rational or sane. The fact that he refuses to -> > explain his actions is a clue that he also knows his rationale for his -> > actions is unacceptable. His actions are no more justified than the -> > other seller who claims he heard a voice inside his head telling him to -> > blow up the VCF because everyone is plotting against him to ensure that he -> > doesn't sell anything. -> > -> -> Some people make a living by buying and selling surplus. They are not -> "classic computer collectors" But where is their market? CLASSIC COMPUTER COLLECTORS. -> and do not "owe anything to the community". But with the childish attitude described here, which shows total disrespect towards the intended market, how can they expect to develop a relationship with their intended buyers? -> Theirs is hard and risky work with no guarantees, it isn't "easy money". While this is true for all vendors of vintage equipment, a vendor with a "business ethic" of "If I can't sell it for what I want for it, I'll destroy it." had just better give it up and find another line of work (and perhaps a good shrink, also). -> To dismiss their desire to maximize their profit (so -> that they can do things like eat and pay the rent) as "being -> greedy" is patently absurd and does not merit further comment. I detect an attempted diversion here. No one can be faulted for maximizing their profit, if it is done ethically. I know that the destruction of vintage equipment just for the reason that it did not sell for the asking price is well outside the ethics of the majority of us in the vintage computer field. The destruction of vintage equipment in a belief that this will somehow increase the value of the remaining is "patently absurd" and certainly does deserve comment. What other motive can be ascribed to an action such as this? Greed (and selfishness) certainly fit. For example: I own a rare S-100 CP/M system of which there are known to be only 10 others at the most in existence, none in the hands of collectors. I locate the others and destroy them, knowing mine now becomes not just rare, but the only one left. Did I increase its value? Sure. Driven by greed? You bet. Would _I_ do this? Hell, no. Another example: I'm Joe Seller. I have no interest in collecting. I just want to make the big bucks. I found a warehouse full of PDP's from the 1960's. I bought them all for scrap prices. Should I scrap most of them and keep just a few to sell, reasoning that I don't want to flood the market and drive my prices down? In your example and given rationale, your seller likely would. Reason? Greed, driven by a big helping of foolishness and faulty business sense. I feel that any seller who is known to trash and/or destroy equipment that doesn't sell, especially when reasonable offers have been made, should be banned from future selling whenever possible. If they can't sell it, they won't buy it. If they don't buy it, it will be left for someone else to find, someone with hopefully a more responsible attitude. If it ends up in a landfill because it wasn't "found", it _is_ a loss, but what's the difference? The difference is that we won't have to associate with those sellers who just don't understand ethics (and really don't sell much anyway). No field of collecting tolerates this behavior and we shouldn't be any different. Bill -> -> -- -> Aaron Nabil ->