2 Mar
1999
2 Mar
'99
9:03 p.m.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990301181341.12293B-100000(a)genco.haggle.com>
On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Doug <doug(a)blinkenlights.com> wrote:
] On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Noel Fields wrote:
] > So far, the bid is 1.00 on it. Thought someone here might be interested :)
]
] If there was already a bid on it, somebody was obviously interested in it,
] but I guess he won't be getting it for $1 anymore :-(
Doug wrote once before (21 Jan 1999):
... the moral is the same: if you're contemplating an
action that has an equal chance of helping or hurting,
watch a movie instead.
That stuck in my head, because it has the Ring of Truth(TM)
to it.
Of course, if posting these "heads-up" messages has an equal
chance of helping or hurting, then *failing* to post them
does too, as does discouraging people from posting them. So
how come people keep doing that, instead of watching movies?
Anyway, as far as I can see, posting it here is a win,
probabilistically, because it increases the chance that a
list member will get the item.
If I don't favor any particular list member, then posting
the news here is the best way to get the item to the person
that wants it most. Keeping it secret means hurting the
guy that wanted it most, more than it helped the guy that
wanted it less - a net loss.
We are all friends here, right? Giving the same news to
everybody is perfectly fair, and increases the chance that
one of our friends will win (instead of a total stranger).
As for the "logical extreme" of posting 17000 items from
e-bay to here, nobody does that because, contrary to your
assertion, it is not a duty to post these things; it is a
nicety. Making the leap from that to "duty" is nuts. (And
I think your guestimate of 17000 interesting items is high
by about a factor of about 10000. But that's beside the
point.)
The more ridiculous the arguments become, the more obvious
it is that you are just being selfish, and want the rest of
the world to help you along with that. Prove me wrong here;
the next time you find a great deal out there, post an article
here saying how much you bid, and explaining why everyone
else here should let you have it for that great price and
not interfere. Explain why you deserve it more than anyone
else. If you can't do that, then you have no right to be
upset when people notify others whom they think will be
interested, and those people bid.
Having said all that, I must also point out that since another
mailing list was set up just for posting these announcements,
that is the most appropriate place. Snipped from another old
message of Doug's (from 26 Jan 1999):
] ... the idea of an auction mailing list, so I've created one.
] You can subscribe by sending a message to:
] majordomo(a)nut.net
] with the body:
] subscribe ccauction
]
] I, for one, will not be on this new list, but I'll respond
] to admin requests.
YOU ARE ALL HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUBSCRIBE!
... thus ending the notification wars once and for all.
Hey, a guy can dream, can't he? :-)
(BTW, is the ccauction list mentioned in the classiccmp FAQ?)
Cheers,
Bill.
2 Mar
2 Mar
9:50 p.m.
[ah, the flame burns on due to digest readers]
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Bill Yakowenko wrote:
Of course, if posting these "heads-up"
messages has an equal
chance of helping or hurting, then *failing* to post them
does too, as does discouraging people from posting them. So
how come people keep doing that, instead of watching movies?
Mmm, philosophy is strictly forbidden here according to the FAQ, but I'd
have to say a harmful act is not equivalent to the absense of a helpful
act.
We are all friends here, right? Giving the same news
to
everybody is perfectly fair, and increases the chance that
one of our friends will win (instead of a total stranger).
I have no problem with that idea in principle. I simply see auctions as a
special case. If a list member, or any other collector, expends the
effort to ACTIVELY SEEK AN ITEM OUT, then I find it unfair for some third
party to destroy the fruits of that effort by carelessly tossing a bone to
a bunch of lazy bidders.
As for the "logical extreme" of posting
17000 items from e-bay to here,
nobody does that because, contrary to your assertion, it is not a duty
to post these things; it is a nicety. Making the leap from that to
"duty" is nuts. (And I think your guestimate of 17000 interesting items
is high by about a factor of about 10000. But that's beside the point.)
I was responding directly to Marvin's assertion that it was "not right"
to exclude any group. I took that to the logical extreme: it would be
Marvin's duty to be all-inclusive if he felt it was not right to exclude
anybody's interest. Of course, advertising even 17 ebay items per
day here is absurd. So was the exclusion argument.
The more ridiculous the arguments become, the more
obvious it is that
you are just being selfish, and want the rest of the world to help you
OK, I'm selfish. But that's not the main reason that I dislike the
practice of posting auctions here. Very rarely do these postings affect
me directly. But they're like stray bullets. You never know when one of
these completely ARBITRARY picks is going to cost you money and waste the
time you spent hunting down some obscurity that somebody else happens to
think is "neat" when he crossed it by accident.
along with that. Prove me wrong here; the next time
you find a great
deal out there, post an article here saying how much you bid, and
explaining why everyone else here should let you have it for that great
price and not interfere. Explain why you deserve it more than anyone
else. If you can't do that, then you have no right to be upset when
people notify others whom they think will be interested, and those
people bid.
How about a real-life example. I assume it's well known that I collect
obscure early "toy" computers (among others). I've spent a fair amount of
time researching to discover their existence, find out about their
history, etc. And when I acquire one, I document it, gloat about it on
the list, and present it to the world via the web.
So, one day, some list member is searching ebay and comes across a Minivac
by accident.
Of course, I've been stalking this thing from the moment it appeared, and
then suddenly "Hey everybody! Look at this neat thing on ebay! I have no
idea what it is, but it sure is neat!" Within minutes, some other list
member (known not to be a collector, BTW) bids the thing up to $200 or so.
Sigh. And of course, the same scenario is repeated over and over again,
and different list members, many of whom specialize in some niche, are
struck by another random bullet.
But what irks me most about this "service" is that there are literally
100's if not 1000's of interesting collectible computer items on any given
day. I easily find *many* of them by spending just a few minutes a day
using my patented semi-automatic techniques :-) So it makes absolutely no
sense to me, and looks like pure noise to me, when I see somebody pick one
or two or 10 of them at random here (with the side-effects described
above).
So, sure, I'm selfish and cheap. But am I wrong to expect to save a few
bucks in exchange for the small effort I expend compared to those who say
they want to do nothing but have these finds fed to them?
-- Doug
10:22 p.m.
[ah, the flame burns on due to digest readers]
And due to the fact that you missed the last message I admonished you with.
(It was under a different subject. I should have learned my lesson the last
time I did the same thing. And you were even *expecting* me to comment this
time!)
Since you (and the others involved in this debate) apparently didn't see it,
I'll summarize it.
This debate has the potential to go on forever. I'm skeptical about whether
the two sides can agree. So can you at least keep the amount of traffic
down? The day I wrote the previous comment, I got 56 messages in my
mailbox. Of those, 15 -- more than one quarter -- were on this subject.
Evidently Ye Othere Auncient & Secrete Auctionne Liste is not working very
well. Oh well.
me directly. But they're like stray bullets. You
never know when one of
these completely ARBITRARY picks is going to cost you money and waste the
time you spent hunting down some obscurity that somebody else happens to
think is "neat" when he crossed it by accident.
[...]
But what irks me most about this "service"
is that there are literally
100's if not 1000's of interesting collectible computer items on any given
day. I easily find *many* of them by spending just a few minutes a day
using my patented semi-automatic techniques :-) So it makes absolutely no
sense to me, and looks like pure noise to me, when I see somebody pick one
or two or 10 of them at random here (with the side-effects described
above).
In other words, you're attempting to beat the odds. So far you have
succeeded pretty well. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm just boiling
the situation down.
So, sure, I'm selfish and cheap. But am I wrong
to expect to save a few
bucks in exchange for the small effort I expend compared to those who say
they want to do nothing but have these finds fed to them?
No. I too have been annoyed at seeing bids go up. (They were hardly
"hidden" transactions, though.)
But I would also take the pragmatic view that it's hard to win all the time
when you try to beat the odds. If more and more people get involved in eBay
auctions, my view will become more (depressingly) realistic.
About on-topic-ness (is that a word?) -- I think this subject (eBay, eBay
tips, eBay prices) is on topic. When it deals directly with classic
computers it's very on-topic. When it turns into an "eBay prices are so
high!" session, it's less on-topic. When it turns into a finger-pointing
session, it's still on-topic, but only barely. It's also VERY monotonous
for a LOT of people, I think.
There is an alternative. If I actually screened all the messages on the
list, I would weed out all the spam and junk, but I would get first pick at
all the auction tip-offs! That's nice but it's hardly fair. And then
people would stop posting them. You'd say that would be a relief, but it
might also be a disservice.
-- Derek
10:39 p.m.
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Derek Peschel wrote:
In other words, you're attempting to beat the
odds. So far you have
succeeded pretty well. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm just
boiling the situation down.
No, as I've said, these postings rarely affect me directly. I am honestly
offended by the "unfairness" to those who are willing to spend the effort
to find stuff vs the "helpfullness" to those who choose not to spend that
effort.
But I would also take the pragmatic view that it's
hard to win all the
time when you try to beat the odds. If more and more people get
involved in eBay auctions, my view will become more (depressingly)
realistic.
Do you consider it "beating the odds" when you choose to attend a physical
auction while somebody else decides to sleep in?
It's also VERY monotonous for a LOT of people, I
think.
Hell, it's VERY monotonous to me! But if somebody asks me something in
public, I feel I have to respond in public.
There is an alternative. If I actually screened all
the messages on the
list, I would weed out all the spam and junk, but I would get first pick
at all the auction tip-offs! That's nice but it's hardly fair. And
then people would stop posting them. You'd say that would be a relief,
but it might also be a disservice.
I don't think anybody wants to give you editorial control :-) It'd be
nice if there were a consensus on this subject, but there isn't. So, if
it's OK with you, I'll agree to flame people in private whenever they do
something that annoys the hell out of me. I won't make another public
comment unless somebody addresses a public message to me (directly or
indirectly).
-- Doug
3 Mar
3 Mar
5:32 a.m.
New subject: Still OT was Re: e-bay item
OK this is getting way OT but I'm going to throw my 2 cents worth in.
At 04:39 AM 3/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
In that case you should be against E-bay and shouldn't use it since it
lets the "lazy" people find stuff easily instead of having to go dig it out
of dumpsters or the back corner of surplus stores. When are you going to
quit using E-bay?
I'm not trying to be rude but they really didn't ask you. They are
expressing their opinions. You don't have to reply to every message.
Fair enough. What do you mean a "public message (directly or
indirectly)"? Sounds like you're saying that you'll continue to post every
time you see a message about it.
Joe
In other words, you're attempting to beat the
odds. So far you have
succeeded pretty well. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm just
boiling the situation down.
No, as I've said, these postings rarely affect me directly. I am honestly
offended by the "unfairness" to those who are willing to spend the effort
to find stuff vs the "helpfullness" to those who choose not to spend that
effort.
Do you consider it "beating the odds" when you choose to attend a physical
auction while somebody else decides to sleep in?
Yes, or when the other person can't attend because they have a 9 to 5
job. It's also an advantage or "beating the odds" when you have internet
access and the other guy doesn't.
It's also VERY monotonous for a LOT of
people, I think.
Hell, it's VERY monotonous to me! But if somebody asks me something in
public, I feel I have to respond in public. There is an alternative. If I actually screened
all the messages on the
list, I would weed out all the spam and junk, but I would get first pick
at all the auction tip-offs! That's nice but it's hardly fair. And
then people would stop posting them. You'd say that would be a relief,
but it might also be a disservice.
I don't think anybody wants to give you editorial control :-) It'd be
nice if there were a consensus on this subject, but there isn't. So, if
it's OK with you, I'll agree to flame people in private whenever they do
something that annoys the hell out of me. I won't make another public
comment unless somebody addresses a public message to me (directly or
indirectly).
4:34 a.m.
At 03:50 AM 3/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
[ah, the flame burns on due to digest readers]
Um, Doug, I would say it burns on because you can't restrain yourself
from making a response to every comment that someone
makes. Don't you
realize how childish this makes you look? Did, did not, did
too, did not,
did too. Cripes! Drop it or take it off-line.
Joe
4:58 a.m.
At 03:50 AM 3/3/99 -0500, Doug wrote:
Of course, I've been stalking this thing from the moment it appeared, and
then suddenly "Hey everybody! Look at this neat thing on ebay! I have no
idea what it is, but it sure is neat!" Within minutes, some other list
member (known not to be a collector, BTW) bids the thing up to $200 or so.
So, sure, I'm selfish and cheap. But am I wrong to expect to save a few
bucks in exchange for the small effort I expend compared to those who say
they want to do nothing but have these finds fed to them?
Who's to say that the Minivac isn't worth $200? Price is set between
buyer and seller. It's all about value. You think you deserve the
lowest price possible, untainted by the bidding of your buddies on
the CCC list, because you work so hard. Might you be consoled by
knowing that the $200 bidder worked hard, too, to either find that
machine, cultivate its history, or earn the $200?
After all, you don't know the characteristics of the buyer. Or are
you distracted by your envy? All is clouded by desire, Grasshopper,
like dust on a mirror.
- John
6:01 a.m.
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Bill Yakowenko wrote:
We are all friends here, right? Giving the same news
to
everybody is perfectly fair, and increases the chance that
one of our friends will win (instead of a total stranger).
But what if one of our friends here already has a bid on it? But you
don't know because that person is a lurker? You've just hurt that persons
chances by "helping" everyone here. A net loss.
The more ridiculous the arguments become, the more
obvious
it is that you are just being selfish, and want the rest of
If he was only objecting when an item that he was bidding on got posted I
would agree with you, but I think Doug is genuinely interested in seeing
others get good deals that are otherwise ruined when the item is announced
on this list.
Doug is a complex emotional creature. Making a simple assumption such as
he is "just being selfish" is too simplistic an assertion.
Having said all that, I must also point out that since
another
mailing list was set up just for posting these announcements,
that is the most appropriate place. Snipped from another old
message of Doug's (from 26 Jan 1999):
<...>
... thus ending the notification wars once and for all.
You'd think so but some people are just stubborn. There are just too many
smart people with egos here (I'm one of them, although I fear my "ego"
overshadows my "smart" :)
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always hasslin' the man.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 02/15/99]
9268
days inactive
9268
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
doug＠blinkenlights.com -
dpeschel＠u.washington.edu -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu