[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Peter,

Robert's post #170 specifically says that if not for the additional day of bidding he wouldn't have had the chance to raise extra funds to bid more. I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was merely pointing out to another poster that the extended bidding did in fact result in additional bids, in this particular REA auction, that would not have occurred otherwise. I never stated, or even insinuated, that such additional bids resulted in higher ending auction prices, or that similar bids could not have come in had the original REA auction close proceeded with no glitches.

I then went even further to note and point out how the other poster's talk of "indisputable facts" was inappropriate because he was using a subjective measure ("significantly" different ending prices), which can never be definitively (and indisputably) proven or disproven. However, it was to also show support for that other poster's position that it absolutely is not an "indisputable fact" that an extended bidding period resulting from a tech glitch will automatically result in additional bids causing higher ending prices. Again, I merely noted that you can't claim something as an indisputable fact if it has any subjective component in it, which for the most part is what Jay was saying. I was responding to Steve's earlier post through Jay's response to that same earlier post, and addressing the way both of them were saying/presenting certain things.

So, "to get technical", what exactly did I say or do wrong? If you are incorrectly assuming or insinuating I stated or implied something that I did not, and just went to all the trouble to explain even more why and how I didn't, then so be it. I've already had the occasion on this forum before to go through the trouble of explaining my position and meaning on something, only to have someone come back and actively argue that I didn't mean what I had just said I meant. How the f@ck can that be, that my opinion and what I said I meant is not what I said and meant by it? Talk about trying to put words in someone else's mouth. But I digress as I'm sure that is not the case in this instance.

I wasn't attacking or disagreeing with you. I was just following up with an observation that the fact that there were additional bids on Monday -- which you had referenced -- does not, in and of itself, establish anything. Sorry if I wasn't clear.