Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
I'm not saying they were "ordered" to run the auction by the insurance company or that the contract required it. What I am saying is that I can well envision a situation where ML discussed its predicament with its insurer, and the insurer advised that as a practical matter, it would be much easier and more pragmatic for all concerned if it let the auction continue to establish valuation benchmarks. And perhaps ML agreed and followed that recommendation. IMO that does not make them dishonest, nor does having that opinion make ME dishonest or a ML fanboy (I most definitely am not).
As for the police, I just don't know, not my area, but my opinion does not depend one way or another on that aspect.
|
I replied to Parkplace, regarding a source claim from Ohio, not you. If you go back to the thread, you will see the argument I alleged in there made numerous times. I do not recall if you had this extra nuance at the time or not or were smart enough not to get trapped by the ridiculous insurance policy claim. Probably the later lol.
I think that lying to your customers by hosting fraudulent auctions for items they did not have and could not possibly deliver, even if you like that as the correct course, is quite obviously "dishonest". This is why it is so ridiculous and gear grinding - even this has to be denied and we have to pretend that that isn't dishonest. That is absurd, and dishonest itself. Where I implied dishonesty from you was your claim that you couldn't even understand the grievance - while knowing full well why it is wrong for people who are not Memory Lane to do the exact same thing. Of course you get it, you just disagree with it.