Happy Festivus! Airing of Grievances 2024 Edition

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

That will never happen . As I recall, these hypotheticals were raised so much in the thread that a speculative statement became read by the ML fanboys desperate to defend them for any reason as an actual fact. I still find it extremely dubious that they would be ordered, via the world's most unique insurance policies, or insurance company decisions that surely violate the actual contract that absolutely does not require this method of valuation, or the police, to host a fraudulent auction that is illegal under state law and then also would never point to that to justify their course in their announcements. We all know, very obviously, that this was not the only valid play from a legal standpoint. Running fake fraudulent auctions illegal under state law was not the only thing they could have done.

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 scenario where ML discussed its predicament with its insurer, and the insurer advised that as a practical matter, it would be much easier and cleaner 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). I am fine if you disagree, I am not fine with you denigrating everyone who disagrees with you as dishonest, and you really don't need to go there to make your points. This is a complex situation as to which people can reasonably differ.

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.

[G1911]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

I do think it's quite plausible the insurer recommended and stated a preference for continuing the auction. I don't think it was required by the policy or that the insurer "ordered" them to do it. And again, I think there are significant differences between a single BST seller committing intentional fraud and this very complex situation that make it a poor analogy. And your argument has become circular -- it's dishonest to host a fraudulent auction.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I do think it's quite plausible the insurer recommended and stated a preference for continuing the auction. I don't think it was required by the policy or that the insurer "ordered" them to do it.

And you think it is wrong for an individual, but perfectly alright for a corporation, and you cannot understand why some people would not draw different lines for different people/groups but have ethic based on the act, not the thing committing said act?

And you think it is perfectly honest to run fake auctions for items one doesn't have, but only if that is a corporation doing it (otherwise, if it was honest independent of the thing doing it, then there is no reason an individual wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing)?

Even if one supports it, running auctions for things one does not have and cannot possibly deliver on is "dishonest". I think we all, at some level, must be cognizant of that.

[G1911]

It is so hard to actually argue this when people keep editing posts to change or add arguments lol

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is so hard to actually argue this when people keep editing posts to change or add arguments lol

I was kinda hoping that we could argue about this some more. Feels like we left a lot unresolved in that old thread. Glad we're getting back after it!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is so hard to actually argue this when people keep editing posts to change or add arguments lol

And of course 3 of the 4 posts after this one have already had to be edited within a few minutes.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

And of course 3 of the 4 posts after this one have already had to be edited within a few minutes.

I'm sorry changing a single letter to fix a typo confuses you. Can't say I'm surprised.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

And you think it is wrong for an individual, but perfectly alright for a corporation, and you cannot understand why some people would not draw different lines for different people/groups but have ethic based on the act, not the thing committing said act?

And you think it is perfectly honest to run fake auctions for items one doesn't have, but only if that is a corporation doing it (otherwise, if it was honest independent of the thing doing it, then there is no reason an individual wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing)?

Even if one supports it, running auctions for things one does not have and cannot possibly deliver on is "dishonest". I think we all, at some level, must be cognizant of that.

I don't have time to explain the nuance of property law to you, but just know, that property is not a physical object according to the law. It is a group of intangible rights. A thief cannot take a property interest. Therefore, the owner still retains all of the rights he previously had to the stolen property. If you go down that road, you can see how the auction can lawfully run without criminal law implications (although civil ramifications can develop depending what steps are taken at the conclusion of the auction).

Further, there are fundamental legal differences between an individual fraudulently selling something, and a consigner, under contract to sell a property right on behalf of the owner of those rights. There just are. You don't have to understand or accept it. But it's just how the law works.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I don't have time to explain the nuance of property law to you, but just know, that property is not a physical object according to the law. It is a group of intangible rights. A thief cannot take a property interest. Therefore, the owner still retains all of the rights he previously had to the stolen property. If you go down that road, you can see how the auction can lawfully run without criminal law implications (although civil ramifications can develop depending what steps are taken at the conclusion of the auction).

Further, there are fundamental legal differences between an individual fraudulently selling something, and a consigner, under contract to sell a property right on behalf of the owner of those rights. There just are. You don't have to understand or accept it. But it's just how the law works.

Irrelevant! Selling something you know full well is stolen and might well be gone for good is absolutely unethical. It's sleazy and wrong!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

And you think it is wrong for an individual, but perfectly alright for a corporation, and you cannot understand why some people would not draw different lines for different people/groups but have ethic based on the act, not the thing committing said act?

And you think it is perfectly honest to run fake auctions for items one doesn't have, but only if that is a corporation doing it (otherwise, if it was honest independent of the thing doing it, then there is no reason an individual wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing)?

Even if one supports it, running auctions for things one does not have and cannot possibly deliver on is "dishonest". I think we all, at some level, must be cognizant of that.

To me it would be dishonest if it was part of a scheme to defraud, by getting someone to pay for the item and then not delivering the card. That would apply equally to an individual and a company. The facts here are unique -- there was no such intent nor do you claim there was. The reasons for continuing the auction had nothing at all to do with fraud. IMO you could question whether they made the right judgment call under all the circumstances, but I don't buy into the characterizations of fake, dishonest, etc.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me it would be dishonest if it was part of a scheme to defraud, by getting someone to pay for the item and then not delivering the card. That would apply equally to an individual and a company. The facts here are unique -- there was no such intent nor do you claim there was. The reasons for continuing the auction had nothing at all to do with fraud. IMO you could question whether they made the right judgment call under all the circumstances, but I don't buy into the characterizations of fake, dishonest, etc.

This is correct. There is a big difference from selling something you don't have and have no intention to deliver, then taking money for it to deprive the buyer of their funds, and the situation here where they let an auction run with either a good faith belief you will be able to deliver the goods in the near future, or no intent to ever receive money from a buyer. If you never deprive the potential buyer of their money/property, there can be no fraud. Fraud requires an intent to defraud, and theft requires an intent to permanently deprive an owner of their property. Neither is relevant to Memory Lane in this case.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by G1911

And you think it is wrong for an individual, but perfectly alright for a corporation, and you cannot understand why some people would not draw different lines for different people/groups but have ethic based on the act, not the thing committing said act?



And you think it is perfectly honest to run fake auctions for items one doesn't have, but only if that is a corporation doing it (otherwise, if it was honest independent of the thing doing it, then there is no reason an individual wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing)?



Even if one supports it, running auctions for things one does not have and cannot possibly deliver on is "dishonest". I think we all, at some level, must be cognizant of that.

"Cannot possibly deliver"?

The majority of the cards were since recovered and delivered. No?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[JimC]

Bruhhhh this debate again???? This topic is like quicksand guys. Walk around.

Besides, Festivus is for the airing of new grievances. I got a lot of problems with you people!!