Happy Festivus! Airing of Grievances 2024 Edition

[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.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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

My son’s favorite example of small changes in punctuation making a large difference in meaning is as follows:

“Let’s eat, grandma!”
AND
“Let’s eat grandma!”

[Peter_Spaeth]

If the ONLY facts we had in this case were that ML was selling the cards and that it did not have them in its possession, then sure we might think there was fraud.

But when you factor in everything else we know:
--that ML had valid consignments to sell the cards
--that the cards were stolen
--that it was pretty clear the thief was local and associated with the Best Western (I believe that was the state of play) and therefore there was a chance the cards might be recovered
--that ML would have to compensate the consignors if the cards were not recovered, and likely had insurance coverage that would require valuations before that could happen
--that continuing the auction to conclusion would be the most straightforward way to value any cards that were not recovered
--that ML had no intention of taking money from any auction winner unless it could deliver the card
Then it becomes clear there was no "fraud" in the traditional sense. To me, any argument that IGNORES all these additional mitigating facts and circumstances is fundamentally flawed and just based on reductio absurdum.