What's to admire?
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">But it hasn't, Alex. All you've done is repeatedly state that you sent a link to Matt's high bidder and that (in your mind) there would have been no problem if Matt had updated the old post that the link referred to. What you HAVEN'T done is state what RIGHT you had to interfere and send the link in the first place!Originally posted by Alex:
they keep bringing up a point that's already been answered,
It wasn't your camera.
It wasn't your auction.
It wasn't your bidder.
It wasn't your business.
Your actions cost Matt real money.
So the question is: All things considered, what gave you the right to interfere in Matt Pacini's ebay auction? Certainly you would have felt angry if someone had done that to YOU.
It's a reasonable question; much more reasonable than the actions it refers to, actually. Why don't you simply answer the question if you feel what you did was justified? Or is the prospect of stating in public that you intended to cause Matt Pacini harm too much of a risk for your ebay account? They don't cotton to that type of behaviour, do they?
So, you're stuck. If you answer the question truthfully, then Matt has the admission in writing that will end your ebay account for interfering in his auction. If you buck up and admit you're wrong in what you did, then your tortured brain will explode.
Tough choices, to be sure. But you created the problem in the first place by secretly contacting Matt's top bidder; something that you never thought anyone would find out about.
Well, we did.
Roger
Bookmarks