Alex recently interfered with Matt Pacini's ebay auction by contacting the top bidder and sending a link to a year-old, dead topic where Matt described his difficulties modifying his super 8 camera. Alex insists that he did nothing wrong by sending the link to the bidder because (for some bizarre reason) Alex feels it was Matt's "responsibility" to have updated the old post, even THOUGH the bidder would never have seen it and the ebay ad clearly stated that the camera worked just fine (which, in effect, IS an update about the camera).
In short, while Matt didn't update the old post from a year ago, but he DID provide an update on the functionality of the camera by stating clearly that it worked fine in his ebay ad. (Alex is trying to make a distinction of some sort that WHERE Matt updated the information somehow makes a difference in Alex's liability.)
So, in essence, Alex simply didn't believe Matt's ebay claim that that the camera worked okay and Alex took it upon himself to contact the top bidder and warn that person, by way of the link to the old post, about the camera. As a result, the top bidder withdrew their bid and that cost Matt Pacini money.
My opinion is that none of this concerned Alex in any way. Matt clearly stated the status of the camera in his ad. If Alex believed Matt, then there was no reason to arouse the suspicions of the top bidder by sending a link to a long forgotten post from a year ago. Even if Matt had NOT said the camera worked okay in his ebay ad, it STILL was no concern of Alex's since this was not his camera, he did not know the person bidding on the camera, and Alex had no first hand knowledge of the camera in question. More to the point, ebay strictly forbids people from inteferring in ebay auctions, regardless of their intent.
So, basically, Alex interfered in Matt's auction and it cost that person money. Assuming that anyone here really cares, anymore, what is you opinion? Do you think that Alex had an ethical right to interfere in Matt's auction?