Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ask a smartass question about something I never said or implied, get a smartass answer pointing out I never said or implied what you want to argue against.

You're very defensive obviously. It was not at all a smart ass question, it was intended to set up a point. And it implied nothing at all about what you said. Deep breath.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're very defensive obviously. It was not at all a smart ass question, it was intended to set up a point. And it implied nothing at all about what you said. Deep breath.

Yes, deep breath to use the same verbiage you did . If you would like to argue something completely different than anything I said, there is no reason to quote my unrelated statement. Have at with whoevers point you are trying to counter here or whatever new point you want to make that has nothing to do with what I said.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, deep breath to use the same verbiage you did . If you would like to argue something completely different than anything I said, there is no reason to quote my unrelated statement. Have at with whoevers point you are trying to counter here or whatever new point you want to make that has nothing to do with what I said.

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

It's in 555. Can anyone explain to me how hosting a fake auction does not meet those terms?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's in 555. Can anyone explain to me how hosting a fake auction does not meet those terms?

Because (1) there is no intent to deceive and (2) there is no damage to anyone to whom any implicit misrepresentation was made. Law is also flexible in situations where applying standards literally would yield an unjustified result.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because (1) there is no intent to deceive and (2) there is no damage to anyone to whom any implicit misrepresentation was made. Law is also flexible in situations where applying standards literally would yield to an unjustified result.

1 is completely untrue. There was an intent to deceive bidders, which was the entire point of doing this to set values. Pretending that they have the items and it's a real auction is very intentionally deceiving the bidders that are being lied to. It was not an unintended oversight. This claim is obviously untrue. Back to what I said about people saying anything to justify what they want - this is blatantly false and it is obvious that it is false.

Again, I have made no comment on 2 nor does this have anything to do with the definition. The bidders did not pay and thus do not have provable damages. This may have something to do with why I am not arguing whether or not they should be taken to civil court for fraud.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by G1911

1 is completely untrue. There was an intent to deceive bidders, which was the entire point of doing this to set values. Pretending that they have the items and it's a real auction is very intentionally deceiving the bidders that are being lied to. It was not an unintended oversight. This claim is obviously untrue. Back to what I said about people saying anything to justify what they want - this is blatantly false and it is obvious that it is false.

.

But they did have the items, they were, just and still, are missing. The didn't steal scans from the registry or cards they weren't entrusted to sell. So it isn't really that obvious, blatent, or cut and dry... You know, your opinion is one thing, facts are another!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Intent to deceive, as I think of it, means intending to induce the other party to take an action that is to their detriment. Literally, yes, you could say in a vacuum that ML wanted bidders to keep bidding, but then you're divorcing the exercise from the whole point of fraud law.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

He has an opinion!!! Let's all gather round and sing Kumbaya and he can tell us how great and important is voice is to be heard.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

He has an opinion!!! Let's all gather round and sing Kumbaya and he can tell us how great and important is voice is to be heard.

I cannot possibly follow your policy that anybody who does not share your amount of $'s, religious faith, and creed should not speak until you define these rules for all the disgusting poors and sinners.

How much money must one have to express an opinion in a place you are? Is that in raw cash on hand or net work?

What religious view must I have to have an opinion worthy of expression?

What creed(s) must I follow for your approval?

Enquiring minds want to know