Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't want any result here. I am simply stating my opinion, which happens to be informed by decades of experience which I am sure you will disregard as some sort of "appeal to authority" which it is not.

I am using the dictionary definition of words. You are using your experience to define what a word means instead, rejecting dictionaries. Yes, I am sure it is my route that is fallacious







If the defense of Memory Lane relies on

1) Rejecting the dictionary

or

2) Following Republican Clown's religious values and/or having a flex off with him over who has more money

or

3) an unseen insurance policy/choice/decision with no precedent in all of human history and that is obviously fiction

One might start to conclude that the difficulty in finding a reasonable argument is an indicator that something doesn't make sense here.

Can anyone put forth an argument for Memory Lane that, while it will surely differ with other posters over the values placed on honesty, disclosure and forthrightness in that the argument will have to reject them implicitly, is at least a serious argument that does not rely on absurdities that absolutely nobody here would accept if it didn't benefit what they want to benefit? None of the defenses would be accepted if it was me doing the fake auction and I made them, and we surely all know that on some level. Surely a better case can be made.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am using the dictionary definition of words. You are using your experience to define what a word means instead, rejecting dictionaries. Yes, I am sure it is my route that is fallacious







If the defense of Memory Lane relies on

1) Rejecting the dictionary

or

2) Following Republican Clown's religious values and/or having a flex off with him over who has more money

or

3) an unseen insurance policy/choice/decision with no precedent in all of human history and that is obviously fiction

One might start to conclude that the difficulty in finding a reasonable argument is an indicator that something doesn't make sense here.

Can anyone put forth an argument for Memory Lane that, while it will surely differ with other posters over the values placed on honesty, disclosure and forthrightness in that the argument will have to reject them implicitly, is at least a serious argument that does not rely on absurdities that absolutely nobody here would accept if it didn't benefit what they want to benefit? None of the defenses would be accepted if it was me doing the fake auction and I made them, and we surely all know that on some level. Surely a better case can be made.

Your arrogance does not serve you well here nor does your mocking, faux incredulous tone. I would take my decades of experience in the real legal world over the dictionary all day every day. As I've stated I'm no fan of ML and have no agenda here. But I don't see this as fraud.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your arrogance does not serve you well here nor does your mocking, faux incredulous tone. I would take my decades of experience in the real legal world over the dictionary all day every day.

To be fair, I can’t think of a way to not sound mocking when the ideas are this ridiculous. When your argument hinges on rejecting the dictionary so you can pretend that lying to thousands of bidders is not deceiving them… what am I supposed to say? That’s comically ridiculous and we would all know that if it wasn’t someone we didn’t like doing the deceiving. I am actually somewhat incredulous this is the path you want to take to justify this farce. You don’t usually embrace completely fictions in these debates and reject the dictionary. You surely actually know that lying to people is deceitful. Your arrogance in putting yourself over the dictionary and pretending lying is not deceitful does not serve you well.


I have no doubt you and many others would and do take what they like over objectivity and appeal to themselves. Appealing to oneself only really works to oneself though.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by G1911

To be fair, I can’t think of a way to not sound mocking when the ideas are this ridiculous.

Then walk away knowing that you won.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Then walk away knowing that you won.

Would be impossible for him, because opinions are just that, more so one's based on fiction. A world where he bid on one of the 54 lots and won...but didn't get the item and takes ML to court in a stunning victory

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

To be fair, I can’t think of a way to not sound mocking when the ideas are this ridiculous. When your argument hinges on rejecting the dictionary so you can pretend that lying to thousands of bidders is not deceiving them… what am I supposed to say? That’s comically ridiculous and we would all know that if it wasn’t someone we didn’t like doing the deceiving. I am actually somewhat incredulous this is the path you want to take to justify this farce. You don’t usually embrace completely fictions in these debates and reject the dictionary. You surely actually know that lying to people is deceitful. Your arrogance in putting yourself over the dictionary and pretending lying is not deceitful does not serve you well.


I have no doubt you and many others would and do take what they like over objectivity and appeal to themselves. Appealing to oneself only really works to oneself though.

Hmmmm. Well, a lot of people in this thread seem to agree with me that this was not fraud, but doubtless you dismiss them too as self-serving or self-deluded or whatever. And just to correct something I am not putting myself over anything, I am analyzing a case based on my experience. To have faith in one's judgment based on experience is not arrogance.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Hmmmm. Well, a lot of people in this thread seem to agree with me that this was not fraud, but doubtless you dismiss them too as self-serving or self-deluded or whatever. And just to correct something I am not putting myself over anything, I am analyzing a case based on my experience. To have faith in one's judgment based on experience is not arrogance.

You also know an appeal to popularity is not logical, and you would not accept that as reasonable if you had a minority opinion. A thing is not right or wrong because 51% think so (or 51% who clear a certain wealth threshold). If I thought that Memory Lane’s fraudulent action is just fine because a majority here may support it, I would have to endorse a whole bunch of horrible things.

Surely there is an actual argument here instead of pretending the dictionary is wrong and lying is not deceitful and your experience is paramount to the language. If I made an argument hinging on how my experience overcomes the dictionary, you’d know I was being a fool and wrong. Can we just have a point made that is not palpably absurd? As I’ve said before the ‘maybe the cops told them too’ is a much better defense, because the vast majority of the actual arguments made in this thread cannot be defended without blatant falsehoods and rejections of the dictionary of the last two pages. It is not that hard to make logically consistent arguments in favor of unethical things.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

You also know an appeal to popularity is not logical, and you would not accept that as reasonable if you had a minority opinion. A thing is not right or wrong because 51% think so (or 51% who clear a certain wealth threshold). If I thought that Memory Lane’s fraudulent action is just fine because a majority here may support it, I would have to endorse a whole bunch of horrible things.

Surely there is an actual argument here instead of pretending the dictionary is wrong and lying is not deceitful and your experience is paramount to the language. If I made an argument hinging on how my experience overcomes the dictionary, you’d know I was being a fool and wrong. Can we just have a point made that is not palpably absurd? As I’ve said before the ‘maybe the cops told them too’ is a much better defense, because the vast majority of the actual arguments made in this thread cannot be defended without blatant falsehoods and rejections of the dictionary of the last two pages. It is not that hard to make logically consistent arguments in favor of unethical things.

To me, you're being overly literal and pedantic rather than focused on the realities of the situation including that ML had no intent to injure anyone and did not injure anyone. When next you see a fraud case where the dictionary prevailed over those two factors, do tell me.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, you're being overly literal and pedantic rather than focused on the realities of the situation including that ML had no intent to injure anyone and did not injure anyone. When next you see a fraud case where the dictionary prevailed over those two factors, do tell me.

Intent to injure is not what you said or what we have been talking about. You argued repeated organized lying to hundreds of bidders was not intent to deceive. I am not using a pedantic thing or an archaic definition, anyone with common sense knows damn well organized lying is deceitful. Only here do we pretend we can’t figure that out