eBay vrs42?

[vrs]

From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf at siconic.com>
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, vrs wrote:
> > > > If, as a consequence, the Rembrandt goes for $1 (or any other
rediculous
> > > > price), I would say that was clearly unfair to the seller.
> > >
> > > Unfair?  It depends on what side you're on.  Unethical or illegal?
Not at
> > > all.
> >
> > OK, you lost me.  How can fairness depend on which side you're on and
still
> > be called fairness?
>
> PERHAPS it is unfair to the seller, because they didn't get what they
> might have wanted, but it is fair to the buyer, because they scored big
> time.

Then we have identified a difference in our usage of the term "fair".  I had
presumed fairness meant that everyone got what they were expecting.  I
believe a seller at auction has a right to a contest for his item.  That's
why he's agreed to be there.

    Vince