I'm glad that Brian Dipert wrote: "What I blame Ebay for was a system that so easily enables accounts to be hijacked, and allows those accounts (and other accounts listing identical, obviously fraudulent auctions) to remain active weeks or months after complaints are received."
At first, I was confused. I thought that Brian was mad because when he chose to break a rule, it was OK (even though others might be penalized), and the problem only existed when the entity joining him in breaking the Ebay rule of his choice broke one of Brian's rules and Brian was penalized (read ripped off). Now I get it. Brian is mad because Ebay made it easy to break the rule he chose to break and won't penalize the entity Brian wants penalized. Let's see, does that mean he wants to eat his cake and have it too? I think so. Seems that there are grounds for Ebay to red card Brian and his cohort and rule them both off the game. But why should Ebay choose to believe Brian when Brian starts out by stipulating that he has broken Ebay's rules? Isn't there something about not lending credence to uncollaborated evidence given by a self-acknowledged co-conspiritor? Let's see. There was a woman walking down the street with her purse open and hanging from her shoulder. As he was walking by, someone else in the street noticed this and he helped himself to some of the contents of the purse. Are we to believe that it's the woman's fault the robbery occured because she made it easy for a dishoest person to reach into her purse? And if the person who stole from her gets ripped off by his fence, is this also ultimately the woman's fault? I'm not saying that this deal would have worked with no problems if everyone followed Ebay's rules. I am saying that if you break Ebay's rules why would you expect them to help you out? Larry (who has some crying towels available at $8 a piece or the incredible bargain of 3 for $25)
