[sixtiesmuscle]

Much of what has been discussed here has been a matter of perception and interpretation. Like so many subjects that revolve around these types of arguments, there will always be two sides. Both can be right, and, both can be wrong, to certain degrees. This auction could [and should have] been handled differently, but, it seems the parties have apologized for any perceived deception, so, can't we get in the spirit of the season and cut them a little slack?

There is a situation in which I have found myself relating to a friend's car on Ebay. I knew his asking price, but, not his reserve. I did not want to pay that price, but, I did want to buy the car. Is it unethical for me to bid on this car to test the reserve, as well as, to try to discourage other bidders? I don't think so. As long as there is no collusion, and that's the key, I can bid anyway I want to in order to try to win that auction. Sometimes waiting until the very end works, but, sometimes you lose that way too. The whole auction concept is a game of strategies. I frankly don't buy the idea that other bidders can be "tricked" into bidding more than they "can afford". Then they shouldn't be bidding. Sometimes you get a great deal, and, sometimes you pay too much, but, it's always YOU who hits that submit bid button. If it's more than you want to spend, don't bid.

If this auction had a starting bid of 21.5, or, a "Buy it Now" near that, would we even be having this discussion? Again, should it have been handled in another fashion? Sure, but, let's not make it a death penalty case.