On Feb 20, 2:41 pm, "RWF" wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:42 pm, wrote:

No, as a matter of fact the
best used book dearlers do NOT charge cover
price for a paperback simply because it looks
like new.

Palmjob, you drooling imbecile, the whole point of your post was that
the dealer in question was not ranked among "the best used book
dearlers".
You really should pay attention.

Stop trying to wriggle out of the embarrassing
consequences of your assault on our reader's
intelligence. Anyone reading my posts on this
thread can see I have referred to two different
dealers. And, as a matter of fact, both have
their good points. The first I referred to was
the oddball who orders new paperbacks from
distributors and mixes them in with his used
books. That's fine, if he wants to do that,
but he should expect that customers will
regularly ask him if a paperback is new,
or "used, like new." Of course, if it is the
latter, and the paperback is not out-of-print,
customers will not expect to pay new book
prices.

The other used book dealer I referred to was
the once who charges a flat 50 percent of
cover for paperbacks. That was where
you started blathering some nonsense to the
effect that he was foolish for charging only
half price for a paperback which looked new.
You proved you were too dim to grasp the
fact that a consistent pricing policy regarding
used paperbacks (whether they look brand
new or not) serves him better than a policy of
grsping for cover price simply because a used
paperback looks new. Say, you ARE incredibly
dim-witted aren't you? I realized from glancing
through some of your previous posts posts that
you were no Einstein, to say the least. but
now that you have been making a fool of
yourself over and over on this thread with your
feeble arguments and puerile name-calling
fits, it has become plain that you are a
certifiable dullard. Have a WONDERFUL
day.

[Memo from the upstairs office.]