Can I get a lil ethics here?

"Thomas A." wrote in message
...
anonymous wrote:
For a longstanding tribute to Bob F., RWF, FWDixon et al:

http://www.tomswiftlives.com/who_is_...sterious_other

I find this somewhat disturbing. But probably not for the reasons you
think.

The "author" of that page is a little scumbag named Scott Dickerson.
He's obsessed with me since I got links to his site taken off Wikipedia.

On Jul 13, 3:19�pm, "Bob F." wrote:
"Thomas A." wrote in message

...

anonymous wrote:
For a longstanding tribute to Bob F., RWF, FWDixon et al:

http://www.tomswiftlives.com/who_is_...sterious_other

I find this somewhat disturbing. �But probably not for the reasons you
think.

The "author" of that page is a little scumbag named Scott Dickerson.
He's obsessed with me since I got links to his site taken off Wikipedia.

Wow! It sure sounds like this guy has nailed Finnan! It takes
a little scumbag to catch a little scumbag?

On Jul 12, 5:36 am, bri wrote:
An old widow walks into a coin dealer with a large amount of raw
coins ... I'm tired of reading about coin dealers *finding* rare coins after
they buy them for melt value ...

bri has not returned to reply, perhaps not intending to, or perhaps
receiving as little ethics as expected from the artificial challenge.

As noted, the "little old lady" symbol is an irrelevant emotionalism.
That is just one of very many fallacies packed into a single long
paragraph. The dealer did not ask for contact information at the time
of sale. Some states specifically require it. Some dealers do it
routinely. Some customers resent the intrusion. The outcome can
depend as much on chance as ethics.

If the little old lady were replaced by the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve would we expect him to be more savvy about money?

That is not a moot point. My grandparents were all immigrants, no
surprise in that. And my mother's parents lived in the coal fields of
West Virginia for about ten years. My grandmother changed money
typically paying 75 cents US for one dollar in company store tokens.
That is why in 1932 when other people were losing their homes, my
grandparents moved to Cleveland and bought one.

Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Depression is just anger without enthusiasm."

"Mike Marotta" wrote in message
...

If the little old lady were replaced by the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve would we expect him to be more savvy about money?


Irrelevant, as you say.

Is it OK to take advantage of someone? I think that is the point.

There are two types of people in the dealer's situation:
Those who congratulate themselves for fleecing someone.
Those who do not fleece someone because it is the wrong thing to do.

On Jul 14, 8:56*am, "PC" wrote:
"Mike Marotta" wrote in message

...



If the little old lady were replaced by the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve would we expect him to be more savvy about money?

Irrelevant, as you say.

Is it OK to take advantage of someone? *I think that is the point.

There are two types of people in the dealer's situation:
Those who congratulate themselves for fleecing someone.
Those who do not fleece someone because it is the wrong thing to do.

Odd, but I didn't quite get that from the story. It actually appeared
that both parties were at least careless. Despite this, both parties
benefited more than they might have.

"Peter" wrote in message
...


Despite this, both parties benefited more than they might have.

I didn't get that at all from the story.

The woman was shafted on a really expensive coin. She could have gotten a
low ball price on the coin from anywhere. She probably would do better at
an auction on eBay with poor photos and a .01 opening bid. Yet she somehow
benefited from getting shafted?

On Jul 14, 10:33*am, "PC" wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message

...

Despite this, both parties benefited more than they might have.

I didn't get that at all from the story.

The woman was shafted on a really expensive coin. *She could have gotten a
low ball price on the coin from anywhere. *She probably would do better at
an auction on eBay with poor photos and a .01 opening bid. *Yet she somehow
benefited from getting shafted?

I guess it depends on what you think she deserves. Life gives us few
guarantees. I agree it is better if she gets as much as she should
for her coins. What does she deserve if she does not prepare herself
for a sale?

If someone does not identify herself, seems to know nothing about her
coins and accepts the first offer she receives without question, she
has not presented her case in its best light (the dealer may even
wonder if they are stolen in such a case). Having done that she
received more than the melt value for what the dealer hastily
(probably) judged as junk silver. Not everyone would be so generous;
eBay does not always reward careless descriptions with more than melt
value.

Both parties to the sale seem to have been careless (to me, at
leasst); it amuses me that they both did better than a careless person
might have.

"Peter" wrote in message
...


Both parties to the sale seem to have been careless (to me, at

BUT she did NOT commit an immoral act. BIG difference. She did not deserve
to be robbed.

On Jul 14, 11:46*pm, "PC" wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message

...

Both parties to the sale seem to have been careless (to me, at

BUT she did NOT commit an immoral act. *BIG difference. *She did not deserve
to be robbed.

If carelessness prevents you from knowing what a fair offer would be
and you do not provide a means to rectify a mistake that may have
occurred I don't see any case that there has been a robbery. As
others noted, the scale of the oversight is not quite clear from the
original statement of the case. Thousands of dollars sounds like a
lot, but what was the size of the transaction?

Morality and carelessness are quite close to one another. You say she
did nothing immoral; how do you know? If someone offers an item for
sale about which she seems to know nothing, does not identify herself
and takes the first offer how does that prove she is honest?

Morality and carelessness are quite close to one another. You say she
did nothing immoral; how do you know?
If someone offers an item for
sale about which she seems to know nothing, does not identify herself
and takes the first offer how does that prove she is honest?


I am only dealing with the facts we know. The dealer shafter HER. She did
not shaft the dealer. If she stole the coins prior to this story from a
starving orphan it is irrelevant towards the dealer's actions.

He shafted her. He is in the wrong.

Her actions prior are irrelevant.

She may bear some responsibility in the outcome but she did nothing immoral.

This is pretty easy for most people to understand.