Xref: utzoo news.admin:2559 comp.sys.mac:17074 misc.forsale:1594
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!ames!amdahl!rtech!llama!daveb
From: daveb@llama.rtech.UUCP (It takes a clear mind to make it)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.sys.mac,misc.forsale
Subject: Re: 1 Mb SIMMs for sale
Summary: He claimed to be an altruist...
Message-ID: <2153@rtech.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jun 88 06:04:41 GMT
References: <2716@utastro.UUCP> <593@stech.UUCP>
Sender: news@rtech.UUCP
Reply-To: daveb@llama.UUCP (It takes a clear mind to make it)
Organization: Relational Technology, Inc. Alameda, CA
Lines: 38

In article <593@stech.UUCP> sysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) writes:
>in article <2716@utastro.UUCP>, werner@utastro.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) says:
>> In article <4980@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>, cooper@odin.ucsd.edu (Ken Cooper):
>>> To reiterate: four 1 Mb 120 ns SIMMs for sale. High bid after June 6 gets
>>> them. I am willing to package them in groups of 2 Mb if I find this to 
>>> be the best solution.
>> 
>> Wheras I have no problem with someone posting a "for-sale", I think that
>> it is abuse of the net to conduct a "bidding-war" as Mr. Cooper is doing
>> here.  He should not *ABUSE* Email for such things, nor should he post
>> updates as to the latest price offered...
>
>I agree with you about the bidding, but for a different reason. We all know
>that there is a drastic shortage of DRAMs. I think that this bidding business
>(and this isn't the first net to be infected with it) is taking an unfair
>advantage of something that hurts us all and that we can't control. I think
>it is simply unethical. (No, it's not illegal, just not very "nice".)
>

I don't think you can have it both ways.  Either *.{forsale ,market} is
prima facie unethical on Usenet, or you accept a seller's terms.  If the
sale isn't unethical, neither is charging "what the market will bear".

The original poster was very upfront with his desire to auction them off
to the highest bidder.  What's the problem?  It's not his fault that
they are in short supply, nor that someone might be desperate to pay a
very high price for immediate availability.  

The "news.admin" issue is defining the propriety of for sale postings. 
The tradition is that the forsale/market groups are for one shot items,
with permanent offers in newproducts.  It seems reasonable to take the
free market view and bless the postings.  The SIMMS offered are one
shot.  Where did anyone say forsale/market ads had to be for
unprofitable or even "fair" prices?  I, for one, don't want to try to
debate what constitute "fair" prices in a volatile spot market.

-dB
{amdahl, cpsc6a, mtxinu, sun, hoptoad}!rtech!daveb daveb@rtech.uucp