-
Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.
Outrageous
- Thread starter JDW
- Start date
Ah! Well, then I'm happy things are getting smoother lately. (Are they, right?) [Rick, obviously you haven't been here as long as some of the rest of us have, myself included. Back before the forum was restarted from scratch, things used to get a lot more rowdy among certain members.
] ]'>Cheers,
Rick
(this post deleted)
Last edited by a moderator:
I esteem all my fellow Mac lovers on 68kMLA, many of whom innocently participated in the now defunct thread. Indeed, many of the most respected members on this site posted in that thread. We are a diverse group, as all Mac users are. We have many ideas to share, which makes classic Mac computing so fun. I always felt that thread was created to "inform" rather than to "mock." And if my own zeal to help others in that thread -- as I myself would want to be helped -- offended any of you (excluding the EBAY sellers in question), then I do apologize.
It is most important that we stay united and put our community first, outsiders second. When a post or entire thread created by our fellow members here has offended us (or even offended outsiders), we still ought to use edifying words, restrained admonition, or perhaps just say nothing at all. Harsh words and meritless accusations can lead to a cancer among us that is far more dangerous than any thread on single thread on high EBAY prices could ever be. Let us therefore continue to support each other, love each other, help each other (even if we have to do it via PM), and enjoy our classic Macs to the fullest!
It is most important that we stay united and put our community first, outsiders second. When a post or entire thread created by our fellow members here has offended us (or even offended outsiders), we still ought to use edifying words, restrained admonition, or perhaps just say nothing at all. Harsh words and meritless accusations can lead to a cancer among us that is far more dangerous than any thread on single thread on high EBAY prices could ever be. Let us therefore continue to support each other, love each other, help each other (even if we have to do it via PM), and enjoy our classic Macs to the fullest!
Last edited by a moderator:
Really I feel like the thread mocked those sellers. A link to their auction was posted, they were ridiculed over their thought that they had something special (A Mac 128 made in 1983, for example) and then we warned against ever buying from them. I believe an educated buyer would be able to recognize a high price and avoid scams/ripoffs without being told.
As JDW pointed out, many of this forums members posted on that thread. Reading Scott Baret's and your post have both been somewhat enlightening. If you will indulge me a moment, when I first got my dog, it turns out he was barking all day when I was at work. The way I found out was one Saturday afternoon I got a phone call from my neighbor who apoplectic. He made horrible threats about what he would do if I did not silence my dog who had been barking incessantly for months. Well I was mortified, but my neighbor had done us both a disservice: first, by not mentioning it earlier, it made the job of training my dog much harder; second, he endured much annoyance and let it build up to a point where he could no longer even be civil about it.
I do believe as a community, we should endeavor to self-police the boards. Never once was that thread challenged by one of our established members. Perhaps if someone had spoken up, the tone of the thread might have taken a different direction.
As to your specific criticism, I remember that 1983 Mac. I remember the seller made claims that alluded to the fact it might be the only 1983 Mac left in the world. Again, much of the thread was to alert others to unsubstantiated hype. And that was a gross overstatement, designed only to mislead and build-hype and drive prices up. As far as warning anyone "against ever buying from them", I don't recall ever reading that written by anyone. Finally you yourself make our point for us:
You could not be more right. However, most buyers are NOT educated. Especially when it comes to eBay. We often see new Mac enthusiasts arrive at this forum only after buying their first Mac. By then it's too late, they've overpaid for their Mac and helped drive up the market. Buyer beware? You betcha', but where are they gonna get their information?
Lastly, I will point out that this forum regularly cuts Bill Gates and Microsoft NO slack. If anyone has never said a disparaging work against Microsoft on a public forum, please do feel free to stop by this thread and throw stones. Many say horrible slanderous things about Steve Jobs. Various tech companies are routinely raked across the coals in the most mocking and ridiculing of ways. I'm not sure how a seller on eBay, especially one in the "Super Seller" category in any way is exempt from the same criticisms, opinions and public dissection any other seller is. That said, some sellers actually benefitted from that thread. I recall a tirade launched against a $10,000 Lisa 1, which was more or less vindicated for actually being extremely rare thanks to the expertise of the members on this forum. Frankly, these sellers must be held accountable for their practices and they should explain themselves. While I don't necessarily agree with all of them, only one of the sellers whose name was mentioned actually explains his rationale behind charging some of his high prices. Could some of the opinions expressed in the now defunct thread have been handled more tactfully? Sure. But, the ability to post and criticize information about a public seller must not be denied. When the Soviets overthrew the government in Russia, one of the first things they did was shut down the newspapers and establish their own, so they could control the flow of information and perception of their actions. To remove the voice of the people to express their opinions about another's actions, especially a commercial vendor, is no different and leads to similar results.
Parting words: I just saw a 128K Mac on eBay listed for $950 with a crack in the case and two non-functioning 400K drives. The seller says it worked fine when he packed it away years ago as a selling point. Now how many of us so-called experts have discovered our perfectly working Macs packed away a few years ago now suddenly fail to boot? Am I really just supposed to ignore it and not offer my opinion? Clearly many others on this site are in agreement that such things are worthy of discussing, as much as finding some unique link posted for its novelty. Many of these links, such as an online System 7 emulator, are posted by our ranks and the creators of those sites are ridiculed and mocked by some members as well. Should we ban all criticism on this site? Should we only allow posts which offer praise and information only with no commentary? Then really what's the point?
I've been able to re-read large parts of the disappeared thread thanks to Google cached pages, and the impression I had from memory still remains: it was more informative than slanderous. Yes, there was the somewhat recurrent expression "This guy is nuts / insane / out of his mind to list item X at price Y" but it's a normal reaction when you see something outrageous (you know, when you see a pair of jeans that cost 250 Euros -- and there are -- you can't help uttering something along the lines of "this is insane!").
And yes, names of sellers were made, and examples (examples, not lies), but why not? It is useful information for the less educated buyers or wanna-be vintage Mac enthusiasts out there. There were also words of appreciation for certain listed systems, along the lines of "it's really in a very nice state, so the higher price is somewhat justified". Moreover, it's nothing new and something I have seen elsewhere, specifically in forums of vintage cars and film cameras collectors / enthusiasts.
In some aspects, vintage cameras share some similarities with vintage Macs when it comes to the used market. There are sellers out there overpricing old photographic gear that might be unusable or fixable only at a great expense. There are sellers claiming that their 1950s Canon rangefinder in black finish is super-rare and therefore valuable, when the expert's trained eye can recognise and point out that said "rare black Canon" was actually painted black at a later time and thus is not genuine. Sometimes the seller is not aware of this and claims rarity bona fide. Other times the seller is well aware of that and tries to deceive the ignorant enthusiast. It was thanks to a thread in a Leica forum that I could avoid being scammed by a dishonest seller.
With vintage Macs it's the same. On that thread we discussed why a certain Mac 128K wasn't as rare or valuable as pictured, or why asking a certain amount of money for a quasi-functional 25-year-old Mac was out of line. Yes, there was also the insinuation that, given such exaggerated prices, the seller may have been doing that to exploit vintage Mac collectors and enthusiasts, but, really, data and facts were speaking for themselves.
Many people here are experts in regard to vintage Mac hardware. These forums are abundant in useful information for the uninitiated (and even for experienced users) and it's a great service for the Mac community. I don't know what happened with the lost thread, but I know it was useful. Instead of make accusations in return, certain sellers should perhaps think again about their policies. But hey, in the end everyone is free to do what they want.
Cheers,
Rick
And yes, names of sellers were made, and examples (examples, not lies), but why not? It is useful information for the less educated buyers or wanna-be vintage Mac enthusiasts out there. There were also words of appreciation for certain listed systems, along the lines of "it's really in a very nice state, so the higher price is somewhat justified". Moreover, it's nothing new and something I have seen elsewhere, specifically in forums of vintage cars and film cameras collectors / enthusiasts.
In some aspects, vintage cameras share some similarities with vintage Macs when it comes to the used market. There are sellers out there overpricing old photographic gear that might be unusable or fixable only at a great expense. There are sellers claiming that their 1950s Canon rangefinder in black finish is super-rare and therefore valuable, when the expert's trained eye can recognise and point out that said "rare black Canon" was actually painted black at a later time and thus is not genuine. Sometimes the seller is not aware of this and claims rarity bona fide. Other times the seller is well aware of that and tries to deceive the ignorant enthusiast. It was thanks to a thread in a Leica forum that I could avoid being scammed by a dishonest seller.
With vintage Macs it's the same. On that thread we discussed why a certain Mac 128K wasn't as rare or valuable as pictured, or why asking a certain amount of money for a quasi-functional 25-year-old Mac was out of line. Yes, there was also the insinuation that, given such exaggerated prices, the seller may have been doing that to exploit vintage Mac collectors and enthusiasts, but, really, data and facts were speaking for themselves.
Many people here are experts in regard to vintage Mac hardware. These forums are abundant in useful information for the uninitiated (and even for experienced users) and it's a great service for the Mac community. I don't know what happened with the lost thread, but I know it was useful. Instead of make accusations in return, certain sellers should perhaps think again about their policies. But hey, in the end everyone is free to do what they want.
Cheers,
Rick
Last edited by a moderator:
Before we get carried away in a pointless thread, let us be sure of what it is that is being discussed. First, slander is oral in nature, and libel is written. In law and in usage, if it can be proven so, both have available the defence that they are true in content. Some of the content in the suppressed thread may have been scandalous (but not slanderous) in its attribution of motive to identifiable sellers, but injury to the seller is the criterion by which the remarks have to be tested, both in reason and in law.
Second, it is not possible to be slandered to one's face, nor libelled in a private written communication. It is the public nature of either alleged slander or libel that is potentially actionable, and even then the circumstances of the statements (eg, 'qualified privilege', in which the statements are accessible to and circulate amongst a limited circle to whom they are of demonstrably legitimate concern) may protect the originators of the statements.
Public figures with deep pockets may sometimes pursue actions for slander or libel more vigorously than lesser mortals can, both because those public figures can afford to do so and because they are (or believe themselves to be) public figures, and therefore have greater potential to be injured in reputation than has Joe Blow (or John Doe). To be 'defamed' carries the prerequisite to be 'famed' in the first place, or perhaps 'infamous' in some cases. However, there are many jurisdictions in which damage to a reputation has not been found to be of compensatable magnitude.
Let's be agreed to allow the storm about comments on overpriced and underdescribed offerings of old Macs to blow out in its teacup.
de
Second, it is not possible to be slandered to one's face, nor libelled in a private written communication. It is the public nature of either alleged slander or libel that is potentially actionable, and even then the circumstances of the statements (eg, 'qualified privilege', in which the statements are accessible to and circulate amongst a limited circle to whom they are of demonstrably legitimate concern) may protect the originators of the statements.
Public figures with deep pockets may sometimes pursue actions for slander or libel more vigorously than lesser mortals can, both because those public figures can afford to do so and because they are (or believe themselves to be) public figures, and therefore have greater potential to be injured in reputation than has Joe Blow (or John Doe). To be 'defamed' carries the prerequisite to be 'famed' in the first place, or perhaps 'infamous' in some cases. However, there are many jurisdictions in which damage to a reputation has not been found to be of compensatable magnitude.
Let's be agreed to allow the storm about comments on overpriced and underdescribed offerings of old Macs to blow out in its teacup.
de
Ah semantics. Of course we are dealing with libel here and not slander. Thank you for taking us to task for the proper use of the English language. Ultimately we are discussing the application of defamation in this instance.
Eventually this thread will die out as they all do. However, it seems the root of this debate must ultimately be addressed to yield satisfactory retirement. Ergo: will the thread be reinstated? If not, what rules will govern future such threads, or will such threads be prohibited? In particular, if I post a thread concerning a linked eBay auction, what, if any comments will I be able to make.
Once that determination is made, this thread will be of little concern. As istar1018 pointed out,
Clearly this thread is walking a fine line with respect to the policies of the forum. However, we have some leeway here since ~tl (Sys-Ops Commander) requests:
The result of that inquiry will at last put the matter behind us, for better or for worse. In the end, as equill points out, this thread is moot since we are all subject to the benevolence of the owners behind this forum both for maintaining and leading this community. Certainly they are within their rights to do anything they want, including not making, or posting a decision about the removed thread, or even remove this thread, which only seeks answers and understanding. I for one am grateful for this site and the people who make it possible. But, I would rather not have to wonder as to my limitations or timing for posting future such threads – threads which I believe this one demonstrates have a useful place within this community.
Semantics is one of the concerns of law, so I make no apology for pointing out the difference between slander and libel, their contexts, and that 'defamation' cannot affect a reputation that does not exist or is already at its nadir. Beyond that, to fear consequences of the expression of opinions in the original thread—opinions often supported by direct reference to the examples that gave rise to the opinions—is to succumb to the 'chilling' effect cited in the Wiki article to which you referred.
de
I agree that 68KMLA needs to delineate a clear policy in this regard. Coping with sharks on eBay is an important dimension of buying 68K Macs these days -- no matter if you're someone who likes messing around with the machines, or trying to get 'pristine' examples for your collection, or both, questions of authenticity, relative value, and the like need to be aired.
Sellers on eBay who are misrepresenting (through ignorance, greed, or both) what they've got is a valid topic. One of the main reasons I did the research for my site was to provide information that would help people trying to unravel some of the mish-mash that goes up for sale on eBay, after some bad experiences myself.
I mean, an original Macintosh, with all the packaging, manuals, and correct disks with part numbers that match the production date of the hardware, is worth whatever price two people can agree on. Depending on condition and the completeness of the package, it could be quite a lot. But buying up the components of such a package and then selling it as a whole is a much trickier proposition. If you've got a September 1984 machine with May 1984 disks in an April 1985 box, it's not as valuable as a complete package from any one of those periods (IMHO). We should be able to discuss it when sellers step over the line and misrepresent something like this.
Sellers on eBay who are misrepresenting (through ignorance, greed, or both) what they've got is a valid topic. One of the main reasons I did the research for my site was to provide information that would help people trying to unravel some of the mish-mash that goes up for sale on eBay, after some bad experiences myself.
I mean, an original Macintosh, with all the packaging, manuals, and correct disks with part numbers that match the production date of the hardware, is worth whatever price two people can agree on. Depending on condition and the completeness of the package, it could be quite a lot. But buying up the components of such a package and then selling it as a whole is a much trickier proposition. If you've got a September 1984 machine with May 1984 disks in an April 1985 box, it's not as valuable as a complete package from any one of those periods (IMHO). We should be able to discuss it when sellers step over the line and misrepresent something like this.
Perhaps a good idea would be to create a simple price guide for old Macs - let people know what they SHOULD be paying, either in wiki or PDF form, or as a sticky forum post. That way, people can then tell that most of the stuff on eBay being sold by these certain sellers are just overpriced.
I see our eBay seller (who shall remain nameless) is justifying his prices by stating that most (4 out of 5) Macs he buys through eBay are damaged in shipping, therefore his price is appropriate for undamaged systems. I've had several compacts shipped and certainly not had 80% of them damaged; there must be some awful packing going on nowadays 
