Thread
Outrageous
I awoke this morning to find an email notification that there had been a new post in one of our more popular threads here in the Compact Mac Forum. (I will refrain from mentioned the title of that thread so as to avoid trouble.) Upon clicking the link in that email this morning, which should normally take me to the new post, I was met with a "The topic or post you requested does not exist" error. Clearly, the entire thread has either been hacked or moved to another forum section or it was deleted.
It would be nice to hear a formal explanation from the overseers of this site as to what took place. And while I am not worrying too much that our other threads will be met with a similar fate, it does me make think twice about posting here until I know for certain.
Thank you.
It would be nice to hear a formal explanation from the overseers of this site as to what took place. And while I am not worrying too much that our other threads will be met with a similar fate, it does me make think twice about posting here until I know for certain.
Thank you.
It has been removed. We had a complaint about the naming, shaming and general slanderous comments made towards eBay sellers for listing their items with high prices. The matter is being looked into, and we appreciate your patience. For the time being, please refrain from starting another of that type of thread.
Thanks.
Thanks.
We shall humbly refrain, of course. But due to the cryptic details on precisely why it was deleted, please allow me to offer my best guess...
Certain vintage Mac EBAY sellers were mentioned by name in that thread. Those names appeared in Google because this forum is indexed by Google. At least one of those sellers in the past found our informative thread and then decided to masquerade as one of us and began posting in the now-deleted thread. That seller in disguise later got upset and stopped posting. A few months went by, and his overpriced goods would not sell on EBAY, so he assumed his potential buyers were Googling up less than stellar info about him -- info that led back to our poor thread. He blew his top and threatened the owners of this site. The owners immediately backed down, and rather than locking the thread to prevent future posts and posting a polite note as to why it was being lock, the thread was deleted without a public statement.
If that is what happened, it would be reassuring if it were publicly stated more plainly from the owner's of this site. Because once again, we certainly do not want to spend time posting here in fear of those posts (how innocent they were intended to be) are at some point deleted because someone selfish makes an idle threat. I know how depressed and down right discouraged I was when I lost so many hours of posts due to a server HD crash, so I don't wish to see something similar happen in the form of increase thread deletions in the future.
Please also know that I did not start that thread, nor did I submit the last couple posts either. But I did find the thread informative. So for those of you who never read the thread but are now reading this, it perhaps matters little to you at this point. But if you wish to know who to be cautious with on EBAY, please simply PM me and I shall be happy to offer all the information I can, privately.
EBAY can be a dangerous place to shop. It is therefore a real blessing to be able to share helpful information with other Classic Mac fans if possible. I certainly wish others had warned me in the past about certain sellers before I sent them my money.
Happy & Safe Classic Macing!
Certain vintage Mac EBAY sellers were mentioned by name in that thread. Those names appeared in Google because this forum is indexed by Google. At least one of those sellers in the past found our informative thread and then decided to masquerade as one of us and began posting in the now-deleted thread. That seller in disguise later got upset and stopped posting. A few months went by, and his overpriced goods would not sell on EBAY, so he assumed his potential buyers were Googling up less than stellar info about him -- info that led back to our poor thread. He blew his top and threatened the owners of this site. The owners immediately backed down, and rather than locking the thread to prevent future posts and posting a polite note as to why it was being lock, the thread was deleted without a public statement.
If that is what happened, it would be reassuring if it were publicly stated more plainly from the owner's of this site. Because once again, we certainly do not want to spend time posting here in fear of those posts (how innocent they were intended to be) are at some point deleted because someone selfish makes an idle threat. I know how depressed and down right discouraged I was when I lost so many hours of posts due to a server HD crash, so I don't wish to see something similar happen in the form of increase thread deletions in the future.
Please also know that I did not start that thread, nor did I submit the last couple posts either. But I did find the thread informative. So for those of you who never read the thread but are now reading this, it perhaps matters little to you at this point. But if you wish to know who to be cautious with on EBAY, please simply PM me and I shall be happy to offer all the information I can, privately.
EBAY can be a dangerous place to shop. It is therefore a real blessing to be able to share helpful information with other Classic Mac fans if possible. I certainly wish others had warned me in the past about certain sellers before I sent them my money.
Happy & Safe Classic Macing!
The solution is to Google-proof any specific mentions of the said eBay sellers.
So, for example, instead of "eBay seller stuffnthings234 is a rip off", you should say "eBay seller stuffREMOVEnthings234 is a rip off (take out REMOVE)".
So, for example, instead of "eBay seller stuffnthings234 is a rip off", you should say "eBay seller stuffREMOVEnthings234 is a rip off (take out REMOVE)".
I found a picture I posted here in google when i was searching Sony Vaios...
It showed my pic of the garbage picked iMac G4 but the keywords were Sony Vaio... Kinda creepy when you think about it.
It showed my pic of the garbage picked iMac G4 but the keywords were Sony Vaio... Kinda creepy when you think about it.
Self-censorship is the worst kind.
IMHO, threads like the one in question are not only valuable, but essential to the operation of both the free market and democracy, protected under law (IANAL) and ought be defended with vigour.
IMHO, threads like the one in question are not only valuable, but essential to the operation of both the free market and democracy, protected under law (IANAL) and ought be defended with vigour.
Bunsen, you are right on the money. But "Sys-Ops Commander" used the word "slander" in his post above. He used it in the legal sense such that I believe the EBAY seller who lodged the dastardly complaint likely said he would "sue" over having been slandered unless the thread was removed. This is just a guess, but we cannot do anything other than guess while details remain thin from "upper management" here at 68kMLA.
Because much of the information presented in our now defunct thread was by and large "factual" (as opposed to flat out lies), it would be difficult if not impossible to win a Slander or Libel case against 68kMLA or any posters here. But in this day and age, the mere "threat" of legal action causes most people to cower in a corner without giving it a further thought.
Despite this, "Sys-Ops Commander" said the situation was still under investigation. So I look forward to hearing the result of that.
Because much of the information presented in our now defunct thread was by and large "factual" (as opposed to flat out lies), it would be difficult if not impossible to win a Slander or Libel case against 68kMLA or any posters here. But in this day and age, the mere "threat" of legal action causes most people to cower in a corner without giving it a further thought.
Despite this, "Sys-Ops Commander" said the situation was still under investigation. So I look forward to hearing the result of that.
Search adoptamac.com on Google Images. Tons of 68kMLA forum images come up. They are really missing the mark lately with the Image search.
Owners of forums and other internet/online services are not liable (at least in the USA) for the actions of their members. A slander case would be pursued against the poster(s), not the forum operator.
We can surmise this is being hotly debated in the War Room since the icon is lighting up quite frequently in the past few hours.
We can surmise this is being hotly debated in the War Room since the icon is lighting up quite frequently in the past few hours.
Mmm. Nuisance suit is nuisancey.
On the other hand, calling his bluff should be an option on the table as well. I imagine 95% of lawyers would laugh him out of their office.
Even if he did find a gullible/greedy/stupid enough lawyer, the first step is always a cease and desist letter. That's the point at which you even consider pulling the material
On the other hand, calling his bluff should be an option on the table as well. I imagine 95% of lawyers would laugh him out of their office.
Even if he did find a gullible/greedy/stupid enough lawyer, the first step is always a cease and desist letter. That's the point at which you even consider pulling the material
So much for freedom of speech and the right to assemble...
Yeah I started the thread. What of it? I also posted the last few posts. So? If I recall, and since the thread has been removed I can't confirm it, there was no slander, just opinion about how highly priced certain sellers are compared to the market and other sellers who sell similar items for far less. I've seen far worse opinion on this site regarding Microsoft and Apple. Obviously Microsoft doesn't feel threatened by 68Kmla. And Apple probably could care less if we exist or not.
I don't recall any flat out accusations, rather, humorous musings and theories regarding the intent behind the exorbitant prices. If Google turns the spotlight on such sellers vis-a-vis this forum, it only demonstrates to potential buyers what we in the vintage Mac community think about the prices being charged and their relation to the market, not necessarily what we think of the seller or his selling practices. This is no different than the thousands of comments made about Microsoft all over the internet. Nor is this much different than the dozens of negative reviews I have read on Amazon pages, many targeted at the manufacturer. eBay enjoys a uniquely protected environment where only the two aspects of the transaction are rated: did the item ship, was it as advertised, with the seller protected against any unrelated negative feedback. eBay has even removed neutral feedback, leaving a conscientious buyer who is also trying to build their own feedback with little choice but to mark a less than satisfactory transaction as positive in order to avoid the last un-trumpable word by the seller.
So, clearly I think any threats of slander against this website are humorous at best. If someone posted "seller X IS a lier and a cheat", well then maybe there would be some cause for worry, but simply saying "seller X charges more than anybody else on eBay" is a legitimate statement of fact and speculating why that might be is no more slander than wondering if Steve Jobs is really sick and will soon leave Apple rudderless.
Oh well my two cents. Perhaps the "politically correct" thread should be titled: "Collecting Macs". Rather than point out how outrageous certain eBay auctions are, post a list of eBay sellers who specialize in vintage Apple products as a "service" to our members who are looking to acquire vintage Macs for their personal collections. Such a thread could then list the market prices one should expect to pay and the conditions that exist and what to watch out for rather than pointing out any specific examples. That of course does not prevent us from posting any find we think notable, without further commentary. Certainly we could comment on the quality of the item being listed without mentioning the seller specifically or whether it was overpriced? That would certainly be just as helpful as the rancorous tone the other thread tended to take on.
UPDATE:However, I have to conclude by saying, I feel a first amendment right (even though this is an international forum to which that term does not universally apply) has been violated by outside individuals by not being able to freely express opinion in a membership-based forum and discuss anything I damn well please within the accepted guidelines of the on-line community in which I participate. Certainly the moderators are well within their rights to protect themselves, but for any public individual to think they have the right to censor what is said about them always insults me – and lets face it once you start a business and put yourself out there in an international market, you are a public figure who has forfeited most of the personal rights a private individual possesses (at least in the US).[/u] Frankly if anyone feels something slanderous is being said about them, calling forth the lawyers without first directly challenging the person who made the accusation in the first place, is simply wrong. That's what's wrong with the world. It is a simple matter of becoming an anonymous member, as JDW points out it has likely been done before, and PM-ing the offending party. Most likely to avoid trouble, any seemingly improprieties might have been edited out by most of us. But I don't think that is the goal here. I think avoiding any hint of criticism about eBay practices is what is sought here and the entire thread is therefore "slanderous", specific references to names is what in their eyes make it possible to go to the moderators and have the whole thing quashed once and for all. Besides, that person or persons would have to contact an awful lot of us to remove specific remarks, which begs the question ... if so many people are individually complaining about the same thing, how can it be slander?
I don't recall any flat out accusations, rather, humorous musings and theories regarding the intent behind the exorbitant prices. If Google turns the spotlight on such sellers vis-a-vis this forum, it only demonstrates to potential buyers what we in the vintage Mac community think about the prices being charged and their relation to the market, not necessarily what we think of the seller or his selling practices. This is no different than the thousands of comments made about Microsoft all over the internet. Nor is this much different than the dozens of negative reviews I have read on Amazon pages, many targeted at the manufacturer. eBay enjoys a uniquely protected environment where only the two aspects of the transaction are rated: did the item ship, was it as advertised, with the seller protected against any unrelated negative feedback. eBay has even removed neutral feedback, leaving a conscientious buyer who is also trying to build their own feedback with little choice but to mark a less than satisfactory transaction as positive in order to avoid the last un-trumpable word by the seller.
So, clearly I think any threats of slander against this website are humorous at best. If someone posted "seller X IS a lier and a cheat", well then maybe there would be some cause for worry, but simply saying "seller X charges more than anybody else on eBay" is a legitimate statement of fact and speculating why that might be is no more slander than wondering if Steve Jobs is really sick and will soon leave Apple rudderless.
Oh well my two cents. Perhaps the "politically correct" thread should be titled: "Collecting Macs". Rather than point out how outrageous certain eBay auctions are, post a list of eBay sellers who specialize in vintage Apple products as a "service" to our members who are looking to acquire vintage Macs for their personal collections. Such a thread could then list the market prices one should expect to pay and the conditions that exist and what to watch out for rather than pointing out any specific examples. That of course does not prevent us from posting any find we think notable, without further commentary. Certainly we could comment on the quality of the item being listed without mentioning the seller specifically or whether it was overpriced? That would certainly be just as helpful as the rancorous tone the other thread tended to take on.
UPDATE:However, I have to conclude by saying, I feel a first amendment right (even though this is an international forum to which that term does not universally apply) has been violated by outside individuals by not being able to freely express opinion in a membership-based forum and discuss anything I damn well please within the accepted guidelines of the on-line community in which I participate. Certainly the moderators are well within their rights to protect themselves, but for any public individual to think they have the right to censor what is said about them always insults me – and lets face it once you start a business and put yourself out there in an international market, you are a public figure who has forfeited most of the personal rights a private individual possesses (at least in the US).[/u] Frankly if anyone feels something slanderous is being said about them, calling forth the lawyers without first directly challenging the person who made the accusation in the first place, is simply wrong. That's what's wrong with the world. It is a simple matter of becoming an anonymous member, as JDW points out it has likely been done before, and PM-ing the offending party. Most likely to avoid trouble, any seemingly improprieties might have been edited out by most of us. But I don't think that is the goal here. I think avoiding any hint of criticism about eBay practices is what is sought here and the entire thread is therefore "slanderous", specific references to names is what in their eyes make it possible to go to the moderators and have the whole thing quashed once and for all. Besides, that person or persons would have to contact an awful lot of us to remove specific remarks, which begs the question ... if so many people are individually complaining about the same thing, how can it be slander?
Mac128, a man after my own heart. My thoughts exactly, word by word.
Cheers,
Rick
Cheers,
Rick
Woah, dooooood, that is like SOOO not gnarly. Totally fascist censorship there dooood. We have a right to say anything we want on the internet and you're like oppressing us dooood. I mean what do you think the internet is, ordered civilisation? Next you'll be trying to censor the graffiti on the walls of the bog in the library, man. :lol:
Just to put it in perspective:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5677/planetshp6.jpg
Just to put it in perspective:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5677/planetshp6.jpg
Plus, most posts included a link to the auction in question! It isn't like anyone here made up an auction to discredit someone. Unlike most Wikipedia articles, we cited our sources and posted our opinions about the facts we saw (e.g. whether a price was too high or the description was wrong). I distinctly remember that some members tried to get sellers to correct erroneous statements, and posted commentary when that was not the case.
A key element to establishing a successful free market is providing information to buyers and sellers about pricing. Sellers trying to make out hand over fist on an old Plus, might get upset about that, and might make all the threats in the world. For me, the solution is not to remove the 'offending' information, but then again, I am not the administrator of this forum. But this is key... I am NOT the administrator.
If you read the rules...
... Tom was within his rights to delete the thread in question. So in terms of a first amendment violation, I don't really see how that applies, as we're all free to express our opinions in this space that we don't pay for, and we do so, knowing full well that some moderators can delete our posts on a whim, without any recourse. That's tough, and if you don't like that policy, take it up with a moderator or start your own community. Since the moderators / owners are the ones who can face financial / legal consequences for what happens on these forums, I can understand why they've reserved that right for themselves.
If a moderator systematically prohibited you from posting based on your political, religious, or Microsoft views, then maybe that would be more of a freedom of speech 'violation'. In any case, 68kmla forums are not the government, and none of us have any guaranteed freedoms on these boards, unless the operators choose to grant us some.
Seriously, if you want to start your own community that places restrictions on the abilities of moderators, I'd be the first to join. But until then, I'm happy to give someone else the ability to delete threads in exchange for providing this discussion board.
[EDIT: poor grammar]
istar1018, than you for quoting us the rules.
~tl, I sincerely apologize for having broken the forum rules by posting my query above in this thread. I neglected to read the rules which clearly ban such questioning of moderators in a public forum. Apologies to all others on this site as well who have been offended by my questioning of authority in this particular thread. My thanks go out to the administrators for providing us this fine medium to discuss our love -- classic Macs.
~tl, I sincerely apologize for having broken the forum rules by posting my query above in this thread. I neglected to read the rules which clearly ban such questioning of moderators in a public forum. Apologies to all others on this site as well who have been offended by my questioning of authority in this particular thread. My thanks go out to the administrators for providing us this fine medium to discuss our love -- classic Macs.
JDW, unless a post of yours above has been deleted and I missed it, your sarcastic post is somewhat pointless.
Bunsen, I had expected most everyone reading my words above and accept them at face value and understand that I was being 100% sincere. As such, your accusation is tantamount to a digital slap in my face. Even so, it is an wicked world in which we live, so I can understand why you would not expect me to be apologetic. But please know it is not my intention to break forum rules and thereby initiate the wrath of our moderators. With that in mind, I posted my apology above. And no, it is not my intention to "kiss up" to anyone either. I was sincere in apologizing, nothing more.
For what it's worth, you will note that my apologies above do not extend to the EBAY sellers in question. (I had hoped someone would notice that without my expressing saying it.) Any information discussed in our now-defunct thread was well researched and factual. If anything, it served to inform and even "protect" our classic Mac community rather than mercilessly go after "innocent" profiteers on EBAY. But what is done is done, and I have nothing further to say about it.
For what it's worth, you will note that my apologies above do not extend to the EBAY sellers in question. (I had hoped someone would notice that without my expressing saying it.) Any information discussed in our now-defunct thread was well researched and factual. If anything, it served to inform and even "protect" our classic Mac community rather than mercilessly go after "innocent" profiteers on EBAY. But what is done is done, and I have nothing further to say about it.
Just a quick remark en passant.
I've been thinking, and what happened behind the scenes must have been something unexpected and unusual. I've been around here enough time to notice that this is usually a well-balanced place, where moderators rarely have to enforce rules, and generally the atmosphere is friendly and collaborative. The proof lies in the very existence of this thread which, strictly according to the Rules, could have been entirely suppressed before even growing.
So, what happened with the eBay-related thread must have been unusual. In any case, I hope the moderators/administrators will be able to sort things out.
Cheers,
Rick
I've been thinking, and what happened behind the scenes must have been something unexpected and unusual. I've been around here enough time to notice that this is usually a well-balanced place, where moderators rarely have to enforce rules, and generally the atmosphere is friendly and collaborative. The proof lies in the very existence of this thread which, strictly according to the Rules, could have been entirely suppressed before even growing.
So, what happened with the eBay-related thread must have been unusual. In any case, I hope the moderators/administrators will be able to sort things out.
Cheers,
Rick
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.
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
Ahh, the good ol' days.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.
They can take my Torx driver set when they pry it from my cold, dead hands, comrades!
(this post deleted)
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!
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
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
My apologies for my apparent misreading. I don't see any "rules" you have broken, or "wrath" you have incurred, though; hence my misunderstanding