Originally Posted by
penwash
I simply disagree with the painting of Chris as "evil" and "greedy" just because he is selling something that he owned legally.
Just because you have made a legal sale does not remove the avarice from a particularly egregious transaction. As in this case.
And I'll go on record: I do not believe, for one blessed minute, that anyone who has pronounced this
opportunity to be of sound business ethics would not
themselves be mightily pissed off had they bought said item, only to find they had just been bent over and ravaged. Just all part of the game, eh, folks?
No, I don't think so.
But, hey, the OP is completely at ease with his stance, and still sees no harm whatsoever. And he'll maximize his profit on the next sucker to come along as soon as that opportunity appears, I have no doubt. Or, maybe I should just say "
I have a good suspicion." Then again, past performance is not an indicator of future returns.
Bookmarks