This is the reply I sent to Jo King:

Subject: Re: eBay lot 21841773; so-called "Nazi" poker chip

Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 22:23:39 -0700

From: runtam <runtam@pacbell.net>

To: Jo King <jo@ebay.com>

CC: Casino@Listserv.syr.edu

Dear Jo ----- Thank you for your reply to my CC of message to
Memolane. I am reproducing at the end of this message our previous
correspondence for reference purposes. <Did not post them here again. jim>

I have received a cooperative reply from Cindy at Memolane and she has
posted correct information regarding this chip as additional description
of the lot. I therefore have nothing further to say about this
particular problem. (She also advised me that Brad is no longer doing
the "computer work" at Memolane; just as well, in my opinion.)

However, this does not solve the problem of false or fraudulent
advertising on eBay. EBay is a wonderful service and I regret being in
an adversarial position with you. But, there is a clear right and wrong
here, and you have taken the "wrong" side.

Allow me to pose a question to you. I you were being attacked by
someone on the street and I tried to intervene, how would you feel if a
person in a position of authority ordered me to stop and said, "If the
attack is completed, then the person who is attacked can file a
complaint and we'll check into it."

Different situation you say. Perhaps in degree, but not in kind. False
and fraudulent advertising is a crime in the State of California. If
telephone lines are used to perpetrate the fraud, it is also a federal
offense. I don't have to see this chip to know that the lot description
is false, because it describes something which does not exist. Having
seen the scan, I know what the item really is and it is NOT a "WWII Nazi
chip", there being no such thing.

That being the case, the seller is either unaware of the true nature of
the item, in which case he should appreciate being advised of the true
state of affairs (as Cindy at Memolane appears to be), OR knows the true
nature and is intentionally engaged in false advertising (as I suspected
might be the case from my previous contact with Bookdealer). The
seller's response will almost always indicate which is the case.

My previous contact with Brad at Bookdealer/Memolane made it quite clear
that a polite inquiry to him would be of no practical use; hence my
confrontational message.

Your message says, "it is a violation of eBay policy to email the
bidders of another seller, even to 'warn' them about an item you believe
to be misrepresented". However, in your previous message, in response
to my specific inquiry on that issue, you failed to state any provision
in the eBay rules which makes such contact a "violation". Nor does your
current message contain reference to any such provision.

In brief, it is EVERYONE'S business to "protect others in this fashion",
whether doing so by advising bidders or challenging sellers. I
see this as somewhat like the Neighborhood Watch designed to prevent
crime on the street. It is NEVER inappropriate to watch out for our
friends and neighbors (even strangers).

In your previous message, you also said that non-interference is a
matter of "common courtesy" to other users -- which users would that
be, the
sellers or the buyers they are ripping off? I have received a number of
thank you messages from bidders who avoided being ripped off thanks to
my advice.

Also referring to your earlier message, I WOULD expect to be able to
dispute the authenticity of an item being offered at a live auction (the
circumstances of such auctions being somewhat different, it would of
course be possible to do so BEFORE the auction commenced -- a
possibility not afforded by the eBay auction format). And, I most
certainly WOULD expect to be able to stand outside the door to an
auction to warn potential bidders that items are being represented (it's
called freedom of speech).

It is patently ridiculous for eBay to take the position that a buyer
must be defrauded before eBay (or ANYONE ELSE) can take any action to
prevent the fraud. And if someone is ripped off, what "investigation"
will you conduct? And why can't you conduct such an "investigation"
before the ripping takes place?

Furthermore, if you take action to assist in the perpetration of a fraud
(even if that action is nothing more than preventing others from
exposing the fraud), then you might well be considered an aider and
abetter in the fraud. In that case, under California law, you become
equally liable for the criminal consequences. I believe eBay to be an
honest business and find it incomprehensible that you would put the
business in jeopardy by tolerating fraud -- or attempted fraud -- of any
kind.

I sent you a copy of my message to Memolane specifically to make it
clear that I am not trying to sneak around behind anyone's back.
However, I will not stand idly by and allow this fraud to be concluded
any more than I would stand around and allow any other crime to be
committed if I was capable of preventing it.

In your previous message, you indicated that this
Brad/Bookdealer/Memolane person had a number of other user ID's and
provided a list of 10 such names. You also indicated that you were
"currently investigating that situation". I have heard nothing further
from you on that subject and would appreciate being advised of the
results of your further investigation (as well as being provided with a
response to my inquiry whether having multiple user ID's is against eBay
rules).

Sincerely, Jim Reilly