Well I see that you responded to Reilly's posting and he pretty much summed up what i had to say, but I figured you'd probably enjoy the fact that Reilly was not the first lawyer you spoke to in this thread. Looking at your writing I suspect you'd have made a good lawyer (but that is a fate I would not wish on my worst enemy and certainly not on you).

Interestingly enough, I only once wrote to bidders to warn them of a seller. It was a non-chip item. Every bidder I wrote to thanked me for the information. some of them wrote to the seller some of them wrote back to me to tell me what he had said. Some of them backed out of the auction others did not.

A short time later that Seller was suspended from Ebay.

I have never suggested that the rules don't apply to me. If Ebay wishes to suspend or terminate my account, so be it. I'll be able to sleep at night. clearly these things are trivial, but the fact of the matter is that sometimes we have to ignore rules and sometimes the rules which compel us are in direct opposition to each other.

I was about to list some great people from history who did that, but comparing their actions to this is demeaning to them. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying.

Interestingly enough Michael, in my dealings with you I have seen you violate an Ebay rule. Certainly nothing which suggests fraud (except maybe in the eyes of Ebay shareholders) and I have no doubt about your honesty and I recommend you to every collector.

While I fully support the right of Ebay to enforce its rules, I also believe that its rules should not be considered a basis to ignore the Principals of Ethics and Justice which compel us to do what is right.

Despite what Jim Reilly says, I do encourage every person to disobey Ebay rules when obedience to the rule would result in promoting a fraud upon innocent people.

I hope that you are never place in that position. But I think that if you are, you will do what is right.