... for several reasons:

>> You can interpret eBay's response as being "gutless", or even go to the
>> extreme and assume that if they were to pull the auction, tney would lose the
>> Listing and Final Vlaue fees, so they let this stuff slide to make more
>> money.

Yep, let's go to that extreme, Michael, because that's exactly what is happening.

>> On the other hand, you can take their response, boilerplate that it is, for
>> exactly what it says "Although you may be extremely knowledgeable about these
>> types of items, we often cannot remove items upon the representations of
>> third parties whose credentials we cannot verify, unless of course the
>> alleged infringement is obvious on its face."

"... whose credentials we cannot verify ..." What a joke. They are NOT interested in verifying credentials. I have offered twice to make available expertise that is unimpeachable on the subject of casino chips. Credentials they CAN verify (not just mine, either). I never even got a response to that suggestion.

If "obvious on its face" was the appropriate standard to apply to fraud, deception, misrepresentation and deceit, we'd pretty much be at the mercy of the thieves, wouldn't we. By its very nature, fraud is NOT "obvious on its face".

>> As far as Jim's willingness to "warn" bidders by email, which is clearly
>> against eBay rules, we disagree on that one. No need to rehash the old "two
>> wrongs don't make a right" argument.

Let me pose a hypothetical question to you, Michael. If you saw someone kidnap a child off the street, do you think it would be "wrong" for you to break the law against speeding in order to chase the kidnapper to rescue the child? I assume you would think that okay, even though excessive speed is illegal and therefore "wrong". If so, our difference on the eBay subject is one only of degree, not kind.

The two "wrongs" which you posit are not equivalent. Fraud and misrepresentation are at least unethical, perhaps even criminal. Writing to bidders to advise them of the true nature of an auction is (perhaps) a violation of a procedural rule made up and imposed by eBay for the sole purpose of protecting revenues. There is nothing inherently "wrong" in telling someone that he is about to be ripped off by a scam artist. On the contrary, in the real world, we'd call that "being a good citizen".

BTW, I never tell anyone they shouldn't bid, shouldn't pay for an item they have bid on or anything else about what they should do. I provide accurate information about the true nature of the item involved, nothing more. What the bidder does with the information I provide is up to the bidder. I am not writing for the purpose of "interfering" with the auction; for that reason, I am of the opinion that such a contact is NOT a violation of eBay's rules.

>> Readers of this thread may want to remember that they might not have Jim's
>> legal resources to fight what is a suspendible offense.

This is a valid point, Michael. I wouldn't suggest that anyone else follow my example, though I welcome anyone who cares to do so. ----- jim o\-S