Jim, now that's much better, arguments clearly thought out, and much more worthy of a fine debater. My faith is restored.

Summary,

1. You think the auction interference rule is primarily in place to protect eBay's fees. I think the rule is in place to protect the community, both buyers and sellers, and the issue of fees was never a consideration. Without a "fly on the wall", we'll never know for sure. I am not so cynical about eBay, my experience with eBay staff is that they are just plain, decent folks, who are honestly doing their best to deal with a wide variety of issues. This whole online auction venue thing is totally new ground, there are no precedents to refer to, and eBay staff is constantly reviewing and revising their rule structure to adapt to a dynamic user base. Maybe some day the auction interference rule will come under review?

2. I believe, as eBay does, that allowing users to email bidders with "warnings" about auction descriptions would do more harm than good, to both buyers and sellers. You think what I call chaos is merely "free enterprise".

3. You concede that allowing sellers to email competitors bidders should remain outlawed, but feel that 3rd parties should be allowed to do so. I feel that from a practical standpoint, a rule like that would be easily circumvented, and only result in a different set of problems for the community. To me, it would just be replacing one "evil" with another, and would not represent an improvement to the community.

4. You take two simultaneous positions, auction interference is not wrong, and what you do is not actually auction interference. I now recognize the apparent contradiction for what it is, the hallmark of a true subversive! Sort of "picking your fights", right?

5. I agree that auction interference on eBay is not a "Club" issue, and I suppose it was unfair to link your candidacy with this issue. However, I feel that your eloquent response was probably enlightening to Club voters who might see a problem with a candidate for a leadership position advocating rule breaking. JR for president!

6. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with "long" posts.

Looking forward to the next round, although I think we've reached an impasse on the auction interference issue.