I usually don't get involved in the "P---ing" Contests that periodically take place on this Board, but I have a couple of comments about this situation. I went back and read Mark Frietag's ebay descrition of the chip in question. Mark said " nice shape for it's age". I agree with you that "nice shape" is not an official description of a chip's condition, but I and most other collectors/dealers have used this as an informal comment on a particular chip's condition. The "for it's age" in Mark's descrption adds to and limits the "nice shape". The chip is around 50 years old and these chips are generally found in "worn" condition. This chip was a typical example of the condition that most of these chips are found in - i.e. "nice shape for it's age". Mark could have been more detailed and precise about the chip descrption, but I do not believe he was trying to "over grade" or misrepresent the chip.
You saw the "nice" part of the chip descrption and assumed the chip was "really good" (there I go again - not using an official condition descrption), but you did not interpret or take in to cosideration the "for it's age" additional description. My conclusion - Mark could have described the chip in greater detail and you over reacted to the "nice" descrption and expected more than was offered. I think you made way too big of an issue out of this - "matter of semantics". All the rest of your "rhetoric" was a by product of the original misunderstanding.
This is a great Hobby with a lot of great folks, but we ALL make mistakes from time to time. One minor incident between two individuals should not define either of them.
Till later,
Mr. Roulette