>>>.. but rather that he did NOT reveal that the rarity information in that outdated guide

The guide in question is the current edition of a still available, widely used, and well received pricing guide. "Outdated" is a subjective term and you are stating as fact what is clearly only your opinion.

>>>was NO LONGER ACCURATE. That being the case, the VALUE which he cited was, IMO, misleading.

Chip values are entirely subjective. You can't say what is accurate and what is not and be any more correct than the guide for which you find fault. Your presumption that the TCR (or any other guide) is "more accurate" is simply ludicrous and you have no basis (and certainly no expertise) for making such a claim.

>>>the more disappointing that he was not entirely forthcoming with respect to the chips under discussion.

He states a value and the widely available source for which that value was determined.

If a seller knows that a chip with a TCR value of $100 sold on ebay for $20 the month before, is he required to disclose that fact in his auction or be in violation of the code of ethics for having "superior knowledge"? Does that auction make the TCR instantly worthless?

>>>IMO, inconsistent with the CC>CC Code of Ethics:

This is the second time you have accused this member of unethical conduct without appropriate justification to do so which is (IMO) an ethical violation in itself.

You are simply WRONG and your continued defense of your ludicrous position reflects extremely poorly on you. You should admit your mistake and provide a public apology to the member in question.