posted on September 5, 2001 10:43:09 AM
But unlike Mr. Clinton, I would use the proper definition of 'is'. I think the people here trying to *redefine* "dishonest" are the ones more apt to be his speechwriters.
posted on September 5, 2001 10:46:39 AM
If saying please have faith that this item is "Very nice" is unethical then please have faith that God exists is also unethical. The very foundation of our beliefs is based on falsehood so why expect higher ethical standards from a seller?
The more important issue here is not ethics, it is accountablility. The buyer is accountable for determining the exact truth and not basing their decision on some general description. Afterall, the seller never said it was perfect.
[ edited by quickdraw29 on Sep 5, 2001 10:50 AM ]
posted on September 5, 2001 10:54:27 AM
I have a very nice car for sale.
Runs great (when it has a motor in it).
Would it be dishonest if I left out the when it has a motor in it part?
YUP.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:01:22 AM
Let's face it. Some people wouldn't budge on a position once they take it just out of pride. I think this seller (the one described in the original post) is dishonest. I won't do business this way. Anyone who does, for any dollar amount is pathetic, imo.
Deceipt, deceptive, half-truth, lying by omission, outright lie - it's all the same to me. If this is ethics, it's no wonder why kids don't know whether they're coming or going - neither do the adults.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:01:59 AM
"I have a very nice car for sale.
Runs great when it has a motor in it). Would it be dishonest if I left out the when it has a motor in it part?"
That's silly. There's nothing subjective about a missing motor. There's no room for argument that a car can not run great without a motor.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:09:17 AM
Well said quickdraw regarding the car.
But I take serious offense at your religious analogy and insult to those who believe in God. My faith is not based on any falsehood -- and I'll leave it at that (since this is not a religious board).
sadie -- we agree that this seller was deceptive and unethical. I don't think anyone here has said otherwise. But I seriously appreciate your admission that you won't budge from your position out of pride. That's refreshing!
Before any tempers flare -- we should probably just let this go. And choose our words more carefully in the future.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:10:21 AM
In the interest of honesty, and to avoid any accusations of deception, let me state that the comments posted by SLOTREASURE were written by me, accidentally signed in under another ID. I do stand behind them and believe they are correct.
Peiklk says:.
"I have pointed out fact as fact -- not opinion."
Well, that's the problem. Your idea of what constitutes a "fact" (i.e., the definition of "dishonesty) does not, apparently, match with what most of us consider the "fact" to be.
A point that may have been overlooked is that the item was sold as NEW. Are buyers now responsible for clarifying what "new" means? Must they email each seller to ascertain whether a new item has damage that the one picture conceals, or that the seller somehow neglected to include in his/her description? IMO, this is utter nonsense.
It's reasonable for the buyer to be responsible for clarifying details that are not included in the description, such as size, or weight, or shipping charges, etc., but to most people, "new" means just that...unused and in essentially perfect condition.
I'd really like to see how you split the hairs on the definition of "new."
posted on September 5, 2001 11:16:54 AM
I've not split hairs on a definition yet, why should I now?
New is new, the original manufactured condition. If they actually stated that this item was NEW, then they LIED and were thus -- drumroll please -- DISHONEST.
See? Very simple.
Yes, I'm being a tad arrogant here, because it's silly to even be discussing this.
Bur regardless, you WERE WRONG in your previous post when you made disparaging comments about ME directly. I forgive you.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:18:32 AM
Since "Very Nice" is in the eyes of the beholder, and since the beholder (in this case the seller) decided upon that, fine....send it back and let him enjoy it ...and yes, leave a "very nice" NEG, as Meya suggested... Sometimes paying postage is part of the learning process..unfair, YES, but valuable...
******** Gosh Shosh! My "About Me" Page
posted on September 5, 2001 11:24:48 AM
C'mon Peiklk, we both know what that seller was really up to: He's hoping to snag a trusting (gullible) buyer who believes--quite reasonably--that 'very nice' means 'undamaged'.
When the buyer complains, the seller hides behind those subjective weasel-words, but the intent to defraud seems (<--note this classic weasel-word) clear.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:25:38 AM
Is "really nice" that bad of description to use? Consider the technical terms used in baseball card collecting. "Good" is only one step up from "Poor" and four steps down from mint. "Very good" is two steps up from "poor" and three steps down from mint. Look at how that differs from my personal opinion, "Very Good" sucks; "good" sucks more.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:33:00 AM
Let me add the description of "very good" from a baseball card collectible book: "A card that shows obvious handling but is still attractive despite wear and imperfections. A VG card may have a crease, but should not be severe enough to make the card unattractive. Most of the origional gloss is lost."
posted on September 5, 2001 11:38:11 AMquickdraw If you describe the repair, the other problems/chips, dings whatever and say it is very nice that is different than not telling about the repair and saying it is very nice. I sell old glass all the time and describe every thing I can see and often say it is very nice - regardless. However, that is my opinion but I have left enough information about the item to let the bidder make their own decision whether or not it is "very nice" in their minds eye.
When I list my item and state my description, the bidder is trusting that what I have to say is the truth and perhaps that is what it has boiled down to - trust.
[ edited by llama_lady on Sep 5, 2001 11:38 AM ]
posted on September 5, 2001 11:38:25 AM
Back to the original post...
I think it is important to know how the term "very nice" was used.
If it was used as in "very nice widget", I would compare it to "very pretty widget". Definitely "eye of the beholder" stuff. If, however, it was used as in "very nice condition", I would consider the seller dishonest. My dictionary includes "characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness" in it's definition and I believe this applies. I would leave a neutral or neg stating "major damage to item not disclosed", and move on.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:39:06 AM
icyu, "good reading copy" in my opinion is any copy where the pages are all there, in order, not loose, plus the words are not blotted out by a stain. In most cases, the copy has a bad cover but the pages are near/perfect.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:46:52 AM
quickdraw:
From the ABA Bookman Magazine (note #6):
1. As New is to be used only when the book is in the same immaculate condition in which it was published. There can be no defects, no missing pages, no library stamps, etc., and the dust jacket (if it was issued with one) must be perfect without any tears. (The term As New is preferred over an alternative term Mint to describe a copy that is perfect in every respect, including jacket.)
2. Fine approaches the condition of As New, but without being crisp. For the use of the term Fine, there must also be no defects, etc., and if the jacket has a small tear, or other defect, or looks worn, those should be noted.
3. Very Good can describe a used book that does show some small signs of wear--but no tears--on binding, paper, or dust jacket. Any defects must be noted.
4. Good describes the average used and worn book that has all pages or leaves present. Any defects must be noted.
5. Fair is a worn book that has complete text pages (including those with maps or plates) but may lack endpapers, half-title, etc. (which must be noted). Binding, jacket (if any), etc., may also be worn. All defects must be noted.
6. Poor describes a book that is sufficiently worn that its only merit is as a Reading Copy because it does have complete text, which must be legible. Any missing maps or plates should still be noted. This copy may be soiled, scuffed, stained or spotted and may have loose joints, hinges, pages, etc.
7. Ex-library copies must always be noted as such no matter what the condition of the book.
8. Book Club editions must always be noted as such no matter what the condition of the book.
9. Binding Copy describes a book in which the pages or leaves are perfect, but the binding is very bad, loose, off or non-existent.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:47:01 AM
llama_lady, I agree, communication of what everyone agrees on for description is important. That's why as a buyer I wouldn't buy something described as "very nice" (or even mint) until I found out what the seller means by that. Like I said before, the buyer needs to get on the same page as the seller and not point fingers.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:47:30 AM
More on that "new" comment:
This is a newer item, but the seller never said it was new in the description. I used that term in an earlier post to distinguish this item from an antique.
All the seller said is that it's "very nice."
And he showed a "very nice" photo. But in this buyer's opinion, the object in question was far from very nice. (I happen to consider damaged/shoddily repaired items not so nice. )
So I suppose that "very nice" is a matter of opinion as one of you wise folks said. Although I have to say I think the seller was intentionally deceptive.
posted on September 5, 2001 11:56:29 AM
Blondesense:
The item was described as a "very nice widget" and that was that. There was no further reference to condition. I now realize I should have done further checking with the seller to determine condition.
However, the photo is quite well done; it's shot in a well-lit setting, on a very nice background at a particular angle so you cannot see the damaged areas. I am sure the photo was intentionally taken this way so the damage could not be seen.
I'm not going to get into whether this seller was deceptive or not because I probably don't know the entire situation, However, I do want to comment on something you said.
"If a person deceives you without telling a lie, then that is NOT dishonest."
How can you "deceive" someone without telling a "lie"? Have you ever heard of a lie of omission? Here is some synonyms for "deceive": Mislead, trick, betray, lie to, swindle, con, mis-inform, cheat.....
Being deceptive is being dishonest. There's no other way to look at it.
Because our Community Guidelines allow for only one posting ID, I have suspended the posting privileges for your "slotreasure" account. All other services for that account will still be available to you.
Everyone,
This thread has gone way too far into semantics. Even definitions can be interpreted subjectively, so please move on and agree to disagree.
posted on September 5, 2001 12:35:49 PM
outoftheblue:
As has been stated: Being dishonest means not telling the truth. Lying = dishonest.
Deception CAN easily be done without lying. By telling only truths in such a way that the other person misleads themselves.
That is deception.
I can say "I got home after 7" even though I really got home at 9:00. I'm not telling a lie, but the hearer makes an assumption that I got home around 7:05 or some such.
Deception with no lie.
But, as requested by the AW Community Moderators, we should agree to disagree and move on!
And no matter what, I'VE NEVER SAID THE SELLER WAS RIGHT OR DOING SOMETHING ACCEPTABLE. Just that they weren't being "dishonest" as far as we can tell.
And actually from rarebourbon's latest post -- it sounds like they might not have really been deceptive. Sounds like barely ANY description was given.
posted on September 5, 2001 01:15:54 PMQuickdraw I agree that communication is so important and unfortunately we (and I am including myself) are sometimes thinking so much about the answer we are not listening to the question.
Sometimes paying postage is part of the learning process..unfair, YES, but valuable...
)