Fascinating assessment:
1) "Mill is essentially correct" - Naturally I assume this comment is based on having received both version of events
before rendering this adjudication
2) "and as such, is not maligning anyone" - The validity of this statement is dependent on the validity of point 1
3) "The item was offered for sale..........the price was subsequently reduced (considerably)..........someone said they'd take it and as was evident in now deleted posts, the offer to buy was accepted...........that offer was later rejected and seller's posts were edited and (at the seller's request) other posts were deleted. Is it a "wise" way to "do -
Yep - this certainly sounds like only one side of the story.
As I highlighted in my previous posts:
1) There is always two sides to every story
2) Two wrongs don't make a right
3)
It appears folks are quick to draw conclusions and perhaps disparage even though they apparently don't have both sides of the story (for whatever reason)
4) Reneg deals do occur on IIS - I had one disappointing experience over an EP however I didn't vent my spleen over it. Renegged deals probably occur more often than we care to admit going by the euphemistic relisting of items put 'back-up' for sale by sellers where a "buyer had to pull out of deal for genuine reason".
5) Finally, my new comment - I wasn't aware there is some law or rule that members are obligated to respond to every received message.
