RJBender said:
The seller has made an offer to ship the item before he receives payment depending on the buyer's feedback score. I asked the seller to explain how he plans to do this. Do you think it's illogical to ask the seller this question? It sounds like you already have your mind made up that the seller is a crook.
"And what does it mean? Raises your hopes that he'll ship on your good feedback. Then after you bid and win - "Oh, I'm sorry mister, I meant 5,000 positive feedbacks, you only have 500." He left the door open to refuse to honor his apparent offer by not stating what the requirements were. It's a case of "You could be a winner!" You're not, but you could be. But you're not."
Ok, maybe he's a crook, but he could be but maybe he's not. Sound logical?
😕
Yes, I took a college-level logic class.
R.J.
OK, you know I mean no disrespect, right? Just an intense discussion, is all. Nobody getting mad here.
I asked about 'formal logic' because I'm going to use it here.
There are four possible outcomes of your query email:
1) Honest seller - his response makes you more suspicious (you don't bid).
2) Honest seller - his response makes you less suspicious (you bid and win).
3) Dishonest seller - his response makes you more suspicious (you don't bid).
4) Dishonest seller - his response make you less suspicious (you bid and lose).
I am defining 'win' and 'lose' to mean being ripped off or not in my statements above. If you bid and win, I mean you bid, won the auction, paid, and got the item as agreed. Etc.
Now, given these possible outcomes, if he is honest, nothing he can say will assure you of getting the camera if you bid, win, and pay. You'll get it anyway, because he is honest - that's the predicating factor here. In the possible positive outcome, your position is NOT IMPROVED - he was already honest and this interchange did not modify that. In fact, your trust was based on false logic, but because he is honest, you didn't get burned.
If he is not honest, he can only make you more suspicious or less suspicious. If he makes you less suspicious, he has conned you - he is dishonest, remember. You may now decide on the basis of his response to bid, and if you win, to pay. You have lowered your suspicion level and been cheated thereby.
If he makes you more suspicious, he can only exacerbate the mistrust that was already there - you definitely will not bid, and therefore will not be cheated.
Under none of these outcomes will you be put into a better position, or given information that you did not have before that would increase or decrease the legitimacy of the seller. They are already either honest or dishonest - the words that follow are just words.
Imagine this interchange:
"Are you a crook?"
"No, I'm not a crook."
Now, either the person is or is not a crook. If he is not, he is telling you the truth. If he is not, he is lying. You cannot discern his honesty by his response.
So, you say:
"No, really, really. Are you a crook?"
"No, I'm really, really, not a crook. Cross my heart."
What have you learned about the seller? Nothing. More words mean nothing - the person still either is or is not a crook.
People seem for some reason to think that they can argue the truth out of a person. The fact is that dishonest people remain dishonest. All they can do is make you change your mind about them, to your detriment. So why have the conversation? It cannot help you in any way.
However, on reviewing our discussion, there is one thing that I neglected to mention. If you are merely inquiring about the terms of the agreement and seek clarification, then a response from an honest seller will establish that information. However, it was my understanding that you were trying to divine the seller's veracity by questioning him, and I'm trying to show with formal logic that this is impossible in an arms-length transaction.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
