I’m sure there are some unlicked windows in your house in need of attention
I like how you throw in a jab about arguing from the absurd and redefining terms when your entire post is a case study in logical fallacy and trying to redefine my terms lol
So you want a world where you can act however you want and not suffer for it.
You want to be able to put on your confederate flag shirt, go to a Black neighborhood, run up and down the streets yelling the N word, and be free from the consequences of your “carelessness”
See I can use arguments from the absurd to prove my point.
This isn’t about a scam, it’s about you not wanting to be responsible.
2 Likes
LOL okay?
If I plead a defense properly, the cause of action drops. Statute of limitations is a defense, it kills the claim. Lack of standing is a defense, it also kills the claim. Accord and satisfaction is a defense, it also kills the claim.
If I plead instead for equity, the cause of action MAY drop, but more likely will be downgraded in severity either in the cause of itself or in the sentencing. Arguing force majeure in a contract that lacks it as a provision is unlikely to free you of liability under the contract, but it may eliminate any punitive damages.
This is where you stop trying to one-up as a layman. I’m sure you can find a blog somewhere that calls arguments of equity “equitable defenses” that then goes on to talk about perfect and imperfect defenses as well. This is silly, because you end up right where the bright line between defense and equity already resided: defense kills the claim, equity blunts the claim.
A medical emergency occurring in the home that would apparently require doctor/hospital intervention necessitates calling for an ambulance, not taking your drunk self onto the road with an injured/sick/dying family member. You endanger yourself, the family member, and the public, by doing so.
Because it isn’t a defense, and it is ridiculous.
No. Wrong.
https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1983/667-p-2d-560.html
Our refusal to apply a “life-threatening” standard does not, however, require reversal. As the findings quoted, supra, n. 4, demonstrate, the trial court found no evidence that “the urgency [of] the circumstances made it necessary” for defendant to drive his father to the hospital. This finding was based on evidence that defendant made no attempt to telephone an ambulance, the police or other emergency services, although he knew such services existed in the vicinity, and did not request the driving assistance of other individuals at the bar who were both sober[6] and licensed.
Urgency and necessity, of which the latter is impossible to prove in 99.9% of situations even within the contrived scenario given in the decision about two hikers. The Court here was rebutting the State position that it must be life-threatening, but that necessity element will prevent all the oddballs the State brings up. If you have any reasonable alternatives to driving, you aren’t compelled to drive, and that includes waiting on medical assistance.
Oof. What about insurance salesmen and 90% of legal services?
Oh you have intent now? Do tell!
Oh… presumptive malice. /yawn
Moving on.
2 Likes
more ridiculous analogies to distract from the very simple dishonest scam you are doing. keep it up
You made an absolute statement. That’s a fallacy buddy, and it negates your argument.
No no. Please do not articulate the argument. It boils down to a customer viewing an item they wish to buy, clicking “Buyout”, indicating they wish to buy it. Then confirm a second time with the price in plan view, by itself, a second time.
Do not give secondary analysis or anecdotes anymore. Explain how a price in clear view is a scam? Otherwise, “Arguing with you guys really is like having a debate with a bunch of apes.”
2 Likes
Yes. My life is hell. I hate myself and my colleagues. I’m waiting for the next big meteorite lol
1 Like
By the way, this kind of stuff is exactly why there should be an imposed limit to how much an account can put on the AH at any given time. Moreover, your auctions should be tied to your account and not to your individual characters so that people can’t hide behind bank alts all the time.
It’s like you read a wiki article but didn’t quite understand it lol
1 Like
you are ignoring the context that the seller put this overpriced item within a bunch of exactly the same item for something around market price. i wonder why you would leave out this very important context.
Nope. Don’t even try this nonsense line. “Are you sure?” is precisely the sort of verification/ratification that doesn’t let you go back and go “OH NO NOT THAT”. There’s literally case law on that point when people made otherwise unenforceable contracts that were LATER ratified by word/deed.
You have to be personally responsible for yourself at some point.
I love you though!
Come be an IP litigator with me and we can use all of this against idiots with way more money than sense who think they can bully folks just because they have a big name firm backing them.
EDIT: Or you can help me with oil and gas leasing on the side. <3
2 Likes
What about the confirmation window which separates the price from the others? Do you leave out that piece of important context?
Yes, the first “buyout” decision can be lost in the field of other auctions, but you isolate it WITH THE PRICE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SCREEN before finalizing the purchase. How is that a scam?
The exact circumstances aren’t really germane to the argument. You could be in an area that doesn’t have ambulance services. You seem determined to not address the argument in lieu of attacking red herrings
You didn’t actually read the case. Again. They didn’t rule that his defense was invalid. They ruled that he did not sufficiently prove his claim. Those are VERY VERY different things. Which you’d of course know if you were an actual lawyer and not someone telling lies on the internet 
Anytime you see a 99.9% thrown around you know the person is making 
up
Any reasonable person could conclude that he didn’t actually expect someone would buy a $1 item for $2500
First of all, thats not how that applies. Which, again, you’d know if… you know… you were a real lawyer. Presumptive Malice as it applies in the legal field almost always concerns defamation, and is potentially valid if the defamation is false.
1 Like
You’re really gonna do that? Just go on the internet and tell LIES?
me sitting here 
reading about the AH scam is great.
much better then playing Retail WoW
3 Likes
another scam that is very common these days is someone asking for political donations, but having the “do my payment monthly” box pre-checked. a lot of people want to donate $50 to a politician, but don’t want to start paying $50 a month. but they don’t notice that this box is pre-checked, and thus they sign up for that. and it becomes very difficult to get out of this monthly payment once you start it. a lot of people had to end up canceling their credit cards entirely to make it stop.
the people here would call this totally not a scam because the box was “clearly checked”, I’m sure. 
Please stay on topic and answer my question.
A scam is asking someone for an enchant and the dude logging off with your mats.
This is not a scam your friend needs to pay more attention to what shes doing.
2 Likes
The exact circumstances are all the matter because the equitable argument is entirely fact dependent. You’re trying to argue in good faith that somehow, somewhere, someone may have a situation of combined urgency and necessity that would not only see them cited for DUI but have their situation fall upon deaf ears before both the citing cop and the District Attorney (or equivalent office) to argue before a Court that such urgency/necessity required drunk driving.
So again, short of some contrived Hollywood plot, there is no actual defense to DUI. This is the point you’re trying to “akshully” me on. That somehow, some way, you MIGHT get a perfect storm of facts combined with insanely heartless and stupid members of the State to present such an argument that isn’t flatly stupid before the Court.
/giggle
You don’t read anything I write do you? It is annoying because it feels like you almost do, but then you argue against things I don’t say and I wonder what you’re doing in the first place. In order to successfully mount a defense or an argument for equity, you need all the pieces. If your situation does not lend itself to those pieces, you can’t use those arguments. DUI’s don’t lend themselves to necessity and this Court noted a laundry list of reasons why.
You’re here arguing that because “choice of evil” is a theoretical defense in general, it can be offered in literally any case, including statutory crimes with no actual exceptions to them. This is asinine. Like I said before, accord and satisfaction is a valid defense but that doesn’t mean you can use it in a DUI case because it requires contract elements. Likewise, statute of limitations is also a valid defense but doesn’t mean you can use it on crimes without an SoL. A theoretical defense that cannot apply because the facts never lend themselves to that defense is no defense at all.
The bar for choice of evil equity is urgency and necessity. DUI scenarios are neither of these.
Or experience says you’re never going to see anyone successfully prove a situation was dire enough that the only possible rational response was to drive drunk.
So we’re double LARPing now? We’re stepping into the mind of a reasonable person who themselves is stepping into the mind of a vendor as to what that vendor may or may not expect? Is offering a bid you don’t think will sell bad? Why must the vendor justify any of their sales?
You’re mistaking “ACTUAL” malice, which is a specific term of art for defamation.
I simply said you are presuming malice exists. Put plainly, you’re getting ahead of yourself to ignore the intent element entirely.
2 Likes