Jim, you disappoint me. Up until now, your arguments have been well thought out and worthy of respect. This last post, however, is beneath you.

1. You say "Writing to bidders to advise them of the true nature of an auction is (perhaps) a violation of a procedural rule made up and imposed by eBay for the sole purpose of protecting revenue."

Are you serious? You really want to "own" that statement? Do you really believe that eBay's fees are the only thing that went into the decision to implement that rule? Are you that cynical? Are you blind to the chaos that would result if sellers were allowed to email each other's bidders with every bit of real or perceived dirt they think they have on each other?

Surely, you can step back from your position long enough to consider that the auction interference rule is in the best interest of the community.

eBay has managed to build up a community of over 12 million users, with the vast majority of them being bidders. They range in sophistication from "professional" buyers like myself, to "recreational" bidders. The success of the eBay community depends on the bidding community having confidence in the selling community.

Consider this. How many bidders would we still have if their mailboxes were constantly filling up with well intentioned "warnings" from community members, "watch this guy, he's a scammer", "don't bid on that item, it's junk", "you can get that cheaper elsewhere", "that's not really a book, it's a booklet", and so forth. Worst of all, how about a warning not to pay too much, like "I hate to see you pay that much, withdraw your bid and I'll sell you the same thing cheaper". All these "warnings" could be just as well intentioned as the warnings you like to send when you spot an auction description that offends you.
eBay has the choice of allowing users to protect the bidders, or setting up other ways of dealing with clearly fraudulent descriptions. I think ebay made the wiser choice.

Jim, if you think the rule prohibiting auction interference should be dropped, please share with us what the replacement rules should be. When is it OK, and when is it not OK, to email bidders to "warn" them? Where do you draw the line? Only lawyers should be allowed to interfere? Only "experts" should be allowed to interfere?

I think anyone who thinks this through would have to agree that while preventing fraud is a most desirable goal, allowing auction interference is a wholly unacceptable way to deal with it.

2. Regarding your kidnapping/speeding posit, are you saying that a seller who fibs about the existence of a card club, and at the same time states that the chips have no collector value, is equivalent to kidnapping a child? Do you really equate money with life itself? You say my reference to "two wrongs" are not equilivent, I say your analogy is even more off base.

3. Here are two statements you make back to back: "There is nothing inherently "wrong" in telling someone that he is about to be ripped off by a scam artist."

and

"BTW, I never tell anyone they shouldn't bid, shouldn't pay for an item they have bid on or anything else about what they should do. I provide accurate information about the true nature of the item involved, nothing more. What the bidder does with the information I provide is up to the bidder."

Well, Jim, which is it? Is it your intention to tell them they are about to be ripped off by a scam artist, or or is it your intention to merely provide helpful information?

If interfering with an auction is not inherently wrong, then why do you go on to explain that interference is not what you are doing?

Finally:

4. "I wouldn't suggest that anyone else follow my example, though I welcome anyone who cares to do so,"

Well, you're runnning for a position of leadership in the Club. Why, if you don't want to lead the members by your example, do you share your outlaw views on auction interference? It's one thing to send these emails yourself, it's something else to explain and defend the practice in front of the same people you are asking to foloow your lead. Do as you say, not as you do?