... here is you, Charles.

>> I only indicated that I thought that the auctions were misleading
>> because they did not specifically mention that these chips are home
>> made concoctions or fantasy chips or whatever.

Sam's post here wasn't even about his eBay auctions. It was a request for help on a completely unrelated subject. Your response was not designed to to protect anyone against his "misleading" auctions (which you concede do not mislead you -- why would they mislead anyone else?). Your post was filled with hyperbole -- and of course was introduced with an ALL CAPS subject line (a technique for which you, not long ago, castigated me).

>> The use of licensed material could give the impression that these
>> chips are something more than they actually are.

While that may be true (and I conceded that use of these likenesses probably requires licensing), your initial message made no mention whatsoever of this issue.

>> All I asked was that the chips be accurately identified.

Actually, your posts here did nothing of the sort. They simply attacked him, both personally and with respect to his auctions.

>> Not everyone is a lawyer and carefully reads the description of every auction they bid on.

Not everyone is a lawyer who writes the descriptions, either. There are no misrepresentations in his auctions and it does not even require "carefully" reading them to understand what he is selling.

>> Words like "CASINO" catch one's eye.

Yes, just as it does in your posts, which clearly imply that the chips are being misrepresented as "casino chips". Which is why I posted the text of the auctions, since he makes no such claim and in fact makes it quite clear that they are not casino chips. Your use of the word "casino", without the qualifiers, did exactly what you were accusing him of -- caught the reader's eye and mislead the reader by omitting key information.

>> If you believe that these auctions are not misleading, that is OK.
>> I am not fooled by them, either. But I believe that others might be mislead.

If you are not misled by them, what makes you think others will be? Are you that much smarter than other collectors?

>> And I would certainly bet that there are people out there who bought
>> these chips thinking that they were in some way affiliated with a casino ...

That seems unlikely -- the descriptions and the scans make it quite clear that they are not from any casino.

>> ... or that they are licensed merchandise.

Now that is a possibility. Of course, so far, we don't know whether or not they are licensed. You have assumed they are not -- and made a personal attack on Sam on that basis, regarding which I have these observations:

The following quotes are from emails you sent me not long ago when we had our disagreement regarding the circumstances of Mel's expulsion from the club:

>> I do not think that public attacks and squabbling is in the best interest of the hobby.

I take it that "thought" applies only when you are on the receiving end of the "public attack".

>> But I will not resort to public battles. You may be correct, but in the
>> process how many potential chippers will be scared away from the hobby?

Apparently, though, you have no problem "resorting" to "public battles" when you're attacking someone else. And that, under those circumstances, it doesn't matter how many potential chippers will be scared away.

>> It is not difficult to approach people on difficult manners
>> without offending them. Or do you even care about that?

Did your series of posts "approach" Sam Heppler "without offending" him? Or do you even care about that?

----- jim o\-S