Originally Posted by eillim
Here you go; post # 1591
I wanted to look that up too cuz I remembered reading it as well.
Whilst reading that, also review other actual statements made indicating a total refusal of the selected method of complete payment. Be objective, but be objective globally. A public request for relational experiences has turned into a global phenomena. Armchair quarterbacking and offering conspiracy theories to detract from what has occured does little to assist, if assisting is truly one's intent. Again, there are very real persons involved in a multi-state transaction requiring counsel practicing in multiple states under multiple jurisdictions with multiple entities who claim to have been slighted, damaged, libeled, etc. The wisest move of all involved, and especially with the original poster, with the threat of litigation underfoot, may be to remain moot unto and until negotiations can resume, ACH transactions can complete, legal issues can be sorted, counsel can resume private discussions, etc.
In my opinion, the primary objective was to, and continues to be, obtaining an item won legally and without inside knowledge, hacks, run-ups, shill bids, or any other behavior that may be considered a violation of the as-stated auction rules. I believe that, inspite of the intervention of counsel for both sides, the underlying goal remains. Because of legal intervention, time-frames, stated refusals, official responses, negotiations, and the like, progression of this seems likely when representation for both are available to resume, using and pulling from their additional man-power resources. Within the legal world, the times for such are quite often Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm under whatever time zone representation operates under. Considering the time differences, the negotiation windows between counsels may be reduced. Purely speculatory, perhaps, but far more plausible than aliens having landed, fabricated the whole affair, then returned back onto a ship and vanished.