<..I guess I just felt we had kind of beat the issue to death and wasted enough of the thread's cyber space...>
Don't be silly. We have more auctions coming - the issue is salient and important, as well as interesting and informative.
<..Besides, I didn't want to get Dream Weaver pissed at me again..>
What was he pissed about before? (is he even long anymore? <g>)
<..I'm sure everyone of them is twice as smart as I am, so maybe I went a little overboard...>
Not! I suspect you know better than that (if not, you SHOULD) and are just being graciously humble.
<..And I hope the participants understand it was just in the spirit of education and learning that it was pursued, and there aren't any hard feelings...>
Again, IMO any thought to the contrary would be silly.
<...Their total first round gross bids were $246.8M and bidding credit used was $98.942M. So his point is well taken...>
So you now feel, based on the facts as you now understand them, that the apparent market non-competitiveness was a bona fide, if seemingly "smelly", coincidence? Or is there still some factual inconsistency that you still see?
Again, thanks for taking the time to thoroughly exercise this issue, beefing us ALL up. |
