Can't buy land on "Azure Islands", but it is listed for sale in the land listing!

Had it been properly advertised no refund would have been necessary. All this proves is that indeed people (at least one, and that's all it takes) have been mislead.

I'm sorry Jesse, thats a cop-out. There is absolutely no hearsay here, you can go look at the first page of "Land Sales" for yourself, right now, and Anshes other actions are irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the two actions I list, and which you can verify beyond all doubt for yourself with a few clicks. Robins posting, in her/his own words is on open display

My only conclusion is that either you are not as fair-minded and clear-thinking as I thought you were, or you don't want to offend your very powerful landlord (and that is maybe quite wise).

I am asking you a straight forward moral question, based on hard evidence you can check for yourself very easily, and divorced from any personalities or histories - yours, Anshe's or mine. You chose to sidestep. So be it. This is part of what is wrong with the world.

"Hearsay" indeed - come on Jesse, you deserve better than that !

"Since the land is actually a rental you won't be able to list it in the Land Sale directory after the next patch."

"we want to make sure that people who 'buy' the land realize they are not actually the owners. Being able to list the land in the Land Sales directory is misleading."


Nice try.

You may believe what you will, I have no say over that. I believe I bought my land... are we realy going to start with all the semantics again? I believe I own the land just as much as I owned any land with LL. So yes I do believe private estate land SHOULD be listed in the find land tool BUT it should also be noted in some way that it is not LL land. My personal reasoning for that is to avoid buying LL land again... ever. Tired of malls, spining sings, abnoxious neighbors, and lack of respect that comes with mainland.

I am fair-minded, never make assumptions about me

You keep telling us you own that land and one day you might believe it yourself.

If you are going to read part of my post, please read it fully. I do believe I own it, period. Do not read anymore into that then what I just wrote, no less.. no more. If I could make it more simple I would but I can not see how one can state it in more simple of a term.

OK you want me to comment on the rest of your post? sure. So because you believe you own the land, LL and the huge majority who realise its rental should allow it in the land sales tab?? Because you believe you own it?? sheeesh

Again, you need to reread my post. Again do not read anymore into it then you see.

Oh I have read it just fine

Why does it even matter? The land WAS for sale, just not from lindenlabs, and why would anyone beleive it was actually free? Especially considering how long it was up for!

Its not a case of it being free. Its not a sale so has no price, or lack of one associated with it. The few that believe they own the land have no more than those who are aware they are renting private island sim plots. The difference is, those in the later category did not have an initial charge before their tenancy began.

Anyone that "owns" land in SL is merely leasing it, from who they are leasing it from is the only question. You can play with semantics all day long if you wish... but it will never change the fact you own nothing in SL. You may own the IP of what you created on your computer and then uploaded. But you do not own any of the resources it takes to manifest it ingame. You may lease those resources, but again... own nothing.

You may even believe, as I do, that you own something.. but as you said.. it is only a matter of when the tenancy began.

This is all kinda funny how it seems alot of inteligent players play this game yet get so caught up in semantics and loose the focus that this is nothing more then a virtual world.. a game and nothing is real.

Hmmm that post is so ironic its just too funny.

Following the above condescension, I take it back

I am sorry Kismet, were you the one that was involved in the deal? I know the answer, so doyou. Please if you do not know the details then you are making assumptions, hearsay, and confusion.

I believe the forums are full of that already. I will not contribute to it. I do know the details, and you seem not to.. at least you did not post it correctly is all I will say.

I have personally seen her fully refund someone that was mistaken in their purchase.

are we realy going to start with all the semantics again?

Huh?
Are you saying you were lying in this post? Where is my assumption?

Dude, I was going off what you said. There was a full refund because someone didn't understand. I said it could've been avoided if it was advertized truthfully. That's all. You can make all the non-arguments you want out of this. It's what you said...

You're losing me Jesse. I cant find anything in the post you quote about the semantics of "to own or not to own". Nor in my questions which you sidestep.

The two questions refer only to the morality of defying a Linden ruling, and continuing to gain advantage over others from what has been officially declared an exploit, to be removed asap. And the second question refers to the morality of targeting Newbies with advertising for something most of us can't understand, so they have no hope.

Nothing in there about the old "semantics" battle. I think you'll find I've dropped that. Its over. The Lindens have ruled, and the decision is after all, in their hands.

Your replies first claim "hearsay" with no ground whatever, and then accuse me of resurrecting something I clearly haven't.

I'm truly sorry to say it, but it just looks like more dodging to me.

I said mistaken, not misunderstood.