Comment 1:
I think you've just taken this beyond what is reasonably supportable. Can you back up the highlighted comment with evidence? Not speculation, interpretation, conclusions, or presumptions - but
evidence?
To toss out words like "shady", "purposely", and "fool", is a fairly serious accusation. IMO, that's an accusation that would need to be founded on more than just presumption or gut. I haven't followed this too too closely, but I haven't seen any evidence supporting the claim that Swim knew about, or should have known about, the flaw ahead of time. He may have, I don't know, but I certainly haven't seen any evidence to substantiate such a claim.
Comment 2:
I think the big logical gap that we're all seeing, and you're not doing a great job of closing for us, is the disconnect between "works great" in the
present tense, and "will continue working great" in the
future. These are not synonymous. This is the big elephant in the room that you're not addressing.
If something
"works great", that is perfectly consistent with the reality that it may not
"work great" in the future.
Something can
"work great" today, and stop
"working great" tomorrow, but that doesn't retroactively make the condition of
"working great" today incorrect/inaccurate/dishonest. If it did, then you'd basically be saying that the present condition of an item is determined by it's future state. This would be a logical paradox.
Comment 3:
You can
accept that it may have been
"working great" when Swim sold it to you, and you can
accept that he may have been acting honestly when he sold it, yet
still feel like there are grounds for asking him for some compensation. Sticking to logic here is the way to go. I don't think you do your argument any favours by putting forward accusations that aren't logically supported by evidence. Those accusations may or may not be accurate, but they are not well founded.
Comment 4:
I know we all sort of let
THIS THREAD (LaserPhysics) and the eBay item it references
(eBay - LaserPhysics 5-50mW 488nm) drop from conversation. But if that eBay item
is in fact the Argon we're talking about here, then don't you think your
actual description of it is more questionable than what Swim is being
accused of?
The eBay Item Description:
I think everyone would hate to see the exact same thread arise again, with roles reversed, and a new party putting forth the same complaint as a buyer.