Billy Burpelson wrote:

First, Douche Bag (the Original Poster) wrote:

I'm the supreme overseer of the radio world. I make sure that all
deals are to be fair and true. We do not tolerate those who buy
radios and sell them for more than we paid for them. Making a
profit on your fellow radio hobbyist is wrong.

and then ewcbob responded:

Quite an appropiate user name, it is unethical to sell a radio as
new and not disclose the absence of a warranty.

Finally, D Peter Maus responded:

It's also unethical, if not illegal in most states, to present a
factory warranty without being an authorized reseller.

I'm sorry, but you sure have confused poor ol' Billy...

The OP was whining about profit but said NOTHING about ethics or
warranties. Yet both responders DID address ethics and warranties
while NOT addressing the "profit" issue.

Where did "warranty" and "ethics" come from??? Certainly not in the
original post.

Please, what am I missing here???

D Peter Maus wrote:

You're missing the complaint.

Thanks for the response -- but I guess my reading of the original post
and both responses (essentially the entire thread) did not mention or
give a clue about morals or ethics. I took "the complaint" to be
-solely- about profit. Silly me!

NoOne, not even Mike Maghakian suggests
there's anything wrong with buying a radio and reselling it at a higher
price. But he's consistently warned of buyers who buy low, misrepresent
a product to drive up a price, and then selling the buyer a bill of
goods. Two regular radio sellers on eBay are notorious for such antics.
One has been known to offer a factory warranty on his used radios, even
though he's not an authorized reseller.

The issue is NOT profit, as the OP suggested. The issue IS ethics and
legality. Which is what Maghakian consistently notes in his comments. In
that, he does us all a service. Something the OP has not mentioned.

To me at least, it seems like the original poster talked solely about
issue "A" and both responders talked about issue "B". I'm sorry, but I
still take this as a severe disconnect of logic. Thanks again for the
update above, but I sure as hell didn't get any of that from the
original post.

Is Paul Harvey on short wave? Seems like we need him to tell us "the
rest of the story". :-)