twesterm, I have to say that I think you're missing an important point. cdude1034 is not necessarily "depriving" someone else of a Wii. The universal shortage is over now; some areas have a good supply, but other areas still have a very poor supply. If he just happened to walk into a store and spot one, he is probably in an area with a good supply. Anyone willing to pay $300+ either has money to burn or lives in an area with poor supply. That kind of redistribution of goods is good for everyone, even if cdude1034 is an opportunist jerk.

That said, cdude, just drop the price to $300 and I think you'll find a buyer quickly. IMO the $300 mark is a barrier lots of people won't cross for a $250 Wii. Also, I think charging over $50 extra is what is making lots of people call you an ass.  [edit:  and they are right.]

You've just proved that your stance on this is entirely amoral (without consideration of morals), so we really don't have any common ground to speak about it.  Therefore, I'll repeat: I dislike what you're doing, and I dislike your attitude about it.

Good day.

 He explicitly said he waited 6 hours to purchase one.  He's not in an area that's floundering in Wiis.

 Well technically it's $270 with tax.

You know, I respect your opinions, all of you. Final-Fan, choirsoftheeye, KruzeS, and yes, even Twesterm - I agree with you guys on a lot of things, but unfortunately, this is not one of them. I'm just glad there are people on here that can argue without resulting to name calling and mindless flaming (see: agnosticjesus).

I don't mind being called a jerk. I still want at least one answer to my questions though.

Oh, btw, choirs, I never waited 6 hours in line for the Wii.

 The thing is he's in San Antonio and from talking to people I actually know over there (NOTE-- I talked to people before I even started calling him a jerk) they do still sell out there.  He even says they sell out in San Antonio in his opening post, just not as quickly as they did before.  Hell, even going by that one statement in the opening remark, that completely negates his they're paying for the convenience charge.

Let's imagine the following situation (which fortunately is not a real story):

The other day I saw a woman walking on the street at night. Some guy was going to rape her. I kicked the guy's ass, and then I raped her myself. I'd rather be the one who rapes her than just letting some other guy do it.

Does this analogy in any way prove that you're wrong to do it? No, but it shows that your argument doesn't prove you right either. So please don't use that argument as defense, because it doesn't really defend you.

I'd also like to know how exactly you're sure than someone else would do it. How do you know the next person in line isn't just buying a present for their kids?

Indeed you didn't.  I usually check my facts more carefully than that.

Guess that and the belligerance are a side-effect of having strep.  Sorry for shoving my responses down your throat.  I just strongly disagree with what you're doing.

Woah buddy, that one is a little to far. In my situation no one is getting hurt.

Edit: Also, I'm not even trying to defend my character, as that is a matter of personal opinion anyway. 

You're creating a false dichotomy. It's possible to "help people" (indirectly) without having an "altruistic motive"...

In fact, it happens all the time and is essentially the basis of the free market economic system that has proven to be quite effective at getting goods into the hands of those who value them.

Heck, Nintendo has a completely selfish and non-altruistic motive for making the Wii and selling it for $250, yet they are helping millions of gamers by doing so.

I agree with Jesus, this guy is a turd. Voicing an opinion is not mindless flaming.