You were responding to Tim Douglass who wrote: "A seller bidding on their own auction is, in the U.S. at least, a crime and you can do time for it. Sellers who do that are thieves and should be pointed out as such."
You even quoted him in your most recent reply, yet nowhere does he actually use the word "any", "all", "always", "absolute", or anything comparable. You set up a straw man, as I said. You call Tim's statement overly broad; I call it a statement of the general rule. You wanted to know about "the law", you wrote. You did not ask about "logic". Your reference to "Introductory Logic" is inapposite. Tell it to the judge and see if she cares.
Lawyers would _not_ say that Tim's post was wrong or even overly broad. They would say it is a statement of the general rule. And, as I wrote above, what is your point re the OP's post? Based on what he wrote (and assuming the facts were as he stated them), none of the exceptions applied. There was no foreclosure and no division. As a matter of the facts as posited, not possible under the law. Who cares about real property auctions -- the OP mentioned personal property owned by an individual. It's called "context". How about choice of laws, in rem and in personem jurisdiction, and the like? For that matter, how about International Shoe?!!! Fascinating stuff, but not relevant here.
If I say that it is a crime to come up behind you and shoot you in the head, is that _incorrect_ because I do not say that, well, actually it is OK if you are about to slit a child's throat? No. Just as saying "the earth is round" is not "incorrect" because there may well be some flat surfaces on it. And if I say that one is subject to income taxes on income earned from selling a piece of furniture, am I wrong if I do not say that, actually, no taxes are owed if one's adjusted income is below a certain level? Or, in parallel to your inapplicable "exceptions" on the facts as given, is my statement about taxes wrong because muni bond income is generally tax free in the muni's state? No and no.
To skip mentioning the exceptions is not to say that a statement posits an absolute. I think that is true even in undergrad logic; I know it is true in the law. Again, it is a statement of the general rule.
Law does not equal logic. It may find some basis in logic, but law is replete with evidence of illogic -- in the standard abstract sense of "logic". You have confused some sense of yourself knowing "logic" and therefore knowing the law and statutory construction. Call back when you have written a dozen laws. Then you'll almost be within hailing distance. If you have a really big megaphone.
As for my tone in my response to your posts, I have posted here many times (a piker compared to many, but often), and I cannot recall ever having used the same tone elsewhere in the NG. I save it for special people -- or, more accurately, for those special posts. Such as yours.
My mistake was to believe that you were interested in learning about the law. In fact, you were looking for an argument. When I realized that, I decided you needed some hit-in-the-head lessons. Arguments are down the hall. To the left. -- Igor