sfcityduck

On 4/4/2024 at 7:06 PM, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

Given today’s events, it’s time for a bump. Cap 1 is closing the gap . . .

 

 

3.0 ow/w vs. 2.5 cr/ow has me declaring a win for the 2.5 by more than a nose.

Both books are super cool. There is a strong case that CA 1 probably should be the higher valued book given it is the title character very first app and origin and Batman 1 is not. Still, the fact that CA and his rogues gallery are just not as good characters as Batman and his rogues gallery probably tips the scale for now. Batman 1 could even get a big bump off of the Joker movies now CA is out of the MCU.  

Those PBA prices look even stronger after that Heritage auction.

On 4/4/2024 at 1:04 PM, LordRahl said:

I wish people would stop comparing pricing today to pandemic pricing. 

A loss is a loss. Blaming panic during the pandemic doesn't make it go away. I just want everyone, especially dealers, to forget pandemic pricing. The prices still reflect pandemic factors even though they have come down.

On 4/4/2024 at 11:18 AM, Gotham Kid said:

guy paid 2Mil for it,so butt-hurt champion of all time

Why no reserve?  Desperation to cut the loss?

On 4/4/2024 at 10:39 AM, pmpknface said:

And for a cool 3/4 of a mil...

That flip didn't work. $750K is down $60K from the $810K paid the for same book, presumably by this seller, less than a year ago.  

Reminiscent of the flipper who got only $1.5M for the All-Star 8 in January of this year which had been purchased a year and half earlier in June 2022 $1.62M.  

On 4/4/2024 at 11:17 AM, jimjum12 said:

My apologies Mike. It's a touchy subject for me, and it may be best if I recuse myself from this thread due to irreconcilable differences. Godspeed to Molly and R.I.P. to Ed Piskor. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

And my apologies to you.  No insult or criticism intended. I thought the post was helpful, but I too will go back to sitting on the sidelines as best as I can.

On 4/4/2024 at 9:22 AM, jimjum12 said:

 

.... and where are the recriminators when it comes time to actually step up and reach out? Quite probably finding others to recriminate for other things, so they can continue to satisfy that internet ego pump. 

I too, have had more than one dear friend commit suicide, there is rarely a common denominator, and it is NEVER just a simple choice. Anytime I see someone minimizing suicide, or having a cavalier and dismissive attitude towards it, is going to get my . That level of insensitivity and presumption isn't getting a pass if I'm around. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

I think you missed the point of Randall Dowling and Ken Aldred's posts. Randall was addressing people who commit suicide, at least in part, in a bid to make others feel bad. As he said: "At least one of the people I knew of, left a very angry note behind.  It was filled with accusations and blame for people in their life, much of which was just very misplaced.  But that didn't stop the family members from feeling really, really awful and responsible for it.  Permanently scarred." A good case can be made that Ed's final missive reflects those attitudes and may well have a similar effect on some of the people he was lashing out at. In short, Randall, as I read him is addressing recrimination by the person committing suicide.

Ken, in responding to Randall, was addressing an entirely different scenario. Someone who is committing suicide in the face of, as he puts it, a "terminal" disease. He's saying that even in that situation, one where there was "no note, no blaming anyone else" (e.g. no recrimination by the person committing suicide) he still is haunted by his father's action and feels guilt. 

I don't believe either was talking about recrimination by others which caused a person to commit suicide.

I do think your post illuminates a disconnect in the debate here. Based on your experiences, your paramount concern is for persons at risk for suicide. You are offended by what you view as attacks on the victim - the person who has died. Others here, due to different experiences, have a paramount concern for the woman who told her story and are offended by what they view as attacks on that victim. 

Carry on.

On 3/30/2024 at 8:59 PM, tth2 said:

Wasn't the greatest comic book collection ever stored in a basement for decades?

 

So was the greatest pulp collection. Same basement. Unfortunately, that closet of Edgar's had a leak. Chuck said they were all ruined.

Where is this in Oregon? I grew up in Eugene.

On 4/3/2024 at 9:34 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Correct. There are mature, structured and organizational ways to resolve situations in life that allows for closure, recompense or forgiveness should someone want to forgive. That is how you function in adult society. Posting 200 word screeds with F-bombs, repeated editorializing and slang works against the the gravity of seriousness of her story.

 

Thanks for posting the link: https://www.instagram.com/p/C436qhyvPrq/?igsh=aWhma3JsM2hzN2Fp

Having read it, as a civil litigator, I don't see anything that "works against the gravity of seriousness of her story." To the contrary, her post reads entirely unscripted and is authentic sounding. 

It also does not hurt that the person commenting on Molly D's post to the right, "RC" (no idea who that is), confirms knowledge of the situation dating back two years.

On 4/3/2024 at 9:25 AM, alxjhnsn said:

I'm still reading, but I really enjoy it.

Thanks!  That thread is a mess, but a lot of people said interesting things and as you get deeper the story broadens. My favorite comments by those who popped onto the thread include Marty Mann's revelation that his name was also on the 1947 prize winners list near the beginning of the thread and the appearance by Bill Placzek (sp?). The stuff that hasn't made it into the thread takes it to an even broader, more detailed, and, frankly, much more rounded place. 

On 4/3/2024 at 9:34 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Correct. There are mature, structured and organizational ways to resolve situations in life that allows for closure, recompense or forgiveness should someone want to forgive. That is how you function in adult society. Posting 200 word screeds with F-bombs, repeated editorializing and slang works against the the gravity of seriousness of her story.

So back to my original point of "...given some time, I'm sure Molly would have seen that she grossly over-reacted." - she would have realized at some future point in time that the way she handled it could have been better and more articulate in a way that might have produced a better, healthier outcome than what happened here.

Which Molly are you talking about? There are two in this story.

On 4/3/2024 at 7:43 AM, Prince Namor said:

How am I bashing her? What are you talking about?

Look up. My posts are clear, and I have nothing else to say.

On 4/3/2024 at 7:36 AM, Prince Namor said:

The reason is because he knew it was inappropriate and bordering illegal.

After that comment, I don't think there's anything left for me to say. Those who are trying to bash the young woman are completely out of line and I'd hope they stop and consider before they do so. After all, isn't that what they wanted to happen with bashing of Ed?

On 4/3/2024 at 7:23 AM, Prince Namor said:

Now you're just being outrageous. Again, no crime was committed here. There was no sex involved. There wasn't even physical contact and from what. it looks like, less than a few messages. Stop reaching. 

 

 

I'm responding to comments in a discussion which encompasses not just Ed but also the issues of "grooming," age of consent laws, and the reactions of people who live elsewhere in the country than Ed. I'm also strongly reacting against the "blame the alleged victim" mentality which some comments here are expressing. If you are going to try to corral the discussion, you should start with yourself. 

Look, I think it is a tragedy that Ed committed suicide for all of the reasons I've stated above. The one thing I hope we all agree on is that he made a very bad choice. He should be the one arguing his case and its too bad he's not here to do so. 

But Ed's final message does not impress me one bit and is not credibility enhancing to me. He clearly felt a lot of vitriol and he clearly wanted his legacy to be one of fear and intimidation. I really hope that folks here and elsewhere don't take up that banner against the young woman who did nothing wrong by telling her story. Those kind of attacks deserve a strong response.

On 4/3/2024 at 7:12 AM, Prince Namor said:

First of all, there's NO CRIME HERE.

So why do you keep referring to it as if there was?

ALL we have to establish is WHY he decided to continue talking to her after he found out her age.

Was it just an attraction of an older man to a younger girl? Or did they really have something common?

Well they DID.

 

Everyone has something in common. We're not going to be able to assess "why" he kept talking to her. He admits he shouldn't have once he found out her age. That's a suggestive admission that's the "why" it was not some entirely innocent reason. But I don't see enough evidence for any conclusions either way. So I'm pretty positive this will remain a subject of debate. But no reason to smear the young woman as some comments appear to be doing.

On 4/3/2024 at 7:14 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

I just saw the examples of Molly's artwork. I don't get it. What possesses someone to create weird/bizarre stuff like that? I mean, the first image isn't too bad but then...

Am I too being conservative about this?

Ask an underground artist. It's the norm. Also, there are two Molly's in this story.

On 4/3/2024 at 7:08 AM, Prince Namor said:

Yeah, no one said that. You're being ridiculous. 

On 4/3/2024 at 4:45 AM, jimjum12 said:

A 17 year old girl, who chooses to interact with adults on the internet without parental supervision, cannot still, simultaneously , claim some sort of innocent waif status, and then play the victim

On 4/3/2024 at 7:08 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

Ed didn't break the law. No one is defending what he did, but he didn't break the law. And I'm sorry, but there are plenty of examples of 17 year olds all over the world who are smart enough, and crafty enough and 'adult' enough to take advantage of the protection they receive due to their age. 

 

What exactly are you trying to say now? Is the same true for 13, 14, 15 and 16 year-olds? And why are we talking about "all over the world"? Prince Andrew's scandal was a 17 year-old, but I really don't think he, Jeffrey Epstein, or Ghislaine Maxwell were the victims. You are digging a hole and probably should clarify what message you are trying to get across, because the message you are communicating now is completely at odds with any age of consent laws.

On 4/3/2024 at 12:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

What? You don't think Piskor's comic book work was used in accessing who he is as a person? 

And I'm not even referring to this as guilt or innocence in what Molly SAID, I'm referring to you saying she seemed like an innocent 17 year old who didn't know better. 

Nice pivot. Your post was about her work not his. 

And, no, that's not what I said. If you were confused, let me be clear: Age of consent laws are to protect the vulnerable. There is no "she's not an innocent virgin!" defense to a violation of an age of consent law. Such a defense would pretty much defeat the intent.

On 4/3/2024 at 6:12 AM, october said:

Have you bothered to look at either of their work? Because if you had, you'd know instantly what Namor was talking about. 

I think I know what he was implying. I think it shows a total misunderstanding of the context and purpose of age of consent laws. Whatever she drew is irrelevant to this debate. I'm very surprised that the argument is being made that its ok for an older person to have sex with an underage person if the underage person was interested in, drew pictures of, or had previously engaged in sex is even being made.

On 4/3/2024 at 12:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

What? You don't think Piskor's comic book work was used in accessing who he is as a person? 

And I'm not even referring to this as guilt or innocence in what Molly SAID, I'm referring to you saying she seemed like an innocent 17 year old who didn't know better. 

On 4/3/2024 at 12:04 AM, sfcityduck said:

Not sure what you are implying here, but it does not look good to me.

On 4/3/2024 at 4:45 AM, jimjum12 said:

Is that fouling your narrative up? A 17 year old girl, who chooses to interact with adults on the internet without parental supervision, cannot still, simultaneously , claim some sort of innocent waif status, and then play the victim, without a little more than the verification from some social worker of questionable skill sets. Grooming? WTF is that? Did he comb her hair? I get all the rage against pedophilia, but I'm sorry, a grown man "hitting" on a near adult who sought him out in the first place, should not be facing a prison offence, nor should he be labeled a pedophile, when many, many societies allow marriage at that age.

 

What you, Prince Namor and Jimjum12, are doing here, hopefully inadvertently or ignorantly, is engaging in a practice known as "sl_t shaming" a potential victim. And you are doing it here based on her art not her conduct. No one on this thread has any illusions as to what information or influences there are in the world. But that's irrelevant to the debate being conducted here, and for the potential wrongdoing at issue here it is not a defense. Jimjum12's statement that "a grown man 'hitting' on a near adult who sought him out in the first place, should not be facing a prison offence" is more than a bit deaf to the concerns that motivate age of consent laws. Age of consent laws reflect that young hormone filled kids coming of age are programed to want sex. That's why they are vulnerable to overtures from the proverbial "creepy old men."

I think Ed knew what those concerns were and attempted to address them in his final FB message, so I'm more than a bit surprised that you are blind to them:

* "I’m so sorry for being so stupid. I definitely should never have talked with Molly D. ... I wasn’t trolling Instagram randomly but I definitely shouldn’t have chatted with her when I found out how young she was."

* "The whole pile of my dms she collected to show is just awful to look at. I’m sorry."

* "The very next morning after Molly D posted the screencaps I put my last will in testament together. Freewill.com."

That last comment by Ed immediately above is particularly telling, especially as to the allegation he makes elsewhere in the letter that he was murdered by internet bullies.

On 4/2/2024 at 11:15 PM, Prince Namor said:

Have you seen Molly's comic book art? There's a reason she connected with Ed. 
It was by no means My Little Pony. 

 

Not sure what you are implying here, but it does not look good to me.

On 4/2/2024 at 10:32 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

The Law is there to protect them legally. The responsibility of parents, should be there to do the real work of TEACHING them critical reasoning skills.

He did defend himself in the letter. 

There was no court of law, because there were no charges filed.

He was convicted in the court of public opinion by, as you said, 'not having all the facts'.

He wasn't convicted because the jury of public opinion was still out. One missive is not a defense. It's a skirmish. And what he said wasn't an artful or coherent defense. Maybe he had a better more coherent story to tell but we'll never know. I've read some other suicide letters, and I've never seen one like this. This one was calm, calculated, and contradictory - alternatingly apologetic and unapologetic. The cynic in me can't help but think it was crafted, in part, in an attempt to get around the Hearsay Rule and be admissible for the truth of what he stated. The statement "There needs to be recourse for my loved ones. I’m dead. I don’t have a reason to lie" appears crafted for a court. His pleas for his family to sue Molly Wright are remarkable. I don't know what the guy was thinking. 

On 4/2/2024 at 10:32 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

I've worked with hundreds, HUNDREDS of 18 year old strippers over the last 25 years. And either they had a Matrix-like download of information to their brain at 18 that suddenly turned them into... 'experienced adults', or... they knew a lot more before that 18th birthday than I guess most people would give them credit for. 

And I don't mean that just in terms of BAD stuff. I mean in terms of understanding sexual harassment, understanding the laws around it, understanding politics, understanding the world we live in, understanding history... the LAW says 18. But let's not act like it's a magical age where they suddenly become a real adult in any means other than the eyes of the law. 

The Law is there to protect them legally. The responsibility of parents, should be there to do the real work of TEACHING them critical reasoning skills.

 

I don't believe the 17 year-old at issue here had the same upbringing or experiences of the hundreds of 18 year old strippers you've worked with over the past 25 years (I hope as a social worker?). And I'm not sure I'm going to celebrate the parents that taught their daughters the critical reasoning skills that made them turn to stripping, and for some the likely associated sex trades. 

You miss the point of age of consent laws. They are not intended to supplant parenting. They are intended to set a societal value - the notion that young women of age 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 should not be exploited for sex by older men. Call me what you want, but I'm ok with that notion. It may not work in a perfect way, but I'm not convinced its a bad aspiration.