Logan510

Who made THAT argument? Show me who made that argument. Because slabs are not what makes something relevant. 9 year old kids walking into my store and seeing a picture of the actor who played Shane and recognizing him as 'Shane from the Walking Dead'... that does. I find that amazing. And yet I see it regularly. If you're argument is, will 9.8 #1 be worth more in 10 years or after the show ends... the answer can only be... who gives a crud. If you're argument is, has Walking Dead reached into the cultural consciousness of our society... the answer is yes. You can deny it all you want. But it has. The purpose of the thread is to discuss when (or if) the pricing bubble will bust on TWD 1. If you don't give a "crud" about what a stabbed 9.8 will be worth, why are you posting? Especially with such aggression and absolution? Interesting... here I thought I was being calm and definitive and you were the one being aggressive and absolute. There is no absolute answer on the long term price of the 9.8 #1. No one knows for sure. That was easy. :shrug: You came into the thread, replied to several posts and capitalized words or used sarcasm to belittle the points others were attempting to make. Your positioning is aggressive and you attempt to diminish others (either directly or through their point of view). From what I can see this is very typical of your posting style and it is pretty clear you are an arrogant jerk and not worth my time. Thanks, have a nice day. You totally described Chuck to a T. That guy really chaps my spurs...or whatever.

I kind of like the buy books from boardie, receive books and then proceed to complain about the grading and beat them down for a partial refund. Then sell books at higher grade and a premium. Wasn't that GIJOEISAWESOME, and that tactic led to his ultimate demise? No. His ultimate demise was not being 18 It's too bad, he could've replaced capfreak as the future of the hobby

I kind of like the buy books from boardie, receive books and then proceed to complain about the grading and beat them down for a partial refund. Then sell books at higher grade and a premium.

I just received a couple of super sweet books from Herman. Shipped quickly and awesome packaging! I would gladly do business with him again. Thanks again! Casey

Totally! I like his stuff from the last ten years better than the stuff from the first ten years! Now I know you're loony. I still love his work, but that first 10 years or so... He's probably my favorite new mainstream superhero artist of the 1980's.

He couldn't meet his deadlines because he's admittedly lazy.

Those look beautiful

For you Crassus, anything.... And no, this is not a picture of the Giving Tree! True, no compost heap.

Since your his *spoon*, couldn't you do it for him?

. As funny as that is (and it is hillarious), that is not who I was referring too. I wasn't either. I've seen it happen too many times to just single out one person.

I had always understood the 30 day period to also signify that there was an expectation that both parties would try to sort it out before making it a public issue here. Since the moment it becomes public here, names named etc, it means more drama and distraction for everybody. Once 30 days has elapsed, the wronged party can at least say they tried to get compliance before going to court, so to speak. What bothers me is that he hasn't even communicated in 30 days. He has just read PMs and not replied for a month. Personally, I think 30 days with no communication is very different than two people trying to work through a problem for 30 days. And I agree with some boardies that 30 days is far too long anyway. 1 week is usually plenty to either communicate or solve a problem. 2 weeks is LOTS of time to sell a book to raise funds if you need to. It's what I always did. 30 days is ridiculously long to solve a problem, IMO. That's layaway and 'charge interest' territory. Again, I fully agree that I should have taken a down payment and worked out the terms, but you live and learn. Hindsight is always glaringly obvious. What really chaps is when you look at their posts and you see other take its. That's the close relative of my absolute favorite. Having a "I need money to pay the rent, pay for braces, pay for new bionic arm sale" and then seeing that same seller buying stuff up in other sales threads...concurrently.

I love it when they tell you they can "pay right away", after offering you 70% or 80% of FMV for your hot, key book. I'll pay you 60% of FMV, but only if you let me make time payments. (thumbs u At no money down. Can you drop ship that for me? Drop shipping

Grizzley Adams DID have a beard. This doesn't even make sense. Is this supposed to be a joke? *** Go watch Happy Gilmore. Why would I watch an unfunny Adam Sandler POS movie? Kevin76, spreading good cheer and sunshine wherever he goes I'm being honest. God knows everyone else around here has an opinion about something. Well, that's true of course. However, there's honest and then there's being a . I'd say you're proficient in both That's not too bad. Plenty of people here are only proficient in one. we need to talk about Adam Sandler SS - for example, what books could Adam Sandler sign?

Man, some sweet stuff got poofed. Did anyone save it??

Grizzley Adams DID have a beard. This doesn't even make sense. Is this supposed to be a joke? *** Go watch Happy Gilmore. Why would I watch an unfunny Adam Sandler POS movie? Kevin76, spreading good cheer and sunshine wherever he goes I'm being honest. God knows everyone else around here has an opinion about something. Well, that's true of course. However, there's honest and then there's being a . I'd say you're proficient in both That's not too bad. Plenty of people here are only proficient in one.

Maybe you aren't intelligent enough to understand. (Please excuse this response. I tried to convince it not to post itself. It wouldn't listen.) Probably not

I expect it from them...it's all about the marketing, I get that. What I don't understand are people who appear to be intelligent, buying into it hook, line and sinker.

I don't think anyone is making a case otherwise, only whether it matters.or not. The manipulation that he did is what makes him important, not the image itself. Sounds like a bit of hoop jumping to justify his hucksterism.

Of course not. He was praised for elevating the source material as comics were viewed as utter garbage, so what he did was seen as an improvement. Thank goodness

One of my favorite stories is when John Byrne was in art school, they insisted on every piece having a title, so he named everything he did " man's inhumanity to man"

Probably what makes me a troglodyte, but I don't need to be challenged by a painting.

And how does the school feel about Roy Lichtenstein? The effete snobs loved him, the rest of us troglodytes thought he was a hack. thats pretty funny. You like Rothko? http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/10/rothko-paintings-auction/18830733/ That's not really my type of work and to be honest I don't really appreciate it. I don't really feel the need to apply any deep meaning into a few color swatches and it doesn't enrich my life.

And how does the school feel about Roy Lichtenstein? The effete snobs loved him, the rest of us troglodytes thought he was a hack.

Not you too, Andrew. Is that statement not true Gene? Someone else's work-for-hire product, one panel out of a totally forgettable whole, was the starting point for something he transformed into art which most educated people outside of a handful of indignant comic fans consider to be truly great. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions: Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings? In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. At the same time, a work does not become a parody simply because the author models characters after those found in a famous work. For example, in a case involving the author J.D. Salinger, an author wrote a book in which a character known as Mr. C was allegedly modeled after the character of Holden Caulfield, from Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye. After Salinger sued, the sequel’s author claimed that his work was a parody, an argument rejected by the district court primarily because the work was not transformative. Aging the character and placing him in present day does not add something new, particularly since the character’s personality remains intact as derived from the original work. (Salinger v. Colting, 641 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).) Purposes such as scholarship, research, or education may also qualify as transformative uses because the work is the subject of review or commentary. EXAMPLE Roger borrows several quotes from the speech given by the CEO of a logging company. Roger prints these quotes under photos of old-growth redwoods in his environmental newsletter. By juxtaposing the quotes with the photos of endangered trees, Roger has transformed the remarks from their original purpose and used them to create a new insight. The copying would probably be permitted as a fair use. Determining what is transformative—and the degree of transformation—is often challenging. For example, the creation of a Harry Potter encyclopedia was determined to be “slightly transformative” (because it made the Harry Potter terms and lexicons available in one volume), but this transformative quality was not enough to justify a fair use defense in light of the extensive verbatim use of text from the Harry Potter books. (Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).) While RL's use was certainly commercial, it quite easily passes the transformative factor test. New expression? Check. New meaning? Check. New aesthetics? Check. So, basically you're left with, "B-b-b-b-b-b-but he's still a bad guy!" and "Modern and contemporary art is all a big scam and comic art is underappreciated!" Never mind the fact that it was the publishers and work-for-hire system that gave no ownership or voice to the artists in question, that they were paid maybe a buck or two at most for any of the panels RL appropriated (all of which would be forgotten/worthless without RL), or that the artists weren't even always credited and that RL did, have positive things to say about those artists (as we know from interviews from the mid-1960s). No matter how you dissect it, or what insults you throw or how much you devalue the source material, one thing stands true: Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Period. If I did that at the art school I graduated from I would've been potentially expelled, not called a genius.

Most educated people think it is truly great? Do they? Outside of a few indignant comic fans.