mrwoogieman

Good work! I'll court a strike next: "Hey, I have a beef about [insert CGC advertiser name here]..."

Not a comic, but another type of "modern" is heating up on ebay --- I noticed that the frosted X-Men toon tumblers are hitting $30-45 on ebay pretty consistently depending on the character. Who knew Paul's collectible character glasses would be...collectible??!?!

At the anemic rate they produce new episodes, Shane could do both AND replace Regis on the side!

Cool! (thumbs u

Years ago, there was a collector trying to get all 250 of some limited edition Jaromir Jagr sports card from Topps. When he had 260 or so of them, he filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer.

Didn't you clerk for Scalia and therefore, ipso post res ipsa loquitor, should also be banned? It wouldn't surprise me if you clerked for him, you raging textualist. I am more of a Judge Posner type guy. I'm a Judge Wapner type.

I've been guilty of assuming a US based seller without checking. But sometimes getting that I'll Take It sign up there as soon as possible is all that matters. Upon learning the seller was in fact in Canada, I did what my haste made necessary: I paid the "extra" shipping and honored the deal.

I know Mr. Delicious and that fits!

Hard to believe this topic could result in the first locked thread, let alone two! ibtl

Dorks, one and all.

Interesting angle. I'd like to know that too. (thumbs u I went and pulled up his Sig Room thread. He states that he was in the Air Force from 1997-2005. I'm waiting to hear back from him. He's been reading the threads and I asked if I could post his email to me on here as it might explain a few things. Or not. Isn't it amazing what a mess a little dumbassery can create? I actually find it comical in a way. You couldn't -script this stuff for Hollywood. One lie started a bigger mess. Which is exactly the breakdown of the first fiasco. The dude clearly loves comic books, but i wouldn't trust him with a transaction involving a Snickers bar. He lied in both cases (the PGX book and the special needs brother fiasco) but in both cases he was trying to save face from what he thought was an embarrassing situation. I personally don't believe anybody's money was ever at risk. Still comical as hell as an outsider looking in. And I agree that one small lie create this entire mess. It's the way most messes start. You form a small crack and it widens out of control. As an interesting side note, we saw "The Ides Of March" starting George Clooney last night at a local, privately owned movie theatre that we like to support. If you haven't seen it, it was a pretty interesting take on politics. It has nothing to do with Caesar or Shakespeare. What struck me about the movie was how much grief, pain and deceit one little lie creates as it grows like a web and causes people to sometimes change their values just to minimize damage. Always better to be 100% truthful from the start. Ironically, one of the people that we went with has a real problem with lying and it was a surreal "I hope he gets it" moment at the end of the movie. Hopefully Trey gets it, too. I know you feel some need to defend this guy, which in and of itself is commendable, but your contiuing attempt to dismiss and diminish the "circus" by calling it "hilarious" and "a comedy" reveals just how fundamentally you don't understand the problem. Let's break it down to its essence: Two men. Both walking across a stretch of grass, which has a "KEEP OFF GRASS" sign posted. Neither sees the sign when they begin walking on the grass. The first guy sees the sign, and immediately gets off the grass as fast as he can. He didn't intend to trespass, and fixes his mistake as fast as possible. The second guy sees the sign, walks up to it, kicks it over, and says to himself "I can walk anywhere I damn well please." Both men trespassed. Only one man rebelled. Trey Cannon is the second man. Lying to "save face", while tempting, reveals a moral deficiency. His continual disregard of the rules further reveals a moral deficiency. Someone said this once: "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." Cool Story, Bro. I think I heard that one before, but the men walked into a bar. One might have been a lawyer and the other one was a duck if I remember it right. No, one was Superman in disguise and he flew out the window; the other was a drunken schnook who tried to imitate Supes.

Chris, we don't want them to leave Hershel's without a reason or a plan, but we want the depiction of their plight to speed up to the point where they actually have a reason or a plan. I'm all for character development, but this is ridiculous - it's taking multiple episodes for even the most basic story elements to progress. My biggest fear is that TWD loses its popularity and gets cancelled in a few seasons...and they're still on Hershel's farm, Sophia is still missing and there are still walkers in the barn. The show simply cannot continue to plod along at this pace, because, as much as we enjoy it, it's not going to be on the air forever and there is a LOT of ground to cover. Wouldn't it be a terrible shame if the show is on the air, for, say, 5-7 seasons and they only end up covering a small % of what's been depicted in the comic book series? Yeah, we'll know the characters inside out, but we'll never see them put through all of Kirkman's best comic storylines and we'll see a hackneyed, abrupt ending. That would be terrible. How long before they introduce Cousin Oliver? Alice's boyfriend Sam the Butcher would take care of zombie Cousin Oliver with a meat cleaver to his skull! The "ouch my nose" scene would have to be inflicted against a zombie-Jan and her nose would actually fly off when hit with the basketball...

Found this comment while researching. Sounds reasonable I guess. "Shows generally run between 13-26 episodes a year(~22 being the norm for broadcast stations), so at least half the year new episodes won't be on. It also takes more than a week's time to film most shows (except studio audience sitcoms), so taking a break can allow the production to get ahead again. Also, networks like to program shows when people will be watching, so they generally skip showing new episodes of regular shows for a few weeks around Christmas, around Spring Break, and in the summer. These are the most likely times people will be traveling or doing outdoor activities, and are less likely to pay attention to television. Reality TV is much cheaper to produce, so they can just keep showing it without a break and during summer because it doesn't need as many viewers to still make a profit." breaking bad, boardwalk empire, mad men, homeland, sons of anarchy- the best shows on television all have 12-13 episode seasons and none of them take three month breaks midway through. this is idiotic. maybe they need an extra 3 months off camera to find sophia, they can't seem to resolve her situation on camera. They coud've cut out the last three episodes by starting the latest one with a SIX MONTHS LATER caption.

I disagree, and agree with Brian (Foolkiller). Seller asked "what is it worth" essentially, and was lied to. At some point there will be a "clarification" of the story that the old man actually said "how much will you give me for them?" rather than asking what they were worth.

He means the Wovie #1 I believe...

That's pretty neat. I would contact one of the auction houses that does this kind of americana and vintage toys type stuff and see what they think. What about Hake's or Phil Weiss Auctions on LI? (thumbs u

Buy for 25¢, sell for $40 = Genius Don't know about Chris Ware - he's always been in my like rather than love column. I appreciate why he's popular, and the packaging of the Acme Comics Library is inspired, but never really was that into his narratives. Agreed, too depressing for my tastes.

Please, Mr. Crybaby, could you regale us with a third post describing your disinterest in this discussion? Only longer and with more (less?) disinterest. Thanks!

Thanks for posting that. I didn't realize it was holiday themed. I was waiting for his boy to get bit...

My issues, again, revolve around 2b and 4b-c. I would limit the restitution to the cost of the book plus shipping, or in the case where the book was resold for a loss, the difference in the realized price plus shipping. Many cans of worms will be opened and dissected trying to get a consensus on what are reasonable costs and what are not reasonable costs. For example, we could have a buyer assert that he lost a sure re-sell because the seller didn't complete the transaction (timely or at all) and as a result the re-sell opportunity was lost to the buyer. If it must be that way, perhaps an asterisk next to the name on the PL could signify that the Listee offered restitution that was not acceptable to the Listor, thereby blocking removal from the PL. Or will it be majority rules on a board vote for what is the reasonable restitution in each transaction?

I think "restitution" needs to mean only the agreed upon purchase price of the book and shipping (if that was part of the deal). Any other costs associated with a deal gone bad have to be considered as a cost of doing business and eaten by the wronged party. This board cannot substitute for a court of law in determining compensatory damages, nor should it. Ultimately, the wronged party had a choice of venue to buy/sell and chose this one, with all of its accompanying limitations. EDIT: I should add also that an aggrieved party who is of a mind to seek "full restitution" has the option of bringing the other party to court (if such an option makes economic sense to them to attempt).

They're saying this season will be mostly Herschel's farm, introducing Maggie, getting the Maggie/Glen romance going, etc.

Not neccesarily true. Personally, I love a good confrontation. However, age has given me the wisdom to choose my battles wisely. Like in this example I will accept your reference to me as a low-self-esteem, self-flagellating insufficiently_thoughtful_person and take the high road. You,sir, are simply not worth arguing with. If you don't have enough self-worth to stick up for yourself, no one else is going to do it for you. And we're not having an argument. I'm just telling you you're wrong.