Doktor

Just picked this up today for a couple bucks from a guy that didn't want it anymore. Doesn't fit bagged & boarded books or slabs, but it's a good 1st spinner. But it's nice to have a place to throw some dollar bin books as a conversation piece.

No, it's a logical interpretation to YOU & completely subjective. I personally do not see a lack of return policy as a definitive statement of "as-is, no returns". I see it as a "returns aren't defined so maybe I should ask about returns before I buy so that I can know what I'm getting into here?" . Because it's undefined & therefore unknown. And yet another person may see it as "well, they said normal board rules apply at the top & didn't cover returns & most other people seem to have an X-day window for returns, so that's normal board rules". And yet another might see it as "I can gamble because they didn't say they WON'T take it back if it doesn't look as good in-hand as it does on the smudged screen of my tiny phone or if it sinks like a brick in value 2 weeks from now". None of them are objectively wrong because there's no evidence at the moment to prove any of them wrong. Or right. And that makes it a pretty subjective issue. Whereas a defined policy makes for an objective statement where there is only 1 logical interpretation. And in the case you posed, while you might be SOL on making the return, the also don't has no protection of being able to point to a "look, it was stated right here where I said you can't return anything & you didn't read it " from the PR standpoint. And that's what the PL is really... a PR thread of who to and not to do business with because they're shady or have been shady in certain situations. I'd consider a retailer that wasn't even willing to state "you can't return your purchase" to me before I made the purchase as pretty shady. It might cost me a couple bucks to find it out, but I'd let others know "oh that place won't even admit until after you've made your purchase that you can't return it" and try to let others know not do deal with them either because I don't want them to have to lose money to learn the same lesson on that particular retailer. And isn't that the purpose of the PL here, right? To tell others so they don't get screwed over as well?

That's certainly a valid interpretation. However, that's kinda the definition of "cover your ". Risk mitigation. Not covering your with a return policy leaves sellers open to any number of interpretations of what a buyer might believe it to be. Creating unnecessary risk for the seller. Your interpretation is subjective to you. So is an interpretation that "no stated return policy = lifetime guarantee for any reason even if the book ends up worth a nickel 5 years from now & I paid $300 for it today & can return it to recoup my poor investment" could be to someone else. Or anywhere in between. A stated policy, however removes the subjectivity & turns a subjective issue into an objective issue where the seller & the buyer know, for absolute certain, what, if any, return options there are before it's even potentially needed down the line.

Well, it is network TV. So there's a degree of obligatory emotional soapy stuff that's kinda to be expected. Especially on ABC.

I think that we can all agree that this kinda exposed a hole in the PL/HoS rules as well, or maybe even in the sales rules themselves. We require payment options, grade and/or scan, and price. Maybe this brings to light that the sales rules, not just the PL/HoS rules, need a requirement that a return policy should also be required in a sales listing unless it is an "as-is" sale. But on the PL/HoS side, I'd say that a year is at the edge (on one side or the other) of the as-of-yet undefined limits. Absent a rule establishing a time-limit for the PL/HoS, wouldn't we have to simply default to the sales thread's return policy time-frame? And in this case, as that didn't have an established return policy, shouldn't it be therefore open-ended? I mean, return policies and everything else are cover-your- territory for sellers. The seller didn't cover theirs. Sucks, but true. And that's even with ignoring the whole "avoiding communication with the seller", Read + Delete e-mail practices, prior bad behavior with sales brought to light recently, etc.

well this just got interesting

It's more slow-burn than firecracker. The mental/emotional roller coaster of a 'Detective vs Psycho serial killer' novel. What I found fascinating was Anderson's ability to shift from super-hot desirable to intimidating ironlady at will. No idea how she did that. A glance, turn of the head, eyes, I really don't know. In the same scene it might go from 'my god, that woman is just all kinds of doable' to 'aw hell no, no way josé,10-point shrivel factor ice-queen, so damn cold, brrr.' And no idea why those internal reactions, other than damn good character acting. Ok. Slow burn I can deal with. Didn't need firecracker. Just needed it to seem like it was actually going somewhere. It didn't from the 1st episode. It was just kinda "ok, and things are happening in this world" but didn't give me that "I need to know what happens next!" feeling. I'll give it another shot. Thanks!

Problem with most of Hollywood is that many (if not most) are very Alan Moore-esque; in that they don't play well with others. They don't do well when constrained by needing to work within defined limits. They want to tell the story that they want to tell and how they want to tell it & if they don't get to tell it that way, then it's "ruining cinema!" And while those guys are great & can tell cool original stories, it's like they forget that those are not the only stories to be told in that medium. They also don't like that their interesting, original & "artistically unspoiled" movie won't be the movie that the studio relies upon to make all the money that year & save their box office take for the year. Or that they won't get the kind of budget that a movie like the Hunger Games or Avengers or Batman will, with a built-in audience getting carried over from another medium. Those are all shots to the ego of a group of people that are seriously ego-centric.

I watched the 1st episode. Does it get better? The story didn't really "grab me".

well you're not in NYC, are you in Mexico City? I am not aware of another city in North America with more than 7 million people. (I know, I know, the greater Toronto metropolitan area, I'm kidding you!) Houston is up there. The metro area is close to the 7M mark. Google says 6.2 as of 2014.

That's old school thinking. You can always make the pie bigger by attracting new customers or enticing existing customers to spend more. True, but the 2nd part of your statement also either assumes flat prices or disregards the "spending more" result that is due to simply increasing cover prices. But I get what you mean. There's just a lot of moving parts that make it not nearly as simple as new customers or enticing existing customers to spend more. There is still only a reasonable amount of expected % of disposable income that people are ever going to spend. It might not be exact & you might be able to get more over-time if you provide a greater entertainment bang for the buck than other competing entertainment forms, but there's still a limit. Even if we're not sure where it is or it changes over time. There kinda IS only so much money in the pie at any given time.

I kinda wanna block the Spanish lady that was selling plots of 1-square-meter "land" on the sun until eBay blocked her from doing that. I think she's probably crazy enough to go on here, but I can't find her user name. Sadly.

The original Sentry story was great... what they did with him later? Not so much. I liked the idea of a Superman in the Marvel Universe & essentially his own superiority being the thing that wipes him out of the Marvel Universe at the same time. The way he just didn't "fit" so much that he couldn't exist.

There needs to be a highfive emoji on here.

Lacking core strength to lift his legs high enough to jump over?

What book?

If you feel like parting with 1 set of the mini-series, I'd be glad to take them off your hands. I really want to re-read that. It was just a fun little mini. I really loved that series (especially the cover design & how it changed from issue to issue)

1k for a 9.8 seems like a deal now considering how much that vf sold for. Is that book still available for sale? If so, I'd buy it I just checked the census #s there are only 7 9.8 copies and 11 total grades. Pretty low especially for a campbell / xmen cover Sadly... no. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here fretting about passing it up, I would be out selling plasma or robbing a bank or something & setting up a pick-up time. !

That was a mini that I dumped a few years back when I sold off a chunk of my PC to clear space & re-focus my collection. Of course, it (as well as a number of other books from that purge) starts moving now.

I am too. But then again, I guess there's enough people out there trying to finish off a complete UXM set that it'll always have at least SOME legs. Same way the UXM 500 sketches do. I'm just shocked it's still climbing instead of just kinda sitting at a pretty high price.

I had a similar interaction with this seller when I asked about the Hulk 181 SS that he had some $6k BIN/OBO on. Took him a month to get back to me on whether there was a guarantee of yellow label & not green or purple. Needless to say... I backed very slowly away from that potential transaction.

I really should have snagged a 9.8 about a year and change back for almost exactly $1k when I had the chance with the stupid high prices that this book has been getting. Jesus.

Still... great display!

I really need to make time to hit more yard sales/garage sales/etc. There's just not many around here & none of them seem to ever advertise having any comics.

Marvel likely had a specific clause that to exclude Inhumans with the FF. Or the FF contract only spells out exactly who Fox gets. Especially since unlike the Fox/X-Men deal, there aren't so many FF-related characters that naming them would be a burden. In all likelihood, since they are different contracts, the FF contract likely doesn't have the same "and all associated supporting characters & villains" clause like the X-Men contract would. You have literally millions of mutants and at least a thousand named mutant or X-related characters. That makes listing them onerous. FF though? You could probably get that done in a list of about 100-ish names. And Namor's right are still maybe kinda/sorta with Universal. There's some debate over whether they are STILL with Universal, but at the time that Marvel & Fox signed the FF deal, Namor's rights were not available to be included in the deal & likely wouldn't automatically transfer over to Fox when/if they revert from Universal just because he has a close association with the FF (and recently the X-Men) even if the FF contract does have one of those "and others" clauses