GeeksAreMyPeeps

Non-keys sell better if they're in a set with keys. You're welcome.

The final price seems unreasonably high.

With the prices being seen on some comics recently, I have to imagine that this is being undervalued: https://io9.gizmodo.com/watch-the-pawn-stars-undervalue-some-classic-superman-m-1819740813

This one is nuts and there's still 4 days left. Might be a good idea to post mine: https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-One-Percent-1-2012-1-20-Juan-Doe-Gold-variant-Valiant-Comics-rare-1/142540380281?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D41375%26meid%3D2af3f761071a46f3a885659f7d38b7e2%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D263253845037&_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850

Yeah, I saw that too. But I expect that for the error. That was hot out of the gate.

I think I have 20-30 copies of #1. One of the 9.8s, 3 9.6s, a 9.4, and a bunch of raws of the regular cover. A 9.6 and a handful of raws for the variant. I've got the 9.8 and a 9.6 of #3 and a bunch of raws. Waiting for more news…

Ah, I looked quick and didn't realize it was multiple sets

And this one is just insane for raw copies: https://www.ebay.com/itm/7-Sets-of-Quantum-amp-Woody-1-and-3-1997-Acclaim-Valiant-VF-nm-or-better-/202072458312?epid=85511597&hash=item2f0c750448%3Ag%3ARVsAAOSwchBZ04nV&nma=true&si=J04pycffUmOw2GP2HnN6VtOcqMM%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

A few big results for Valiant incentives: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Archer-amp-Armstrong-25-2012-1-50-Walsh-variant-Valiant-Comics-VEI-/263253837594?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=J04pycffUmOw2GP2HnN6VtOcqMM%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc https://www.ebay.com/itm/Harbinger-25-2012-1-50-Barry-Kitson-variant-Valiant-Comics-VEI-rare-/263253838738?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=J04pycffUmOw2GP2HnN6VtOcqMM%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

I'm not a student of these numbers, so this is an honest question: From an accounting standpoint wouldn't there be a natural tendency (for any business) to inflate the "print" (production) numbers and deflate the "distribution" (income) numbers? When comics were still regularly available through subscriptions directly through the publisher, once a year they were required to publish a whole bunch of information about print runs, distribution, returns, damages, etc., to maintain a certain mailing rate. Not sure how much scrutiny any of those numbers were faced with, but I'm going to guess that there wasn't much of an advantage in falsifying those numbers, against any potential repercussions if the falsification was revealed.

I would like to say that I would love to discuss this all afternoon, but that would be a lie. Regardless, I do have other things to do, so I'll have to bow out for now.

My comment was about a tactic. Pointing out who employs those tactics may help to identify when that is happening, in order to better respond to it.

To clarify, and let me know if I'm recapping your position incorrectly, when you said this: Let's say there are 2 people in a room, and one of them is actively hurling slurs at the other. To show that it's affecting you gives that person power. That's how I'm summing up what's quoted above. And I'd agree that for the person to show that they're offended is giving the other power. But being offended is not matter of choice. Showing that you're offended is more a matter of choice (but certainly it also involves an ability to control whether something is affecting you). But my comment was more about community. Let's say there are 20 people in a room, and one of them is actively hurling slurs at the other. If the target of those slurs is obviously offended, then for the other 19 to ignore it gives the abuser power. Policing that abuse mitigates it.

You're correct, "provide," not "prevent." but I did provide as an example previous threads, even if I did not cherry pick them. They're out there, if people should choose to look into them.

If you like, you can swap in any of those other emotions you mentioned for "hatred" in my earlier comment. It's not "hatred" that's important in this case; it's that the emotional reaction is not a choice (even if how one reacts to them is) Maybe you're wired in such a way that things don't easily affect you on an emotional level. Most people aren't wired that way. If I could choose to be happy all of the time, I'd easily make that choice. But your emotional state is affected by the circumstances of your life, not by choice.

This isn't a court case; I'm not obligated to prevent evidence. People are free to go and seek out those threads, if they have the time and care to take a look at it from a different perspective. The bonus there is that there's no chance of it being selectively filtered by me. Not afraid to discuss, but expanding on one's definition of "social justice" would probably be construed as political arguments, which are banned on this board. Passing is a practical decision.

Why did you bother with your comment about deflecting? Much like that comment, this was about tactics in arguing.

Speaking of NYCC exclusive books, I picked up a couple copies of Donny Cates's Atomahawk NYCC Red Foil variant (hit stores this past Wednesday) after hearing him talk about it at a panel. (Sounded like a wild ride; it's a book that he created with his tattoo artist.) I later realized that one of the two copies I picked up didn't have the foil. I went back to the booth to ask about that, figuring that I had been changed a convention-exclusive price for a regular edition. (The con exclusive is the same as the regular edition, just with foil on the logo and some of the art.) Turns out that some of the con exclusives were printed without the foil. The guy at the booth mentioned he had pulled "3 or 4" but apparently mine got through. The UPC on the regular edition indicates it's version 1, while the con exclusive is version 3. My non-foil book has the same UPC as the con exclusive. Hopefully this book gets the attention that some other of Cates's books have gotten.

I don't have the time to go back to those previous threads and look for more concrete examples. I remember from reading them at the time indicated that my take is correct. Don't know if you made any of the comments I'm referring to, and wasn't suggesting you did. It relates to this discussion because they're decent examples of the difference between being offended and finding something offensive (i.e. emotion vs. reason). If we are to take comments in those threads at face value, then you can drop "seem" from my previous comment if you so desire. Not going to get into my meaning of "social justice" because I'm not looking to buy myself a vacation from the board.

Thanks for pointing this out. I have a friend who likes to do the same in political arguments we have. While I think that RMA often has very good logical arguments, sometimes being selective about the meanings of words makes it seem like he has a decent argument, rather than being a good arguer.

Choosing to be "hateful" (not the word I used, but whatever…) suggests to me a choice to follow through with an action. But "hatred" (the word I actually used) is an emotional reaction, not a choice. "Personally" in this case was for clarity. I think it reads a little awkwardly without it, but the meaning is the same. One can claim to "be offended on behalf of someone else," but what I think that's actually saying is that they're recognizing something as being offensive, not that they're actually offended. But most people don't think about the difference, so conflate the two. I think my response above covers this, but yes. Being the target of an offensive comment is going to resonate with the target in a way that it won't with someone who is not the target of the comment. But the person who is not the target can still recognize how inappropriate a comment will be, even without that emotional reaction. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept.

Not in this thread; I'm thinking back to some older threads. The Batgirl/Joker cover comes to mind; fanboys throwing a fit because a cover was pulled. There were others around that time as well (the Manara Spider-woman cover, probably others I'm forgetting). SJW is a derogatory term used to lump together all of those who call out social injustice. There is a tiny tiny portion of that group that is unreasonable, but it's clear the intention is to make that portion represent the whole by lumping everyone together. Not necessarily on these boards, but certainly elsewhere. I use the word "seem," because you can't always gauge with 100% accuracy by someone's comments on the internet.

I can't speak for ygogolak, but on the point of treating people equally, I'm in the camp that that applies to opportunity, to aspects which one has no control over. But equality of opportunity doesn't necessarily mean treating people exactly the same, as we all have different starting point in life. But to dive into that any further would probably get all of this removed as political commentary, so I'm going to stop there. As for your point about ignoring something that is offensive for the sake of being offensive: if everyone does that, then sure, that might be wise. But if there are people that are legitimately offended by something, to not call out that the source if being offensive is anything but wise, I think. Ignoring it is giving them power.

One has control over how to act on their emotions. But if one's emotions were a choice, why wouldn't we all simply choose to be happy? Or choose to be in love with those that are in love with us? If emotions were a choice, there would be no sadness, or hatred, or fear, etc. in the world. To suggest otherwise is silly. I don't see a difference between "offended" and "'personally' offended"; they're both personal. Some people add a word for impact. "One can recognize the intent to offend, and still choose not to be offended." That's identifying something as offensive. There are plenty of things that I recognize as offensive that I myself am not offended by because it's not targeted at me. But that's not a choice. On the point of quoting we are in complete agreement.

What I find interesting about the lack of understanding of the difference (as has been evidenced on these boards in numerous threads about diversity), is that the people that seem to be the first to accuse so-called Social Justice Warriors of being snowflakes for being offended (an emotional reaction), when actually they're pointing out that someone or something is being offensive (a critical reaction), seem to be the most emotional about whatever the subject of contention is.