RockMyAmadeus

Thank you for presenting your opinion. I, and others, disagree. It's not my definition...it's a definition that has existed since before any of us were born. Your personal animus, like that of others, drives you to criticize me, while ignoring others doing the exact same thing, for the exact same reason. That is dishonest. It is bad faith.

Absolutely, and why it is imperative that people at least attempt to define where they're coming from, and what they mean. Absent that, there is no discussion of any kind, because an undefined statement can mean anything the writer wishes it to mean, at any time, to suit whatever position he/she takes.

Nope. No one has tried to "pass off" their "opinion as fact."

It is interesting that a Pop Culture/Entertainment Exposition has fought so hard to prevent others from using the phrase "ComicCon." Doesn't paint SDCC in a good light....

A new chapter in this ugly saga was opened this week after Comicsgaters made a video making their case for why the late DC comics artist Darwyn Cooke, who died in 2016, “would have been #ComicsGate.” Cooke’s widow, Marsha Cooke, took offense to this suggestion, responding to a tweet about the video: “Hi guys, this is Darwyn’s wife and I can guarantee he thought you comics gate insufficiently_thoughtful_persons were a bunch of crybaby losers ruining comics. because you are.” https://twitter.com/RosieMarx/status/1032016006552543234 Needless to say, this feedback was not well-received by said crybabies. Some Comicsgaters comicsgate’d, sending harassment to the widow of a man they professed to adore. The incident with Cooke prompted prominent names in comics to speak out against the Comicsgate ethos and the harassment it engenders. Taking a particularly scorched-earth stance was Eisner-winning artist Bill Sienkiewicz. Sienkiewicz has been in the industry since he was 19 years old and is revered for his innovative style and his work on titles like Sandman: Endless Nights, New Mutants, Daredevil, Elektra: Assassin, Batman, and many, many, many, many more. “To Comicsgaters – but also: to general friends and colleagues in arms. Profuse profanity to follow. Be advised,” Sienkiewicz wrote in a Facebook post that was cross-posted to Twitter. Which should advise you if profuse profanity (for a good cause) offends you. Sienkiewicz’s post reads: It’s vital that people with power in the industry like Sienkiewicz take a strong stance on issues of harassment that are disproportionately shouldered by the targets of that harassment, namely women, people of color, queer people, disabled people, and other marginalized groups. Sienkiewicz’s Twitter and Facebook reply fields are full-up with thousands of people thankful for what he said. It should not be left to the groups who are being attacked to fight battles they did not ask for alone and unaided. Beyond Sienkiewicz’s calling-out of the bullying behavior that he despises, it’s equally crucial to hear him say that “Creators are family; every voice is unique and necessary,” and that “Comics isn’t a boys club.” These are the sort of messages that need to be repeated over and over again until they drown out the hateful hordes. https://twitter.com/sinKEVitch/status/1032730857319084033 The answer to speech you don't like is better speech. Responding to speech you don't like...whether it is objectively inflammatory, harassing, insulting, obnoxious, or all, some, or none of the above...with insults and harassment of your own weakens your point...sometimes beyond repair.

General question to all: isn't kermitspadcomics one of the well known serial overgraders on eBay...? I seem to remember they are. Have they cleaned up their ways...?

Oily.

So, you agree that there was not a large and developed comics fandom by 1964, which is what sfcityduck contended...the start of this entire discussion....?

Then they're readers, not collectors. Where do you get "obsessed with keeping the comics from deteriorating" from "making a reasonable effort to preserve them"...? No one said a collector can't read them...he just doesn't fold the cover over, roll the book up, and stick it in his back pocket. He takes care not to further damage the book in the process. Then you're an accumulator, not a collector. One of the distinctions that makes a person a collector is that, no matter what condition they obtained the item in, they want to keep it from getting worse. If you don't care about the condition of your purchases getting worse...you're not a collector. As difficult as this may be for some people to accept, if preserving your collection so that you don't lose items to attrition is not one of your "collecting goals", you're not a collector. Not caring about preservation is the antithesis of being a collector. Again: please don't muddy the issue with "super anal retentive 9.8 immaculate" arguments, because that's not the issue. It's why people graduate to becoming collectors: initially, they read their books until they fall apart, and they get thrown away. They don't want to have to throw away their books, so they start to maintain them, rather than letting them deteriorate. That step is the transition from becoming a reader to becoming a collector. The disconnect actually appears to be that you don't understand the essence of what it means to be a collector, vs. a reader, a hoarder, an accumulator, etc. There is no "divorcing" preservation from collecting, because that's fundamentally what being a collector means. If you're constantly losing pieces of your collection to attrition, because you don't take care of them, how can you possibly call yourself a collector? This discussion is about what defines a collector, not a speculator, so this is not relevant. And how does this collector "hold them" if they fall apart due to use or neglect...? A comic book collector is someone who seeks out comics, buys them, organizes them in some meaningful way, and preserves them so they don't have to keep buying more examples because they ones they had got trashed due to neglect. Your bait is exceptionally tasty. Kudos to you!

A collector is someone who wants to gain more examples, right? I think we can agree on that? One of the hallmarks of a collector is that they want to pursue a set, however they define a set, until it's complete, yes? That's one of the drivers of collectors; the thrill of the search until you find one you're missing, so your collection is one step closer to complete. If that's the case...it would seem that not making an effort to preserve them, to allow them to deteriorate further, to the point they have to be thrown out, would be the opposite of what a collector does...right? I'm not talking about buying certain conditions, and never have. That's the mud of others. I'm not talking about overly anal collectors, who have to have the best copy possible. That's the mud of others. I'm not talking anything about resale value, or investment of any kind. That's the mud of others. If you buy a comic that is tattered and torn, in Fair condition, because it fills that hole in your collection...it seems that you would want to keep it from further deterioration, so that that hole doesn't become empty again because the copy you bought has fallen apart through use or neglect. No...?

He didn’t have a problem with it for years, in fact I was told that you were “misunderstood”. What happened that could’ve ruined this 20 year internet friendship? How come you're not at Wizard World, running away from people you don't like...?

No, but that's not the point, which has been quite muddied by various parties. Just because someone thinks of themself as a collector, or calls themself a collector, doesn't mean they are. And as noted, if you're throwing them out because you read them until they fell apart, you weren't a collector. You were a reader. When you started saving them and taking care of them...then you became a collector.

I heard he might have discovered King Tut's tomb..... And if anyone can, he'll discover Jimmy Hoffa's body....

Kudos to you for figuring out how to beat the moderation system for a couple of days, after your 7,184th banning. I hope they figure out a way to avoid a repeat of you.

I would absolutely buy every copy of Excalibur #1 for $1 that I found. No question. That was a hot, hot, HOT book in early 1989...more valuable in the OPG than Wolverine #1 and PWJ #1, which came out near it.

Earl Davis said it was posted at CPG first, so they should get credit.

Here's a thread from 2009 that I think might be the first public mention and picture of Batman #457 2nd News. Obviously... ....I didn't understand the implications of what I was looking at at the time. At one point, in another thread, I think I even disputed the existence of these books, saying they couldn't possibly exist, because they shouldn't exist. I was right...sorta. But time has proven me wrong.

He did not, but I expect he will at some point.

"The list"...? Where have I heard that before...? Well, if anyone would know about being a troll, it's hard to imagine anyone more qualified than you, Sensei. And I've yet to meet a more elitist narcissist. You're the elitiest. So. Yay, I guess...? I guess you figured out how to beat the moderation system for a couple of days. Congrats!

Erroneous opinion. You cannot point out that someone is engaging in personal commentary without, by definition, engaging personal commentary. "You are engaging in personal commentary" is personal commentary. Therefore, to point it out and ask that someone stop doing it is not the same thing as initiating it. Your bait is exceptionally tasty. (That is personal commentary) Oh, and your continued violation of the "no politics" rule won't go unnoticed forever, I imagine. I would REALLY prefer not to continue this line of discussion, if you don't mind.

Boy, are you misguided. My entire argument against you is that you are a sociopath who has not even the slightest concern for social boundaries, who cannot tolerate people disagreeing with him to such an incredible degree, he has to come back to a board which banned him in the early 00s, over and over and over again, to tell everyone how wrong he thinks they are, suggesting the most disgusting acts are perpetrated by them, and constantly violating their right to privacy. You whine about people "not letting things go", but here you are, posting on a message board which has clearly stated, in no uncertain terms, that you are UNWELCOME, because....well...you just HAVE to make sure people know just how wrong you think they are, John. THAT is my entire argument against you, not any opinion you may have about slabbing. Soon enough, this latest incarnation will be banned, and we'll have peace...until you manage to get through with your 7,458th new "board id."

Yay, more comments from the peanut gallery!

Erroneous opinion. Stating that there is ample opportunity and cause to be derogatory is not the same thing as actually being derogatory. Erroneous opinion. Responding to personal commentary with personal commentary is not the same thing as initiating personal commentary. The poster is, in fact, posting out of spite, or he self-evidently wouldn't refer to my comments as "pablum." Pablum - bland or insipid intellectual fare, entertainment, etc.; pap. Erroneous opinion. There's nothing derogatory about that comment. The implication that he's not "keeping above board" is self-evident in referring to my statements as "pablum." Erroneous opinion. Responding to personal commentary with personal commentary is not the same thing as initiating personal commentary. There's nothing derogatory about noting when someone is acting with personal animus. DavidtheDavid has made no bones about having personal animus towards me, which I don't think even he would deny. Have you not acted with personal animus at several points in the last week? There. I've broken my rule to respond to you. Your bait is exceptionally tasty.

You recall incorrectly. Yeah, now that I think about it I think you said 1990, so you would've been 18.. Remember folks, this is the guy that wants the 9.7, 9.5, etc grades implemented... because why? Because that's how the Coinees do it. John...may I call you John? That is your first name, after all, is it not? I'm Joe. Nice to meet you. Now, John, while you're still here under this current guise, I'll point out that your animus towards coin collecting doesn't really make your point very well. My point isn't "because that's how the Coinees (a term of derision to you) do it"...my point is because it is necessary, in light of the massive price differences between the grades as they exist now. "Coinees" adopted their scale because they recognized that it was necessary in the market that had developed. The same holds true, here. When a book sells for $2,500 in 9.8, but only $1,000 in 9.6...there's clearly a "middle" value for it that could be easily handled by a 9.7. But, perhaps the more compelling question is, why do you try to make such distinctions, when you hate slabbing ENTIRELY...? You don't care about 9.8 and 9.6, and think those are ridiculous distinctions in the first place. Have I correctly identified your position, John...? If so, then obviously further distinction is going to be just as meaningless, so why make a fuss over it, and point to me as some sort of outlier in that regard? Your beef is with the entire CGC Slabbing Industrial Complex, not just me.

McKnowitall is, of course, completely correct in his analysis of your post here. I will simply add the following: 1. If you want to be taken seriously, then you really ought to shelve the personal commentary about others. Your opinion about what I "tend to misread" is merely an opinion, not at all supported by the facts, and made out of spite to discredit me, not as a good faith representation of what really is. In fact, if I did as you suggest here, "misreading statements", I'd face a lot more resistance and friction from a lot more people, since I hold people to a high standard of communication, and am, therefore, held to that same high standard (and rightly so.) I make a concerted effort to understand exactly where everyone is coming from. Always have, and always will. If you kept above board, and didn't characterize other people's comments as "pablum", you would be more effective at persuading others to your view. 2. You can't complain about "arguing about an argument", when you, far from "sliding into my habit", routinely do the same thing yourself....including here. 3. If you set aside your personal animus, you might find it easier to read and understand what I say. I didn't say "See! You agree with me!" I pointed out the cognitive dissonance between you calling my definition "strict", and then, in the very same post, identifying yourself as a collector when you started to attempt to preserve them by bagging and boarding them. Barring all of that, it would be nice if you could simply not interact with me at all, if you find yourself unable to do so without being derogatory. I don't see the need to be derogatory to you, though certainly not for a lack of material. It serves no good purpose.