RockMyAmadeus

Tough book in 9.8.

It's still not the $600 that John was asking for it in 1999 on his website. I think it's worth at least $20,000,000 now.

Newton Rings: delicious AND nutritious....?

Nice haul, creaturefan95! Dollar box you say? Yowza!

Did you see what the ST #38 cover sold for? ($18,000) I thought that was a "steal" compared to the MM #13 page (also $18,000)

Ahhhh....today's activities make much more sense. Ignore is the best solution for dealing with people that you don't get along with, instead of being offended and attacking them, n'est-ce pas...? Kinda like the eBay blocked list. It makes sense.

That's a great page, FD, as I've said before. I was amazed at the prices the Totleben MM pages got yesterday at HA.

Is this where you demonstrate that you're a serious poster, who wants his/her opinions and comments to be taken seriously...?

Who are the problems here, really...? I mean, when we really get down to it, who are the real problems around here? The person who makes good faith efforts to discuss these issues, as in depth as anyone wishes to take them, responding point for point, just as anyone has the reasonable right to do... ...or the people...like "DavidTheDavid" and "01TheDude"...who take the opportunity to assassinate the character of someone because they can? No one is forced to debate. No one has a gun held to their heads, demanding they respond. No one is required to argue and argue and argue and argue and then complain when the other party meets them point for point. No, they are offended that someone disagrees with them, and they are offended that people don't concede to THEM, so they go out of their way to character assassinate. ...and, of course, get a thread like this locked. The rest of that post puts the lie to this statement. Quite effectively. That's exactly right...and, unbeknownst to "01TheDude", he's made my point: you will still be arguing. YOU...will still be arguing. See the point? So, it's perfectly acceptable to others to argue and argue and argue and argue...but it's NOT ok for someone to respond. Is he unaware that it takes AT LEAST two people to "argue"...? His advice is sound: make your point and leave it at that going forward. If you choose to debate the point further you have no one to "blame" but yourself. People here aren't children, and this isn't high school. If you want to debate...debate. Who cares how long it is? If it's a good debate, what does it matter if it's "30 pages"? If you don't want to debate, the answer is the same as it has ever been: don't debate.

Am I not my posts? Are my words not the essence of my being? If this is true, then are your posts about me not also posts to me? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. - Wm. Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice", Act 3, scene 1. I shall not dissemble about disassembling my dissemination of these declarations!

Did you consider what I said about dissemble vs. disassemble...? Do you think that "disassemble" makes more sense now that "dissemble" has been explained...? I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on the matter.

This is not true. It's the same appeal to authority fallacy. There is nothing authoritative about a "USPS associated site" that would render every other interpretation bad and wrong, just because that "USPS associated site" is. This is personal commentary that has zero business being in any discussion. Whether the substance of such a claim is true, false, or anywhere in between, talking about the people involved in the discussion, rather than the subject of the discussion, means that 1. someone has taken the discussion personally and become offended, and 2. the offended party has usually lost the debate. Would my opinion of the state of your "open or closed mindedness" have any bearing on this discussion? No. So, I don't state it. It's not too much to ask the same courtesy in return. In this case, the Supreme Court is the DMM. The opinion of the Postmaster General, unless and until such opinion is incorporated into the DMM, has no bearing or relevance. The "blueline site" is not an appeals court, or any court, of any kind. Once more: the USPS is governed by the DMM and only the DMM. If it's not in the DMM, it has no authority, regardless of what, who, where, why, or how, with the exception of Congress or specific actual court rulings (neither of which apply here as of this time.) This is more of the same appeal to authority fallacy. But you don't know who this chart was made by...so how do you know that they are "more knowledgeable about every aspect of the USPS then (sic) the average citizen"...? If you don't know who made it, you certainly can't speak to his/her/their knowledge, and certainly not about every aspect of the USPS. And, while I concede that the person or people who made this chart would, of necessity, be more knowledgeable about THIS aspect of the USPS than the average citizen, we're not talking about the knowledge of the average citizen. What may have appeared to be "flippant" was not. If you had a question about that, let me lay that to rest. Perhaps, if something appears "flippant" to you, before accusing someone of being "arrogant and obnoxious", you perhaps could give someone the benefit of the doubt first, and ask what they meant. However...as I took pains to explain before, this chart is contradictory, both of itself and the DMM, and thus carries no value in determining what actually is and is not allowed.

Whenever you're unsure of a word and whether its usage is correct, it always helps to put the definition of the word in place of that word, and see if what is written still makes sense. In this case, "dissemble" means "to hide one's true motives." It's something that only an individual can do for him or herself; it's not something that can be imposed on another person, by virtue of the definition of the word. So, let's put that word back in its context, and see if your suggestion makes sense: You'll notice that that doesn't make any sense. Also..."disseminating"...that is, "spreading or dispersing"...clearly isn't the correct word, either. As stated before, I think the word that "s-dali" was looking for is "disassembling"...that is, taking them apart. He/she is free to correct me if I'm wrong; I'm only considering the context to arrive at my conclusion. Interesting that you make a claim, but don't do anything to explain how or why. I suspect you know what sort of value that places on the claim. As far as confusing one's own interpretation with rational conclusion, I'd certainly suggest that that's something of which you are guilty to a far greater degree than I. And yet, oddly enough, no one is able to explain just why these arguments are "confusing or specious." I appreciate your position, but your confusion doesn't make the argument confusing. It just means you don't understand it.

Yes, my argument is theoretical. I didn't say "this is all theoretical." There's a distinct difference, and it's an important one. As far as your continuing to take personal shots...again, is doing so indicative of a closed mind, or an open one...? Ask yourself who is the one who is upset, or angry, or mad, or frustrated. That would be you, correct? Why? Because someone doesn't agree with you. That's really what it comes down to. With regard to continuing to post, saying things like "I think I'll just wait a few more years before I comment on anything else here", and then immediately posting again, makes you look like a martyr with a flair for melodrama.

The shortest answer is "no and yes." The less short answer is "yes and yes." However, this is not the thread for that discussion.

Agreed. Media Mail is not for sending collectibles through the mail. It's almost always a bad decision to do so.

True. In this case, however, it does. This metaphor doesn't make sense in the context of this discussion. If the chart is the baby, and its contradictions the bath water, it doesn't work, because it contradictions invalidate the entire document. They aren't separate, distinct concepts. Didn't you state, a few posts back, that you were going back to not posting for a couple of years? My, how time flies! In any event, if you're tired of debating, there's a simple solution: stop debating. That is not what I said. At all. I would explain, but I'm not sure there's value in explaining for the sake of others. So which is it...? Theories cannot be proven, or they can...? Theories are proven all the time. It's the foundation of the scientific method. Nitpicking? On the contrary, your premise here is that my "theory" cannot be proven, which you then contradict to say that theories CAN be proven. It is not surprising, then, to note that you don't have a problem with the chart you posted. How do you think theories are proven...? By being tested, by being debated "to death." I think the word you're looking for there is "disassembling", not "disseminating." I'm certainly not scattering them about. Your appeal to authority fallacy is completely germane to the subject, because your argument rests on it: the so-called "chart" is "official", and therefore "cannot be questioned", since it's from "people who know." Not only is pointing out that that is an appeal to authority fallacy not even remotely redirection, it's right dead center to the heart of your argument. The chart doesn't become valid simply because it was composed by those "who know" (as you claim.) That is an appeal to authority, and it's always a fallacy, regardless of who, what, when, or where. Einstein wasn't right, wherever he was correct, because he was Einstein. He was right because he proved it to be so. A doctor isn't right, just because she's a doctor. She's right...or wrong...because of the facts of the matter, not the MD behind her name. A USPS worker doesn't know more than the average Joe Blow, by virtue of being a USPS worker. Those would all be appeals to authority, and it's always a fallacy. Of course. Haven't you been doing the same...? Despite claiming, several posts back, that you were not going to post again for a few more years...? I can assure you, I won't take personal shots at you, as you have done, and no aspect of this discussion has upset me in any way, as you admittedly have become. I will only ask a simple question: you accused me of being "closed-minded." No doubt, many here agree with you, because I take strong positions, and cannot be easily persuaded, unlike my less stalwart colleagues. That doesn't mean, however, that I cannot be persuaded at all, nor that I don't consider the positions of others. My question, however, is this: would getting upset and taking personal shots because someone disagrees with your position be indicative of a closed mind, or an open one...?

Agree completely. Disagree completely.

Sure you can. When something is internally contradictory...as this chart is...it can easily be proven false. Are pictures the issue? The rule for coloring books says it is, but the rule for graphic novels says it isn't. Films consist wholly of pictorial matter, but they're allowed. Are ads the issue? The rule for comic books suggest that it might not be, but the rule for graphic novels says it is. Is "wholly reading matter" the issue? The rule for coloring books and activity books says yes, but then graphic novels don't "consist wholly of reading matter" (depending on what you consider "reading matter"), but they're explicitly allowed.

You can't. More importantly, no one tried. You've invented something that no one did, and then argued against it. That's a straw man argument. The validity of that chart was what was debunked, and the how and why was explained above. Yes, that chart is an interpretation, but it also contains contradictions, as pointed out above. Interpretations can't be debunked. Contradictions can. This is an excellent example of the appeal to authority fallacy, which is, in my opinion, the single most common logical fallacy used in discussion today. What makes "a bunch of comic book collectors" (a rather dismissive characterization, I might add) intrinsically less qualified than "actual USPS workers" about how the USPS works? The answer, of course, is nothing. Just because someone works for the USPS, that doesn't automatically mean that their understanding of USPS rules and regulations is therefore superior to someone who doesn't work for the USPS, merely on the basis of their employment. It's a fallacy, an appeal to authority. One's status, one's position, one's employment doesn't automatically confer knowledge and wisdom on anyone, doesn't automatically make them more qualified than someone not in that position...it merely makes them more likely to know the answers (and sometimes, not even that.) The facts are what they are. The facts do not care if you're the Postmaster General, the average mail carrier, or Joe Blow on the street. There are plenty of people who don't work for the USPS who know a great deal about how it operates. And there are plenty of people who work for the USPS who know substantially less than the first group. Not only should that not be beyond anyone's comprehension, it should be taken for granted. U mad bro...? What is "self-righteous and arrogant" about presenting a well crafted argument...? If you have a rebuttal, post it. I'm sure others have appreciated your point of view. Why the need for this sturm und drang? On a personal note, if you're going to get so upset about people disagreeing with you, and disagreeing in a manner in which you do not approve, to the point where you toss out accusations of "self-righteousness and arrogance", just because someone doesn't agree with you (which reaction, by the way, you telegraphed a few posts earlier...you can ALWAYS see the signs that someone is taking the discussion personally)...then yes, perhaps it would be best for you to refrain from posting. "Not only do you not agree with me, but you insist on disagreeing with me!" = "self-righteousness and arrogance"...? Who, really, does that apply to here....?

I agree with you here. I've been hearing from a lot of dealers that "run collecting is dead! No one buys anything but classic covers and keys!" And while that may be true of many on the higher end, on the lower end, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. "Slabs are too bulky to store" - granted. But there's nothing preventing anyone from deslabbing books, and many of them have. There's nothing preventing someone from having a slabbed "key" and unslabbed surrounding issues, either. And...there have been entire markets created in the CGC era that simply didn't exist before. The 9.8 run collector, for example...that wasn't possible even 15 years ago. Now, if someone wanted to (and there are people who do), they can own a complete run of X-Men #94-200, 300, 400...whatever they want...in 9.8. That market did not exist 15 years ago, because it couldn't. It barely existed as a possibility 10 years ago. Another new market created out of thin air: the Sig Series collector. Sam Kieth's run of MCP #85-122 has functionally no value. But get him to sign them, and turn them into 9.8 slabs? Now you've got people interested. Not a key issue in the run...not very many "classics" either, though Kieth collectors would disagree. And...on the limited markets I do follow back to GA (Batman, essentially) there is no great discrepancy between the "keys" and "classics" and "run" issues. Yes, I have to pay through the nose for #47...but no one's selling me #46 or #45 for pennies. "But that's a major, in demand run!" Sure, but it's still a run. The only non-key, non-classic books I see consigned to the cheap bins are low grade 80s and later. Even the 70s stuff is getting tough to find in $1 boxes, and forget the 60s. I'm not finding "Beware the Creeper" or "Secret Six" in dollar boxes anymore. The key will be to see if these new buyers actually read these books. There's a powerful draw, and there always has been, to owning a "complete collection", no matter what it is. Those numbers on the cover are a constant reminder of the fact that these things are sequential, and a part of a larger picture.

I was blown out of everything, because I'm cheap. But boy was it fun to watch.

That's a lot of Skoal.

And again, I will argue that this list...and the "official notice" discussed earlier...is someone's misunderstanding of Media Mail. This chart, too, has been posted before, and it has been debunked as well. They are someone's interpretations...and bad ones at that...of the DMM. Look at the contradiction right there on the page between "comic books", "Graphic novels", and "coloring books." The reason they give for not allowing coloring books is that it doesn't "consist wholly of reading matter." But what is "reading matter"? Films...which generally contain NO reading matter...are perfectly allowed, are they not? The person/s who wrote that chart interprets "reading matter" to be nothing but words on a page. Now look at the justification for comic books: "Predominantly pictures." Compare that to "graphic novels" (which the AE that Jerkfro mentioned is)...aren't "graphic novels" "predominantly pictures"...? Of course. But, since they contain the magic phrase: "no advertising"...they're allowed? So which is it? Are pictures the problem, or aren't they? Is advertising the problem or not? And that is why the above chart carries zero regulatory weight: it is self-contradictory and contradicts the DMM. Whoever wrote it understands neither the spirit, nor the letter, of the regulation, and why it exists in the first place. The "no advertising" restriction was placed so that workers could easily identify commercial distributions of new periodicals that were a violation of Second Class rules. It wasn't meant to be an end-all, be-all rule for any item containing advertising, or what was once advertising, forever and ever, amen. Make no mistake: my argument is theoretical, not practical. Obviously, no one can go in and say "but the DMM says....!" and expect to get a bureaucrat with an opposing opinion to listen. Obviously, there are workers within the USPS who take this chart, and the "official notice" posted prior, as set in stone rule. But the amount of change that happens if no one says anything is exactly none. And...in the admittedly unlikely event that someone were to challenge the USPS, all of these little contradictions would be completely destroyed. And...if the USPS had the manpower to enforce this rule, I imagine you'd get a lot more people complaining about it until it was officially and finally addressed in the DMM, one way or another, instead of this limbo state we've been in since the dawn of the internet.