RockMyAmadeus

Probably the first time those words have ever been uttered or typed...……………………. No. The first appearance of Hitman, in Demon Annual #2, was a moderately hot book throughout the mid to late 90s. He is quite correct to say that that was the only meaningful creation of the "Bloodlines" storyline. Hitman was a moderately successful title at the time of its publication. Were you buying comics during this time period?

Because we're in the Copper thread. If it was Moderns I could see it having to do with the cover or print. You don't really know what these are, or why a copy of Robin #1 just sold for $117.50, do you...?

Fixed. Claremont didn't like Wolvie, and wanted to get rid of him. Byrne was the one who turned that around. On a related note, there have been some people suggesting that Wolvie was a "hit right out of the gate." It would be really nice if people didn't try to retcon actual history to fit their narratives. Wolverine was NOT a "hit right out of the gate." It took several years, and John Byrne, for Wolvie to become as popular as he became. After his first appearance in Hulk #180-182? He didn't show up again for another 6 months, and then only in the pages of GSXM #1, as part of the team.

There are...? (it's a trap!)

Exactly. Heritage aren't fools. They know exactly what they're doing, and how they manipulate bidders...nothing nefarious about it, but it IS manipulation. There were some things in the Sunday auctions three weeks ago that I had no business winning at the price I did. Including a lovely Sergio Groo sketch that I probably could have gotten Sergio to do for me for half the price I paid. Oops. This one: https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/sketches/sergio-aragones-groo-the-wanderer-sketch-original-art-1985-/a/121824-13007.s Still...it's a pretty great sketch! Heritage is my casino. I can't go every week, or I'd be broke.

To me, that just means that subconsciously, they were willing to pay a higher price. Absolutely. But I know I've gotten invoices where the BP is added in, and I cringe a bit at the final price. I knew what it was going to be...I knew what it was going to be when I bid...but there's a sort of mental sleight of hand going on that subtly lulls me into focusing on the bid price, rather than the final price. I've won items at a final price that I sat back and said "ugh. I shouldn't have bid that much. I didn't really want it at that price." And I can't be the only one. And that's how they get everyone to pay jusssst a little more. Even with the information staring you right in the face. It's a neat psychological trick.

Hi Stephen, I was impressed with the layout and execution of the ACE Seattle show. It was quite well done! I particularly liked that the exhibit hall was situated away from the panels, so that the one didn't interfere with the other. However, there is one particular thing I wanted to address with you: I was very disappointed to see the continuing practice of discriminatory prices charged by creators for people wanting to get books slabbed by CGC, as well as the beyond intrusive "is this for CGC?" question asked of people, about what they intend to do with their own property. I've heard all the rationalizations and justifications that have been made, but the bottom line is that people are being charged different prices for the exact same service...a signature...which is the definition of discrimination. For example...I had a shortbox of books for a certain creator. His "representative" informed me that it was "first two free, then $10 a book...$20 for CGC, and no free books." I didn't argue, I didn't protest, I didn't attempt to negotiate, I didn't say a word about it, I simply put the books away and called it a loss. A loss for me, a loss for the creator, a loss for CGC. I got my two free, non-slabbed books signed, and that was that. I probably would have been fine with the $10 charge, at least for most of them, but being charged twice the price as others, with nothing of value to make up the difference, is particularly galling. Your organization doesn't ask people what they intend to do with their admission when they purchase it. And you certainly don't charge different prices for the exact same level of admission, and rightfully so. So how long will creators charging different prices for the exact same service be tolerated...? If there's anything you can do to address this, it would be most appreciated. Other than that, I thought the event was very well done. Thank you for your time. PS. I'll send this to Alex, but I thought it was appropriate to mention here, too.

Who's the guy on the right...? He looks familiar. Didn't he do a show in the mid 70s called "The Texas Wheelers"...?

Heritage's blood pressure is going up...? Yikes! But seriously, I lose far, far more than I win, because most people will tend to see the smaller number...even when the larger number is literally right there...and you can often end up paying more than FMV competing against people who don't pay as close attention as do you. You see something, and it's really nifty, and it's just the right kind of that something, and it's not a bad price, and grrrrr....ok, fine. Click. Hence...the model.

Except only one has any story significance. Ok, I'll take the bait: which one, how, and why is "story significance" relevant to the conversation? And those are serious questions.

What was driving the price so high on that auction? Was it just the Robin newsstand issue? 2nd Print Robin #1 newsstand. Same as Bat #457 and Supes #50.

https://www.ebay.com/bfl/viewbids/292615318492?item=292615318492&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565 Quite a price for Robin (1991) mini.... I drove the high bidder...I am the 3376 bidder. I was interested in seeing how high he would go. Unfortunately, I forgot about the auction at the end, but another bidder came along, trying to snipe, but couldn't. $117.50 for a book that is not correctly identified is QUITE an aggressive price.

It's unfortunate that the Star Wars brand has been taken over by elites who "know better than you." Jon Kasdan knows better than you, by virtue of being Lawrence Kasdan's son. That's a manifestation of the societal move towards elitism...."nobility"...that the West has struggled for 250 years to shed itself of. Kathleen Kennedy, Rian Johnson, Jon Kasdan...all people who think they know better than you, and are intent on making sure their ideology gets on screen. The only way to combat this is for their product to fail. "Solo" is a good start. I happened to come across "Evita" the other day, and I was once again struck by how excellent that production is (Broadway AND film), and how brilliantly Tim Rice managed to capture the spirit of the Argentine people...the way many people look to the elites to lead them, instead of looking to themselves and being the masters of their own destinies. The people, time and time and time again, put their hope and trust in the elites, the Perons, the Guevaras, the Castros, who promise to have the welfare of the people first and foremost, and the people always, without fail, end up disappointed, discovering that the elites said what they needed to gain power, and quickly forgot the people who put them there. The irony, of course, is that Eva was the lowest of the low, the illegitimate offspring, a member of the "second family" of a married man. In Argentina in the early 20th century, this made you nearly an Untouchable. There was nothing "elite" about Eva Peron...but she managed to climb the social ladder all the same. There's nothing stopping anyone else from attempting the same thing, and they don't need to be as promiscuous as she to do it. But, instead, people place all their hope and trust in other people, because they think those people are better than they....and the elites certainly don't do anything to dissuade that view. Sadly, we're heading back into that direction. "So and so will look out for us!" Except that so and so has never looked out for anyone but themselves, and never will. If you want someone to look after you and your own, the best person to do that is staring at you in the mirror.

You lost once you brought up masterbation and the cloud 9 emoji. The word is spelled "masturbation"..."masterbation" is not a word...again, look for that squiggly red line under the word...it tells you something's not right. Attention to detail, my young apprentice.

But alas, you came back for more. I gave you more and you failed to address any of my points. As if the inclusion of the rest of the sentence substantively changes the meaning of the quoted part...or changes it at all. There was no qualifier there, no addendum that would have allowed you to continue without contradicting yourself. Something like "I'm done, unless you'd like me to inflict further punishment on you." That would have been a perfect qualification that would have allowed you to continue the debate without foolishly trapping yourself in your own words. But, as it stands, your statement was entirely unqualified, straightforward, and plain: you said you were done...except you clearly are not. You have thus completely contradicted yourself. Oopsie. Happy to educate you, however. I thank you....profusely...for such a wonderful opportunity.

Ah, a two-for-one! The fallacy of the false dilemma AND the straw man argument! Another excellent example of the straw man. Way to go! The phrase "like pulling teeth" is appropriate here. This doesn't prove your point in the way you imagine it does. Not only is "more or less than expected" NOT moot, it is quite relevant. And...we still know nothing of your grading ability. Here, allow me to quote it again: If a book is already a 9.8...pressing is almost certainly (not 100%, but 99.9999265%) not going to get it to a 9.9 or 10. That means, going back to your original question, they're not going to press it if it's already a 9.8. Voila! I see rhetoric is NOT your strong suit. Pity. I would suggest reading Shakespeare. He is the master of the rhetorical device and layered meaning in the English language. Again, the employment of a rhetorical device...in this case, the repetition turned around...is not a "regurgitation" of "your wording." I'm using your own idea, through your own words, against you. It's a particularly potent form of debate, which is likely why you're complaining about its use. It's like the famous lines in "A Few Good Men": Lt. Kaffee: "I want the truth!!" Col, Jessup: "You can't HANDLE the truth!!" Was Nicholson's character "regurgitating" Kaffee's wording...? Of course not; he was employing a rhetorical device, using the repetition of the phrase "the truth" to make a (now infamous) point. Same thing here. This has been an utter delight, I must confess. Thank you for handing me such a gift on a silver platter. (That's a figure of speech; you didn't literally give me a box wrapped in brightly colored paper containing a present, displayed on a tray plated with silver.) What a delightful time!

As is almost always the case, the losing party in a debate attempts to end it by making various proclamations about being "done", "finished", "out", and the like, to try and salvage some sense of self-respect and dignity. After all, if they can dictate the terms of the end of the debate, and persuade the other part(y)/ies to give up, that gives them what feels like a measure of control over the other part(y)/ies. That's always why people say those things publicly; otherwise, they would simply stop replying. It's merely a well-worn tactic. And, just as universally, those proclamations turn out to be complete fabrications, doing serious damage to that party's credibility in the process. Such is the case here. If one could count the amount of times some party in a discussion proclaimed they were "done with it", and then demonstrated that they were, in fact, NOT done at all, by continuing to respond, I imagine that number would come very close to 100%. Very, very few people have the strength of will to say "I'm done" and actually mean it. This will, undoubtedly, be followed by some expression of "letting" the other party "have the last word", when it is obvious that they, themselves, are the ones who "can't let go." Isn't human behavior fascinating...?

YOU are the one who focused on a single word "probable", by bolding it. That is incorrect. Here is the quote again: Do you see a "single word" bolded there...? No, of course not. You see several words bolded. You, however, plucked a single phrase out, focused on a single word in that phrase, and then strutted about like a rooster during mating season, imagining you've just mated with every hen in the house. Context is everything. Do not make the very common mistake of amateur debaters by imagining that context is unimportant. Next... Agreed! I certainly enjoy taking the wind out of the sails of those who come in, guns a-blazing. It's terrific fun! Oh, and the word is spelled "definitely"...since we're being nitpicky and whatnot...does that further demonstrate your lack of attention to detail....? If you need help, there's a spell check feature that the board has...just look for the red squiggly line beneath a word. That usually means there's a spelling error. Next... One more time...the definition of the word "suppose" IS NOT "certain", or "known for sure", or "established beyond doubt"...the definition is, again: "a. held as an opinion : believed; b : considered probable or certain" The phrase "considered certain" DOES NOT mean the same thing as "certain." And if you dispute the vernacular use of the word "certain", you don't have much of an understanding of basic communication, unfortunately. "I'm certain of it!" = not certain. See how that works...? And do not make another very common mistake of amateur debaters by imagining that (your chosen) authority is unimpeachable (that means "can't be questioned.") Next.... Oh boy, now you're just regurgitating my use of the word "outsmarted". Be more original than that. No, no, my dear rpcgc, that's a rhetorical device, wherein I turned your own rejoinder against you: You: "So no, you are have definitely not outsmarted the Merriam-Webster dictionary." Me: "Outsmarted by your own argument!" It demonstrates that not only was I not even attempting to "outsmart Merriam-Webster", but rather, in the course of the argument, you WERE outsmarted...by yourself. Would you have preferred if I had made it more obvious, by italicizing the words "your own", so it looked like this: "Outsmarted by your own argument!"...? Next... Can you not see the hypocrisy here? The word "hypocrisy" is wildly overused these days, mainly by the younger crowd, who have no real grasp, like you, of its meaning. Hypocrisy means "do as I say, not as I do." It does NOT mean, as you are trying to use it here, "you can't point out what I'm doing, if you're doing the same thing." On the contrary. Let me explain it to you again: MY grading skills aren't in question in this debate. They have nothing whatsoever to do with this debate. Therefore, MY attention, or lack thereof, to detail ALSO has no bearing on this debate. The supposition was YOUR grading skills vs. kimik's. Therefore, YOUR attention to detail IS MATERIAL to the debate...MINE is not. It is not, therefore, "hypocrisy" to point out YOUR inattention to detail, when it is entirely material to the point. And you STILL have not addressed the FAR weightier matter of kimik being a known quantity, and you being a complete and total stranger who is easily offended? Does any of this make any sense to you, or are you just going to continue to ignore the substance and come up with quips because you have a chip on your shoulder...? Next.... You have still failed to admit that @revat's analogy conceded my position. And you have still failed to admit that the Titanic was blown out of the water by a rocket from Jupiter. And the one statement is about as relevant as the other. More to the point: you have failed to concede that the answer you were looking for...despite what you imagine revat meant, and despite your considerable huffing and puffing...was staring you right in the face, right where everyone said it was, the whole time. You merely lacked the understanding to recognize it, and the humility to ask for help to understand it. Next.... Did you really just say "that's how certain I am of it", when immediately prior you asserted that "whenever someone says they are 'certain' about anything, it always means they are, in fact, not certain" This is a KO! And immediately after, too! I'm guessing you missed class the day they taught the concept of figurative speech eh....? You don't recognize the figure of speech used here, clearly. You know, where I seem to draw a conclusion that I...in the very same breath...acknowledge isn't a reasonable conclusion to draw...? Think...think hard, now...if I say...in the very same breath, mind you...."but you are quite correct in saying that that is not a reasonable conclusion to come to without further evidence"...then how could I possibly be literally certain that kimik grades better than you...? Think. Think hard, now. Here, I'll say it slowly: 1. I am certain that kimik grades better than you. 2. I have no idea how well you grade. The first cannot literally be true if the second is also true. Which means....? RIGHT! I'm actually NOT certain of it! Are you getting it now....? Is it dawning on you yet....? Here's a hint: the word "certain" used here is a play on the previous inordinate amount of time we spent going back and forth about it earlier. Unfortunately, it went right over your head. Do you think, in a discussion so heavily and clearly pedantic, that I'm not very carefully paying attention to every word I'm using, and how I am using it...? Yes, I imagine you do. Perhaps I need to be more obvious when I'm tweaking your nose, like "(this is a figure of speech; do not take literally)", so you don't miss it. This IS a KO, for sure. And,based on all of this of this melodrama, I'm completely convinced that kimik grades better than you. Uh oh. Now I've done it! Next... I literally laughed out loud when I read this far. Thank you. Laughter is good for the soul. By all means, you should move on if you feel this is an unproductive conversation. I've made my points...agonizingly so...and the audience will have to determine just who did what to whom. The important thing is that your question was answered, it was there the whole time, and you only needed to ask without the chip on your shoulder. Maybe, hopefully, you'll stop being a victim, and recognize that there are a lot of people willing to help you, provided you don't try to bite their heads off in the process. All the rest of this is rhetorical masturbation. Which is my favorite kind.

Oh, and just for focus, I saved this bit for last...that would be M-W, not "M-B." Who is, or what is, "M-B"....?

In all sincerity, Mr. or Miss rpcgc, I hope you have discovered that your question was answered, to your satisfaction, and if not, at least you were pointed in the right direction. I guarantee you...walking into a room filled with people that don't have any clue who you are, with a giant piece of maple on your shoulder, daring anyone to try and knock it off, is much less likely to get you where you need than simple humility and flexibility. But, it sure does make for some fun on a Friday afternoon.

Interesting that you conveniently ignore context and the entire rest of the argument, to focus on a single word. I anticipated this...and will reply that the phrase is "CONSIDERED...certain"...NOT "certain", which means something different. And...I will point out that, in the vernacular, whenever someone says they are "certain" about anything, it always means they are, in fact, not certain. "I'm certain of it!" is merely the attempt to convince themselves, in almost every case. Outsmarted by your own argument! Ooo, thank you! I had "Webster" on the mind. That's what I get for taking shortcuts! Corrections made; thank you for pointing them out. See? It's not that hard to acknowledge when you've made errors. It's easy, once you swallow your pride. You're not going to find anyone here of any gravity who will agree with you that my problem is a "lack of attention to detail." I will point out, of course, that it is not MY "lack of attention to detail" that is in contention, here. Claiming that others have done the same thing is not a valid counterargument. I notice, naturally, that your reply contains nothing of substance, and focuses on trivial and irrelevant (as it relates to this discussion) minutiae. Cling! Cling desperately to whatever bits you can to hold your head above the semantic sea! You make no sense at all. Reaching conclusions by admitting that a substantial portion of the information is "unknown", is ridiculous. If you don't have all of the information to conclude, refrain from concluding. Of course, it makes perfect sense, but when one has no counterargument, and cannot address the substance, focus on the trivial. Again: joecgcmaniac made a supposition. Based on the information available at the time, and reinforced by subsequent dialogue, it was a perfectly founded, reasonable supposition to make. I agree...if he had said something like "kimik clearly knows how to grade better than the OP", then I would agree with you: he wouldn't have enough information to make such a claim (note the word there at the end of that sentence.) But he didn't, because he's not stupid. *I* suspect that kimik knows how to grade better than you...in fact, I would put money on it, that's how certain I am of it...but you are quite correct in saying that that is not a reasonable conclusion to come to without further evidence...which is why no one did it. Do you yet grasp the shades of meaning being discussed, here...? That saying I'm "certain" of something doesn't mean it's a statement of fact, or a conclusion...? @revat's analogy stated that my question and answer was not on the "menu", his version of "the site". Thus, according to @revat, my question was not answered on the site. You really going to come back for more? Newbs. You HAVE to love them. Are we now going to get into a semantical discussion about the word "concede" and how such a thing actually looks...? You can't even be bothered to QUOTE the relevant parts from what you believe is revat's concession, to illustrate your argument! Talk about lazy! And, in typical petulant style, you make sure you "@" everything, after I said you didn't need to, just like a teen. I at least have shown you the courtesy of addressing each of your points directly, rather than simply ignoring anything that might poke holes in my argument...which hasn't been much, if anything. Not a single word on the substance of the argument have you posted here. I will take that as YOUR concession.

I agree, since the editor automatically filled in a draft, which went unnoticed initially, rather than the final post you see above. The posting editor is quite weak, indeed.

I'm sure you will feel like you have scored an important semantic victory. Good for you! We should all feel like we have accomplished important things every day. However...I wouldn't be so quick to put your trophy in its case if I were you. You see, Miriam-Webster...? You know, the fine people who bring you the dictionary...? Yeah, they're people, too. And, in this sense, they're inaccurate. Here's the problem...since you've decided to make the fallacy of appealing to authority, without seeking agreement on the validity of that authority, I will refer back to that authority which you acknowledge as authoritative, and agree that Miriam-Webster is almost always a good authority on the meanings of words, though not always. In this particular case, they have mis-identified supposition, which is NON-declarative, to be synonymous with assumption, which IS declarative. In other words, they make the same mistake you do. Let's look at what M-W has to say about "assumption": "a fact or statement (such as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted." In other words, a declaration. Do you see how M-W has contradicted itself...? Now let's look at supposition (supposed) from the same source; "a. held as an opinion : believed; b : considered probable or certain" Do you see the subtle, yet distinct, difference in the meanings of those two words yet? Assumptions deal with a degree of certainty higher than suppositions...by M-W's own definitions. I do not speak for joecgcmaniac, or anyone but myself, but it is obvious in the phrase "Somehow I doubt that the OP grades as tightly as you do" is NOT an assumption, as M-W defines the word "assumption", but is rather a supposition. Glad to clarify for you! Why would I...? I already have a grasp....as I have demonstrated in exhaustive detail...of the fine meaning of the words involved, and I've also demonstrated why even the "dictionary people" don't always agree with themselves. And, I will point out...in formulating your response, you, yourself, did not bother to research your own position. You merely looked up the word "supposition", saw that it referred to "suppose", saw the word "assumption" listed as an alternative definition/synonym, and no doubt jumped up and down with glee, and then stopped there, failing to actually look up the word "assumption" to see if M-W was internally consistent... ...right? Is this where I say "check. and. mate."...? One of my most favorite debate "tactics" is when people ignore the giant, gaping holes you've blasted through their arguments, only to cling desperately to the tiny bits remaining, all the while pretending that those tiny bits are, in fact, the "main point" of their counterargument. The main thrust of the contention was that joecgcmaniac's supposition was "unfounded nonsense." My counterargument to that was that kimik is both a very known quantity on those boards, and you are simultaneously unknown. People here know how kimik grades; nobody here knows how you do. That alone is enough to move jcm's supposition from "unfounded nonsense" to "quite founded and reasonable." Your lack of attention to detail....both in your inability to find the answers that are, in fact, where you sought them, as well as your misuse of the word assumption and your half-baked, sloppy research into the meanings of the words involved when challenged...is merely an adjunct of the above, additional proof, as it were. You've also refused to acknowledge that you have been offended, and responded in offense. But, I will throw you a bone...revat did NOT concede that the answers you sought weren't on the site. He said nothing of the sort. He merely produced an analogy that demonstrated your brusque manner in asking for help, of all things. The fact of the matter is, the answer you seek is right there in front of you, on the website, and quoted by Hey Kids, Comics! (tafkatafkadixie): Guess what that means....? You guessed it: if the book is ALREADY a 9.8 (or "better"), the book is not going to benefit from a press. At that point, the clause "pressing would not benefit the comic" comes into play. Even though that is usually meant in the OPPOSITE direction...ie, a book so damaged that pressing won't change a thing...it ALSO means that books that are obvious 9.8s (or "better") and would not benefit from a press in any way would then not be pressed. Simple. Now, you should CERTAINLY clarify with them to make sure that's what happens with your specific order...but it ultimately comes down to trust. CCS could say all of your books need pressing. and all of your books could then come back 9.8, whether they would have come back 9.8 without the press or not. That COULD certainly happen. And you should talk to CCS....NOT CGC...about it. The truth of the matter is, you want someone to hold your hand. And there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that...but you can't be so quick to bite that hand if it points you in a direction you THINK you may not want to go. Finally...there's no need for all the "@" nonsense. This has all been a thoroughly delightful excursion into the utterly (in this case) unimportant realm of semantics, however, and hopefully as enjoyable for others as it has been for me, so I thank you for the opportunity!

Foolish post editor...trying again.

In other words, you were offended that someone didn't give precisely the answer you expected, and lashed out. But, the fault lies in the board, somehow, and not the newbs with chips on their shoulders....?