RockMyAmadeus

Wizard was a magazine published by adolescent children, aimed at adolescent children. I wouldn't put too much stock in it, nor was I intimating anything like that. Just pointing out that the market has changed in dramatic fashion, that such a title would not only exist, but be taken seriously. And it is.

Agreed, 100%. And I would no longer ship condition-sensitive items to anyone that way. The argument I've made before is this: the reason Media mail exists is to inexpensively ship heavy and/or bulky items for educational purposes. Comic books, in general, have been classified as educational materials since they were first produced. If I'm sending a bunch of old Spidey comics to my school library, for example, and I'm not sending them as "collector's items", but rather reading material for people, then that is in harmony with the spirit and intent of Media mail. The reason the "no advertising" rule exists is so that PUBLISHERS couldn't use the service to ship NEW, PAID FOR (by advertising) periodicals (comics, beauty magazines, fitness magazines, whatever) to their own subscribers. Not so that consumers would be prevented from sending their USED items to other consumers as they saw fit. But now, overzealous postal employees AND consumers have LAZILY interpreted the rule "by the letter" (as they see it), and ignored its intent and spirit. And so, a rule that was intended to prevent a specific type of distribution has been interpreted to cover things it was never intended to cover. Obviously, those sending comics as "collector's items" aren't doing that, and obviously there's little way to tell the difference...but to say "comics don't qualify, ever, period, end of story" is simply not true, and whatever official wrote that on the USPS website is flat out wrong. It's a narrow, pedantic way of viewing a matter that, frankly, is open to interpretation (as I have done.)

Absolutely, except I would never debate anyone about an add...only a subtraction. Post office is bound by DMM. Post office can't "point at" statements that aren't part of the DMM, as if they have any regulatory weight. Bureaucrats live and die by rules. That is true when it hurts the public, but it can also help the public. The post office isn't the final arbiter of the rules, as it relates to them. The DMM is. I'm not saying you'll win such an argument. I'm saying it's an argument that CAN be made, and it's not without merit. Don't want to be bothered? No problem! And that's a valid course to take most of the time. But don't claim that there's no reason to bother, because there is, and if someone wants to bother...they have a leg to stand on.

It's not true? Really? What you mean to say is that it's not true 100% of the time, but it certainly is true some of the time. I have had sellers send me comic books via media mail, and they were opened, inspected, and I was assessed postage due on them due to the reason that comic books don't qualify as media mail. At my post office. No doubt. And such an event has happened many times, over many years. However, that's not what you said initially. Your previous quote....reproduced here: What you meant to say was "the post office WILL occasionally open/inspect media mail, and if they find a comic book inside, they MIGHT asses postage due", which is true. I'd even be ok with "PROBABLY will"...but your statement was unequivocal, and not in keeping with the reality of the situation. I said what I meant to say. I'm very careful with my words in debates, as I have a habit of parsing (and I consider it a good one), and expect parsing in return, as should everyone.

That's an interesting argument, and one I've not seen used in this discussion before. If I understand you correctly, it's basically "what is advertising, from the view of the advertiser and/or the publisher?" It's a bit circular...."it's still advertising...because it's still an advertisement"...but that aside, how do you explain "page space"? Do you mean the actual, individual page as it exists in each individual sold and distributed (not printed) copy? (I'm fairly certain you don't mean this.) Or do you mean overall, as it relates to the issue, and not the copies themselves? Advertising, as you know, especially in the past, was based on tiers of sold/distributed copies, rather than individual sales results for individual issues. Contracts weren't negotiated based on the actual amount of individual copies sold/distributed, as in "we will sell this space for 2 cents for each and every copy we sell", but rather "this is our average sales rate for this title, so our ad rate is thus and such." It's relevant, because you're contending that the space itself remains "advertising" in perpetuity, based on that space having been "sold", and forever legally belonging to, another entity, right? (and, an aside, it is true that advertising is not JUST defined by whether or not the item is available, but it can be part of that definition.) If you mean the former...that the actual, physical page of each individual copy still extant belongs to the advertiser forever, since it was sold to them, I would contend that that's not true, because contracts weren't sold on a copy by copy basis. They didn't "purchase" the actual page of each actual copy. And, of course, that would come into conflict with the right of the purchaser to that individual piece of property, because every part of that copy belongs to the purchaser, and the advertiser has no legal claim to it. If the latter...that they "own" the page on every copy, because they bought the space for the entire issue, regardless of how many copies were sold/distributed , I would contend that that's not true, because there is no such thing as "advertising in perpetuity" (at least de facto, if not de jure.) Advertisers aren't sold this particular space based on the idea that their advertising would be viewable by people forever, or even a very long time, or even a not-so-long time. They are sold the space based on the idea that a certain number of people will see it when the item the advertising contains is brand new. and will be available for retail purchase. Once the item has ceased to be "brand new", and no longer available for retail purchase, the advertising, from the view of both the publisher and the advertiser, is no longer "in effect." Whatever results the advertiser is assumed to have gotten from their investment is done, and they move on to the next advertisement. So, in THAT sense, an ad ceases to be an ad the moment the issue is replaced by the next issue, and/or is no longer for sale. And that is how both the publisher and the advertiser view it. The space was bought, the issue was printed, distributed, and sold, and the contract fulfilled. The end. I'm not suggesting that's the case...but an argument COULD be made that way (and, in fact, has been.) Nevertheless, it's an interesting argument.

If you're not comfortable using the service, the answer is obvious, is it not...? What you've claimed here isn't true. Plenty of post offices have inspected Media mail, found a comic (or multiple comics), and not had an issue with it. Why? Because the rule is open to interpretation.

That is, of course, your opinion, and you don't have the regulatory authority to determine what the DMM does or does not care about. Neither do I. That's the point. You say "they continue to be advertisements", despite the fact that they are outdated, expired, and/or replaced. There doesn't seem to be a strong logical foundation for your conclusion. Sure I can. They cannot both be ads and expired ads. They are either ads...meaning they are current...or they are not. Is a former child still a child? No. A former child is an adult. He or she WAS a child at one point. Now, he or she is not. How about a former boss? Is he or she both your boss and your former boss at the same time? How about an ex-wife? Is she both a wife and an ex-wife at the same time? (And no "well, if I divorced her and then re-married her, yeah!" because then she would, by virtue of her being your wife, no longer be your ex-wife, even if she was that at one point. She is one or the other at a time, never both.) Now you're being glib. And you are not aware the date on your milk is not an "expiration" date, but a "sell by" or "best by" or "use by" date. And no, the milk doesn't stop being milk after it has passed those dates. It stops being milk when it goes bad. Then, in fact, it is no longer milk...it is bad milk. Depending on what type of milk, there is a good chance there's further use for it, but not as "milk." You're playing very fast and loose with the word "expire." Let's give you a much, much more concrete example: if you die, you have expired. You are no longer a human being. You are whatever you are. You are not now a human being AND a whatever you are. As for your flowers...they were dead the moment they were cut from the plant which bore them. That they maintained their beauty for a while doesn't change that fact. So...you're 0 for 2 on analogies. And it would be nice if you took the discussion seriously, and didn't glibly misuse the term "historical reference material" to apply to things which have nothing to do with actual reference material, such as books, or photographs, or expired comic book ads. It's not a "catch-all" term that applies to anything.that is expired, obviously. No, the misinterpretation lies with you and my response. I understood precisely what you meant, and I never said you said it was specifically promoting things outside its scope, because that would make me stupid. Again: "things that come to mind" have nothing to do with advertising. More correctly, advertising has to do with the SPECIFIC thing or things which is/are being advertised. If I see an ad about a resort in the Caribbean, and that reminds me of Jack Sparrow, the ad is not trying to call to my mind the Pirates of the Caribbean. That is not its goal nor intention. SCOPE is the operative word, here. SCOPE is the operative word, here. Your reasoning is flawed. Obviously a poster about an upcoming Phish concert promotes PHISH, and my argument doesn't remotely say anything to the contrary. But it is not necessarily promoting anything BEYOND Phish and their upcoming concert. SCOPE is the operative word, here. No. By that reasoning, your X-Men Action Figures ad example is also promoting Russian music of the 19th century. How? Well, there's clearly a picture of a toy soldier, and toy soldiers figure prominently in the Nutcracker by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, who was an important Russian composer of the late 19th century. See? Advertising Russian music. /sarcasm Scope. You are wildly overextending the meaning of the word "advertisement", and trying to make it apply that anything that a particular ad brings to mind, no matter how incidentally. That's an easy question to answer: what are they trying to promote? What is the object of the ad? That is their intention. Simple. This is, of course, total nonsense, and not a little conspiratorial. It's an ad to sell action figures, not a Communist plot to overthrow the West. Sometimes, the chair is just a chair. It is, however, not rocket science. I can safely say the intention of the ad in question was to sell action figures. Mainly because we don't live in a Lewis Carroll fever dream, I can safely say that your idea of what makes an ad valid or not is well outside the realm of reason. That's another easy one, though it may appear not to be to many in 2018. Opinions are not created equally. There are people who are of the opinion that the earth is flat. This is demonstrably wrong. It can be disproven with empirical evidence. Does that mean they can't have that opinion? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that there opinion is not wrong. It certainly is. The validity of an opinion, any opinion, is based on strength of the arguments and reasons that support it. Opinions that are built on solid, logical, Aristotelian reasoning have much more value than opinions which are based on conjecture, feeling, or worst, flat out contradicted by scientific fact. By virtue...? By virtue of what...? Faith? "One person interpreting it as valid"? You don't say. Your language use here is garbled. However, as interesting as the philosophy of relativism may be, it's never really panned out when met with reality. For example: "if even one person in the universe believes that they are the god of thunder, Thor, then, by virtue of that belief, they are Thor." Obviously, such a belief system is in stark contrast with the truth. The ad is no longer valid by virtue of it being expired. The toys it advertised, the store it advertised, the company it advertised...all no longer exist or aren't obtainable in the manner which the ad conveys. Wishing it were valid, believing it were valid, makes it an article of faith...not fact. No, on all counts. Relativism only works in theory, never in practice. The issue is not "agreeing to disagree", nor that your interpretation and mine are different. Those are obvious conclusions. I am not here to convince those who wish to "agree to disagree", but to persuade those whose minds are not yet made up, or who had not considered other factors. "We can agree to disagree" is mere PC code for "You're never going to change my mind", and I'm perfectly ok with that. That's not my goal, and never is. The issue, the point, is to make a persuasive argument, and let those reading decide what they think, based on the arguments presented. As fanciful as your arguments have been, they are based on relativism..."it's true, because it's true for me!"...which doesn't work. And yet, you never explain why or how. That's not how rational argumentation works. And yes, I haven't merely implied it...I've stated it. Now that I know that your interpretation is based entirely on relativism..."it's valid because I say it's valid!"...then yes, I would be willing to bet quite a large sum of money that my rationale would make it much further than yours. Western civilization was not built on relativism, but reason and rationality, actual logic. I may not actually end up persuading the governing authority...but I have little doubt it would be taken seriously and considered much more than "it's valid because I say it's valid." But I do thank you for this interesting philosophical side trip.

I get the realities of the current market...honest...but 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago, people would be looking at the title of this thread and thinking someone had lost their mind, ;)

By the way, newshane...look at the date of the notice. It's been 6 years. The "comic books can't be mailed Media mail" has been a "thing" for well over a decade, and yet...no change to the DMM. The DMM is changed all the time. And yet...nothing. No clarity regarding what they consider "advertising." So, if I say "that's not advertising, it's reference material"...I can quote their own regulations which allows it. If it was that important to them, they'd change the DMM. They don't.

On a semi-related topic, any of you with a journalist bent, please, please, please, PLEASE sit down with Bud and talk about anything and everything you can about his experiences in the comic book business. Please don't let his decades of experience pass without at least an attempt to record some of it. He's 66 this year, and that may seem young, but you never know. The man is a giant in the comics distribution industry, with experience unparalleled by just about anyone.

Not relevant. If it's not in the DMM, it carries zero regulatory weight, and can be completely ignored as someone's mere opinion..."authoritative" though that opinion may be. Do you notice how it contradicts itself? Read the last sentence: "Complete explanations of qualified items can be found in the DMM." That's what's known as "CYA." It means "nothing I just said has any value unless it's found in the DMM." And, since the DMM about Media mail says nothing about comic books....voila!

Oh, hey, thanks! That was PRECISELY the "official notice" was referring to earlier with this post: By the way....many people are told differently. In fact, someone "in authority" at the USPS issued some sort of bulletin several years ago on the USPS website that said comic books are explicitly restricted from being sent via Media mail. Didn't matter one bit. That woman didn't know what she was talking about, and didn't know her job. The only thing that matters to the USPS is the DMM. If it's not in there, it has no meaning. Now, you're not paying attention, or you would know the answer to this question already: Is that in the DMM...? If the answer is "no"...and it is...then that statement has absolutely zero relevance to anything whatsoever, utterly and totally regardless of the website on which it appears. If it's not in the Domestic Mail Manual...the "DMM"...it...is...meaningless. Go ahead...ask anyone who works at the USPS.

Wait....wait....do you mean people in general when you say "you're out of your gourd", or do you mean ME...? Cuz the the last phrase of that sentence contradicts the qualifier. In any event, again: I am making an ARGUMENT about why the statement that "Comic books cannot be shipped via Media mail" is not correct. I'm not talking about the practicality or the actual practice. Obviously...obviously!...anyone with any experience with the USPS will tell you that their employees do things which are flatly contradicted by the DMM all...the....time. That doesn't mean they're right, and it certainly doesn't mean you're wrong. But it is certainly possible to out-bureaucrat the bureaucrats. \ If that is your experience with bureaucrats, I feel for you. The beauty of regulations is that you can...if you have a mind to...make them work FOR you, as well as against you. I've never had a post master tell me to "eff myself." I've made it a habit to make friends with the post office I've been going to for 19 years, so that's probably why I enjoy the regulatory advantages that I do...advantages available to anyone who wants to understand and use them themselves. All unnecessary, and a complete and utter waste of time. You (people in general, not YOU) don't know how to deal with gov't employees.

I don't like misinformation, really. If someone agrees with me, great. If someone disagrees with me, no problem. I'm not here to convince anyone. But if someone says "comic books cannot be shipped Media mail", I'm going to say "...according to...?" There's nothing that explicitly says they can't, and the advertising issue can be argued as I have above. Doesn't mean they should be...but it also doesn't mean they can't be, either.

Jeff Probst would have approved.

By the way....many people are told differently. In fact, someone "in authority" at the USPS issued some sort of bulletin several years ago on the USPS website that said comic books are explicitly restricted from being sent via Media mail. Didn't matter one bit. That woman didn't know what she was talking about, and didn't know her job. The only thing that matters to the USPS is the DMM. If it's not in there, it has no meaning.

On the contrary. The USPS, being a quasi-governmental corporation, is much more apt to follow its manual than a private corporation. And, if you can demonstrate that what an agent of the USPS has done contradicts the DMM...you win. Do you think a quasi-governmental employee is going to risk their cushy retirement over a DMM dispute...? Especially if the Postal Inspectors get wind of it...? You have to think like a bureaucrat. I've never argued with anyone at the USPS for 2 or 3 hours, ever. If I can't get satisfaction in 5-10 minutes, I take it up the chain. I'm not sure who you deal with that you say it is "very likely", but I would suggest you're doing it wrong. By all means, if you're not comfortable using it, the answer's clear: don't use it. I rarely use it myself, because it's not a safe method of transportation. I think I've had 2-3 packages shipped to me Media Mail in the last 5 years. But "comfort" is not "regulation."

I'm making a logical argument that I believe would stand up in court, even though it would never get to that level. I have no intention of convincing those who disagree, because you're certainly free to choose not to use Media mail to ship comics. My argument, laid out above, is straightforward, and is in "bureaucrat think." You say "is this just your interpretation of YOU define as an "ad""...and the answer, obviously, is yes. It's yes because that's how human beings communicate ideas and concepts to each other: they agree, by consensus and usage, After all, what is the dictionary? Someone's interpretation of what they think those words mean. It may be excellent work. It may be agreed upon by everyone. But that doesn't still mean that those were someone's interpretations of the idea they believe is being conveyed. As to references: I already said that the DMM is the only thing that matters with regard to USPS practices, and comic books aren't addressed in the DMM. Therefore, in the absence of clear regulations, one must use reasonable and rational inference as to how the regulations that DO exist apply to this situation. To wit: What is an ad? An ad is a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event. So what do we call an ad that has been replaced, or promotes something which is no longer available, or is past the date for which the ad was valid? It's no longer an ad...it's an expired ad. And an expired ad, by virtue of its expiration, is no longer an ad. Therefore, it no longer falls under the restriction in the DMM. Naturally. No. The ad is "invalid" by virtue of its long ago expiration. It's not merely that KayBee and ToyBiz no longer exist...the entire ad has expired. That back cover is no longer an ad...it is historical reference material, an interesting look at what was available, and where, and from whom, 27 years ago. That ad is not promoting "action figures in general." That is not its intention, nor what it was produced for...and that goes for X-Men comics, X-Men movies, DVDs of the old AS, etc. No, that is not what ads are meant to do. Ads are meant to promote specific items, products, or events. No one would seriously suggest that a poster promoting a Phish appearance could therefore be said to also promote Phish CDs, Phish t-shirts, instruments that Phish happens to be using, concerts in general, music in general, and pot smoking. The concept of "scope" applies here. And I disagree completely with that image being "much, much more than trying to get you to purchase a 6" Colossus figure in 1991", unless that "much, much more" is trying to get you to buy ALL of them. Then you'd have a point.

Wally Wood! I've always loved the detail he put in her nightgown.

He's going gluten-free. I was so used to seeing millennials with their faces stuck to their phone screens, I didn't even notice it was goop on his hand that they were looking at...I registered it as an Iphone 8.

Excuse me but to play baseball you need a bat and a ball and a glove. Otherwise, what you have is a servant in the Forbidden City. i believe you are referring to a twanger, as in Soupy Sales. A twanger is not a wanger. Sure, if you want to play baseball. But to make a child as a man, you only need living sperm cells. Delivery method can vary. (This is called drrrrrryyyyy humor, kids.)

So, Venom will sit in his childhood bedroom (in which he still lives), smoke pot all day, and think that everything good should happen to him/her just because he/she was born...?

Excuse me.... may I present Mr. Jenner. Somebody might think they are a girl, but a wanger is a wanger. You don't need a wanger to reproduce. You just need productive gonads. :D :eek: meh huh. Typing in the "code" for emoticons doesn't automatically convert them anymore. Plus there's a "quote selection" instead of "quote this"...interesting "adjustments."

The Domestic Mail Manual...the only thing that matters as far as the USPS is concerned...is ambiguous on the subject. It doesn't matter what anyone who works for the USPS...even the postmaster general...says. If it's not in the DMM, then it has no regulatory weight (as those who work for/have worked for the USPS can confirm.) The DMM says nothing about comics...it only addresses advertising. Comic books from any point older than 6 months do not contain ads. They contain historical reference material. It doesn't matter if the product being advertised still exists: once an ad is replaced by a subsequent ad, the former ad is no longer "in effect", and thus, no longer an ad. It is historical reference material. That something was once an ad doesn't mean it remains an ad in perpetuity. You cannot buy anything being advertised in a 1973 comic book, as it was advertised in 1973. Same with 1958, 1981, 2016, 1936, or any other year after about 6 months have passed (it varies ad to ad.) Since they are no longer valid, they are no longer ads. Since they are no longer ads, but are now reference material, the books containing them qualify for Media mail, by the USPS' own regulations. That said...only a buffoon would ship a $6,000 book via Media mail.

Um...two girls can't make a baby together. Duh. Didn't your parents 5th grade public school teacher teach you that...?