RockMyAmadeus

Unfortunately, you're making the very same error in logic that some creators are making: you CANNOT compare the value of a raw book with a slabbed book, completely regardless of any other factors involved. The value of a slabbed book is in the number in the upper left hand corner of the book. Yes, that number exists because the book is generally in that grade range, but the VALUE of that slab is in the number on the label. Have no doubt about that. That's why you'll never, ever sell a raw uncirculated 1886-O Morgan dollar for $115,000, but you CAN sell one for that price if it's slabbed at MS65: https://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/1886-o-1-ms65-pcgs/a/1121-4977.s You break that coin out of the holder, and guess what...? You won't be able to sell it for $115,000. Same coin. Same condition. Even the same pedigree (Eliasberg, a potent one at that.) But try and sell it out of that slab, and you'll be lucky to get $20,000 for it. *Maybe* that particular example, you might get more, but you're not getting $115,000 for it. https://www.ebay.com/sch/Morgan-1878-1921/39464/i.html?_from=R40&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&_nkw=1886-o+uncirculated&_sop=16 The difference in value between a raw, uncertified book and a slabbed SS book IS NOT...repeat, IS NOT...because of the signature. It's because of the slab. And people who don't understand that have gotten themselves into a lot of trouble over the years. By the way...even if you WERE to compare the two, I can show you plenty of examples where the raw, uncertified book is WORTH MORE than the slabbed SS one. Examples: Amazing Spiderman #285 CGC 9.4 SS Signed by Zeck, sold for $25 Nov 13 2011 Amazing Spiderman #285 CGC 9.4 SS Signed by Zeck, sold for $25 May 8 2011 Amazing Spiderman #285 CGC 9.4 SS Signed by Zeck, Salicrup, and McCleod, sold for $31 Oct 8 2017 Amazing Spiderman #293 CGC 9.0 SS Signed by Zeck, sold for $10 May 10 2009 Batman The Cult #1 CGC 9.6 SS Signed by Starlin, sold for $43 Feb 25 2016 Batman The Cult #1 CGC 9.6 SS Signed by Starlin, sold for $40 Feb 24 2016 Swamp Thing #31 CGC 9.8 SS Signed by Totleben & Bissette, sold for $45 Jan 21 2014 Swamp Thing #27 CGC 9.2 SS Signed by Totleben & Bissette, sold for $36, then $21, then $16, all in 2013 (that one was a super loser.) (Source: GPAnalysis.com) The rough MINIMUM cost for each and every SS slab is $30. MINIMUM. That means the cost of shipping to and from plus certification, and maxing every potential savings you possibly can. Most slabs run in the $40-$50 range, all certification costs figured in. Zeck charges $10 per CGC slab (because Renee makes him.) Totleben charged $10/ea. Bissette charged $5/ea. Starlin has been all over the map, but now he charges $20 for slabs (yay, jerk who pissed him off in May!) eBay and others take 10% or more, Paypal another 3% minimum. And that's not even considering the value of the book itself, which in many cases is just set at $0, OR shipping, OR labor. End result? Each and every one of those slabs here...and thousands more just like them...sold at a loss...sometimes a substantial one. Raw examples of the above, on the other hand, would typically not sell at a loss. You could probably get $5-$10 for a raw signed copy of ASM #293 signed by Zeck, for example. In other words...you wouldn't be selling them at a loss, or, at least, not a loss that even comes close to what a slab loser would sell for. Trying to compare a raw, uncertified signed copy with a CGC SS slab betrays a fundamental, basic lack of understanding of how this market works, and what it costs to participate. These costs are REAL, and MUST be borne by someone for the slab to exist. You can't say "well, a raw signed copy sold for $10, and a slabbed SS copy sold for $45, ipso facto, the slab made more money!" That's your right, and there's nothing at all preventing you from paying creators an additional amount commensurate with the additional value you think this service brings. I DO begrudge them asking a higher price for slabs, because it's discriminatory and rude to ask what I intend to do with my property. I wouldn't dare ask a stranger what they intended to do with some good or service I sold them...so why would anyone think a creator asking the same thing is a normal, rational, polite thing to do...? The problem is, the creator, as I explained in in the section above, isn't recognizing anything that actually exists. They have a perception that is inaccurate, and basing their decisions on that inaccurate perception. I hope that creators come to understand the market that they want a piece of, so they can come to an informed decision about the value their signature does...or does not...have. If someone wants to charge $160 for their signature, hey, more power to them. But I would hope they do so from a position of knowledge and understanding about the real value of their signature, and not because they think people are "making huge stacks of money off their sigs!"

Neal Adams now charges substantially more than his signature is worth, in most cases.

What drill423 said. What Liefeld charges is not commensurate with what his signed books sell for. In fact, in recent cases, signed copies have sold for LESS than unsigned copies: Liefeld wants to cash in, but he's severely overvaluing his signature. Yes, granted, there are plenty of people paying it...for now. That won't last forever, because basic economics says it can't. There are only so many people who will pay $80 for his signature, when they can get something already signed on eBay, in the grade they want, for less than the cost of doing it themselves. The laws of economics are still laws.

No, you are ruling out other ends, not other means. You argued with darkstar's use of the phrase "just for the sake of", saying that if he said "good PR" was also a goal, then they aren't "just" doing it for the sake of diversity...except "good PR" was the means to that end of proving how "diverse" they are, not the goal. One can "just" have a single goal, while employing multiple means to achieving that goal. In this case, you are just arguing semantics, arguing just to argue. You're picking nits that need not be picked. You ignore darkstar's point to argue a triviality of the language. Not that I'm against such trivialities, God forbid, provided the larger point doesn't get lost, but that's what happened here. I mean, it's a textbook definition of missing the forest for the trees. You're arguing what the definition of "is" is. This terrible quote system makes it mucccccch harder to follow the context of discussions.

The thread hasn't been derailed. The discussion is about "being offended", what that means, and how that relates to the Marvel retailer meeting at NYCC and whether or not what some people said there were "slurs" or not. It's stayed on course the entire time.

So, yes?

My comments are not, and have never been, "tactics." Make a counterargument, or don't, but making comments about people, rather than topics, is a surefire way to create problems. If you want to comment about what you perceive to be someone else's "tactics", the best way to do that is in private.

I have given you the courtesy and respect of responding to your posts, treating you with dignity and giving you my time to provide thoughtful responses to your comments. Is it too much to ask the same in return...?

That's simply not true. Can you imagine the power those 20 would reclaim if they ALL decided to ignore the "abuser"? If they all just decided, en masse, to walk away from the "abuser"...? After all, what are those 19 people going to do...? Hurl slurs back? Beat the guy (assuming it's a guy) up? Plead with him to stop saying those things? In any event, no, it's not just to not SHOW that it's affecting you...it's to CHOOSE not to actually LET it affect you. Being offended is a matter of choice. Being offended is a state of being. It is not an emotion. I know you want to believe it is, but it is not. By the way, what does "obviously offended" mean...? Is the person angry? Crying? Why not encourage them to ignore that person, and take away their power? Because acknowledging what that person is doing gives them power. It gives them the satisfaction they're looking for. That's what they want, whether it's ONE person, or 19. And what does "policing that abuse" mean...? Do you mean silencing it by force? Do you want to silence people with whom you disagree?

"Hatred" is not an emotion. "Anger" is an emotion, "fear" is an emotion, "revulsion" is an emotion, "sadness" is an emotion. "Hatred" is a state of being, a conscious decision one makes over time. Know how I know...? Because one doesn't "feel" hatred. One doesn't say "man, I really feel hateful today!" or "Wow, you really made me hate when you jumped out at me!" or "I was hateful all day today!" or "I'm filled with hatred at you right now." You say "man, I really feel sad today" or "Wow, you really made me scared when you jumped out at me" or "I was annoyed all day today" or "I'm filled with rage at you right now", followed by "I hate when I'm sad all day" and "I hate when you scare me like that" and "I hate when I can't get over my frustration" and "I hate that I sometimes feel this way towards you." And when someone says "I really feel hatred towards you", they're really saying "I feel anger, rage, and frustration, and I hate you because you make me feel those things." And I hate when the mailman leaves my mailbox open in the rain. My mail gets all wet! As for me being "wired" that way, no. Not in the slightest. In fact, it is a result of my emotional (over)reactions to things in life which has caused myself and others the most pain and suffering. These are things I had to learn through the hard and bitter experiences of life; and I'm not special. Learning to control one's emotions is just part of growing up. Emotions are a wonderful thing, and not to be shunned...in their proper place. By the way...you CAN choose to be happy all the time. That doesn't mean you won't ever be sad, or annoyed, or angry, or afraid...but you need not wallow in sadness, annoyance, anger, or fear, and let your emotions dictate your reactions. That's the difference. You can CHOOSE to be in control of your emotions.

Why did you bother with your comment about deflecting? Much like that comment, this was about tactics in arguing. That's an easy question to answer: because my comment about deflecting wasn't personal; it wasn't a comment about ygogolak. That's it. That's the sum of it. That's the entire point. It's not personal. Here's the comment in question, in context: No, I like to get to the roots of matters, in environments where frank discussion is frequently not allowed. "There's nothing intelligent enough to respond to" is nothing but a swipe. It was wholly unnecessary, did nothing to advance the discussion, and was said solely because you're annoyed by what I said, so you decided to get a little jab in. Let's not pretend otherwise; doing that IS treading water in semantics. The fact is, the comment was perfectly intelligent enough to respond to, since it's the same thing I've been saying for multiple posts, but you don't have a response, so...here we are. Deflecting is not proper debate. It's a TACTIC, for sure...but it's not proper debate. See? Nothing about anyone personally. Do you see the difference? The second the discussion becomes about the people involved, rather than the topic itself, the discussion is over. Your comment, in response to ygogolak's comment, was personal, about ME, personally, not the topic: ...and such comments have no place in these discussions.

Getting a lot of mileage out of these emoji's today. So, you don't know what you were referring to, then...? Here's the chain of comments, here: Pretty obvious who has the grudge here. Responding to comments not directed at you and promoting other forums. ...to which I replied "Um...huh? What are you referring to, here...?" Because my comment, that you replied to right here, had nothing to do with "grudges" or "promoting other forums"...and asking you to clarify who you were talking to is not worthy of a ...unless, of course, you think I am "Fairball." I am not. That is Stu.

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. Ignoring something gives it power...? Really...? Interesting perspective. We'll have to disagree on that point, too. What does "legitimately offended" mean? Are we EVER "legitimately offended" on our own behalf...?

I think you mean you're not obligated to PROVIDE, not PREVENT, evidence. In any event, the "rules" for debate were established thousands of years ago, and remain the same: the burden of proof, in court or in life, is on the claimant. If you're not willing to prove the claim...and that's perfectly within your rights to refuse to do so...your claim should be understood in that light, and given the weight it is due in such a circumstance. I don't think the term "social justice" is necessarily political, but if you can't discuss it without being political (and this entire thread has been political, just not "capital P" political) then by all means, you shouldn't discuss it.

The word you used is "hatred." "Hateful" is the state of having hatred, just like "afraid" is the state of having fear. I'm following the rules of syntax, not changing your words to mean other than what you meant. And no, "hatred" and being "hateful" is not an emotional reaction; it is a state of being. "Revulsion" would be an emotional reaction; "hatred" is a conscious decision, spanning time. "Hate" is NOT an emotion. Fear is an emotion, anger is an emotion, sadness is an emotion, happiness is an emotion, surprise is an emotion..."hate" is not. Yes, and you're making my point: if someone has control over their emotions, it will not "resonate" no matter what it is. If you say "I think bald people are stupid, and shouldn't have the same rights as people with hair!" am I going to be offended? After all, I'M bald, and I didn't have any choice in the matter. No, I'm not going to be offended, because it's a stupid thing to say. And if I can choose to be offended, I can also choose to be NOT offended. However...if someone says to ME, PERSONALLY "Hey, Baldy, nice haircut!"...will I be offended? After all, now it's personally directed AT ME. But the odds are pretty good I won't be, because 1. I'm bald; 2. I had no choice in the matter; 3. being bald has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my talents, abilities, character, personality, or value as a human being. As an aside: "I don't see why this is such a difficult concept" is something that people say when they're irritated and frustrated that someone else doesn't agree with them. Frequently, when these discussions go "off the rails" themselves, some effect down the line is usually pointed to and someone says "SEE!!! SO AND SO ALWAYS DOES THIS!!!", when it was actually comments like "I don't see why this is such a difficult concept" where it really starts. And in no way am I pretending that I have always been above such comments; I'm just as guilty as others. I only wish that they weren't ignored by people who make the decisions about where things actually went off track. There's absolutely nothing difficult to understand about what you're saying: I simply don't agree with it. I can disagree with you, and not treat you like you're a dummy who can't comprehend what I'm saying in the process. You ought to be able to do the same, no...?

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. Why is this comment necessary...? If you have a counterargument, make it. Otherwise, none of this is necessary. Let's stick to the discussion, folks, and not the people in it.

Pretty obvious who has the grudge here. Responding to comments not directed at you and promoting other forums. Um...huh? What are you referring to, here...?

Not trying to be unreasonable with you, here, but if you don't have the time to prove your claims, why make them...? Is everyone reading this just supposed to take your word that they're "decent examples of the difference between being offended and finding something offensive" (which is NOT your original contention, which is that the people accusing others of being "snowflakes" for being offended are the ones who, in your perspective, seem to be the most offended)...? And, if they're not relevant to this particular discussion, why bring it up, and try to tie it into this discussion...? I don't see anyone calling people snowflakes, while being offended themselves, here. As to your definition of "social justice"...why would you be afraid to discuss it? Is it offensive?

No moderator is without bias. Moderators are human, too. Holding them to a standard of perfection is unfair to them, and creates unreasonable expectations in others. In other words: it's manifestly silly to claim that moderation action has only happened when it was deserved.

No, I like to get to the roots of matters, in environments where frank discussion is frequently not allowed. "There's nothing intelligent enough to respond to" is nothing but a swipe. It was wholly unnecessary, did nothing to advance the discussion, and was said solely because you're annoyed by what I said, so you decided to get a little jab in. Let's not pretend otherwise; doing that IS treading water in semantics. The fact is, the comment was perfectly intelligent enough to respond to, since it's the same thing I've been saying for multiple posts, but you don't have a response, so...here we are. Deflecting is not proper debate. It's a TACTIC, for sure...but it's not proper debate.

Without specific examples...not just specific situations...I have no way of knowing whether your contention....that "it seems like the people making the accusations of others being "snowflakes" are, themselves, the ones being the most emotional" (obviously paraphrased)...is valid. How does "fanboys throwing a fit because a cover was pulled" have anything to do with this discussion? Are you suggesting there's hypocrisy, that people tell others not to react emotionally, while they, themselves, react emotionally? You get zero argument from me. But how does that specifically relate to this discussion, and more specifically, the participants in this discussion...? Since it was said in response to me, do you have a specific example where I accused someone of being a "snowflake", while I, myself, was offended at something that wasn't personally directed at me...? After all, the fact that you use the word "seem" indicates that you aren't really sure yourself, and yet, there ARE objective contextual clues as to what someone's state of mind is when they post on the internet. Sometimes it's clear as crystal, other times as mud, but that doesn't mean it's always unfathomable. So are those people really the ones being "the most emotional/offended", or is it just your perception that they are? Without specific examples, no one can say. We're getting into the weeds, here, but it highlights the importance of not making casual analogies in discussions like this. What does "social injustice" mean, to you...? And "a tiny, tiny" portion...? I'm afraid we'll have to disagree about that.

Not sure what is so hard to understand about this. If you're using a derogatory term towards a group of people that is not treating people equally. And you have continued to ignore responding to what actually happened at this breakfast, so I assume it did happen which was fine by you because you "ignored" it. By whose definition is it derogatory? Yours? What if I disagree with you? And who says that, even if we both agree a term is derogatory, that that means one is "not treating people equally"...? Isn't equality of opportunity the real point of equality? If I say "man, Morlocks are so stupid!", but ensure that all Morlocks still have the same opportunity everyone else does, are they REALLY being treated unequally...? As far as "continu(ing) to ignore responding (whatever "ignore responding" means) to what actually happened at this breakfast", I haven't ignored anything. If you have a direct question, ask it. I've answered every question posed to me so far. Why would you assume "it" (whatever you think "it" is; it's unclear at this point) "did happen", and why would you assume "it" would be fine by me, because I "ignored" it? Was my earlier response not clear...? Be direct, sir, and state your issues clearly. (And...I may have mentioned this earlier...this WAS NOT a breakfast. Details, details, I know.) But it does beg the question: if my comments aren't intelligent enough to respond to...why do you keep responding...?

Really...? Why wouldn't we all simply choose to be happy...? Isn't THAT an interesting question....? Do you really believe that people don't willingly choose to be sad, or "hateful" (dubious as to being an emotion, but I'll go with it for the sake of the argument), or afraid...? Why do people willingly see sad movies...? Or horror movies...? I agree completely, which is why the distinction in your earlier statement: "One may not personally be offended by something, but can still recognize that some offensive was said" didn't make too much sense. Of course, one can be offended on behalf of someone else, and that's where I thought you were going with it, because that's a whole different facet to the discussion. Yes, I'm agreeing with you. That's why I said it. I'm sorry, what...? So, you can recognize something as offensive, but you're not offended by it...but it's not a choice that you're not offended by it...? Being offended is a completely involuntary emotional reaction...? "Phew. Good thing that wasn't aimed at ME, or I would have no choice but to be offended!" ...are you really suggesting this?

I don't see the lack of understanding of the difference that you mention, nor do I see the emotional responses by the accusers of which you speak. Do you have any specific examples in mind? Your sentence here seems to be a bit muddled. You say "so-called"...do you think there aren't SJWs? Do you think that such people are really just "pointing out that someone or something is being offensive", objectively, or they're actually offended? There are many clues to indicate which response is which. After all, you use the word "seem", which means you're not making a definitive argument.

Of your first statement, I have no doubt. Do you recognize, however, that your definition of "advancing" and that of others may not be the same? And that your definition of "treating people as equals" and that of others also may not be the same? What type of "equality" are you talking about? Should I treat the ignorant the same way I treat the wise? Should I treat the journeyman the same way I treat the novice? Should I treat the young the same way I treat the old? Should I treat the talented the same way I treat those without? Without definitions, "treat each others (sic) as equals" has no meaning. Do you mean equals in outcome, or equals in opportunity? As to your second statement, I disagree entirely. Ignoring something that is offensive for the sake of being offensive is wisdom.