RockMyAmadeus

halhug5 Bought on 9/19, promised to be in a week, I gave them a week and a half, then never paid.

Secret Origins #14, doofus.

That's become clear. John Donne said 'no man is an island'. Clearly, he was wrong. He was replying to Mr. Ween. But I could say that in this case the "islands" are those who insist on this concept of "first apperance", and who wants to use words arbitrarily and out of context. Roy (Beastfeast) was just giving an uncalled for harsh reply, but what he means is clear. Why was it harsh? Was it true? Yes, Ween's attempt to make ads become actual appearances, contrary to long established comic collecting history and tradition, while certainly an interesting opinion, isn't going to gain traction (unless we lose all reason, which is certainly possible.) So, how he "sees" ads isn't relevant. Are we that wussified that plain spoken, unadorned truth is "uncalled for" and "harsh"...? Yes. I like how you only mention ads here and not previews. You know previews are just a specific type of ad, right? yes but there is a difference between a sequential art preview of a book coming out and a pin up no? Not if you're calling them first appearances.

That's become clear. John Donne said 'no man is an island'. Clearly, he was wrong. He was replying to Mr. Ween. But I could say that in this case the "islands" are those who insist on this concept of "first apperance", and who wants to use words arbitrarily and out of context. Roy (Beastfeast) was just giving an uncalled for harsh reply, but what he means is clear. Why was it harsh? Was it true? Yes, Ween's attempt to make ads become actual appearances, contrary to long established comic collecting history and tradition, while certainly an interesting opinion, isn't going to gain traction (unless we lose all reason, which is certainly possible.) So, how he "sees" ads isn't relevant. Are we that wussified that plain spoken, unadorned truth is "uncalled for" and "harsh"...? Yes. I like how you only mention ads here and not previews. Previews ARE ads, as was already mentioned.

Hey Ween: if you're going to have a debate, keep it above the line, and don't make things up because you're annoyed/angry/frustrated/ticked off/(insert whatever word best describes your emotional state here.) I didn't "dismiss" anything, and it is quite dishonest of you to make that up out of thin air. What I said was I DON'T KNOW about Gwenpool, and therefore, instead of simply making something up to suit me, I told you I didn't have enough information with which to draw a conclusion. So why don't you provide some more information so I can make an INFORMED decision...? Shame on you. Making things up, and then attributing them to others, is the cause of 99.9946% of the arguments around here. I'm sure I don't need to name names about who is the master at such underhanded tactics. Right. Then Batman Adventures #12 isn't the first appearance of Harley Quinn, and Super Friends #1 isn't the first appearance of the Super Friends, and Super Friends #7 isn't the first appearance of the Wonder Twins, and Iron Fist #14 isn't the first appearance of Sabretooth, etc etc etc, despite the fact that Overstreet lists all those, and more, as first appearances, even though they ALL appeared SOMEWHERE else first. You cannot run to Overstreet to support your decision, then ignore Overstreet when it doesn't suit you. You gave me a single sentence, then ignored the context of that sentence. Clear? As the fog on the Scottish moors on a cold October morning. SUPER classy.

Less than a day away, and I come back to 4-5 pages of pure drivel . . . Anything heating up? well with the newer JL Dark announcement, one might expect Swamp Thing 49 and 50 to heat a bit more I sure as hell hope so. I RE-subbed two ST #49s and they STILL got 9.6s. (But I did manage to get a 9.8, too. )

Just trying to get a line in your signature area. You'd have to say something that you believed was true... "Han shot first."

That's become clear. John Donne said 'no man is an island'. Clearly, he was wrong. He was replying to Mr. Ween. But I could say that in this case the "islands" are those who insist on this concept of "first apperance", and who wants to use words arbitrarily and out of context. Roy (Beastfeast) was just giving an uncalled for harsh reply, but what he means is clear. Why was it harsh? Was it true? Yes, Ween's attempt to make ads become actual appearances, contrary to long established comic collecting history and tradition, while certainly an interesting opinion, isn't going to gain traction (unless we lose all reason, which is certainly possible.) So, how he "sees" ads isn't relevant. Are we that wussified that plain spoken, unadorned truth is "uncalled for" and "harsh"...? Yes.

Just trying to get a line in your signature area. You'd have to say something that you believed was true...

I'm only "exasperating" to those who don't like to be disagreed with. Untrue some just believe less is more. And for many, "less is confusion." "Lengthiness" isn't an issue for people who believe in things being clear, accurate, and understandable. It's only an issue for people who think it's hard work to read a few paragraphs, and want everything reduced to easily digestable sound bites. "Easily digestable sound bites" leads to easy misunderstanding and non-comprehension. God forbid, we should ever read anything longer than a tweet. But, as usual "the way I express myself rules, the way you express yourself sucks."

I'm only "exasperating" to those who don't like to be disagreed with.

Still trying, huh? We've already been down this road, did you forget...? Need we rehash this argument again...? The context of that definition is where that definition appears, which is in the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide." No, you haven't. You've only provided the OPG definition, which is a single sentence that neither proves, nor disproves, your contention. "The absence of evidence is not evidence." You need to find something that positively supports your theory, not something that can be taken either way. As has been stated here in these discussions before, the OPG definition is a context based definition. It is the "Official Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide"...if you asked Bob Overstreet about books like Agents #6, I would lay great money...knowing the history of Bob Overstreet publications....that he would say "no, that's not at all what we mean by debut'." It is a comic book definition, in the pages of a comic book price guide. Over and over again, it is context, not technicality, that determines meaning. Still don't believe me...? Super Friends #1 is described as "1st Super Friends" in the OPG. Issue #7 has "1st app Wonder Twins and Seraph." #9 is "1st app Ice Maiden." But, how can that be...? The comic book is based on the cartoon, and since we know that the Super Friends FIRST appeared on TV, and the Wonder Twins, and Ice also first appeared on TV...which, I think falls under the term "anywhere"....then Overstreet flatly contradicts himself... ...right? Orrrr....do we look at the context of the definition and these listings, and realize that Overstreet is talking about comic books, not cartoons, or Pop-Tarts, or T-Shirts, or billboards, etc....?

Because history is not "ever changing", except to those trying to revise it. I deal in the comic collectible market every day, and have for many years...I don't deal in new comics. There's a substantial difference. One does not need to deal in new comics to be completely informed about the comic collectible market, which deals solely with back issues. That is, of course, unless we've gone completely round the bend and now consider new comics to be nothing but collectibles, produced, marketed, and consumed solely as collectibles. I hope we haven't gotten to that point, yet. I don't need to know what came out this week to know that the definition of a "first appearance" in the context of comic books is based on reason, and has been around since the beginning of comics fandom. "My" definition of a first appearance isn't dated, it's just accurate, and based on context. Are you going to provide more information, as requested...? Cool.

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value. But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1. So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine? Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue? I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads. I don't know how to respond to this.

Speaking of Gwenpool... ...is anyone else here familiar with the stages of genre according to genre theory as described by Giannetti? We are fully immersed in the parodic stage now.

What publishing delay? And Wikipedia should not be sourced for anything.

just give complete info when selling, and do a bit of research on your own when buying, and call it a day. these debates will go on til the end of time, but I gots to make my cheddars today. Yes. Exceptions to the rule do not the rule make, nor are they "wrenches." Maybe tweezers.

Yes, but I am not familiar with the preview, whether it contains original material not in I Zombie #1, or is just a preview. I suspect the latter, based on the context of the example being given.

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value. But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1. So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine? Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue? I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads. I don't know how to respond to this. Here I'll help: Thanks, but not necessary. I can speak for myself just fine, and will always give you and everyone else the same respect, and not try to speak or answer for you. Context is king. And, in this case, you don't know the context of my statement, which is multi-layered. Yes 180 is his first but because Wolverine wasn't on the cover until 181 the majority of dealers and collectors erroneously gave the distinction of first appearance to the wrong comic. Do you have anything that supports this idea? An article, a blog post, anything at all that shows that "the majority of dealers and collectors gave the distinction of first appearance to the wrong comic"...? Because I don't see anything in any literature that I have (and I have quite a bit) going back to the first acknowledgements of Wolverine's appearances that gives the "distinction of first appearance" to Hulk #181 with the possible exception of the OPG #8, which lists the "1st app. Walverine" (yes, misspelled with an "a", which goes to show how impactful he was.) By the 1981 edition of the OPG, this information...long before the invention of mass-communication methods like the internet, and also long before Wolverine was a household name...had been resolved and correctly listed #180 as his first appearance. Hulk #181, in 1978-1981, wasn't even on the radar of most "dealers and collectors", much less enough for them to have the wrong impression in any meaningful way. Hulk #181 was essentially a brand new modern at this point, and most such books were ignored by dealers and collectors. It would be like looking at a 2008 comic now: modern drek. So, for Overstreet to have it corrected by late 1980 (when OPG #11 was being compiled) is pretty darn reactive of him. That's precisely the point: there wasn't any quick way for such "misinformation" to be corrected. However...the impact of such an "error" would have been beyond minimal. It certainly wasn't "the hot new book" of the era: those distinctions belonged to GSXM #1 and X-Men #94, which set the modern comics world on fire in 1978-1981. There weren't hoards of dealers and collectors making poor decisions because they "didn't know" that Wolverine's first appearance was in issue #180. Context, context, context.

Very true. Of course, I didn't answer "no, no, no." I specifically denied your specific statements. There's a subtle but important distinction there. What makes someone correct is the accuracy of their information, not saying "no" or "yes." So...whose information is accurate? I don't have any knowledge of "Green Wake 7", am not familiar with the preview in House of Mystery Annual 1, and I don't know who first appears in Agents 1. Do you mean Agents 6? And if you can't see as you say, I'll explain it again: if I take a handful of pages....like Image has done for the better part of 20 years...that are pages out of the upcoming Comic Book X #Y, and put them in a current publication as a "preview", that is not a first appearance...it is a preview. Common sense, reason, and the definitions of words tells us that a "preview" of something is NOT the thing itself, which is what you're attempting to redefine. It is literally a PRE-view, that is, a glimpse, a look, a taste of something BEFORE it officially debuts. Is it cool that the first few pages of Walking Dead #1 appear in Agents #6 and Capes #1? Yes, definitely. Does that increase interest in (and usually the value of) these particular issues? Absolutely. Is it literally the first appearance of these characters in published form? Yes, and no one's arguing against that. But the phrase "first appearance" has a slightly different meaning than "first time this character ever appeared in/on a product intended for public consumption", because comic books are a storytelling artform. If it doesn't tell a story, it's NOT sequential art. That is the defining characteristic of sequential art - it's art that's sequential, meaning, "it tells a story", regardless of what that story is. In THAT context, it doesn't matter if characters appear in ads, in previews (also ads), on Pop-Tart boxes, in TV shows, on billboards, articles of clothing, lunchboxes, or anywhere else outside of the context of a STORY. As has been mentioned many times, the first appearance of Harley Quinn isn't in a comic book...it's in a TV show. But that's not a form that is readily collectable, so what have people turned to? Her first comic book appearance, which has tremendous value. Context, context, context. Context is critical, and defines what "first appearance" really means...and this understanding goes back decades. No one calls the first appearance of Batman "Action Comics #12", even though it is literally true that Batman's likeness first appears in print prior to Detective Comics #27. The hobby has known this for decades, and still doesn't care, because it's just an ad. Does that make Action #12 more important than #11? Not really. And certainly not more than #13, which is the 4th Supes cover. In the comic book world "first appearance" has a specific meaning that doesn't necessarily coincide with the first time a character appears in print. Not relevant to this discussion, because we're not discussing such misunderstandings. One more time: it's not my definition. I didn't invent it; it's been around since the beginning of comics fandom. Obviously, the definition serves my argument, because my argument is based on standard definitions, context, and history. And you continuing to say it "doesn't represent the truth" or some other form of that idea, while being unable or unwilling to provide anything from historical literature to refute it, doesn't make it so. That is just terrible reasoning. "We can't agree because I reject standard definitions, history, and context, so let's just go with my definition which ignores all of those things." How is that statement not entirely self-serving...? It is silliness on a grand scale. True. Of course it was directed at you. I said "you", in response to you. But it wasn't solely directed at you. You are hardly the only person who has argued for "ads" and the like to be considered "true" first appearances, which is why the phrase was plural. And I know nothing about you...? On the contrary, I know much about you, because of what you say on these boards, just as anyone can know much about me, because of the same. But that's a philosophical tangent not related to this discussion. Technically correct. Contextually wrong. Maybe. Maybe not. There are people who have been collecting comics for 50 years who know very little about the hobby. Those people, when discussing the hobby, will be "Johnny-come-latelies" because they are uninformed...not because of their length of time collecting comics. I have no idea. I rarely deal in new material. You're going to have to provide some more information.

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value. But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1. So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine? Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue? I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads. I don't know how to respond to this.

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value. But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1.

Then you just conceded the argument, because previews are ads for the comic. They're marketing content. I said for arguments sake. I still firmly believe that ads can represents a first appearance but I understand that many around here disagree. A preview like WD in Capes is another story. That's a first appearance of major characters. No. No. No. No. (Nor do I care. I do not own, and have never owned, and likely never will own, a Walking Dead #1, and have absolutely no interest, beyond scholarly curiosity, in its monetary value.) That's a specious argument. Nonsense. It's not "my" definition, and it's not "my" argument. This "argument" existed long before I was BORN, and it wasn't an argument...everyone simply accepted it as fact. I can point you to literally decades of literature, starting with the Overstreet Price Guide, and moving on to CBG, the Comics Journal, and countless fanzines going back to the early 60's. ADS are NOT "first appearances." They are advertisements for UPCOMING publications. Can you point to any publication, anywhere in the entire history of comics, that makes a serious argument that ads represent actual appearances? If you can...by all means, post it here. But if you cannot....then do NOT call these definitions "made up" and "arbitrary" when they have been in existence since literally the beginning of comics fandom. No one refers to Action Comics #12 (among others) as the first appearance of Batman. No one refers to Daredevil #115 (among others) as the first appearance of Wolverine. No one refers to Iron Fist #13 as the first appearance of Sabretooth. It's only you Johnny-come-latelies that are trying to redefine terms that have been accepted for literally decades that are "making up" "arbitrary" definitions. Let's stop being silly, now.

I'm gonna do the next one, and it's all going to be Depeche Mode songs.