RockMyAmadeus

Quit trying to poo-poo the good vibes! Can't you see, people need the attention? I think all of Stu's Ids need birthday threads. They look kind of lonely. That would liven things up.

Most people don't realize there's no express right to privacy in the Constitution. We were a country for well over 100 years before court cases even hinted that there might be a right to be divined through cobbling pieces of the document together, but there's still nothing there that expressly gives us the right to privacy. It wasn't until the mid-60's that the supreme court came up with a way to say that married couples could use contraception in the privacy of their own home. The right to privacy is a topic that has been discussed in the WC from time to time, from a 'big brother / government POV. Some people believe the right to privacy shouldn't exist, the reasoning being that if you aren't doing something wrong you have nothing to worry about. I tend to agree although I also worry about corruption and misuse of that information. But as far a comics go, it's an emotional hobby. We've probably all been bent out of shape over a deal at one point or another. I know l have unfortunately. The problem, of course, is in the definition of "something wrong." That's far, far, farrrrr too vague, and would be abused by those with an agenda. We're already at the point of being criminals just by virtue of living, breaking some law in some code somewhere, all the time. I would be happily tossed to the wolves by some here, for the sole "crime" of challenging them and their notions. How many people have openly called for others to be banned? Would that stop if those people had actual power? No, it would only be magnified, and people would be guillotined for telling truth to power.

Not this again, please. That wasn't a correction, it was a request. Mine too That much was clear. And a tiresome one at that.

That pretty much sums it up. Agree that that sums it up. And by the same argument and standards, Superman 76 is the first appearance of the Justice League. You can't get to BB 28 without Batman and Superman teaming up, which Superman 76 did first. This kind of "logic" shows the weakness of your argumentation. Good. Because it's your logic. That's the point of making this weak argument: It's the same as yours. No.

That pretty much sums it up. Agree that that sums it up. And by the same argument and standards, Superman 76 is the first appearance of the Justice League. You can't get to BB 28 without Batman and Superman teaming up, which Superman 76 did first. No.

ASM #300 has a typical print run for ASM during that time period, with a bump for being an anniversary issue. It doesn't compare to the print runs of books that came after it.

Not this again, please. That wasn't a correction, it was a request.

Quit trying to poo-poo the good vibes! Can't you see, people need the attention?

What kind of appeals are $20 or less...? An appeal to a meter maid while he/she's writing out a ticket..? You know, I could be on to something, here...

I wouldn't think so. If you have pictures and know there are no returns why should the seller have to accept a return? And if you don't have pictures and buy with no returns, well that was probably a poor choice from the buyer. Part of the problem is a certain assumption that pics/scans are self explanatory, when they are not. Pics mean nothing without at least a numerical grade or some sort of good faith disclosure of hidden defects. No returns as a policy puts the pressure hard on full disclosure. If you show me a book that looks like a glossy VF and say "great copy!" and it turns out the cover is detached, I'm not going to care if there was a no returns policy, I'm going to want satisfaction for a misrepresentation of the product. No, pics fixes all of this. Maybe you should try not being a contrarian about everything. Just give it a try, once. You're missing his raison d'etre: rules are for suckers, except when he might get burned. This. "Everything is grey, until my wallet is in play." Ooo....that was kinda catchy...

Because: lazy.

Oh Win.... To think, I went a good 6-7 years without you. I don't know how I managed.

Sometimes, the "good ol days" were better. I think we tend to romanticize the "good ol days". I've only been here for 6 years and still consider myself a newb. When I was a fairly new member, I had some bad dealings ( probation list worthy ) with a couple of "well respected", long time members. I was even encouraged at the time privately to nominate these people for the probation list ( I didn't ). Is it worse now? Probably. But if it was ever "perfect", it must have been that way before I arrived. And you're definitely a noob At least I know my place, unlike a lot of these other Johnny-come-latelies who think they own the place after a few months. Yeah, like those ' 05 guys. They're the worst Best newb year ever.

You don't think it's important for people to know that the person they are donating money to has taken money from boardies, in some cases years ago, and have not provided what was promised? I don't think we need to deify the party being donated to, reality works just fine. If they have shortcomings, and owe people, then that's part of the story that needs to be told. No sense in hiding facts in order to raise the final tally. Full disclosure to people throwing money at someone doesn't feel like thread-crapping...at all. That's the type of context that anyone donating should want to have given the enormity of the latitude the person being donated to has been given. Something that would have had almost anyone else on one or more "lists". There are folks that are out significant money, and plenty of folks that have supported this same person for several years in that mix, and it's appropriate to have the full measure of reality injected into that conversation as it seems their loss is being muted. Not sure how the two things go hand in hand. I can definitely understand the people who have been waiting for 3 years for art to not donate since they may feel like they have given Matt more then enough. But mentioning he owes art to people in a charity thread doesn't seem to make much sense unless you think he has misused the money previously given him which should be pointed out if you have proof. Having people like myself donate some money to Matt should in no way stop Matt from living up to his promises and will hopefully help him get the art to people who have paid for it. It's great that you want to help someone out. There are many people here that have supported Matt for years. I, personally, have several thousand dollars worth of his art and products myself. That's the type of perspective that might be valuable to someone who hasn't supported him in that way in the past. Letting people know that Matt owes people and that there are other people on this forum being harmed by his circumstances is another reason for people to help get Matt on his feet. Your donation and the donations of others may be able to help Matt AND the people Matt owes simultaneously. It's all tied together and anyone donating would appreciate a full spoonful of disclosure without the pits filtered out. And...though this part may seem unpalatable to many, pointing out that Matt owes other people is also helping out Matt. How so? Because it gives Matt (another?) opportunity to make things right if a debt of some kind is owed to others. It's certainly possible that it had been forgotten, or overlooked, and now there's a chance to make things right. As tough as that is, it's a good thing in the end.

Not this again, please.

I think he "got a pass" because reimbursement of a forwarded expense is what paypal means when they discuss the use of the personal option. In fact one of the options under the classic site setup was "money owed". It's outside of a retail purchase or a profit setting. It's a straight up reimbursement. That can me for rent, or lunch, or money I paid Perez so he'd sign some books. I'm outta pocked, now I'm not anymore. It is a straight up reimbursement when it is to your friend for a non-commercial expense This is still listed: Payment Owed - Use this payment type for things like reimbursing a friend for your share of a restaurant check, or repaying money that a family member loaned you. RMA is using it for commercial purposes between businesses or between his business and customers in a manner which benefits his business. His use is not outside of a retail purchase or profit setting. That is your definition...not Paypal's. I am not using it for "commercial purposes", because I'm not buying either goods or services. I am reimbursing someone for expenses they incurred on my behalf. That's precisely what Paypal's personal payment option is expressly for: Note the first definition: "Another item that your friend bought for you (which, in this case, is a signature.)" Note the last one: "Other payments that aren't a purchase of goods or services." Also: "Living expense." To pay for thinks like rent or utilities"...if you're paying utilities, you're paying a business. I'm not aware of any utilities that are owned by entities that aren't businesses. And yet, by Paypal's (not yours or mine) definition, that's allowed. You can't add your own addendum of "non-commercial expense" to the definition....and besides, it's not a commercial expense in the first place. A commercial expense would be if I bought a good or service from a facilitator. The issue isn't "how does one define a friend", because, as has been discussed at great length, that opens the door to every transaction being labeled "from a friend." That's not the issue, and never has been. The issue is plainly: are you buying a good and/or service from someone? Are you purchasing something from someone? If yes, you pay for the service. If no, you can send it via Personal. Pretty straightforward.

I think he "got a pass" because reimbursement of a forwarded expense is what paypal means when they discuss the use of the personal option. In fact one of the options under the classic site setup was "money owed". It's outside of a retail purchase or a profit setting. It's a straight up reimbursement. That can me for rent, or lunch, or money I paid Perez so he'd sign some books. I'm outta pocked, now I'm not anymore. Yup.

Please explain why these "pass through" outlays which are out-of-pocket business expenses associated with someone (your friend) doing business and getting paid for doing it......is considered by you to be the same as paying back someone for lunch and not subject to fees? Artist charges $10 per sig. I get 20 books signed. Artist charges $200. Facilitator pays that $200. That $200 is paid back by me to the Facilitator via Paypal personal, and has nothing to do with the charge the Facilitator may charge me for their service. The facilitator didn't make any money on that aspect of the situation. They simply paid the artist on my behalf. That's one of the things Paypal personal is for, specifically, as defined. No it is not. Personal Payments are specifically defined in Paypal's T&Cs 16. Definitions: "Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase. Examples of Personal Payments include sending a gift to a friend or paying a friend back for your share of a lunch bill. Of course it is about Who you are sending money to. That is why they reference using it for "friends and family" and specifically exclude payments "to or from a business" The only reason they cover the WHY is due to people stretching the definition of "friends". You will note that all of the examples they use, such as "Gift, Living Expense (like rent or utilities), Reimbursing a friend for your share of a restaurant check, or Repaying money that a family member loaned you" are in no way business expenses. When you are sending payments to facilitators and when your customers are sending payments to you, these transactions are business transactions, to and from a business. That is not correct. I am "paying a friend back" for payment they fronted me (as noted in the definition.) Just like the friend who pays for my share of lunch. Is a business the ultimate recipient? Yes. It is NOT a "purchase", because I am not buying something from these facilitators. I am not buying goods and/or services from these facilitators for that portion of the money that goes to other entities. That payment, if any, for their services is a separate transaction, for their services, and yes, must be paid for the regular way.

Well, I partially put "generally" because I dislike stating absolutes. But I would say things that are similar to the items that PayPal references - say there's a 2-for-1 sale and I go in with a friend to buy two, and I pay my friend half via PayPal. Or like in the charity threads mentioned, even if it wasn't "officially" sanctioned by calling first, if you were buying something to help someone out, particularly if you were friends with the person. That sort of thing. But just a usual transaction between two people? Not so much. You use a service, you should pay for that service. This isn't rocket science, but it IS "absolute."

No, to say otherwise is to understand that one can steal, but not do it purposely. If I pop a grape into my mouth at the store without thinking about it, and without paying for it, have I stolen? Yes, obviously, by any definition of that word. I took something that didn't belong to me, and didn't compensate the owner for it. Did I do it purposely? No, and it's intent, not action, that makes one a thief.

Dig it. Not sure why they stuffed them all in that tiny azz kitchen. What's an "azz kitchen"...?

Onsite grading has been discussed as "lenient" for many years now. Frankly, I don't see it. For as many as have gotten "gift" grades, I've seen just as many get hammered (I even got a 9.4 OW on a Wolverine LS #1 onsite once...cracked it, did nothing to it, subbed it under a 9.8 pre-screen....got the 9.8 it should have gotten in the first place..AND White pages to boot.)

That pretty much sums it up.

Jay underestimates. If that rub at the bottom staple is the only obvious flaw this book has, you shouldn't have any problem getting a 9.6. It's not that bad, and won't look anywhere near that bad in hand. The slight rub directly to the right of the trademark line won't be very visible in hand, and the "speckling" along the spine edge are light artifacts, yes?

I'm waiting for the Snapper Carr movie to drive prices up on this book...