RockMyAmadeus

Let it go man. +1 You too. See above.

Let it go man. I will never "let it go" until it goes completely underground. It is utter hypocrisy to maintain a "probation list" for people who rip off, cheat, steal, and otherwise do harm to others, while simultaneously completely turning a blind eye to stealing from Paypal because of whatever reason. Do you tell people who have been ripped off to "let it go"...? What sort of madness is that, that standing up for the right thing needs to be "let go"? So long as it keeps happening, I will keep bringing it up, until some way, some how, it stops being acceptable around here....or, the Probation List/HOS is done away with, too, and at least we stop with the open hypocrisy. The real question is...why would you tell someone making a stand for right to "let it go"...?

3 generations of entitlement. It's going to get much worse. And people wonder why I say what I say. I know someone who feels entittled to take his time pressing books, these entittled elites, I'm ready to start a revolution and overthrow them. Well....it goes like this... Oh, ok. Nevermind, then.

Oh hey, look, more transactions being offered via Paypal personal, which this board turns a collective blind eye to. How lovely! You use the service, you pay for the service. Anything else is mental pretzel-making to justify not paying an entity for the service they provide, which is stealing.

FWIW, that word didn't even exist in the English language until FDR. It's an interesting word, said positively by those who feel they are, and negatively by those who feel they are not.

I would respond, but I am afraid to.

+1 It is unfortunate that we must speak in carefully coded language, and cannot openly discuss certain issues unrelated to the business of the Certified Collectibles Group, depending on who and what is being discussed. That's a genuine shame, and it really ought to be addressed.

3 generations of entitlement. It's going to get much worse. And people wonder why I say what I say.

I didn't realize CGC has publicized their "grading standards". Everyone knows that Overstreet publishes their grading standards, but has CGC publicized their "grading standards"? To be fair, if he worked for CGC as he claims (and there's no reason to doubt him, based on his explanation), then he IS aware of CGC's grading standards. It's better than using the CGC keyword by itself....baby steps.

Now THAT'S funny. Right. Mustn't upset the apple cart, no matter what's going on beneath it, right? Put so eloquently. Really, Oak? Really?

No, but the reputation of certain board members must be protected at all costs. I cant remember the last time I have seen a scrubbing on a Sunday morning for something that barely reached a 3 on the 10 scale. That's what corruption does, unfortunately. First rule of Fight Club and all.

Now THAT'S funny. Right. Mustn't upset the apple cart, no matter what's going on beneath it, right?

And, of course, important information has once again been swept under the rug. Nothing to see here...move along...nothing to see here....

What about them? If it's anonymous....then you don't know it happened, right...? And if you don't know it happened, you have no possible way of questioning anyone's "participation" in "charity" efforts, right...? If you do know it happened...it's not anonymous. Seems like logic a child can understand. And...why would anyone who was genuinely concerned with helping someone else be involved with people who make a great show of how "generous" they are being? No, there are many ways to give to others that don't involved dealing with those who seek recognition for their "charity." I mean, really, Swick. Trying to discredit someone's criticism of you by questioning their participation in "charity" events...? I'm not sure you're brushed up on the concept of a "rhetorical question", but as I said before, telling everyone how much you "give", and making sure everyone knows how "generous" you are with your time, effort, and money, is precisely the kind of "community" that no one should want to be a part of. I have that "wall of text" response for you, but I'll wait a bit before posting it, if at all. Outlawyering a lawyer does tend to get wordy, and your dishonesty has to be carefully addressed at all points. I wonder how many "walls of text" you've filed before the court, hmmmm...? But, of course, we must present "walls of text" as a bad thing, a thing to be discouraged, a thing to be disdained...not a means of reaching understanding and agreement. No, if it's not pithy, it's not valid, right...?

You have something you'd like to say, Beige? It's too early in the morning to be this heated. Beige made it clear that that picture wasn't aimed at me. I thank him for clarifying that.

Did you really just call someone out for not donating? Wow that is a new low. I would think being involved with those functions would entitle you to some discretion. You don't know what RMA does. For all you know, he could work in a soup kitchen every day. I'm just amazed... Yes, and that pretty well puts the icing on the cake, does it not...? As you have rightly pointed out, Chris, appearance is the thing. People make great shows of "charity", to impress others with their "generosity", carefully making sure everyone knows exactly what they've done to "help" others. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that when you give, you shouldn't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. The point is to actually help, not make sure everyone knows it when you do, yes? Good post.

You have something you'd like to say, Beige?

Take them with a big FAT grain of salt, because those release dates are completely and totally wrong. I wonder why they can't even do this tiny bit of research? Just goes to show how much out there reported as "fact" is incorrect. Superman was, in 1992, a weekly event, week in and week out, every week, for 48 weeks a year (they skipped the 5th weeks until 1995.) Here are the correct WEEKS, according to the US Copyright Office - Action Comics: no. 683, Nov92. Created 1992; Pub. 1992-10-06; Reg. 1992-10-20; TX0003442096 no. 684, Dec92. Created 1992; Pub. 1992-11-03; Reg. 1992-11-10; TX0003434013 no. 685, Jan93. Created 1992; Pub. 1992-12-01; Reg. 1992-12-22; TX0003447896 Adventures of Superman: no. 496, Nov92. Created 1992; Pub. 1992-09-29; Reg. 1992-10-20; TX0003442104 no. 497, Dec92. Created 1992; Pub. 1992-10-27; Reg. 1992-11-09; TX0003430269 no. 498, Jan93. Created 1992; Pub. 1992-11-24; Reg. 1992-12-22; TX0003447895 Man of Steel: no. 17, Nov92. Created 1992; Pub. 1992-09-15; Reg. 1992-09-24; TX0003400955 no. 18, Dec92. Created 1992; Pub. 1992-10-13; Reg. 1992-11-09; TX0003434010 no. 19, Jan93. Created 1992; Pub. 1992-11-10; Reg. 1992-12-24; TX0003449999 no. 20, Feb93. Created 1992; Pub. 1992-12-15; Reg. 1993-02-16; TX0003486711 Superman: no. 73, Nov92. Claimant: DC Comics, Inc. (employer for hire) Created 1992; Pub. 1992-09-22; Reg. 1992-09-30; TX0003396764 no. 74, Dec92. Claimant: DC Comics, Inc. (employer for hire) Created 1992; Pub. 1992-10-20; Reg. 1992-11-09; TX0003430249 no. 75, Jan93. Claimant: DC Comics, Inc. (employer for hire) Created 1992; Pub. 1992-12-08; Reg. 1993-02-16; TX0003489382 For Man of Steel #18 to have been released in December, 1992, Superman #75...five issues later....couldn't have been released on Nov 20th. (Even here, however, there's an error: Superman #75 was published the week of Nov 17, not Dec 8.)

It's Doomsday. It's actually an entire page...just like ASM #298. It's a classic cameo. Whether a full body shot is included or not isn't relevant. We know it's Doomsday from the context. People knew it was Doomsday's first appearance long before CGC, and we didn't need CGC to tell us it was "First Doomsday Cameo" to care, because it certainly had value long before CGC. It is quite incorrect to say it would have "little to no value" without the notation. The entire hobby doesn't hinge on label notations, after all. (Man, how could would it have been to be reading ASM when #298 came out, and wondering who the hell was wearing Spidey's symbiote...?)

Valiant stinks. You should dump those chumps. In fact, I'll take that burden off your hands...and you won't even have to pay me!

You have a very, very bizarre moral compass. Publicly announce you have no problem stealing, as long as it's from a "big corporation" and you're "just exploiting a loophole"... vs. Publicly express complaint and disdain for someone because of a situation that essentially wound down to its conclusion, with details that are unknown to you between the people involved. What "community" do you really think you're part of...? Because there are multiple communities on this board, and some of them are pretty questionable. Who do you think you are? You've been here for all of 2.5+ years, you managed to convince someone to give you "Forumite of the Year" (a fairly dubious distinction these days) as a complete newb who had contributed very little (which has nothing to do with whatever you may be a part of outside the board), you got a thread pinned, and now you think it's your job to apologize for others, when you had nothing whatsoever to do with the situation...? And shame them for a situation you know nothing about...? If you think it's appropriate to shame people for ending a "fun community" thread, how much more ought you be ashamed for taking a public stance in support of theft? Really, who do you think you are...? You should probably dial it back quite a bit. I know you'll respond with some cute meme, so feel free. The weight of the matter remains.

Jean Gr....no, wait. Jason To...er, nevermind. Buc....drat. Gwe....no, not that one. I give up.

If you pay me, I can make 463 new Valiant slabs appear in a week... ....and all 9.8s.

Whether he worked for CGC or not is completely irrelevant. He is keyword spamming, and doesn't care. He is above such petty, common concerns, and the rules clearly do not apply to him (in his head.) And, since eBay refuses to enforce these rules....voila! And, his long winded excuses are just an attempt to justify that very simple fact. eBay, also, does not care about keyword spamming, and lie that they do.

They need an editor.