RockMyAmadeus

Fair enough. It's been a common occurrence, so it wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure you are curious, but such information shared would only violate board rules, so I'll refrain at this time. 1. "Widely recognized problem" by whom? Who are these people that are widely recognizing it? Why are their opinions the valid ones? Most of Western civilization, including the elite, believed the world was a flat disc around which the sun, moon, and stars rotated a mere 600 years ago. Certainly, "wide recognition" isn't criteria for the validity of any position, no? 2. If one can readily escape the circumstances of unwanted behavior by others, then it is not, by definition, bullying. You're still missing this, even though several have said it: unpleasantness is not bullying. Meanness is not bullying. Criticism is not bullying. Challenging people's opinions is not bullying. Being a jerk is not bullying. Being a dooshbag is not bullying. Yet, all those things are, and have been, classified as "bullying", by people who abuse the definition of the word. 3. This board is managed, on some levels, to within an inch of our lives. If a moderator gets even a whiff, a slight sniff, of what they think is "bullying", they will shut it down in a heartbeat. That makes all overt examples of aggressiveness or hostility a no go zone. That relegates most aggressive behavior to the covert, passive kind, which usually flies over the heads of most. To suggest someone is being bullied HERE, then, is a tremendous stretch. The only real, actual bullies on this board are those with real power and abuse it which, while fairly rare, does happen. People are bullied when they are harassed by those who have power over them, and which they cannot confront, avoid, or readily escape. There MUST be a power dynamic involved, and there MUST be an inability, on some level, to get away from it. That necessarily excludes the vast majority of adults, and it automatically excludes adult interactions on the internet. How do you bully someone you can't get to...? That's contrary to how bullying works. It's not possible to bully someone who isn't there. Who makes up definitions? People. Am I not a person? Do you not accept my definition, because it doesn't agree with what you claim others have said? What makes those definitions "correct", and others wrong? "Passing off your opinion as fact" sounds impressive, but it has no meaning. What you call "passing off your opinion as fact" is what everyone does in a discussion. They just don't call it that. They call it "having a discussion." What you are claiming doesn't exist. Did I say "This is my opinion, and it is also a fact"? If not, and I didn't, how can you make the claim otherwise? I am "passing my opinion off as fact", if that can even be claimed, because I believe my opinion is correct...as you do, yours. Again: does that mean you're passing YOUR opinion off "as fact"? The question is compelling, is it not...? A fact is demonstrable, it is observable; it is not dependent on "consensus", regardless of the status of the members of that consensus. The presence of outside references doesn't necessarily prove or disprove any position. I have had several others in this very thread support my position. Are they wrong, because they don't have the pedigree of your references? I don't need outside references to support my position; A. I've supported it sufficiently by itself. I don't need others to agree with me, to validate what I'm saying, and B. we're not discussing anything that's quantifiable. I didn't say anything about "physical restraint." You can't make things up, attribute them to me, and then argue against those made up points. Facts are observable, they exist, they are not dependent on opinion. Definitions are, by definition, opinion. Definitions change over time and space. The very definition of the word "bully" has changed over the last 100 years. And as I said earlier, consensus does not a fact make. And none of that has to do with "presenting one's opinions as fact." And I, you. Encouraging people to think of themselves as victims may seem "compassionate", but it eventually cripples them. And while I love a good session in the weeds, we have gone very far afield from the original topic, so now's as good a time as any to bow out for now. This has been a GREAT conversation, bringing up important issues that impact a lot of people. Whether we agree or not, much of the benefit comes from the discussion itself, regardless of the conclusion.

That simply isn't true. People handle things differently, but that doesn't make bullying not exist. If anything it is worse online because people have no fear of repercussions due to the anonymous nature and physical separation of the Internet. What you call "bullying" is simply people being people. You are abusing the word by applying it to people being "mean." If one can readily confront, walk away from, or avoid the situation, they are not, under ANY circumstances, being "bullied." I agree that you can argue about my interpretation of another's behavior and whether or not I should have feeled bullied. While ultimately it is about how the person feels about a situation that is important, it is subjective to outside parties. However, being able to leave or avoid a situation or not has nothing to do with qualifying said situation as bullying. The act does not require a captive audience. That is your interpretation of "bullying" not an accurate definition or a fact. straight out of wikipedia If I said quoting a source which anyone can edit at any time, and which is legendary for fostering specific views while vociferously claiming not to, is the surest way to lose an argument, would that be bullying...? But yes, it does, in fact, require a captive audience. If someone calls me an individual_without_enough_empathy on the street, am I being bullied? No. I have complete control over the situation, regardless of the behavior of the other person. If I am 8 years old, and the person calling me an individual_without_enough_empathy is a parent/guardian/authority figure...that's a completely different story. You are misusing the words "bully", "bullying", and "bullied." Teddy Roosevelt would not be pleased. Stop, pick a source - they are all consistent. Dictionary.com The Free Dictionary Bullying does not require a captive audience. Let's not make up buzz phrases that oversimply the situation. "Captive audience" is your phrase, not mine. I said ""Bullying" occurs when people are in abusive situations which they cannot, due to circumstance, readily escape. " That's another internet buzz statement that also holds no water. It doesn't mean anything. It goes entirely without saying that just about everyone posts their opinion in just about every post they make. Are they trying to "pass off their opinion as if they are facts?" Aren't you doing the exact same thing, trying to "pass off" your opinion as "fact"? Yes, you are, because that is what debate is: disagreement, dispute, differing opinions. It's an intellectually lazy charge. It has no meaning, but it sure sounds impressive, doesn't it? Must we sit and play silly semantic games and sign all of our posts with a disclaimer that says "the above post is only my opinion, and may or may not reflect reality"...? No, obviously not. How silly! As a side note, it is a charge that has been made by certain others here in the past. Are you getting private advice from others..? Be honest, now.... If that's what you believe, I'm ok with that. I disagree with you. But....you have just made a statement that you believe is a fact, without disclaiming that it is just your opinion. Is it only someone's opinion if you disagree with it, but actual fact if you agree....?

It's a biznatch of a tough book to get in 9.8. I just did Perez and Wolfman SS, and I went through about 30 of my copies...not a single no-contest 9.8 in the lot. None. I subbed the best two, and will likely get 9.6 on both.

The fact that he charges $20-$30 each to sign these books helps keep supply down a bit. It's worth it on those #87s and #98s. There is quite the price discrepancy between 9.8 Blues and Yellows. Last time I looked, a 9.8 Yellow NM #98 went for $400+ more with his sig. Which is nuts to me. I had a 9.8 #87 SS that, after everything was calculated, netted me the exact same amount, and would have required a lot less effort, to sell as a blue label.

That simply isn't true. People handle things differently, but that doesn't make bullying not exist. If anything it is worse online because people have no fear of repercussions due to the anonymous nature and physical separation of the Internet. What you call "bullying" is simply people being people. You are abusing the word by applying it to people being "mean." If one can readily confront, walk away from, or avoid the situation, they are not, under ANY circumstances, being "bullied." I agree that you can argue about my interpretation of another's behavior and whether or not I should have feeled bullied. While ultimately it is about how the person feels about a situation that is important, it is subjective to outside parties. However, being able to leave or avoid a situation or not has nothing to do with qualifying said situation as bullying. The act does not require a captive audience. That is your interpretation of "bullying" not an accurate definition or a fact. straight out of wikipedia If I said quoting a source which anyone can edit at any time, and which is legendary for fostering specific views while vociferously claiming not to, is the surest way to lose an argument, would that be bullying...? But yes, it does, in fact, require a captive audience. If someone calls me an individual_without_enough_empathy on the street, am I being bullied? No. I have complete control over the situation, regardless of the behavior of the other person. If I am 8 years old, and the person calling me an individual_without_enough_empathy is a parent/guardian/authority figure...that's a completely different story. You are misusing the words "bully", "bullying", and "bullied." Teddy Roosevelt would not be pleased.

Yes. Not how debate works.

Nonsense. Total tripe. "Bullying" occurs when people are in abusive situations which they cannot, due to circumstance, readily escape. As a result, the vast, vast majority of actual victims of actual bullying are children, young teens, or the impaired, people who aren't capable of taking control of a situation by confronting it, walking away from it, or avoiding it altogether. Calling people who are mean on the internet "bullies" does actual harm to actual victims of actual bullying, due to the Chicken Little syndrome. The word has been completely watered down, to the point where those who are really being bullied are eventually ignored due to wide scale overuse. Now, we're raising vast swaths of people who think that anyone who challenges them in any conceivable way, whether the challenges is legitimate or not, is "bullying." And that way lies madness. If someone doesn't want to be "cyber bullied", the answers are simple: up one's rhetorical game, grow thicker skin, learn how to handle a challenge, don't let one's emotions get the upper hand, and if all else fails, go outside and enjoy real life for a while. Problem very effectively solved. Do you feel better now? I like to remain internally and externally consistent, so, no, because I don't let my feelings override my ability to reason. You've identified the problem in your first sentence right there: "FEELING bullied" (emphasis mine.) You are misusing the word "bully." That's the sum of it completely. In addition, you want people to think about what they are feeling, rather than what actually is. Relying on feelings, which vary with the wind, and can change on a dime, is a very frustrating way to go through life. If you want to be popular, tell people what they want to hear. If you want to be hated, tell them the truth. As true now as it has ever been. Here's some perspective: I didn't read this thread for the entire time between my last post, and about 40 minutes ago. So, the responses posted today are all new to me, and don't I have the right to respond as well...? By the way...telling people to "let it go" is a passive/aggressive attempt to "win" the conversation, implying that anyone continuing to discuss the issue clearly has some sort of "hangup." In effect: "Everyone else has moved on, what's wrong with you that you need to carry on the conversation (even though that didn't stop me from making my own responses, which I'll never admit to openly)?" Everyone should be free to discuss whatever they wish, as long as they wish, with whomever they wish, within the limitations of the board guidelines, without fear of others trying to manipulate them into silence. Don't you agree...? You were complaining about "bullying", but then employing standard psychological manipulation to shame me into shutting up...? Interesting.

That simply isn't true. People handle things differently, but that doesn't make bullying not exist. If anything it is worse online because people have no fear of repercussions due to the anonymous nature and physical separation of the Internet. What you call "bullying" is simply people being people. You are abusing the word by applying it to people being "mean." If one can readily confront, walk away from, or avoid the situation, they are not, under ANY circumstances, being "bullied."

Nonsense. Total tripe. "Bullying" occurs when people are in abusive situations which they cannot, due to circumstance, readily escape. As a result, the vast, vast majority of actual victims of actual bullying are children, young teens, or the impaired, people who aren't capable of taking control of a situation by confronting it, walking away from it, or avoiding it altogether. Calling people who are mean on the internet "bullies" does actual harm to actual victims of actual bullying, due to the Chicken Little syndrome. The word has been completely watered down, to the point where those who are really being bullied are eventually ignored due to wide scale overuse. Now, we're raising vast swaths of people who think that anyone who challenges them in any conceivable way, whether the challenge is legitimate or not, is "bullying." And that way lies madness. If someone doesn't want to be "cyber bullied", the answers are simple: up one's rhetorical game, grow thicker skin, learn how to handle a challenge, don't let one's emotions get the upper hand, and if all else fails, go outside and enjoy real life for a while. Problem very effectively solved.

There are substantially more than 7,500 copies of this book still extant.

Yes, it is beyond you at this time, but you are bright enough that it shouldn't be, and need not be, forever. You are reading attitudes that do not exist.

There is nothing aggressive about breaking down a conversation and responding to each comment separately. It's internet debate 101. If you don't feel like replying in like manner then just say that, but he did nothing wrong other than address all of your thoughts cleanly and neatly. I respectfully disagree. The approach is a scare tactic and not necessarily a logical one. An argument is more that the individual sentences it contains. You are completely incorrect. It is an excellent way to address individual points, without them becoming buried in a larger response. All arguments are made of component points. It's not about individual sentences; it's about points, whether those points are one word, or a thousand. And many people are perfectly capable of addressing those individual points without losing sight of the overarching argument. If a point isn't worth responding to directly, it probably isn't worth making in the first place. As a related side note, I'm always interested in people who have a problem with points being addressed as they are raised, instead of in a clump at the end, which may be (but usually isn't) clear.

This is only the second time I have disagreed with you, and you are entirely wrong this time. Not only is Chuck not a bully in any respect, but the word "bully" in relation to an internet message board populated by adults is a sorely, terribly abused word, and almost never...and I daresay, never...justifiably used on a message board.

You are incorrect. No sir you are incorrect. Show me where a SA mega key has declined in value since 1980. Instead of sweeping blanket statements...back it up with data. Every year OSPG would increase the price of keys like hulk 1, TOS 39, JIM 83, etc.ive not see I showed earlier that since 2002 Hulk 181 has increased in value. You love to tell people they are wrong but how about some substance behind your posting? You remain incorrect. If you believe I cannot support my statement, I'm ok with that. "You are incorrect" is, however, not a sweeping blanket statement. Ok RMA, I'll just take your word for it since you show no data. As I said, go look at any mega key from the SA in a 1980 price guide and tell me any of those keys has declined in price or a bubble burst on them today. I'll be waiting That's not how debate works. If you make a claim, it is up to you to prove said claim, if challenged. It is not up to others to DISprove it. No need for the eyeroll; that's the way it is. By the way..."price guide" is only one way of considering historical values (and not really the best way, at that.) So far then, both of you have not proven valid proof in your claims. I haven't made any claims.

Can you imagine, holding a stack of PWJ #6s in your hands brand new...?

Ah, a false dichotomy!

You are incorrect. No sir you are incorrect. Show me where a SA mega key has declined in value since 1980. Instead of sweeping blanket statements...back it up with data. Every year OSPG would increase the price of keys like hulk 1, TOS 39, JIM 83, etc.ive not see I showed earlier that since 2002 Hulk 181 has increased in value. You love to tell people they are wrong but how about some substance behind your posting? You remain incorrect. If you believe I cannot support my statement, I'm ok with that. "You are incorrect" is, however, not a sweeping blanket statement. Ok RMA, I'll just take your word for it since you show no data. As I said, go look at any mega key from the SA in a 1980 price guide and tell me any of those keys has declined in price or a bubble burst on them today. I'll be waiting That's not how debate works. If you make a claim, it is up to you to prove said claim, if challenged. It is not up to others to DISprove it. No need for the eyeroll; that's the way it is. By the way..."price guide" is only one way of considering historical values (and not really the best way, at that.)

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe there are 15-30k copies still extant.

PWJ #6

You are incorrect. No sir you are incorrect. Show me where a SA mega key has declined in value since 1980. Instead of sweeping blanket statements...back it up with data. Every year OSPG would increase the price of keys like hulk 1, TOS 39, JIM 83, etc.ive not see I showed earlier that since 2002 Hulk 181 has increased in value. You love to tell people they are wrong but how about some substance behind your posting? There is no SA mega key that has declined in value over 35 years. Or even 10 years. Probly not even 1 year. I love a good gratuitous absolute sweeping statement as much as the next guy who loves to argue but this simply can't be true if you include all grades over all time. I definitely agree the books are worth more over 5, 10, 20 , etc years, but there have been declines in there. It isn't a complete upward trend in all grades in all "mega" keys... My only other thought would be that the term "key" (mega or otherwise) has changed over the last several decades as characters have come in and out of popularity. Especially when you extend the timeline beyond 15 years. Of course this isn't central to the argument but is worth noting. Yes. Not only is the statement untrue, there are also critical elements completely missing from the "analysis", which renders "comics as investments" functionally moot. Comics are not stocks.

You are incorrect. No sir you are incorrect. Show me where a SA mega key has declined in value since 1980. Instead of sweeping blanket statements...back it up with data. Every year OSPG would increase the price of keys like hulk 1, TOS 39, JIM 83, etc.ive not see I showed earlier that since 2002 Hulk 181 has increased in value. You love to tell people they are wrong but how about some substance behind your posting? You remain incorrect. If you believe I cannot support my statement, I'm ok with that. "You are incorrect" is, however, not a sweeping blanket statement.

You are incorrect.

There's no fortune involved. If one wants to work for a company that has those benefits, they can. There's nothing stopping them but themselves. And no one is prevented from getting their own retirement account at just about any bank. Go to a bank, call an investment advisor, put the money about to be spent on that comic into a mutual fund. No muss, no fuss.