RockMyAmadeus

You would be a one man wolfpack staring at a blank screen. Oh, look, Mikenyc's demonstrating his utter obsession with me again. I'd be flattered if your stalking wasn't so damn creepy. I know you believe what you have said, because you're irrational, and I know that some others believe it, too, but it's just not true, kiddo.

Sorry to be the crick in your hitch. Oh, come on. You'd fall out with your breakfast. He's just pickin a fight. Par for the course. "Par for the course".... No, dear, setting the record straight. I don't "pick fights", though the eternally thin-skinned might think so. As far as picking fights, how about this: You just can't keep your word, can you? I read your post to Cal, and wanted to respond, but, see, I'm a man of my word. If you don't post to/about me, I don't post to/about you. But...you...just...can't...control...yourself. But it didn't stop you from 'picking' on me in this thread. Even though you (a) have me on ignore and (b) have declared that we should avoid each another. But...you...just...can't...control...yourself. But.... surely RMA ignores people that he puts on ignore? I'm sure he's posted such things before? Ignore must be mutual, or it serves no purpose. And I don't mean the "ignore function." Someday, there will be a board that has a functional ignore. You put someone on ignore, they can't see anything you post either, either directly or quoted. That will be a very nice board for me. Well, just since I did say that you must have posted something along those lines before... ..... which does go against your being the first to rag on FT in this thread. ...except, of course, it has to go BOTH WAYS, as I said. Putting someone on ignore doesn't therefore give them carte blanch to say anything they wish about the party doing the ignoring. There is no "first", as if every thread is a brand new clean slate, and previous interaction is not to be considered. That is quite obviously absurd. In reality, nearly every single thread on this board comes with more baggage than a Samsonite convention. Your argument is the same one kids make: "He hit me first!" "Well, what did you do to make him want to hit you" "Nothing!"

Yeah. Ok. Rrrrrright.

Sorry to be the crick in your hitch. Oh, come on. You'd fall out with your breakfast. He's just pickin a fight. Par for the course. "Par for the course".... No, dear, setting the record straight. I don't "pick fights", though the eternally thin-skinned might think so. As far as picking fights, how about this: You just can't keep your word, can you? I read your post to Cal, and wanted to respond, but, see, I'm a man of my word. If you don't post to/about me, I don't post to/about you. But...you...just...can't...control...yourself. But it didn't stop you from 'picking' on me in this thread. Even though you (a) have me on ignore and (b) have declared that we should avoid each another. But...you...just...can't...control...yourself. But.... surely RMA ignores people that he puts on ignore? I'm sure he's posted such things before? Ignore must be mutual, or it serves no purpose. And I don't mean the "ignore function." Someday, there will be a board that has a functional ignore. You put someone on ignore, they can't see anything you post either, either directly or quoted. That will be a very nice board for me.

If it matters, I did appreciate the humor.

Sorry to be the crick in your hitch. Oh, come on. You'd fall out with your breakfast. He's just pickin a fight. Par for the course. "Par for the course".... No, dear, setting the record straight. I don't "pick fights", though the eternally thin-skinned might think so. As far as picking fights, how about this: You just can't keep your word, can you? I read your post to Cal, and wanted to respond, but, see, I'm a man of my word. If you don't post to/about me, I don't post to/about you. But...you...just...can't...control...yourself. But it didn't stop you from 'picking' on me in this thread. Even though you (a) have me on ignore and (b) have declared that we should avoid each another. But...you...just...can't...control...yourself. I know you think you're just soooooo cute with that response, but here's the burst to your bubble: 1. Having someone "on ignore" doesn't mean there can't be any interaction. 2. I have never made a "I will never post to or about FT ever again" pronouncement, unlike ol' Gaz. 3. You feel no qualms about replying to and about me. I would be happy to never interact with you again, but that requires you do the same. Until and if you do, there's no such obligation to not interact with you. Your logic fails. Again.

Sorry to be the crick in your hitch. My bad for use of the wrong tense. I fell foul of none of the eBay chat crowd. What came after I view with some pride. That really highlights the difference between us, doesn't it? I recognize that it's sad and pathetic that we have no respect for one another. You look at it as a matter of pride.

Innit ironic... Dontcha think..?

Sorry to be the crick in your hitch. Oh, come on. You'd fall out with your breakfast. He's just pickin a fight. Par for the course. "Par for the course".... No, dear, setting the record straight. I don't "pick fights", though the eternally thin-skinned might think so. As far as picking fights, how about this: You just can't keep your word, can you? I read your post to Cal, and wanted to respond, but, see, I'm a man of my word. If you don't post to/about me, I don't post to/about you. But...you...just...can't...control...yourself.

Yet here you sit with us. (thumbs u Here I sit, all broken hearted.... Your posts are , but you've yet departed. Your meter sucks. Well eff the metric system Frankly, my dear...I don't give a gram.

For God's sake, people, learn how to use the quote function. This whole "bolded/colored responses" in the body of someone else's quote, and then half in/half out of someone else's quote doesn't make a lot of sense when there's a function designed to clearly separate your responses. Now, I have some squirrels to chastize and some roses to trim....

Yet here you sit with us. (thumbs u Here I sit, all broken hearted.... Your posts are , but you've yet departed. Your meter sucks.

Yet here you sit with us. (thumbs u Here I sit, all broken hearted....

Sorry to be the crick in your hitch.

You people are all insane. Totally, completely insane.

#2-5 are about 1/4" taller, and 1/4" narrower, than a Golden Age DC.

I still want someone to address this, please? I haven't forgotten you, Ginjy....as soon as I run across a copy, I'll post.... #1 is slightly wider than the rest, #2-#5 are all the same size, and #6 is smaller than all (regular comic size.)

I guess sooner or later someone would have found out. I wasn't ready to share that information yet. :shrug: You were keeping THAT back..? I saw you selling the 2Ds, and it's a shame...I paid $51 for my first copy of LE/PB. But that's ok, I bought 20 more for $4 each.

amazing how a copper-age Marvel book - and of a (relatively) mainstream title - should be so rare.. did it have a particularly low print run? Yeah, it's pretty tough. There was a gap of nearly 7 year between issue #31 and #32...and then another 9 month gap for #33. Why Marvel decided to do this, when it hadn't been done with other Marvel books in years, is anyone's guess. They probably would have sold more if they'd just made it a "One Shot" #1. I just started reading this thread today, which book had the 7 year gap between issues? Howard the Duck.

I'd like to have a clause in there somewhere that a breach has been made on the date that the buyer reads a PM and doesn't answer it. That way if my PM is " do you still want this book"... which I don't get an answer to... and if shown as "read"... then in all fairness to me as a seller, that 30 day clock should start right then and there. I mean if he reads it and doesn't respond until 60 - 900 days later, then to me... that a load of hock. I hate Jack had personal problems come up... but the amount of time he had from that first unanswered PM from Dan that he read and didn't answer... to the time he told everyone of his woe, was very unfair to the seller who in good faith held that book. Honestly, if he read the sellers PM's and didn't answer... then backed out... then to me thats a punishable offense right there. As I said in the other thread...just because something is marked "read" does NOT mean that someone actually read it. Many times, someone on their Iphone can't actually open the message, but the board marks it as "read." also, someone could click on the message accidentally, and then close the browser without having read the message. Unread by: none should have no bearing on anything precisely because of these reasons. Just wait until someone actually responds, or 30 days pass.

I wonder if the commotion in CG about this will filter on down to here......

Wow. Neato variants, Slabby!

Not any more than usual. I've been looking for the boxes since 1999 or so, and they don't appear with any sort of regularity.

Remember, a crash isn't just a drop in value...it's a drop in value QUICKLY...like the housing market of 2007 vs. the housing market of 2009, or the stock market losing 20% in a week. A crash, by definition, must take place in a relatively short amount of time. Otherwise, it's not a crash, but a slide....the stock market crashed in October of 1929, but by early 1930 had recovered a good chunk of it...it was the long, agonizing slide of 1931-1932 that really sent the Western world reeling.