Adam Lui

I can not possibly be as I have never submitted a book to CGC (and don't intend to for these alarming reasons). The earth was very apparently flat to most of the population at one time in history, does that make them right by your logic?

Do you understand that you said I "put my foot in mouth" for suggesting there exist others that do not grade like CGC? So I posted evidence in the form of HA and you asked me why I posted it, stating they are not CGC when that was the point being made...

You asked in response to my post proving that the standards were different. You teased me for insinuating that others do not grade like CGC, remember?

I didn't say CGC doesn't factor paper quality, I said that others do NOT and showed an example by pasting HA's explanation on why NM/M is so rare among older books... because paper quality was lower (if they factored it then they would say "despite bad paper quality we grade higher"). I absolutely believe your implication that CGC does, but rather than ethically list it in their public criteria for grading, realize that they hide it and you can understand why (increased profit) Your book contained multiple manufacturing defects + multiple handling defects, which by CGC's own public criteria for grading, warrants a lower than 9.8 (they use 'or" not "and") Cause yours didn't show the minimum grade attainable for having manufacturing defects, which is important to establish to show if yours was on the edge Your edge wear appears here where black ink should exist: And I said, I absolutely believe you that CGC takes such degradation factors into account when creating their grades, which other graders do not do (because there is less financial gain vs. increasing the popularity of an entire platform of a grading service itself). Here again is Heritage's explanation why low paper quality should result in LOWER grade: https://comics.ha.com/tutorial/comics-grading.s?show=comicscarcity

My post is about age of comic not being taken into consideration by others. You quote it with I put my foot in mouth. I counter with an example via HA not factoring age. You replied HA != CGC when that's EXACTLY the point being made... that others like HA don't factor age, unlike CGC. So you truly did make two responses to two posts without connecting the logic, causing me to have to backtrack to cnnect it for you thus you created circular logic wasting both our time

Hence it's circular logic because I have to backtrack to explain the reply

A logical reply would be 'yes they are not, how about find more examples" not confirming my counterpoint to your post

i.e. you challeneged my assertion OTHERS are not like CGC so I proved it then you bizarrely repeated my assertion...

then I proceed to give an example in the form of HA, then you state this

That was a great movie though!

I'm Chinese though

Both send a notification is why I respond as if tagged (and probably via the same technical mechanism)

Yes I do not decaptitate I only bend enough to condition haters to behave (with great power comes great responsibility)

kk

But you asked why I responded to your post questioning my assertion other sites don't factor age with exactly that... another site not factoring age... (also you didn't understand why profit increases if revenue increases while expenditures remain constant)