Adam Lui

Just now, DocHoppus182 said:

Are you salty that you got books back that didn’t get 9.8s so you’re choosing to nail this book for some reason, when it’s very apparent to most other that the book that sparked this entire thing is justifiable in its grade?

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?

5 minutes ago, Testinadicalicious said:

I asked you if CGC had the same grading standards as HA. That's it. The rest is all your delusion.

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...

1 minute ago, Testinadicalicious said:

I asked you if CGC had the same grading standards as HA. That's it. The rest is all your delusion.

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?

1 minute ago, LDarkseid1 said:

So first off that’s incorrect. The age of the comic is absolutely taken into account when grading due to the quality of paper. Big difference between paper from golden age 1951 and from anything in the modern age for example. To assume that’s not taken into account shows a lack of experience.

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)

3 minutes ago, LDarkseid1 said:

No book is created equal when it comes off the press, and mine is simply more off center, but it’s still a slight “manufacturing defect”.

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")

5 minutes ago, LDarkseid1 said:

Also I’m not sure why you reposted the same thing I posted with cgc’s grading tiers 🤷‍♂️, but thanks I guess

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

6 minutes ago, LDarkseid1 said:

There’s no wear along the right edge, not sure what you’re talking about

Your edge wear appears here where black ink should exist:

7 minutes ago, LDarkseid1 said:

I’m simply explaining the page quality, and due to the fact it degrades naturally considerably more than a modern comic or copper or bronze, hence the reason it’s taken into account when factoring in condition.

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

Just now, Testinadicalicious said:

You're missing the big picture again. Quoting your posts is not tagging you.

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

1 minute ago, Testinadicalicious said:

I enjoy your posts like I enjoy cracking my toes.... hurts so good!

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

2 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

Don't go anywhere. I'm leaving for breakfast. BBS.

kk

1 minute ago, Testinadicalicious said:

If you're referring to me you're having reading comprehension problems.

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)

I don't think it works that way because this site uses ajax in which things are updated live and as stated already, anyone can verify these timestamps. But can you answer instead of avoiding the question, why did you want to cross-reference other posts I made (you used this as an excuse for visiting profile)

Yes Ctrl + T creates tabs but what about them I don't get it

1 minute ago, Angel of Death said:

There is literally no evidence to suggest that I visited your profile first. You're delusional. It's already been explained. You're egotistical

But my screenshots of cgccomics.com timestamping you visiting my profile is what if not evidence...

Why did you want to "cross-reference another post" in which I posted like a donkey

2 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

Browsers have these things called tabs.

Yes what about these magical browser tabs is relevant to our discussion of your obsession with my content

2 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

I don't need a "believable" story. I have the 100% certified truth.

But to be persuasive one must rely on evidence like I have, otherwise you are the one exposing a God complex (where one thinks they are so omnipotent that simplying saying something makes it true)

3 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

You made it about you. You're egotistical.

Again, this was a nice discussion about slabs and grading until you chose to summon some gang and have a party about me. The sooner you realize you instigated it the less triggered you will be (i.e. you did it to yourself, so if you don't like talking about me then don't start a discussion about me lol)

Just now, Testinadicalicious said:

Same with "tagging". If you respond to his post he'll accuse you of wasting his time by "tagging" him.

You tagged me and I said you wasted my time by tagging me? If that factually occurred then you probably did with logic that went in circles like earlier

Ok give a reason why you visited my profile period. If against the evidence that indicates you visited it first then posted here you are claiming it is to view OTHER content, then you realize you're still following my OTHER content, right? So for someone who has shown such obsessiveness means you actually enjoy my posts. The sooner you embrace this fact of life the more you will get along with me, even if it's a subconscious desire it's still a factual obsession with my content

1 minute ago, Angel of Death said:

Angel of Death sees a donkey making donkey posts, so he visits their profile long after reading this thread.

But the timestamps indicated it was not "long after" I was posting in here. And why would that be true if your post was right after visiting my profile. You don't even have a believable reason to visit it to begin with. Woudln't it be more rational that you have it bookmarked and simply wanted to know when I posted?

2 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

Said donkey begins making everything about themself, and is seemingly unable to understand logic.

You made it about me as soon as you tried to summon a gang, hope you realize that (I prefer this to be about prize slabs)

2 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

You literally cannot prove the time of events

I don't prove it I captured screenshots of the site cgccomics.com capturing the moments you visited my profile then proceeded to swiftly post in this thread. At least say it was a coincidence, any other explanation is going against evidence created by the site itself

What about browser tabs I didn't get that one sorry