12¢ VFs at 50% of Guide

[blue808]

yes but JC -- was there ever an "official" decision on it. If there is a rule then I'll happily adhere to it.

 

No - you're seeing the books, typing in the book and issue number and the

 

Nothing wrong with that.

 

He's beat me out of a couple books, but I don't object to this method.

[joe_collector]

yes but JC -- was there ever an "official" decision on it. If there is a rule then I'll happily adhere to it.

 

It's called COMMON SENSE.

[CycloneComics]

As someone who is also trying to buy these books, I don`t have a problem with the way he is doing it.I can still beat him on the book anyways.

 

John

[Foolkiller]

Also, if the seller in these threads objects to my methodology then I will likewise stop as well.

 

Hey, the problem was that EVERYONE was pulling this BS in a few hot selling threads, and it turned into total chaos.One guy started it, then two more, then ten, then everyone. No one knew up from down at one point.

 

That's why you need common sense in this kind of thing, otherwise it's anarchy.

 

I felt like since I am typing in the issue number and the title -- that was sufficient -- isn't clear what book I am taking thus avoiding any chaos? Or is it confusing because the reply is to a different book? I'm not looking to break rules in the marketplace or p*** anyone off. But then again, I'm going to do what I can to win the books I want.

[MK Ultra]

Also, if the seller in these threads objects to my methodology then I will likewise stop as well.

 

Hey, the problem was that EVERYONE was pulling this BS in a few hot selling threads, and it turned into total chaos.One guy started it, then two more, then ten, then everyone. No one knew up from down at one point.

 

That's why you need common sense in this kind of thing, otherwise it's anarchy.

 

I felt like since I am typing in the issue number and the title -- that was sufficient -- isn't clear what book I am taking thus avoiding any chaos? Or is it confusing because the reply is to a different book? I'm not looking to break rules in the marketplace or p*** anyone off. But then again, I'm going to do what I can to win the books I want.

 

 

Look! Over there, DC's!!

[Foolkiller]

Also, if the seller in these threads objects to my methodology then I will likewise stop as well.

 

Hey, the problem was that EVERYONE was pulling this BS in a few hot selling threads, and it turned into total chaos.One guy started it, then two more, then ten, then everyone. No one knew up from down at one point.

 

That's why you need common sense in this kind of thing, otherwise it's anarchy.

 

I felt like since I am typing in the issue number and the title -- that was sufficient -- isn't clear what book I am taking thus avoiding any chaos? Or is it confusing because the reply is to a different book? I'm not looking to break rules in the marketplace or p*** anyone off. But then again, I'm going to do what I can to win the books I want.

 

 

Look! Over there, DC's!!

 

well, that would distract me...

[joe_collector]

He's beat me out of a couple books, but I don't object to this method.

 

I really don't care about these books, as I don't collect SA, but it turned into pure madness when everyone started pulling the same trick in some other threads.

 

I don't know if it ever got formally adopted, but I remember agreement that the referring post must link up to the for sale post, but I'll confirm with Arch whether it's going to be officially added.

[CycloneComics]

 

 

Look! Over there, DC's!!

 

 

lol

[arexcrooke]

Nothing wrong with what you are doing B.

[lizards2]

He's beat me out of a couple books, but I don't object to this method.

 

I really don't care about these books, as I don't collect SA, but it turned into pure madness when everyone started pulling the same trick in some other threads.

 

I don't know if it ever got formally adopted, but I remember agreement that the referring post must link up to the for sale post, but I'll confirm with Arch whether it's going to be officially added.

 

If formal adoption is the case, then they need to get rid of the quick reply box.

[MK Ultra]

He's beat me out of a couple books, but I don't object to this method.

 

I really don't care about these books, as I don't collect SA, but it turned into pure madness when everyone started pulling the same trick in some other threads.

 

I don't know if it ever got formally adopted, but I remember agreement that the referring post must link up to the for sale post, but I'll confirm with Arch whether it's going to be officially added.

 

I don't see it in the official rules post.

[Monkeyman]

Also, if the seller in these threads objects to my methodology then I will likewise stop as well.

 

Hey, the problem was that EVERYONE was pulling this BS in a few hot selling threads, and it turned into total chaos.One guy started it, then two more, then ten, then everyone. No one knew up from down at one point.

 

That's why you need common sense in this kind of thing, otherwise it's anarchy.

 

I felt like since I am typing in the issue number and the title -- that was sufficient -- isn't clear what book I am taking thus avoiding any chaos? Or is it confusing because the reply is to a different book? I'm not looking to break rules in the marketplace or p*** anyone off. But then again, I'm going to do what I can to win the books I want.

 

 

Look! Over there, DC's!!

 

well, that would distract me...

 

 

Batman 200 - VF-

SOLD to Bronzed JBone

 

 

[MK Ultra]

Also, if the seller in these threads objects to my methodology then I will likewise stop as well.

 

Hey, the problem was that EVERYONE was pulling this BS in a few hot selling threads, and it turned into total chaos.One guy started it, then two more, then ten, then everyone. No one knew up from down at one point.

 

That's why you need common sense in this kind of thing, otherwise it's anarchy.

 

I felt like since I am typing in the issue number and the title -- that was sufficient -- isn't clear what book I am taking thus avoiding any chaos? Or is it confusing because the reply is to a different book? I'm not looking to break rules in the marketplace or p*** anyone off. But then again, I'm going to do what I can to win the books I want.

 

 

Look! Over there, DC's!!

 

well, that would distract me...

 

 

Batman 200 - VF-

$36 (OSPG - $72)

 

 

[joe_collector]

Or is it confusing because the reply is to a different book?

 

What happened in Nic's thread was this certain people were keeping multiple browsers open, refreshing one while posting a "quick reply" in the other.

 

It turned into a real zoo, with multiple people replying within seconds, editing messages, and trying all sorts of BS, and since the quick reply links up to whatever post was in the first browser, it got some other people steamed.

 

Essentially, it meant that the person was replying to a for sale issue that had yet been posted in his browser window, as the OP relied retroactively without the need to refresh that window.

 

If you're the only one playing that trick, I guess it's fine if the seller doesn't care, but once multiple people start in, have fun.

[topofthetotem]

I thought it was agreed to quote the book with the little sign guy. But I have no stake in any of the books offered so what do I know?

[Monkeyman]

[Comcasthawk]

He's beat me out of a couple books, but I don't object to this method.

 

I really don't care about these books, as I don't collect SA, but it turned into pure madness when everyone started pulling the same trick in some other threads.

 

I don't know if it ever got formally adopted, but I remember agreement that the referring post must link up to the for sale post, but I'll confirm with Arch whether it's going to be officially added.

 

Even though I don't have a problem with the "typing" method of buying that Foolkiller, and others I guess, are using, it does make it easier for people to know that a book has not been bought when the method of replying to the scan is used because that's how I see if a book is still for sale.

 

I guess because of the "speed" of buying books is critical in great sales like this one, it would irk some people. Not me, just others, but I do understand that maybe a uniform "gentlemen's" rule should be adopted and adhered to. Just so that no problems or friction arise on the board.......don't wanna make this place Ebay.

[Foolkiller]

 

bat 200

[joe_collector]

He's beat me out of a couple books, but I don't object to this method.

 

I really don't care about these books, as I don't collect SA, but it turned into pure madness when everyone started pulling the same trick in some other threads.

 

I don't know if it ever got formally adopted, but I remember agreement that the referring post must link up to the for sale post, but I'll confirm with Arch whether it's going to be officially added.

 

I don't see it in the official rules post.

 

Is the in the official rules?

[arexcrooke]

Or is it confusing because the reply is to a different book?

 

What happened in Nic's thread was this certain people were keeping multiple browsers open, refreshing one while posting a "quick reply" in the other.

 

It turned into a real zoo, with multiple people replying within seconds, editing messages, and trying all sorts of BS, and since the quick reply links up to whatever post was in the first browser, it got some other people steamed.

 

Essentially, it meant that the person was replying to a for sale issue that had yet been posted in his browser window, as the OP relied retroactively without the need to refresh that window.

 

If you're the only one playing that trick, I guess it's fine if the seller doesn't care, but once multiple people start in, have fun.

huh? :confused: