And people wonder why folks get a little bit peeved...

[Domo Arigato]

You're just trying to twist it in an attempt to make yourself appear correct.

Well that would be a first.

I'm going to assume you're talking about in the last two minutes.

[conditionfreak]

In regards to my last post about spelling errors:

 

"really". Ha Ha Ha

[MrBedrock]

You're just trying to twist it in an attempt to make yourself appear correct.

Well that would be a first.

I'm going to assume you're talking about in the last two minutes.

There is so much twisting going on that Chubby Checker would be proud.

[Domo Arigato]

Before making the claim, they would have to provide proof. Are you seriously suggesting a drug can be released by a manufacture who specifically claims it's safe for pregnant women to take it because it won't hurt an unborn child...with absolutely no proof to back up that claim?

 

They have to prove that claim before they're allowed to make it and before the drug is even allowed to enter the marketplace.

 

I refuse to believe you are even attempting to be that dense.

 

That wasn't the original scenario you presented, which was a parent shoving their deformed child in the drug manufacturer's face. How could they claim the drug was the reason for the deformity if the FDA hadn't already approved it and the drug company released it?

 

At that point, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

That's exactly the original scenario I presented. You're just trying to twist it in an attempt to make yourself appear correct. It's not up to the parents to do that because it's up to the drug manufacturer to prove their claim FIRST. It's NOT up to the parents to disprove the drug manufacturers claim first.

 

If the drug manufacture presents its proof and gets approved by the FDA and then a deformity still takes place...only then would it be up to the parents to dis-prove the drug manufacturers claim. Nice try though.

 

How could a drug company possible be accused of causing a deformity before the FDA has approved the drug and before it's released? You're not making any sense.

They couldn't. That's why I said it wouldn't be up to them to do that, because the scenerio wouldn't happen. The only thing not making any sense is your replies.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

The pressers are the one manipulating the books for monetary gain. With money being their primary motivation, why should we take their word that no damage is being done to the books? It's up to them to prove this or stop falsely making this claim.

 

 

 

Enough already.

 

Let's say that everybody agrees that pressing damages books.

 

That said, now please answer a simple question for me.

 

How much damage are we talking about, especially in relation to a similar book, stored in similar conditions but has not been pressed.

 

Can you provide any data or factual information that shows this supposed "harm" is worth worrying about even in the slightest?

 

[Domo Arigato]

You're just trying to twist it in an attempt to make yourself appear correct.

Well that would be a first.

I'm going to assume you're talking about in the last two minutes.

There is so much twisting going on that Chubby Checker would be proud.

At least he admitted it was twisting and didn't refer to it as the earth rotating back and forth underneath him.

[conditionfreak]

Hey, Dale Roberts has some sweet unpressed slabbed bronze and copper in the for sale section.

 

Might be able to take them up a notch (if you know what I mean).

[MrBedrock]

You're just trying to twist it in an attempt to make yourself appear correct.

Well that would be a first.

I'm going to assume you're talking about in the last two minutes.

There is so much twisting going on that Chubby Checker would be proud.

At least he admitted it was twisting and didn't refer to it as the earth rotating back and forth underneath him.

You could teach him a thing or two about twisting (thumbs u

[joeypost]

 

The pressers are the one manipulating the books for monetary gain. With money being their primary motivation, why should we take their word that no damage is being done to the books? It's up to them to prove this or stop falsely making this claim.

 

 

 

Enough already.

 

Let's say that everybody agrees that pressing damages books.

 

That said, now please answer a simple question for me.

 

How much damage are we talking about, especially in relation to a similar book, stored in similar conditions but has not been pressed.

 

Can you provide any data or factual information that shows this supposed "harm" is worth worrying about even in the slightest?

 

I pressed a single page from a bronze age book multiple times each day for over a month shortly after the Chicago show, I will look for the thread since I posted comparison scans of the page.

[nearmint]

Before making the claim, they would have to provide proof. Are you seriously suggesting a drug can be released by a manufacture who specifically claims it's safe for pregnant women to take it because it won't hurt an unborn child...with absolutely no proof to back up that claim?

 

They have to prove that claim before they're allowed to make it and before the drug is even allowed to enter the marketplace.

 

I refuse to believe you are even attempting to be that dense.

 

That wasn't the original scenario you presented, which was a parent shoving their deformed child in the drug manufacturer's face. How could they claim the drug was the reason for the deformity if the FDA hadn't already approved it and the drug company released it?

 

At that point, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

That's exactly the original scenario I presented. You're just trying to twist it in an attempt to make yourself appear correct. It's not up to the parents to do that because it's up to the drug manufacturer to prove their claim FIRST. It's NOT up to the parents to disprove the drug manufacturers claim first.

 

If the drug manufacture presents its proof and gets approved by the FDA and then a deformity still takes place...only then would it be up to the parents to dis-prove the drug manufacturers claim. Nice try though.

 

How could a drug company possible be accused of causing a deformity before the FDA has approved the drug and before it's released? You're not making any sense.

They couldn't. That's why I said it wouldn't be up to them to do that, because the scenerio wouldn't happen. The only thing not making any sense is your replies.

 

So at what point is the mother shoving her deformed child into the drug manufacturer's face?

[Domo Arigato]

 

The pressers are the one manipulating the books for monetary gain. With money being their primary motivation, why should we take their word that no damage is being done to the books? It's up to them to prove this or stop falsely making this claim.

 

 

 

Enough already.

 

Let's say that everybody agrees that pressing damages books.

 

That said, now please answer a simple question for me.

 

How much damage are we talking about, especially in relation to a similar book, stored in similar conditions but has not been pressed.

 

Can you provide any data or factual information that shows this supposed "harm" is worth worrying about even in the slightest?

The amount of damage is irrelevant. The damage is deliberately being done in a pressers attempt to manipulate the book for monetary gain. They need to proactively disclose it.

 

Exactly how much work is done on a book before CGC elevates the restoration level from one level to the next? Please provide exact specific figures.

 

[Domo Arigato]

Before making the claim, they would have to provide proof. Are you seriously suggesting a drug can be released by a manufacture who specifically claims it's safe for pregnant women to take it because it won't hurt an unborn child...with absolutely no proof to back up that claim?

 

They have to prove that claim before they're allowed to make it and before the drug is even allowed to enter the marketplace.

 

I refuse to believe you are even attempting to be that dense.

 

That wasn't the original scenario you presented, which was a parent shoving their deformed child in the drug manufacturer's face. How could they claim the drug was the reason for the deformity if the FDA hadn't already approved it and the drug company released it?

 

At that point, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

That's exactly the original scenario I presented. You're just trying to twist it in an attempt to make yourself appear correct. It's not up to the parents to do that because it's up to the drug manufacturer to prove their claim FIRST. It's NOT up to the parents to disprove the drug manufacturers claim first.

 

If the drug manufacture presents its proof and gets approved by the FDA and then a deformity still takes place...only then would it be up to the parents to dis-prove the drug manufacturers claim. Nice try though.

 

How could a drug company possible be accused of causing a deformity before the FDA has approved the drug and before it's released? You're not making any sense.

They couldn't. That's why I said it wouldn't be up to them to do that, because the scenerio wouldn't happen. The only thing not making any sense is your replies.

 

So at what point is the mother shoving her deformed child into the drug manufacturer's face?

She's not. It's not up to her to do that.

 

As I said:

 

If a drug manufacturer wants to claim their new drug causes no harmful side effect to a fetus during pregnancy...it's not up to expectant mothers to prove that it does by shoving a deformed baby in their face. It's up the the drug manufacturer to prove that it doesn't BEFORE making that claim.

[Mr. Zipper]

...as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

My God... it drives me nuts that almost no one gets this right.

 

It should be: "I couldn't care less."

 

Nothing personal, Dale.

 

well technically, I am right. ...

 

Uh, no you're not. For all intensive purposes, "could care less" is contrary to the intended meaning of the phrase.

 

I could not care less means "it would be impossible to care less than I do, because I do not care at all." "I could care less" means you care at least a little.

 

The way you phrased it indicates that the it did not matter to you at all, hence, you could not care less.

 

[Dale Roberts]

...as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

My God... it drives me nuts that almost no one gets this right.

 

It should be: "I couldn't care less."

 

Nothing personal, Dale.

 

well technically, I am right. ...

 

Uh, no you're not. For all intensive purposes, "could care less" is contrary to the intended meaning of the phrase.

 

I could not care less means "it would be impossible to care less than I do, because I do not care at all." "I could care less" means you care at least a little.

 

The way you phrased it indicates that the it did not matter to you at all, hence, you could not care less.

 

 

I do care at least a little, if it were 410 years instead of 400, I couldn't care less. If it were 390 instead of 400, I could care less.....but not much less.

 

 

[DrWatson]

For all intensive purposes...

Um, that would be, "for all intents and purposes."

[FlyingDonut]

For all intensive purposes...

Um, that would be, "for all intents and purposes."

 

I'm assuming that was an intentional error.

[Dale Roberts]

For all intensive purposes...

Um, that would be, "for all intents and purposes."

 

I was going to do that, but it would have looked petty...

 

I am just busting balls anyway

[RockMyAmadeus]

...as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

My God... it drives me nuts that almost no one gets this right.

 

It should be: "I couldn't care less."

 

Nothing personal, Dale.

 

well technically, I am right. ...

 

Uh, no you're not. For all intensive purposes, "could care less" is contrary to the intended meaning of the phrase.

 

I could not care less means "it would be impossible to care less than I do, because I do not care at all." "I could care less" means you care at least a little.

 

The way you phrased it indicates that the it did not matter to you at all, hence, you could not care less.

 

 

"all intensive"... Very subtle, Mr. Z. How many people do you think got that...?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

For all intensive purposes...

Um, that would be, "for all intents and purposes."

 

I'm assuming that was an intentional error.

 

(thumbs u

 

(oops...is that not allowed anymore...?)

[hockey&comicsguy]

The amount of damage is irrelevant. The damage is deliberately being done in a pressers attempt to manipulate the book for monetary gain. They need to proactively disclose it.

Exactly how much work is done on a book before CGC elevates the restoration level from one level to the next? Please provide exact specific figures.

 

 

Regarding the bold part.........I don't know WTH you're talking about. I don't know the first thing about CGC and how they grade. All I know is they stick my books in some plastic and slap a label on it. How they got to that end, I have no idea.

 

Now, back to what I was saying.

 

I fear you are mixing up multiple aspects of this discussion.

 

Let me rephrase my earlier question.

 

Let's say EVERYBODY discloses. Let us also say that EVERYBODY agrees that pressing causes damage.

 

Now, tell me why we should be worried about this damage? How significant is it? I would like facts, data and any other evidence you can provide on this damage.

 

If you cannot provide any data whatsoever showing that this damage is significant in any way, shape or form, I would ask that you drop the "damage" aspect from your argument altogether and simply call a spade a spade.

 

That is, that you don't like people manipulating books for monetary gain.

 

Really, isn't that what is at the heart of this? I don't buy the argument from the anti-pressing side that they give a rat's patoot about the well being of the books being pressed. How can you care about a book's health if you don't have a baseline nor any data to show what ill effects, if any, pressing is causing? That is not to say that some anti pressers don't have concerns. I'm just questioning the legitimacy of their concerns regarding the damage aspect because quite frankly they don't know the answer.