• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

Started by arexcrooke,

1,324 posts in this topic

nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
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.

 

It's still a lousy analogy. It's the FDA that does the testing, not the drug company. There's a system set in place that drug companies have to abide by. What authority is going to come down on a pro-presser for not proving that pressing doesn't damage books?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted

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.

 

(thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hockey&comicsguy

hockey&comicsguy

Posted
Posted
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.

 

It's still a lousy analogy. It's the FDA that does the testing, not the drug company. There's a system set in place that drug companies have to abide by. What authority is going to come down on a pro-presser for not proving that pressing doesn't damage books?

 

 

Are pro pressers really saying that pressing doesn't cause damage? That's not the message I am hearing from many of them. What I am hearing is that it may indeed cause damage. It's the level or degree of damage that seems to be in contention. Oh, along with who the h-e-double hockey sticks is supposed to prove it.

 

For the record, where I come from, people who have the complaint also have the burden to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
Jeff, why are you even bothering arguing with him. He's obviously just stirring the pot. His arguments are so convoluted he can't even keep them straight.

 

You noticed that too, huh?

 

I'm really worried about the deformed baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hockey&comicsguy

hockey&comicsguy

Posted
Posted
but at least he's tenacious!

 

 

:eyeroll:

 

TenaciousD-03-big.jpg

 

Oh F :censored: me! As soon as I saw the word tenacious I knew what was coming. I didn't need to see that. I'm oughta here. You guys figure it out. And if there's going to be a full on pressing brawl somewhere, let me know. I gotta go carve a club out of styro first. And I want one free pressing from Joey for every notch I put on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted
...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. :foryou::hi:

 

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.

 

:sumo:

 

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.

 

 

lol fair enough!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buttock

buttock

Posted
Posted
Jeff, why are you even bothering arguing with him. He's obviously just stirring the pot. His arguments are so convoluted he can't even keep them straight.

 

You noticed that too, huh?

 

I'm really worried about the deformed baby.

 

Oh, he'll find someone else to argue with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing