• 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
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.

 

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeypost

joeypost

Posted
Posted

I keep trying to leave but it is like a bad car accident. Every fiber of your being says don't look as you drive by, but at that last second you look and have an image you did not need, burned into your brain for the rest of your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Domo Arigato

Domo Arigato

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?

The analogy is a good one. Your attempt to refute it is extemely poor. The testing is required before they're allowed to make a claim because it's the right thing to do...so a system was put in place for it. And I'm not saying any authority is going to come down on a pro-pressor for not proving that pressing doesn't damage books. I'm saying a person of ethics would want to know for a fact that his claim was true before making such a statement. Obviously, you aren't one of those people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
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?

The analogy is a good one. Your attempt to refute it is extemely poor. The testing is required before they're allowed to make a claim because it's the right thing to do...so a system was put in place for it. And I'm not saying any authority is going to come down on a pro-pressor for not proving that pressing doesn't damage books. I'm saying a person of ethics would want to know for a fact that his claim was true before making such a statement. Obviously, you aren't one of those people.

 

The system was put in place so people don't die. Until pro-pressers start killing people, your analogy stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sal

Sal

Posted
Posted

wow, now we're getting into very thinly veiled accusations of individual's ethics or lack thereof.

 

 

maybe we can go full libelous before this thing completely dissolves

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

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?

The analogy is a good one. Your attempt to refute it is extemely poor. The testing is required before they're allowed to make a claim because it's the right thing to do...so a system was put in place for it. And I'm not saying any authority is going to come down on a pro-pressor for not proving that pressing doesn't damage books. I'm saying a person of ethics would want to know for a fact that his claim was true before making such a statement. Obviously, you aren't one of those people.

 

The system was put in place so people don't die. Until pro-pressers start killing people, your analogy stinks.

 

So after all this, it's not really a matter of life or death after all!?!? doh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foolkiller

Foolkiller

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?

 

Jeff -- this is patently FALSE. The FDA DOES NOT do the testing. The drug company does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Domo Arigato

Domo Arigato

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?

The analogy is a good one. Your attempt to refute it is extemely poor. The testing is required before they're allowed to make a claim because it's the right thing to do...so a system was put in place for it. And I'm not saying any authority is going to come down on a pro-pressor for not proving that pressing doesn't damage books. I'm saying a person of ethics would want to know for a fact that his claim was true before making such a statement. Obviously, you aren't one of those people.

 

The system was put in place so people don't die. Until pro-pressers start killing people, your analogy stinks.

The system doesn't just protect people from dying. You rebuttal is utter nonsense.

 

Why do you think it's ok for pressers to lie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
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?

 

Jeff -- this is patently FALSE. The FDA DOES NOT do the testing. The drug company does.

 

Thanks for the correction, Brian. Still a lousy analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foolkiller

Foolkiller

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.

 

This analogy is a little skewed, but let me set the facts straight. A drug manufacturer doesn't usually put claims about "non side effects" in their label, rather its obligation is to put indications and then side effects, contraindications and warnings as well as a whole host of other information.

 

FDA approved medications go through four phases of testing including phase IV which are post market approval and observational testing, which can be completed after FDA approval for a drug to be on the market.

 

In reality, this example is sort of relevant -- in that Paxil birth defect cases are being tried right now where GSK put their SSRI medication on the market and did not warn of birth defects to children. The drug was approved for other reasons but the side effects were later learned of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
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?

The analogy is a good one. Your attempt to refute it is extemely poor. The testing is required before they're allowed to make a claim because it's the right thing to do...so a system was put in place for it. And I'm not saying any authority is going to come down on a pro-pressor for not proving that pressing doesn't damage books. I'm saying a person of ethics would want to know for a fact that his claim was true before making such a statement. Obviously, you aren't one of those people.

 

The system was put in place so people don't die. Until pro-pressers start killing people, your analogy stinks.

The system doesn't just protect people from dying. You rebuttal is utter nonsense.

 

Why do you think it's ok for pressers to lie?

 

Lie about what? That pressing happens? That some believe it's resto? That the LOC doesn't recommend it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foolkiller

Foolkiller

Posted
Posted

Incidentally, most drug litigation cases are failure to warn (and a subset of failure to test, in some jurisdictions, that's a separate cause of action) -- thus a manufacturer has put a drug on the market, promoted it for benefits, but not tested or warned of a potential significant harm (for HRT, breast cancer, Paxil, heart malformations and death in infants, so on and so forth).

 

In the pressing analogy, it'd be, someone knew or should have known that pressing was harmful to the books but failed to warn of the harm. Here, the key would be finding who owed a duty to the customer buying a book and should they have known that pressing was harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
conditionfreak

conditionfreak

Posted
Posted

Just for the sake of perspective. When someone becomes the new President, he starts out with half of the country not liking him right from the start.

 

Pressing is not going to be liked by half of the hardcore collectors right from the start. It just seems like there is "something" wrong with it. It has a conotation of a book being manipulated and therefore, brings to mind something akin to restoration.

 

No one here is qualified to state with absolute certainty whether pressing is restoration and/or harmful. Or am I wrong about that? Anyone? We can just offer our opinions and thoughts on the subject.

 

Until CGC changes their stance on the subject, it is going to remain as it is today. About half and half.

 

It is strange how CGC has so much power in this hobby. I ponder (and remember) how the hobby was before professional grading and slabbing. More fun and less expensive, but full of dangers and frauds.

 

I do not think the hobby would be this expensive without the emergence of CGC. But it has taken a lot of the doubt out of the hobby. There is still some (one being, can I press this CGC 9.0 up, or has it already been pressed twice)?

 

I believe those that have the ability to look at a book and know if a pressing can improve the looks (read: CGC grade) of the book, are way ahead of the game. I can not do that. Yet. But I haven't tried not even once. It just isn't something I think about, other than ponder without even looking at a specific book, that maybe I should give it a try.

 

I would like to know if it would be a no-no, to post scans of a book on the "Please Grade My" section and ask of those with the ability, to tell me if a specific book is a good candidate for upgrading through pressing. Is that something that would be frowned upon?

 

I know some advertise their books for sale as possible pressing candidates, but would asking for opinions on this forum be improper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Domo Arigato

Domo Arigato

Posted
Posted
The system doesn't just protect people from dying. You rebuttal is utter nonsense.

 

Why do you think it's ok for pressers to lie?

 

Lie about what? That pressing happens? That some believe it's resto? That the LOC doesn't recommend it?

About damage. Why do think they should be allowed to lie about it? Is this how you operate in your daily life?

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