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

[Domo Arigato]

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.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

[nearmint]

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?

 

Who's lying about damage?

[Domo Arigato]

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.

Imagine that, Jeff. You're wrong yet again. Never gets tiring for you, does it?

[Domo Arigato]

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?

 

Who's lying about damage?

They are. Why do you condone lying?

[conditionfreak]

Hey. I have the solution. One CGC slabs, CGC can put a warning label stating something to the effect of

 

"The Library of Congress has determined pressing MAY cause premature deterioration to comic books".

 

Okay. Now let's move on to abortion.

[nearmint]

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.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

 

Who claimed that pressing does no harm to a book? I've heard some people ask for the specific studies. I've heard others say they believe damage might be occurring at an extremely benign level. So who's claiming that pressing does no harm?

[Foolkiller]

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.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

 

Well, strictly following this claim, I'm not sure the drug analogy is best then. But following through with the analogy would be this -- it would be like a drug company saying, our drug does (x) -- promote it for say a benefit, but then it later comes out through studies, no it actually doesn't do what it says AND oh by the way it's actually harmful.

 

So pressing does no harm --

 

Of course here the problem is, it is not generally accepted, nor is there adequate evidence to say that the pro pressers are saying, hey, there's nothing wrong with pressing, but you can prove they actually knew it.

 

In the drug context, usually we have documents and internal corporate documents which show they were on notice of the harm.

[KingOfRulers]

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.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

 

If the notion of a pressed book causes you so much grief, don't buy any more books. Then, I can guarantee you that you will not have to deal with pressed books. Sounds like paradise, doesn't it? You can instead collect...ceramic shoes...or barbed wire. Your blood pressure gets so high that from my central Florida residence, I can hear the steam whistling from your ears.

[october]

 

[nearmint]

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.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

 

If the notion of a pressed book causes you so much grief, don't buy any more books. Then, I can guarantee you that you will not have to deal with pressed books. Sounds like paradise, doesn't it? You can instead collect...ceramic shoes...or barbed wire. Your blood pressure gets so high that from my central Florida residence, I can hear the steam whistling from your ears.

 

I think Domo's passion for argument is far greater than his desire for virgin funny books.

I'm going to lunch.

[Foolkiller]

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.

Imagine that, Jeff. You're wrong yet again. Never gets tiring for you, does it?

 

By the way, I made this comment not to chastise Jeff, but rather correct a common misconception. Many people think the FDA is out there running tests, but the FDA, woefully understaffed, relies on drug manufacturers and other researchers to do testing. Ultimately, the CFR and pharmacovigilence standards require drug manufacturers to do the testing and know their product best.

[Domo Arigato]

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.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

 

Who claimed that pressing does no harm to a book? I've heard some people ask for the specific studies. I've heard others say they believe damage might be occurring at an extremely benign level. So who's claiming that pressing does no harm?

Several have just in this very thread. Go back and read it. Why do you think it's ok for them to do that? I don't feel that's right.

[Domo Arigato]

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.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

 

If the notion of a pressed book causes you so much grief, don't buy any more books. Then, I can guarantee you that you will not have to deal with pressed books. Sounds like paradise, doesn't it? You can instead collect...ceramic shoes...or barbed wire. Your blood pressure gets so high that from my central Florida residence, I can hear the steam whistling from your ears.

Thanks for providing more of your nonsense recommendations. A better idea would just be for all of those pressing books to be honest and forthcoming with the information about it and it's effects on the books.

[Domo Arigato]

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.

Imagine that, Jeff. You're wrong yet again. Never gets tiring for you, does it?

 

By the way, I made this comment not to chastise Jeff, but rather correct a common misconception. Many people think the FDA is out there running tests, but the FDA, woefully understaffed, relies on drug manufacturers and other researchers to do testing. Ultimately, the CFR and pharmacovigilence standards require drug manufacturers to do the testing and know their product best.

I knew why you were doing it. Doesn't make him any less wrong. The fact of the matter remains...tests have to be performed, and those providing the products/services are the ones that are responsible for having them done to substantiate the claims they are making. For anyone to attempt to argue the ridiculous semantics about it is just par for the course for some of the pro-pressing crowd in here and is childish at best.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

Why do you think it's ok for them to do that? I don't feel that's right.

 

This is a car wreck. Just can't get away from it.

 

 

I haven't seen once where Jeff has said it's okay for people to say unequivocally that pressing does no damage to comics. You show me where he said that. Otherwise, I suggest you stop asking him why he feels its ok when he hasn't said anything of the sort.

 

 

I'm still waiting for you or anyone on the anti pressing side to address this notion of damage and give any evidence you can as to how significant it is or will become some day. Matter of fact, that question is open to anyone. If anyone can provide hard evidence as to the extent of damage pressing causes, I would love to hear it.

[3319comics]

Is pressing a detectable restoration?? if not than the only people getting hurt with this is the high grade chasers.

[Domo Arigato]

Why do you think it's ok for them to do that? I don't feel that's right.

 

This is a car wreck. Just can't get away from it.

 

I haven't seen once where Jeff has said it's okay for people to say unequivocally that pressing does no damage to comics. You show me where he said that. Otherwise, I suggest you stop asking him why he feels its ok when he hasn't said anything of the sort.

 

I'm still waiting for you or anyone on the anti pressing side to address this notion of damage and give any evidence you can as to how significant it is or will become some day. Matter of fact, that question is open to anyone. If anyone can provide hard evidence as to the extent of damage pressing causes, I would love to hear it.

By arguing the line of defense that he is, he is inferring that it's ok. I'm just asking him why.

 

And as I've already pointed out...it's up to the pressers to substantiate the claims that many have made that it does no damage to the book. And if they do admit that it causes damage, it's not our responsibility to tell them how much. They're the ones manipulating the books...it's their responsibility to find out how much damage their process does and disclose it to their customers.

[3319comics]

I think the only damage pressing does is to the market with the amount of high grade stuff out there???

[Domo Arigato]

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.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

 

If the notion of a pressed book causes you so much grief, don't buy any more books. Then, I can guarantee you that you will not have to deal with pressed books. Sounds like paradise, doesn't it? You can instead collect...ceramic shoes...or barbed wire. Your blood pressure gets so high that from my central Florida residence, I can hear the steam whistling from your ears.

 

I think Domo's passion for argument is far greater than his desire for virgin funny books.

I'm going to lunch.

Why are you going to lunch now? I don't think you should be going to lunch until this is settled. What gives you the right to go to lunch at a time like this.

[drbanner]

 

Why do you think it's ok for them to do that? I don't feel that's right.

 

This is a car wreck. Just can't get away from it.

 

Car wreck?