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

[Mr. Zipper]

No need. The LOC made a recommendation based on studies that someone performed. If you want to hang your hat on something that nebulous, have at it, but no one is going to take you seriously.

 

To me, this is the most head-scratching aspect of the debate...

 

Some feel the the LOC statement is not to be taken seriously and does not provide adequate detail.

 

Yet, the opposing view has absolutely no evidence or independent expert opinion to support their belief.

 

Domo comes to the table with **something** and the other side has nothing other than personal opinion. Who has more credibility?

 

[Domo Arigato]

You have claimed over & over again that "numerous" pro-pressers have repeatedly stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, so why is it so hard for you to come up with just one example of anyone saying this?

Don't like the first on. Ok. As conditionfreak already mentioned in one of his posts above...here's another quote Dale made regarding pressing earlier in this thread.

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Sure seems like he's saying do damage is occuring during the pressing process.

 

And in the very same post he says this...

 

Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

...which obviously allows for the possibility that minute damage might occur.

 

No...he states plainly that no damage is occuring...and even if there was, it would be so small that he wouldn't care about it. There's a difference.

 

 

[TupennyConan]

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.

Can I offer some more ridiculous semantics.

Some on here are arguing that pressing is potentially harmful and destructive (maybe, maybe not).

Those same also want pressing classified as restoration.

Shouldn't it be one or the other? Either restorative or destructive? Or, in an attempt to further a point of view, has it become all of these things?

And if it is actually both, as well as a process only undertaken by evil people filled with greed, then shouldn't we all be alerting the authorities?

I mean anything that heinous must be illegal, right?

 

 

We have a fiduciary duty to all comic books in our temporary custody.

 

We don't own them.

 

We are simply temporary custodians beholden to the historical, cultural artifact in our qualified possession and limited control.

 

Surety bonds should be issued at point of sale of every comic book wherever these transactions may occur, even in the neighborhood yardsale or in the darkest tenderloin districts of the Boards' FS forums.

 

Ignore these restrictions at risk of permanent exile into the demimonde you've chosen to haunt.

 

You control your destiny in this hobby. You do not control the comic books.

 

Dirtbags.

 

 

[mschmidt]

You have claimed over & over again that "numerous" pro-pressers have repeatedly stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, so why is it so hard for you to come up with just one example of anyone saying this?

Don't like the first on. Ok. As conditionfreak already mentioned in one of his posts above...here's another quote Dale made regarding pressing earlier in this thread.

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Sure seems like he's saying do damage is occuring during the pressing process.

 

And in the very same post he says this...

 

Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

...which obviously allows for the possibility that minute damage might occur.

 

No...he states plainly that no damage is occuring...and even if there was, it would be so small that he wouldn't care about it. There's a difference.

 

 

Why don't you post the full quote, so people can see that you're making things up again?

 

Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created. And we are not the one who has an issue with the books. You are. We don't need proof. You do. You are apparently trying to get people to stop pressing books. If you could give me proof about what damage and what time period we are talking about, I would consider stopping pressing. I personally don't believe that you can relate information about pressing historical documents on who knows what type of paper and pressing comic books and assume that they are equivalent. Plus, who knows when that study was done, and what specifically was tested.

 

I will state again, if you are trying to change the minds of people, you need to provide evidence, specific evidence of why change needs to happen. We are all pretty happy with the current state of things, but I guarantee that many people would change their tune if you could provide specific details. Unfortunately, you can't.

 

Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

[conditionfreak]

I would love for someone who actually does pressing, to explain in detail what it entails. I assume that it is different for "spot" pressing or whole books or page pressing. But is heat, moisture and compression used in each and every case?

 

Would an explanation be giving methods away that entice others to go into the business, therefore hurting your own business. Or is it general knowledge to everyone (except me)?

[nearmint]

I can't. So I'll correct myself. Either they've done them or they have access to multiple studies that have been done on this type of paper. Now let's move onto your next big groundbreaking point.

 

No need. The LOC made a recommendation based on studies that someone performed. If you want to hang your hat on something that nebulous, have at it, but no one is going to take you seriously.

Yes...they made a recommendation based on the facts of what they know will happen to the paper. You just don't want to accpet it.

 

On the contrary. I've admitted that it's possible that damage might occur at an extremely benign level, and Dale has as well. And since the LOC didn't quantify the degree of damage, there's no reason to think their recommendation and my opinion are mutually exclusive.

Dale finally admitted it. And they made a recommendation based on facts. There's nothing nebulous about it.

 

They made a recommendation based on unknown facts from unknown studies conducted by unknown entities. That's about as nebulous as you can get.

 

 

[Green]

Shouldn't it be one or the other? Either restorative or destructive?

[slym2none]

I would love for someone who actually does pressing, to explain in detail what it entails. I assume that it is different for "spot" pressing or whole books or page pressing. But is heat, moisture and compression used in each and every case?

 

Would an explanation be giving methods away that entice others to go into the business, therefore hurting your own business. Or is it general knowledge to everyone (except me)?

 

Pressing techniques seem to be about as tightly-guarded secrets as a a good BBQ cook's spice-rub recipe.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[MrBedrock]

Domo comes to the table with **something**

Obviously more than a few feel that is debatable.

[MCMiles]

No need. The LOC made a recommendation based on studies that someone performed. If you want to hang your hat on something that nebulous, have at it, but no one is going to take you seriously.

 

To me, this is the most head-scratching aspect of the debate...

 

Some feel the the LOC statement is not to be taken seriously and does not provide adequate detail.

 

Yet, the opposing view has absolutely no evidence or independent expert opinion to support their belief.

 

Domo comes to the table with **something** and the other side has nothing other than personal opinion. Who has more credibility?

 

 

Who cares? If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't mind it, enjoy it.

 

I don't believe it's about saving the books from eventual destruction for most jumping on this argument. (if that could even be proven without question) That's just happens to be the best argument produced so far from those that just don't like the practice.

 

If people want to save something, then green up and save the planet. Try to leave something for your children instead of your comic book collection.

[VintageComics]

If people want to save something, then green up and save the planet. Try to leave something for your children instead of your comic book collection.

 

(thumbs u

[conditionfreak]

My grandmother had a back woods saying, that applies.

 

"Dealing with you is like trying to get a hot mule out of a cool barn".

[slym2none]

I can't. So I'll correct myself. Either they've done them or they have access to multiple studies that have been done on this type of paper. Now let's move onto your next big groundbreaking point.

 

No need. The LOC made a recommendation based on studies that someone performed. If you want to hang your hat on something that nebulous, have at it, but no one is going to take you seriously.

Yes...they made a recommendation based on the facts of what they know will happen to the paper. You just don't want to accpet it.

 

On the contrary. I've admitted that it's possible that damage might occur at an extremely benign level, and Dale has as well. And since the LOC didn't quantify the degree of damage, there's no reason to think their recommendation and my opinion are mutually exclusive.

Dale finally admitted it. And they made a recommendation based on facts. There's nothing nebulous about it.

 

They made a recommendation based on unknown facts from unknown studies conducted by unknown entities. That's about as nebulous as you can get.

 

 

Are they unknown to you? I would imagine the Library Of Congress wouldn't just accept Joe Blow Off The Street's word about such things, I imagine they know who they are dealing with...

 

Like these guys, maybe?

 

http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/index.html

 

 

 

 

-slym

[DiceX]

Was this thousand post dorkfest worth reading or was it just the SoS?

Can someone give me the cliffnotes using only graemlins?

 

 

[Monstro]

[slym2none]

Was this thousand post dorkfest worth reading or was it just the SoS?

Can someone give me the cliffnotes using only graemlins?

 

 

Sure!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-slym ( (thumbs u )

[DiceX]

Was this thousand post dorkfest worth reading or was it just the SoS?

Can someone give me the cliffnotes using only graemlins?

 

 

Sure!

 

 

 

 

-slym ( (thumbs u )

 

 

 

[whisp]

 

 

[Boozad]

Was this thousand post dorkfest worth reading or was it just the SoS?

Can someone give me the cliffnotes using only graemlins?

 

 

[TupennyConan]

If people want to save something, then green up and save the planet. Try to leave something for your children instead of your comic book collection.

 

(thumbs u

 

You got it right bro. I can't say it better but I'll say it wordier.

 

If you hate comic book profiteers because they love money more than comics, then we must presume you love comic books more than the opportunity value of the money you choose to spend on comic books. So much so you'd pay crazy prices to hide something in a box. This is called fetishistic idol worship. It is the height of me-first self-indulgence. You could have spent that money you hate on your children or your neighbor's children rather than on your ownership of a high grade, ancient children's magazine. Collectors of all stripes on all sides of this debate are selfish pigs. Christians call this activity demonic.