Is Flipping more Moral than Collecting?

[dover]

This thread is self-indulgent and intellectually masturbatory.

 

wouldn't the use of "self-indulgent" and "masturbatory" be redundant when used in the same sentance? I can only think of two circumstances where masturbation would not be considered completely self-indulgent.

[Ogami]

i would not call flipping immoral, but saying that collecting is somehow less moral is crazy. morality shouldn't even come into it unless you are robbing comic stores to fill your runs. (or pressing ). i think either way is perfectly fine. i buy my books to read and keep. sometimes when i find out one has shot up in value i am tempted to sell it, but i usually don't. i'm keeping my tmnt collection vol.1 even though i see them sell on ebay for 4x what i paid just a few months ago. if i did sell it though, i wouldn't be hurting anybody

 

of course collecting is less moral. collecting is gathering items of like kind and keeping them somewhere away from the public. Keeping things away from the public is hiding, hoarding, gathering and putting under lock and key; freezing property and assets. Once assest and property begin to be kept in the vaults of the world by the elite of society, the divide between the haves and have nots grows. Everyone that keeps thier collections to themselves is denying the public of the ability to enjoy and share the "property". Why do collectors hate people? Why? Conversely, people that flip comics are continually bringing to market "new" and "fresh" material to be enjoyed again and again. Flipping should be called "sharing", collecting could be better termed as selfish and self centered hoarding of public assests.

 

Is there really any debate here?

 

 

Of course there is a real debate here.

 

Nicholas Brisbane has done excellent work in defining, defending, and explaining the importance of the collector to Western Society. Without the collector, he argues, there would be no/many less great works of art for future generations. It is the collector who has the insight, the passion and zeal and the resources to pursue material that libraries, museums and other institutions are ill euipped and short sighted to do. Libraries have been as desctructive of early primary source material as they have been protectors, and many of the great works of antiquities were in much better hands in private collections, than in public libraries.

 

The Library may be the great equalizer when it comes to education (to steal from Asimov and Franklin) but it is no friend to source material.

 

Another author of note who makes a compelling case for the hoarder is Thomas Cahill, with his provacative, but no less true, "How the Irish Saved Civilization" defending the merits of hoarding, hiding, collecting, for the sake of preservation of great cultures.

[Ogami]

p.s. i'm aware i'm taking the pizs.

[dover]

i would not call flipping immoral, but saying that collecting is somehow less moral is crazy. morality shouldn't even come into it unless you are robbing comic stores to fill your runs. (or pressing ). i think either way is perfectly fine. i buy my books to read and keep. sometimes when i find out one has shot up in value i am tempted to sell it, but i usually don't. i'm keeping my tmnt collection vol.1 even though i see them sell on ebay for 4x what i paid just a few months ago. if i did sell it though, i wouldn't be hurting anybody

 

of course collecting is less moral. collecting is gathering items of like kind and keeping them somewhere away from the public. Keeping things away from the public is hiding, hoarding, gathering and putting under lock and key; freezing property and assets. Once assest and property begin to be kept in the vaults of the world by the elite of society, the divide between the haves and have nots grows. Everyone that keeps thier collections to themselves is denying the public of the ability to enjoy and share the "property". Why do collectors hate people? Why? Conversely, people that flip comics are continually bringing to market "new" and "fresh" material to be enjoyed again and again. Flipping should be called "sharing", collecting could be better termed as selfish and self centered hoarding of public assests.

 

Is there really any debate here?

 

 

Of course there is a real debate here.

 

Nicholas Brisbane has done excellent work in defining, defending, and explaining the importance of the collector to Western Society. Without the collector, he argues, there would be no/many less great works of art for future generations. It is the collector who has the insight, the passion and zeal and the resources to pursue material that libraries, museums and other institutions are ill euipped and short sighted to do. Libraries have been as desctructive of early primary source material as they have been protectors, and many of the great works of antiquities were in much better hands in private collections, than in public libraries.

 

The Library may be the great equalizer when it comes to education (to steal from Asimov and Franklin) but it is no friend to source material.

 

Another author of note who makes a compelling case for the hoarder is Thomas Cahill, with his provacative, but no less true, "How the Irish Saved Civilization" defending the merits of hoarding, hiding, collecting, for the sake of preservation of great cultures.

 

Nicholas Brisbane? didn't he have one of those Oprah book of the weeks? Come on, like he had to sit down and define the importance of the collector to us. Oprah is great and all, good role model for young women but hardly a stepping stone to literary greatness. People that collect are hoarders, taking from the masses to hold away from the public. Listen, ever since Emperor Aurelian taught those hoarders a lesson, collectors have been a bane to items of interest world wide.

 

But does any of that written text make the collector more moral than the flipper? no I say. People of great ability, foresight, ingenuity and courage routinely collect monetary notes of various denominations. They hoard these in large portfolios growing them until they burst at some pinical of financial orgasm. Sitting on their yachts, luxury penthouses they look down at us. Surely we can't begin to believe they are more moral than those of us who routinely flip our way through the day, exchanging tiny amounts of leagl tender for other forms of property, all the while whistling in our heads that everything will be okay.

 

I say flipping continues to be the moral high ground; above all else continuing to provide a constant return of no percent in the world we live. Go forth and flip young man.

[dover]

p.s. i'm aware i'm taking the pizs.

 

do you suggest that there is no basis to the merits of the thread? when is morality not pertinent to the every day life of the people? to the masses that yearn to collect yet cannot, to the fllipers that yearn to flip but cannot. though they may be one in the same there is no way to cast stone upon their metal if they can not be said to be more or less moral than themselves. You sir are attempting to removee the very notion that we do not have the ability to talk to ourselves, to derive from us what we may or may not feel. And if as you say we can not fully comprehend our own speak then who when the night is end, sitting at the recess of light and reason; then who are we to answer to? I stand here beside myself, agape.....not knowing if I am flipping to myself or collecting what I flip.

[dover]

Simply put, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know both the exact position and the exact velocity of an object at the same time. However, the effect is tiny and so is only noticeable on a subatomic scale.

 

 

or

 

Simply put, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to be both the flipper and the collector of a comic book at the same time. However, the effect is tiny and so is only noticeable on a auction house website.

[TupennyConan]

Physics, as we have noted, suggests at times that the unobserved is the nonexistent This distinguished discipline goes even further in suggesting that the act of observation influences in a physical sense the object of observation.

 

Now, if we postulate a Supreme Being which precedes the subject-object dialectic (see Paul Tillich) and from which all moral authority flows, then we begin to understand in a more rational sense the admonition: go forth & multiply.

 

With there being little to no multiplicity in the hoard & instead a constant stream of self-renewal in the flip -- giving life to new tender along the way, then one may begin to make another argument in support of the moral flip. Usury in turn becomes a moral form of new life husbandry.

 

If the moralist prefers duality, then surely the moralist embraces manifold reality.

 

 

 

[Chespirito]

Simply put, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know both the exact position and the exact velocity of an object at the same time. However, the effect is tiny and so is only noticeable on a subatomic scale.

 

 

or

 

Simply put, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to be both the flipper and the collector of a comic book at the same time. However, the effect is tiny and so is only noticeable on a auction house website.

I use to eat wax when I was a kid...

[dover]

Simply put, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know both the exact position and the exact velocity of an object at the same time. However, the effect is tiny and so is only noticeable on a subatomic scale.

 

 

or

 

Simply put, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to be both the flipper and the collector of a comic book at the same time. However, the effect is tiny and so is only noticeable on a auction house website.

I use to eat wax when I was a kid...

 

but at no time were you the wax.....

[Chespirito]

Simply put, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know both the exact position and the exact velocity of an object at the same time. However, the effect is tiny and so is only noticeable on a subatomic scale.

 

 

or

 

Simply put, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to be both the flipper and the collector of a comic book at the same time. However, the effect is tiny and so is only noticeable on a auction house website.

I use to eat wax when I was a kid...

 

but at no time were you the wax.....

Yes, twice, when I was a misled teen, I was "watching myself as if in a movie"...Bad bad shrooming trips...two places...same time And..if my hands, as I saw with my own eyes, were melting, then effectively, I WAS the wax...

[dover]

Simply put, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know both the exact position and the exact velocity of an object at the same time. However, the effect is tiny and so is only noticeable on a subatomic scale.

 

 

or

 

Simply put, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to be both the flipper and the collector of a comic book at the same time. However, the effect is tiny and so is only noticeable on a auction house website.

I use to eat wax when I was a kid...

 

but at no time were you the wax.....

Yes, twice, when I was a misled teen, I was "watching myself as if in a movie"...Bad bad shrooming trips...two places...same time And..if my hands, as I saw with my own eyes, were melting, then effectively, I WAS the wax...

 

I sit here watching myself be corrected.

[Chespirito]

Funny story, no moral really...

 

My Grandpapi was grossed out by my Grandma' when they were in their early twenties.It all happenned a faithfull day when my Grandmami won a contest..my grandpapi was unfortunately there to watch the spectacle..she was trying to impress him sooo much, that she invited him and, actually won.. the bad thing is, it was a Hot Dog eating contest, she became a 4th time winner of the Conney Island annual event...but, winning the contest was not the thing that grossed out my Grandpapi, he was expecting glutony to the max...I guess it was her new "Strategy" in appraoching the game... she won by devouring all 27 of them jumbo hot dogs....with -----her anus!!!!!

 

 

"Look ma', no hands!!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True story..no not really..

[KingOfRulers]

i would not call flipping immoral, but saying that collecting is somehow less moral is crazy. morality shouldn't even come into it unless you are robbing comic stores to fill your runs. (or pressing ). i think either way is perfectly fine. i buy my books to read and keep. sometimes when i find out one has shot up in value i am tempted to sell it, but i usually don't. i'm keeping my tmnt collection vol.1 even though i see them sell on ebay for 4x what i paid just a few months ago. if i did sell it though, i wouldn't be hurting anybody

 

of course collecting is less moral. collecting is gathering items of like kind and keeping them somewhere away from the public. Keeping things away from the public is hiding, hoarding, gathering and putting under lock and key; freezing property and assets. Once assest and property begin to be kept in the vaults of the world by the elite of society, the divide between the haves and have nots grows. Everyone that keeps thier collections to themselves is denying the public of the ability to enjoy and share the "property". Why do collectors hate people? Why? Conversely, people that flip comics are continually bringing to market "new" and "fresh" material to be enjoyed again and again. Flipping should be called "sharing", collecting could be better termed as selfish and self centered hoarding of public assests.

 

Is there really any debate here?

 

 

Of course there is a real debate here.

 

Nicholas Brisbane has done excellent work in defining, defending, and explaining the importance of the collector to Western Society. Without the collector, he argues, there would be no/many less great works of art for future generations. It is the collector who has the insight, the passion and zeal and the resources to pursue material that libraries, museums and other institutions are ill euipped and short sighted to do. Libraries have been as desctructive of early primary source material as they have been protectors, and many of the great works of antiquities were in much better hands in private collections, than in public libraries.

 

The Library may be the great equalizer when it comes to education (to steal from Asimov and Franklin) but it is no friend to source material.

 

Another author of note who makes a compelling case for the hoarder is Thomas Cahill, with his provacative, but no less true, "How the Irish Saved Civilization" defending the merits of hoarding, hiding, collecting, for the sake of preservation of great cultures.

 

Public libraries are quite possibly the most immoral vetige of hammer and sickle, that our society keeps in plain sight. To think that an organization would offer objects and information, free of charge is sick. I tell you now, that morality is in the FLIP.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Funny story, no moral really...

 

My Grandpapi was grossed out by my Grandma' when they were in their early twenties.It all happenned a faithfull day when my Grandmami won a contest..my grandpapi was unfortunately there to watch the spectacle..she was trying to impress him sooo much, that she invited him and, actually won.. the bad thing is, it was a Hot Dog eating contest, she became a 4th time winner of the Conney Island annual event...but, winning the contest was not the thing that grossed out my Grandpapi, he was expecting glutony to the max...I guess it was her new "Strategy" in appraoching the game... she won by devouring all 27 of them jumbo hot dogs....with -----her anus!!!!!

 

 

"Look ma', no hands!!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True story..no not really..

 

What the heck just happened?

[Chespirito]

Funny story, no moral really...

 

My Grandpapi was grossed out by my Grandma' when they were in their early twenties.It all happenned a faithfull day when my Grandmami won a contest..my grandpapi was unfortunately there to watch the spectacle..she was trying to impress him sooo much, that she invited him and, actually won.. the bad thing is, it was a Hot Dog eating contest, she became a 4th time winner of the Conney Island annual event...but, winning the contest was not the thing that grossed out my Grandpapi, he was expecting glutony to the max...I guess it was her new "Strategy" in appraoching the game... she won by devouring all 27 of them jumbo hot dogs....with -----her anus!!!!!

 

 

"Look ma', no hands!!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True story..no not really..

 

What the heck just happened?

me being retarded...it helps me cope with life..even if it's jsut me laughing...

[RockMyAmadeus]

This thread is self-indulgent and intellectually masturbatory.

 

The best kind.

[TupennyConan]

i would not call flipping immoral, but saying that collecting is somehow less moral is crazy. morality shouldn't even come into it unless you are robbing comic stores to fill your runs. (or pressing ). i think either way is perfectly fine. i buy my books to read and keep. sometimes when i find out one has shot up in value i am tempted to sell it, but i usually don't. i'm keeping my tmnt collection vol.1 even though i see them sell on ebay for 4x what i paid just a few months ago. if i did sell it though, i wouldn't be hurting anybody

 

of course collecting is less moral. collecting is gathering items of like kind and keeping them somewhere away from the public. Keeping things away from the public is hiding, hoarding, gathering and putting under lock and key; freezing property and assets. Once assest and property begin to be kept in the vaults of the world by the elite of society, the divide between the haves and have nots grows. Everyone that keeps thier collections to themselves is denying the public of the ability to enjoy and share the "property". Why do collectors hate people? Why? Conversely, people that flip comics are continually bringing to market "new" and "fresh" material to be enjoyed again and again. Flipping should be called "sharing", collecting could be better termed as selfish and self centered hoarding of public assests.

 

Is there really any debate here?

 

 

Of course there is a real debate here.

 

Nicholas Brisbane has done excellent work in defining, defending, and explaining the importance of the collector to Western Society. Without the collector, he argues, there would be no/many less great works of art for future generations. It is the collector who has the insight, the passion and zeal and the resources to pursue material that libraries, museums and other institutions are ill euipped and short sighted to do. Libraries have been as desctructive of early primary source material as they have been protectors, and many of the great works of antiquities were in much better hands in private collections, than in public libraries.

 

The Library may be the great equalizer when it comes to education (to steal from Asimov and Franklin) but it is no friend to source material.

 

Another author of note who makes a compelling case for the hoarder is Thomas Cahill, with his provacative, but no less true, "How the Irish Saved Civilization" defending the merits of hoarding, hiding, collecting, for the sake of preservation of great cultures.

 

Public libraries are quite possibly the most immoral vetige of hammer and sickle, that our society keeps in plain sight. To think that an organization would offer objects and information, free of charge is sick. I tell you now, that morality is in the FLIP.

 

Look I'm not so quick to dismiss this thoughtful contribution to the thread.

 

However, observe that the collector's hoard as cultural repository projects us into the futurist's province, telescopes the here and now tangible morality of the flip forward in time on a gamble (drawing with it an element of risk akin to mortgage theory), and is nothing more than an attempt at archaeological wish fulfillment.

 

Ask Theagenes if all that goes in the ground comes back out of it.

 

 

[dover]

i would not call flipping immoral, but saying that collecting is somehow less moral is crazy. morality shouldn't even come into it unless you are robbing comic stores to fill your runs. (or pressing ). i think either way is perfectly fine. i buy my books to read and keep. sometimes when i find out one has shot up in value i am tempted to sell it, but i usually don't. i'm keeping my tmnt collection vol.1 even though i see them sell on ebay for 4x what i paid just a few months ago. if i did sell it though, i wouldn't be hurting anybody

 

of course collecting is less moral. collecting is gathering items of like kind and keeping them somewhere away from the public. Keeping things away from the public is hiding, hoarding, gathering and putting under lock and key; freezing property and assets. Once assest and property begin to be kept in the vaults of the world by the elite of society, the divide between the haves and have nots grows. Everyone that keeps thier collections to themselves is denying the public of the ability to enjoy and share the "property". Why do collectors hate people? Why? Conversely, people that flip comics are continually bringing to market "new" and "fresh" material to be enjoyed again and again. Flipping should be called "sharing", collecting could be better termed as selfish and self centered hoarding of public assests.

 

Is there really any debate here?

 

 

Of course there is a real debate here.

 

Nicholas Brisbane has done excellent work in defining, defending, and explaining the importance of the collector to Western Society. Without the collector, he argues, there would be no/many less great works of art for future generations. It is the collector who has the insight, the passion and zeal and the resources to pursue material that libraries, museums and other institutions are ill euipped and short sighted to do. Libraries have been as desctructive of early primary source material as they have been protectors, and many of the great works of antiquities were in much better hands in private collections, than in public libraries.

 

The Library may be the great equalizer when it comes to education (to steal from Asimov and Franklin) but it is no friend to source material.

 

Another author of note who makes a compelling case for the hoarder is Thomas Cahill, with his provacative, but no less true, "How the Irish Saved Civilization" defending the merits of hoarding, hiding, collecting, for the sake of preservation of great cultures.

 

Public libraries are quite possibly the most immoral vetige of hammer and sickle, that our society keeps in plain sight. To think that an organization would offer objects and information, free of charge is sick. I tell you now, that morality is in the FLIP.

 

Look I'm not so quick to dismiss this thoughtful contribution to the thread.

 

However, observe that the collector's hoard as cultural repository projects us into the futurist's province, telescopes the here and now tangible morality of the flip forward in time on a gamble (drawing with it an element of risk akin to mortgage theory), and is nothing more than an attempt at archaeological wish fulfillment.

 

Ask Theagenes if all that goes in the ground comes back out of it.

 

 

all I got from this was; 27 hot dogs in the anus and "repository". Once again, the duality of the species in full view. Two forms of collecting and truly, two forms of flipping, in the end....

[Chespirito]

i would not call flipping immoral, but saying that collecting is somehow less moral is crazy. morality shouldn't even come into it unless you are robbing comic stores to fill your runs. (or pressing ). i think either way is perfectly fine. i buy my books to read and keep. sometimes when i find out one has shot up in value i am tempted to sell it, but i usually don't. i'm keeping my tmnt collection vol.1 even though i see them sell on ebay for 4x what i paid just a few months ago. if i did sell it though, i wouldn't be hurting anybody

 

of course collecting is less moral. collecting is gathering items of like kind and keeping them somewhere away from the public. Keeping things away from the public is hiding, hoarding, gathering and putting under lock and key; freezing property and assets. Once assest and property begin to be kept in the vaults of the world by the elite of society, the divide between the haves and have nots grows. Everyone that keeps thier collections to themselves is denying the public of the ability to enjoy and share the "property". Why do collectors hate people? Why? Conversely, people that flip comics are continually bringing to market "new" and "fresh" material to be enjoyed again and again. Flipping should be called "sharing", collecting could be better termed as selfish and self centered hoarding of public assests.

 

Is there really any debate here?

 

 

Of course there is a real debate here.

 

Nicholas Brisbane has done excellent work in defining, defending, and explaining the importance of the collector to Western Society. Without the collector, he argues, there would be no/many less great works of art for future generations. It is the collector who has the insight, the passion and zeal and the resources to pursue material that libraries, museums and other institutions are ill euipped and short sighted to do. Libraries have been as desctructive of early primary source material as they have been protectors, and many of the great works of antiquities were in much better hands in private collections, than in public libraries.

 

The Library may be the great equalizer when it comes to education (to steal from Asimov and Franklin) but it is no friend to source material.

 

Another author of note who makes a compelling case for the hoarder is Thomas Cahill, with his provacative, but no less true, "How the Irish Saved Civilization" defending the merits of hoarding, hiding, collecting, for the sake of preservation of great cultures.

 

Public libraries are quite possibly the most immoral vetige of hammer and sickle, that our society keeps in plain sight. To think that an organization would offer objects and information, free of charge is sick. I tell you now, that morality is in the FLIP.

 

Look I'm not so quick to dismiss this thoughtful contribution to the thread.

 

However, observe that the collector's hoard as cultural repository projects us into the futurist's province, telescopes the here and now tangible morality of the flip forward in time on a gamble (drawing with it an element of risk akin to mortgage theory), and is nothing more than an attempt at archaeological wish fulfillment.

 

Ask Theagenes if all that goes in the ground comes back out of it.

 

 

all I got from this was; 27 hot dogs in the anus and "repository". Once again, the duality of the species in full view. Two forms of collecting and truly, two forms of flipping, in the end....

Hey hey hey! I didn't say anything about flipping in the end!!

[DarkKnightReturns]

No, I get it. He's suggesting that, as collectors, we are all suffering from some degree of mental illness. And wouldn't the average person believe it was more "normal" to make money on comics rather than hoard them. It is an offshoot of Tupenny's "fetishistic idol-worshippers" manifesto.

 

The mere fact that it is an offshoot of a Tupenny manifesto, however, means it is composed entirely of pure, unadulterated FAIL.