How much info in Comics General do you believe to be true?

[VintageComics]

When I read the Gold Comics forum, I trust most of the information I read.

 

In Comics General, not so much.

 

This is an interesting comment.

 

I find Gold to be full of people who are a little less emotional about what they write. It's not that they are not as passionate, as most of them are lifetime collectors. I think it's just the level of physical maturity of the majority of posters that causes them to slow down and think through before they type. They're not really there for the attention as they have been there and done that.

 

General seems to be like a city sidewalk where anything goes.

 

Yes, this post has been made by an accused attention whore.

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

 

The likelihood of me believing anything is directly proportional to how much it relates to comic books. The more off topic it is, the more likely it has been barked out of the nethers of an addle-pated twit. See generally, some of the super sweet legal theorizing and gun safety tips provided in the "Shooting in Texas" thread.

 

I think you need an epiphany.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

In retrospect, having counted again, I now suddenly realize that I beieve] every sixth word or so. Nothing]

more. Nothing less.

 

In retrospect, having counted again, I now suddenly realize that I believe every sixth word or so. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

In retrospect, having counted again, I now suddenly realize that I beieve] every sixth word or so. Nothing]

more. Nothing less.

 

 

It's the Comics General Code!!

 

[catrick339]

Well, much like Alice, I can believe six impossible things before breakfast.

 

So, I believe EVERYTHING in Comics General...except for Slym, of course,

 

Now somebody quick! Sell me that bridge in Brooklyn, cheap!

 

 

[Dr Chaos]

Everything.

 

If it's on the internet it must be true, right?

 

Uhm, Bonjour.

[slym2none]

 

 

 

-slym

[gaz973]

If a persons best interests are served by what they are saying then it's naive to take it at face value.

 

Some people over time earn my respect. When they say something, It take it more seriously.

[Dr. Balls]

I believe there are WAY more women here than what other people think.

[Dr Chaos]

I believe there are WAY more women here than what other people think.

 

If you consider three to be way more than zero.

[Dr. Balls]

When I read the Gold Comics forum, I trust most of the information I read.

 

In Comics General, not so much.

 

This is an interesting comment.

 

I find Gold to be full of people who are a little less emotional about what they write. It's not that they are not as passionate, as most of them are lifetime collectors. I think it's just the level of physical maturity of the majority of posters that causes them to slow down and think through before they type. They're not really there for the attention as they have been there and done that.

 

General seems to be like a city sidewalk where anything goes.

 

Yes, this post has been made by an accused attention whore.

 

 

 

I don't think it's an issue of maturity that divides Gold from CG. I think it's the appropriateness of the topic. I don't discuss the same things in the resto, bronze or silver areas that I do here - I go into those areas for serious, relevant discussion. I come to CG for some humor, insanity and random

 

[Dr. Balls]

I believe there are WAY more women here than what other people think.

 

If you consider three to be way more than zero.

 

Don't forget ComicDonna. That's four.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

 

The likelihood of me believing anything is directly proportional to how much it relates to comic books. The more off topic it is, the more likely it has been barked out of the nethers of an addle-pated twit. See generally, some of the super sweet legal theorizing and gun safety tips provided in the "Shooting in Texas" thread.

 

Depends entirely on the source.

 

If half the people on the boards can't even be bothered to read what other people write before spouting off, how can they be trusted with information themselves?

This.

 

I see this almost every day here.

 

A) Click on thread...scan last post briefly...post opinion...express annoyance with those pointing out error.

 

Or

 

B) Hear/read news...start thread...become annoyed when 3 other identical threads from the last week/month are pointed out.

 

 

PS - most here won't even realize the threadsurrection.

[gaz973]

I believe there are WAY more women here than what other people think.

 

If you consider three to be way more than zero.

One should always believe a Dr.

[Dr. Balls]

barked out of the nethers of an addle-pated twit.

 

I'm really wanting to see a visual of this.

[Bosco685]

 

The likelihood of me believing anything is directly proportional to how much it relates to comic books. The more off topic it is, the more likely it has been barked out of the nethers of an addle-pated twit. See generally, some of the super sweet legal theorizing and gun safety tips provided in the "Shooting in Texas" thread.

 

Depends entirely on the source.

 

If half the people on the boards can't even be bothered to read what other people write before spouting off, how can they be trusted with information themselves?

This.

 

I see this almost every day here.

 

A) Click on thread...scan last post briefly...post opinion...express annoyance with those pointing out error.

 

Or

 

B) Hear/read news...start thread...become annoyed when 3 other identical threads from the last week/month are pointed out.

 

 

PS - most here won't even realize the threadsurrection.

 

So let's say someone reads what is posted. Knows what is stated is actually true. And yet still acts as if it isn't true, like when a book was published which should have little to no debate. Is that arguing for the sake of arguing, and ignoring reality?

[Doc McCoy]

So let's say someone reads what is posted. Knows what is stated is actually true. And yet still acts as if it isn't true, like when a book was published which should have little to no debate. Is that arguing for the sake of arguing, and ignoring reality?

 

It depends, do they look like this?

 

[Bosco685]

It depends, do they look like this?

 

 

Very close.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

The likelihood of me believing anything is directly proportional to how much it relates to comic books. The more off topic it is, the more likely it has been barked out of the nethers of an addle-pated twit. See generally, some of the super sweet legal theorizing and gun safety tips provided in the "Shooting in Texas" thread.

 

Depends entirely on the source.

 

If half the people on the boards can't even be bothered to read what other people write before spouting off, how can they be trusted with information themselves?

This.

 

I see this almost every day here.

 

A) Click on thread...scan last post briefly...post opinion...express annoyance with those pointing out error.

 

Or

 

B) Hear/read news...start thread...become annoyed when 3 other identical threads from the last week/month are pointed out.

 

 

PS - most here won't even realize the threadsurrection.

 

So let's say someone reads what is posted. Knows what is stated is actually true. And yet still acts as if it isn't true, like when a book was published which should have little to no debate. Is that arguing for the sake of arguing, and ignoring reality?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

The likelihood of me believing anything is directly proportional to how much it relates to comic books. The more off topic it is, the more likely it has been barked out of the nethers of an addle-pated twit. See generally, some of the super sweet legal theorizing and gun safety tips provided in the "Shooting in Texas" thread.

 

Depends entirely on the source.

 

If half the people on the boards can't even be bothered to read what other people write before spouting off, how can they be trusted with information themselves?

This.

 

I see this almost every day here.

 

A) Click on thread...scan last post briefly...post opinion...express annoyance with those pointing out error.

 

Or

 

B) Hear/read news...start thread...become annoyed when 3 other identical threads from the last week/month are pointed out.

 

 

PS - most here won't even realize the threadsurrection.

 

 

[Bosco685]

 

The likelihood of me believing anything is directly proportional to how much it relates to comic books. The more off topic it is, the more likely it has been barked out of the nethers of an addle-pated twit. See generally, some of the super sweet legal theorizing and gun safety tips provided in the "Shooting in Texas" thread.

 

Depends entirely on the source.

 

If half the people on the boards can't even be bothered to read what other people write before spouting off, how can they be trusted with information themselves?

This.

 

I see this almost every day here.

 

A) Click on thread...scan last post briefly...post opinion...express annoyance with those pointing out error.

 

Or

 

B) Hear/read news...start thread...become annoyed when 3 other identical threads from the last week/month are pointed out.

 

 

PS - most here won't even realize the threadsurrection.

 

So let's say someone reads what is posted. Knows what is stated is actually true. And yet still acts as if it isn't true, like when a book was published which should have little to no debate. Is that arguing for the sake of arguing, and ignoring reality?

 

 

November 18th is right around the corner, buddy.