A response from a CGC IT! ebay seller!

[conditionfreak]

Seems to me that either there are a lot of bored people on this site. Or a lot of panties twiested up. These are minor things on Ebay, and if you can't live with them. How on earth are you going to get along with a women? These things should be expected, and they are not against any rules or laws.

This is the ultimate in irony -- somebody reading and posting in a thread who then criticizes other people for the simple act of reading and posting in the same thread.

 

Anyway, a lot of panties "twiested" up? Get along with "a women"? An either/or statement chopped into two sentences? An if/then question chopped into two sentences? A false statement to the effect that keyword spamming is "not against any rules" (when eBay's rules were quoted at length)? There is a severe ongoing problem here in both remedial English and basic comprehension. You don't have a leg to stand on in criticizing anybody else.

 

Ha Ha. Yea, I was in a hurry and misspelled a word. Maybe didn't use perfect sentence structure either. Like my college english teacher told me on day one of class. Correct language skills is getting the point across. Did you get my point?

 

I apologize. I will try harder in the future. But I thought my internet opinion was just as valid as anyone elses, on this subject. Guess I must be mistaken. Only yours and everyone that agrees with you, and have perfect communication skills, are valid.

 

But it does indicate perfectly my original thought. That some people on an INTERNET CHAT FORUM are anal retentive. If my non-perfect typing bothers you to the point you just have to point it out and critize it. Then you have NO CHANCE of being able to accept lesser beings on Ebay, or anywhere else in the universe.

 

So, you are in fact stating that Ebay forbids the use of "key" search words? Interesting take. Maybe you should contact them about those rule breakers. Make it your life mission. Or, you could just ignore them and move on. I find it the equivalent of spitting on the sidewalk where it is illegal to do so, (there are places where it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk).

 

Naw. Never mind. It obviously ain't in your character (almost used "make-up"), to ignore anything or anyone you deem "wrong", about anything.

 

 

 

Okay, now that I have taken out my anger against your snide remarks. I feel better. Let's be friends, dude. We can just agree to disagree? But I don't, and will not, promise to not use some non-pertinent "key" words on Ebaby (Yea, I wrote Ebaby), in an attempt to attract the general public to my items. I reserve the right to do so. No matter who likes or dislikes it. Even Ebaby itself. Try and stop me Ebaby! Ha ha Ha

 

Seriously. It ain't a big deal folks. The respondent referred to in the thread title, gave a reasonable explanation, that seems to have been honest to a degree more than most Ebay sellers are prone to do.

 

Something about a mountain and a mole hill, comes to mind.

 

Quoting your posted Ebay policy, it is OBVIOUS that using CGC it, is NOT a violation of those rules. Every grade possible, is DONE with books to CGC. There are books pictured on here, of ASM 455 (or something similar or comparable), in grades like 5.5 or 6.5, CGC'ed. Therefore, ANY book of ANY grade can be (albeit infrequently), CGC'ed. Thus making the use on Ebay, valid and proper.

 

Besides. How do you know what grade CGC will give any book? Your opinion?

 

"From this eBay 'selling resources' page: "Avoid Keyword Spamming: Do not overuse keywords in an item description as it can reduce the effectiveness of content. Moreover, keyword spamming is a violation of eBay policy as well as an irritation to prospective buyers."

 

Here is eBay's search and browsing manipulation policy: "Don't engage in tactics like keyword spamming, because they make it hard for people to find what they're looking for."

 

...And here's eBay's definitive explanation of keyword spamming and why it is wrong: "Keyword spamming is when people use words or details (such as brands, item condition, model names, pop culture terms, product names, style, and type) that have nothing to do with their items so that their listings will show up in search results. Since this clutters eBay and makes buying and selling more difficult, we don't allow keyword spamming (see also brand names)."

 

 

[Ryan.]

 

Dice is many things but thin skinned is not one of them.

 

 

[dopy02]

If someone types "cgc" in the search they are looking for something graded by CGC.

nutshell

 

Barbarian> nutjob

[spideysenses78]

I'm sure people see this one as well but I sometimes come across a title that has "not CGC'd".

[Doohickamabob]

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention: If a seller really believes his item is CGC-worthy, that raises the immediate question of why he doesn't get it graded himself? Putting "CGC it!" in the listing means the seller thinks CGC is a good company and that grading comics is a positive thing to do -- and yet the seller has failed to do the very thing he is recommending buyers to do. That makes no sense.

Just wanted to preface what I'm about to say by saying i'm not deliberately trying to argue with your as by and large we agree that it's misuse of CGC's name, it violates ebay policy and is an annoyance to many. Just bare with me for a sec.

That's cool, and based on what you've said I, too, can see we mostly agree.

 

There are probably many reasons why somebody would feel their book is CGC worthy yet not CGC it themselves. Maybe they think CGC's fees are too high. Perhaps they don't like the turnaround times or don't feel there would be an added monetary value enough to compensate for shipping, slabbing and waiting for the book to return. Maybe they understand that CGC is a great selling tool but themselves don't happen to like CGC or their grading standards. Maybe they have subbed in the past but right now feel the grading is too loose or too tight. My point is there are any number of reasons why somebody might not sub a book themselves and not all of them make the seller sketchy by default.

There is a strain of self-contradiction in most of the theoretical reasons you imagine above. For example, "Maybe they think CGC's fees are too high...." ...and yet they recommend that buyers subject themselves to those terrible fees? Etc.

 

A few reasons I can think of for a seller not getting a comic graded, while recommending it to others, would include: The seller is on a timeline and needs to sell the comic to get money now rather than later; The seller doesn't enjoy the somewhat tedious process of submitting/shipping comics to CGC even though he knows many others are comfortable doing so; The seller prefers to keep his personal collection unslabbed but knows that many collectors like their stuff slabbed. (I doubt those reasons apply to the majority of sellers who keyword-spam.)

[Doohickamabob]

Seems to me that either there are a lot of bored people on this site. Or a lot of panties twiested up. These are minor things on Ebay, and if you can't live with them. How on earth are you going to get along with a women? These things should be expected, and they are not against any rules or laws.

This is the ultimate in irony -- somebody reading and posting in a thread who then criticizes other people for the simple act of reading and posting in the same thread.

 

Anyway, a lot of panties "twiested" up? Get along with "a women"? An either/or statement chopped into two sentences? An if/then question chopped into two sentences? A false statement to the effect that keyword spamming is "not against any rules" (when eBay's rules were quoted at length)? There is a severe ongoing problem here in both remedial English and basic comprehension. You don't have a leg to stand on in criticizing anybody else.

Ha Ha. Yea, I was in a hurry and misspelled a word. Maybe didn't use perfect sentence structure either. Like my college english teacher told me on day one of class. Correct language skills is getting the point across. Did you get my point?

In a brief paragraph there were numerous mistakes. Being in a hurry does't explain the problems with sentence structure. Were you in a hurry this time as well? Look at this sentence you wrote:

 

"Like my college english teacher told me on day one of class. Correct language skills is getting the point across."

 

Once again you make a dependent clause into a stand-alone sentence. You have a real problem with this. (Is there some sort of auto-punctuation in your texting device?)

 

"Correct language skills is getting the point across," said your professor. True enough, but ongoing errors weaken the effort to get the point across. Language problems can undermine confidence in the author's skill set, judgment, education, attention to detail, and other elements that correlate with the idea of someone having a worthwhile point of view.

 

I apologize. I will try harder in the future. But I thought my internet opinion was just as valid as anyone elses, on this subject.

If you want respect for your opinion, make a case for it. You'll have to do better than the inherent self-contradiction of knocking others for spending time expressing themselves on an Internet message forum while you are doing the exact same thing.

 

But it does indicate perfectly my original thought. That some people on an INTERNET CHAT FORUM are anal retentive.

I don't think you got very far reading about Freudian analysis. That people pay attention to details does not make them "anal retentive" any more than having mood swings makes somebody "bipolar" or being concerned with self-image means somebody has "narcissistic personality disorder."

 

If my non-perfect typing bothers you to the point you just have to point it out and critize it. Then you have NO CHANCE of being able to accept lesser beings on Ebay, or anywhere else in the universe.

I pointed out your poor language skills because you insulted people for the sin of caring about the topic at hand enough to hash it out a bit.

 

So, you are in fact stating that Ebay forbids the use of "key" search words? Interesting take.

You should spend more time reading and less time knee-jerk responding. eBay doesn't "forbid the use of 'key' search words." It forbids the use of keywords that do not directly apply to the item being sold, added for the sole purpose of manipulating search results so the item is seen by users who were searching for something else.

 

Maybe you should contact them about those rule breakers. Make it your life mission. Or, you could just ignore them and move on. I find it the equivalent of spitting on the sidewalk where it is illegal to do so, (there are places where it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk).

People here have discussed the matter you bring up: That it is often futile to get eBay to enforce their own rules. Many people here have stated that they do "ignore them and move on," but nevertheless agree that keyword-spamming is lame, wrong, etc. and that "CGC it" does qualify as fitting the definition of keyword-spamming. You also fail to acknowledge a primary use of online forums: As a place to vent in spite of futility.

 

To me, this discussion also has a symbolic subtext about ethical behavior in general. The question you ask -- "What does it matter?" -- has different answers if applied to a single instance of an action versus ongoing and multiplied instances of an action. Scaled upward even small behaviors can have destructive consequences, which is a pattern we see more and more in the world these days.

 

Seriously. It ain't a big deal folks. The respondent referred to in the thread title, gave a reasonable explanation, that seems to have been honest to a degree more than most Ebay sellers are prone to do.

I don't think the respondent was honest. He claimed that he had accidentally put "CGC it" for hundreds of lower-grade books he did not intend to recommend as CGC worthy. He was either full of it or incompetent.

 

Quoting your posted Ebay policy, it is OBVIOUS that using CGC it, is NOT a violation of those rules. Every grade possible, is DONE with books to CGC. There are books pictured on here, of ASM 455 (or something similar or comparable), in grades like 5.5 or 6.5, CGC'ed. Therefore, ANY book of ANY grade can be (albeit infrequently), CGC'ed. Thus making the use on Ebay, valid and proper.

Here your argument rests on the false assumption that the only reason people think "CGC it" is keyword spamming is that the books being listed that way are not high enough grade.

 

I'll probably give up on this thread soon, but if you want to make an actual case for why either (1) keyword spamming has no negative consequences (even on a minor level), or (2) "CGC it" does not fit eBay's definition, then go for it.

[conditionfreak]

Seriously dude. You actually wrote the above with a straight face?

 

You have isues man. Deep issues.

 

A word of advice from me to you. Most here do not subscribe to being corrected as to their typing and grammer, on this internet chat forum. There have been others that have done that and they are a fainting history.

 

Did you really type these? Deep issues for sure.

 

"Once again you make a dependent clause into a stand-alone sentence."

 

"I don't think you got very far reading about Freudian analysis."

 

"has different answers if applied to a single instance of an action versus ongoing and multiplied instances of an action. Scaled upward even small behaviors can have destructive consequences, which is a pattern we see more and more in the world these days."

 

I will be glad to stop this discussion. I have stated my opinion about the subject. Now, we are just arguing about my lack of communication skills and your penchant for correcting them. I also am not the first one you have done this too. In this same thread even.

 

You "seem" to be the definition of the nerd type. You are on the correct forum. But you need to (IMO), stop correcting the communication skills of others. You got my point that I was making. Therefore my communication skills worked perfectly.

 

You sir, are a nitpicker. Get off of your high horse Sheldon. People are laughing. You may be one who is highly intelligent when it comes to communicating, and it just flows naturally. Or you may be one who types their internet chat forum posts on a note pad until you get them perfected. Then copy and paste. I don't know. But what I do know, is that you should not be correcting the postings here, when it comes to sentence or paragraph structure. Nor spelling and grammer. It is unseemly, and unappreciated.

 

Discuss the ideas. Debate the merits or facts. I am all for that. I love to debate. But I would not correct someones spelling mistakes. Unless I did it in a friendly or humorous way. I would not redicule or denegrate them. It is beneath me. It is beneath you. IMO. It adds nothing to a debate, except the attempt to denegrate the opposition.

 

So....do you want to debate further the Ebay question at hand? I have more ammunition ready, in that regard. Or do you want to debate the correct way to type nit-picker?

 

The FACT is, that Ebay allows what we were discussing before the english lessons. If they allow it. It becomes a precedence.that will and would stand scrutiny. Additionally, when selling comic books. It is absolutely proper and pertinant to suggest CGC grading as an option. No matter the grade. It is without merit to suggest otherwise. That should be obvious. If you want, I can post some pics of books that should never have been CGC'ed. But they were. Several threads here that are titled something along the lines of "Did someone really get this P.O.S. book graded by CGC?". We all laugh about it. We even discuss doing something with it (or them), like auction it off for charity or mailing it around to each other. Without it being packaged.

 

 

[hockey&comicsguy]

There is a strain of self-contradiction in most of the theoretical reasons you imagine above. For example, "Maybe they think CGC's fees are too high...." ...and yet they recommend that buyers subject themselves to those terrible fees? Etc.

 

 

I personally can think CGC's fees are too high for me to pay. But I can also understand it's value as a service and suggest that somebody else might want to pony up their dough for that. And what someone else does with their money is their business. There's nothing contradictory at all about that. If I were to think CGC's fees are too high and decided to pay them myself, that would be contradictory. But what you do with your dime is on you.

 

A few reasons I can think of for a seller not getting a comic graded, while recommending it to others, would include: The seller is on a timeline and needs to sell the comic to get money now rather than later; The seller doesn't enjoy the somewhat tedious process of submitting/shipping comics to CGC even though he knows many others are comfortable doing so; The seller prefers to keep his personal collection unslabbed but knows that many collectors like their stuff slabbed. (I doubt those reasons apply to the majority of sellers who keyword-spam.)

 

Yes, these are other legit reasons I listed.

 

Essentially, any reason I have for not slabbing a book has no bearing on whether or not somebody else decides to slab said book. And my motivation can be nothing more than honesty about the book's condition and an acceptance of CGC's worth to people in the marketplace. So to go back to the basic nut here, there are numerous reasons why somebody would choose not to slab yet still suggest someone else may want to. Those reasons need not be contradictory nor an indication in any way whatsoever as to the character of the seller.

 

I haven't subbed a book in years. While I wouldn't keyword spam one of my listings I would have no problem recommending one of my books might be a high grade or otherwise slab-able candidate in one of my listings. So again, to answer your question in regards to why wouldn't the seller just slab it themselves, there are numerous reasons why and those reasons do not, by default indicate anything underhanded about the seller. About the only thing you can glean from such activity is a motivation to drive hits and/or make money. Neither of which is out of the realm of ordinary behavior.

 

 

You mentioned a "string" of contradictions yet only gave one example. I think I have shown that there's nothing contradictory about that example. Do you have others?

Not trying to argue but I think it's important to address/discuss if there's something you see in my reasoning that you don't think jives.

 

 

[Doohickamabob]

Seriously dude. You actually wrote the above with a straight face? You have isues man. Deep issues.

Sure man. Whatever.

 

A word of advice from me to you. Most here do not subscribe to being corrected as to their typing and grammer, on this internet chat forum.

"Grammer." What's this you're saying about Kelsey?

 

Now, we are just arguing about my lack of communication skills and your penchant for correcting them.

Not really. I am mainly intersted in discussing the subject of keyword spamming. (In spite of evidence to the contrary in this message...)

 

I also am not the first one you have done this too. In this same thread even.

What's that you say, Snagglepuss? Done this "too"? Heavens to Murgatroyd.

 

You "seem" to be the definition of the nerd type.

Remember in "Revenge of the Nerds" when they obliterate the jocks with a new wave song? I'm Booger Presley on the mean guitar.

 

But you need to (IMO), stop correcting the communication skills of others.

Oops, too late. Your trouble with English does give insight into why you resent people who care about attention to detail.

 

You got my point that I was making. Therefore my communication skills worked perfectly.

If they worked perfectly, why are your arguments so unconvincing?

 

But what I do know, is that you should not be correcting the postings here, when it comes to sentence or paragraph structure. Nor spelling and grammer. It is unseemly, and unappreciated.

Again with the "grammer." Is that a form of cracker? As I said before, I wouldn't even have started in on you if you hadn't insulted everybody for the sin of having an opinion about the subject at hand.

 

Discuss the ideas. Debate the merits or facts. I am all for that.

If this were true -- that you are "all for" sticking to the ideas -- then your entire post is hypocrisy. You have barely discussed the topic of keyword spamming here. Then when you finally do, you get the fundamentals wrong.

 

I love to debate. But I would not correct someones spelling mistakes.

"Would not" meaning "can't." By the way, you missed an apostrophe.

 

Unless I did it in a friendly or humorous way.

You've really demonstrated your skills in those departments.

 

I would not redicule or denegrate them. It is beneath me.

Ridicule... Denigrate...

 

It is beneath you. IMO. It adds nothing to a debate, except the attempt to denegrate the opposition.

I don't see you setting a higher example here.

 

Or do you want to debate the correct way to type nit-picker?

I think you actually got that one right.

 

The FACT is, that Ebay allows what we were discussing before the english lessons.

They "allow" keyword spamming de facto due to lack of consistent enforcement, but that is not the question. The question is whether keyword spamming meets eBay's guidelines or rules (de jure), and the principles behind those guidelines. It does not.

 

It becomes a precedence.that will and would stand scrutiny.

What were you were saying about communication skills again? "It becomes a precedence that will and would stand scrutiny." Hmm.

 

It is absolutely proper and pertinant to suggest CGC grading as an option. No matter the grade. It is without merit to suggest otherwise.

("Pertinant...") So the totality of your argument is to repeat a blanket assertion over and over without giving reasons for that assertion. I doubt anybody reading you is swayed.

 

Your comment of "no matter the grade" again demonstrates you do not understand the rationale for there being rules against keyword spamming, since these rules/guidelines have nothing to do with the question of whether the comic is in adequate condition and everything to do with the use of a non-directly-relevant term to manipulate search results.

 

If you want, I can post some pics of books that should never have been CGC'ed. But they were. Several threads here that are titled something along the lines of "Did someone really get this P.O.S. book graded by CGC?".

Again, the question of whether a book is actually CGC-worthy has no bearing on the separate question of whether keyword spamming is right or should be allowed. If you'd read or comprehended the quoted guidelines by eBay, you'd know this.

 

Here are some questions for you to address:

 

(1) Do you know the precise definition of "keyword spamming"? In your own words, paraphrase what the definition is. Let's see if you understand it.

 

(2) Do you know why "keyword spamming" is deemed by eBay and others to have a net negative effect on the integrity of the search process? In your own words, describe the basic reasoning behind eBay's policy.

 

(3) Do you understand why the use of "CGC it" (and similar terms) qualifies to meet the definition of "keyword spamming"? In your own words, give a detailed explanation for how "CGC it" relates to the definition of "keyword spamming" -- what the connection might be.

[Doohickamabob]

I personally can think CGC's fees are too high for me to pay. But I can also understand it's value as a service and suggest that somebody else might want to pony up their dough for that. And what someone else does with their money is their business. There's nothing contradictory at all about that.

There is a minor contradiction there, if not a major one. A statement to the effect of "I would never do this, but you should!" always contains some level of contradiction -- even if the person saying it is sincere in his rationale.

 

So to go back to the basic nut here, there are numerous reasons why somebody would choose not to slab yet still suggest someone else may want to. Those reasons need not be contradictory nor an indication in any way whatsoever as to the character of the seller.

You're right, the reasons for recommending slabbing need not be an indication as to the character of the seller. However, that's not what I said: I said placing that recommendation within the title of a listing, in spite of known guidelines to the contrary, does give some level of indication that the seller's character might be lacking.

 

So again, to answer your question in regards to why wouldn't the seller just slab it themselves, there are numerous reasons why and those reasons do not, by default indicate anything underhanded about the seller.

Key words here are "do not, by default." You're right -- there is the wiggle room to also interpret it as the seller being innocent and simply ignorant of the guidelines. Over time there is less excuse for that ignorance, though, especially when years go by and the same sellers still haven't learned the basics, and are repeating the same mistakes hundreds of times.

 

About the only thing you can glean from such activity is a motivation to drive hits and/or make money. Neither of which is out of the realm of ordinary behavior.

When the seller knows the guidelines and willfully avoids following them, then it's not a matter of just "wanting to make money" like everybody else. It suggests a disdain for principled behavior, and experience has proven that people who lack principled behavior in one area will be likely to lack it in another. A person might be very, very motivated to make money and still firmly decide not to keyword-spam.

 

You mentioned a "string" of contradictions yet only gave one example. I think I have shown that there's nothing contradictory about that example. Do you have others?

I actually was going to go through all of your examples but the contradictions were all pretty similar, especially as many of your examples were similar.

 

Seriously, though, does any of this matter on this fine Sunday? I leave you with this video as what you REALLY ought to take away from this entire conversation.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

Seriously, though, does any of this matter on this fine Sunday? I leave you with this video as what you REALLY ought to take away from this entire conversation.

 

Who wouldn't want a watermelon eating cat?

 

One last thing about about the inherent contradiction issue; you have to remember that we're talking about this as if we would know the seller's reason(s) for not slabbing their own book. Unless specified by the seller, we'd have no idea why the book isn't slabbed. So going into it there would be no obvious contradiction b/c you wouldn't know why the book isn't slabbed to begin with. Remember that suggesting somebody else do something doesn't indicate that I wouldn't do it myself. A book not being slabbed doesn't mean I wouldn't slab it. It just is what it is, a raw book. Now if I said, I hate CGC, their service stinks and I'd never use it, now please buy my book and CGC it, that would appear contradictory. It's all in language.

 

In the end we're obviously on the same side of this debate. I just believe there's some wiggle room with regards to painting all seller's who behave this way as sketchy, for lack of a better term. Honest mistakes are made by honest folk all the time. By and large though the keyword spammers know the rules and choose to ignore them and in the end ebay cares about policing this stuff about as much as I care to be in small bathroom with Dice when he has a bowel movement.

 

 

ok, time to drink, grill and be merry with the in-laws. Sundays

[Racer-X]

. been quiet for hours. does this mean beer and burgers can put an end to any ugly dispute? or is it hanging with the in-laws?

 

[conditionfreak]

Here are some questions for you to address:

 

(1) Do you know the precise definition of "keyword spamming"? In your own words, paraphrase what the definition is. Let's see if you understand it.

 

Answer: Yes, and go kiss yourself.

 

(2) Do you know why "keyword spamming" is deemed by eBay and others to have a net negative effect on the integrity of the search process? In your own words, describe the basic reasoning behind eBay's policy.

 

Answer: Yes, and bite me.

 

(3) Do you understand why the use of "CGC it" (and similar terms) qualifies to meet the definition of "keyword spamming"? In your own words, give a detailed explanation for how "CGC it" relates to the definition of "keyword spamming" -- what the connection might be.

 

Answer: Wrong, and bite me again.

 

Who the heck do you think you are? Giving me homework. And what the heck is up with all of those dashes and double dashes in your sentences?

 

I know that you and TFTCVOHHOFSSS, are one and the same. That is shilling.

 

So....

 

Here are some questions for you to address:

 

(1) Are you aware that shill accounts on this site-are forbidden? In your own words. Explain how it is-that a brand new member here, is backing up your statements, and sounds a lot like you wrote his responses.

 

(2) Do you know why "shilling" is deemed by this site and others to have a net negative effect on the integrity of this site? In your own words, describe the basic reasoning behind this sites policy against shilling.

 

(3) Do you understand why "shilling" on this site, or any internet site, indicates a form of mental illness? In one thousand words or more, explain in your own words-why "shilling" should not be condoned by any web site. Including ebay or the Collectors Society web site.

 

You crack me up sir. I will leave you with a web site that explains all anyone needs to know-about this debate between you and I.

 

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

 

Read it. Study it. Comprehend it. It will be enlightening.

 

[hockey&comicsguy]

Here are some questions for you to address:

 

(1) Do you know the precise definition of "keyword spamming"? In your own words, paraphrase what the definition is. Let's see if you understand it.

 

Answer: Yes, and go kiss yourself.

 

(2) Do you know why "keyword spamming" is deemed by eBay and others to have a net negative effect on the integrity of the search process? In your own words, describe the basic reasoning behind eBay's policy.

 

Answer: Yes, and bite me.

 

(3) Do you understand why the use of "CGC it" (and similar terms) qualifies to meet the definition of "keyword spamming"? In your own words, give a detailed explanation for how "CGC it" relates to the definition of "keyword spamming" -- what the connection might be.

 

Answer: Wrong, and bite me again.

 

Who the heck do you think you are? Giving me homework. And what the heck is up with all of those dashes and double dashes in your sentences?

 

I know that you and TFTCVOHHOFSSS, are one and the same. That is shilling.

 

So....

 

Here are some questions for you to address:

 

(1) Are you aware that shill accounts on this site-are forbidden? In your own words. Explain how it is-that a brand new member here, is backing up your statements, and sounds a lot like you wrote his responses.

 

(2) Do you know why "shilling" is deemed by this site and others to have a net negative effect on the integrity of this site? In your own words, describe the basic reasoning behind this sites policy against shilling.

 

(3) Do you understand why "shilling" on this site, or any internet site, indicates a form of mental illness? In one thousand words or more, explain in your own words-why "shilling" should not be condoned by any web site. Including ebay or the Collectors Society web site.

 

You crack me up sir. I will leave you with a web site that explains all anyone needs to know-about this debate between you and I.

 

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

 

Read it. Study it. Comprehend it. It will be enlightening.

 

I assume you meant for this to be a response to Doohickamabob and not to me.

[hockey&comicsguy]

. been quiet for hours. does this mean beer and burgers can put an end to any ugly dispute? or is it hanging with the in-laws?

 

 

The discussion I've been having with Doohickamabob has been enjoyable for me, no disrespect from either party, just honest discussion.

 

But to answer your question anyway, hanging with the in laws usually jumps to the front of the list of any problems one might be having at the moment.

[conditionfreak]

Here are some questions for you to address:

 

(1) Do you know the precise definition of "keyword spamming"? In your own words, paraphrase what the definition is. Let's see if you understand it.

 

Answer: Yes, and go kiss yourself.

 

(2) Do you know why "keyword spamming" is deemed by eBay and others to have a net negative effect on the integrity of the search process? In your own words, describe the basic reasoning behind eBay's policy.

 

Answer: Yes, and bite me.

 

(3) Do you understand why the use of "CGC it" (and similar terms) qualifies to meet the definition of "keyword spamming"? In your own words, give a detailed explanation for how "CGC it" relates to the definition of "keyword spamming" -- what the connection might be.

 

Answer: Wrong, and bite me again.

 

Who the heck do you think you are? Giving me homework. And what the heck is up with all of those dashes and double dashes in your sentences?

 

I know that you and TFTCVOHHOFSSS, are one and the same. That is shilling.

 

So....

 

Here are some questions for you to address:

 

(1) Are you aware that shill accounts on this site-are forbidden? In your own words. Explain how it is-that a brand new member here, is backing up your statements, and sounds a lot like you wrote his responses.

 

(2) Do you know why "shilling" is deemed by this site and others to have a net negative effect on the integrity of this site? In your own words, describe the basic reasoning behind this sites policy against shilling.

 

(3) Do you understand why "shilling" on this site, or any internet site, indicates a form of mental illness? In one thousand words or more, explain in your own words-why "shilling" should not be condoned by any web site. Including ebay or the Collectors Society web site.

 

You crack me up sir. I will leave you with a web site that explains all anyone needs to know-about this debate between you and I.

 

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

 

Read it. Study it. Comprehend it. It will be enlightening.

 

I assume you meant for this to be a response to Doohickamabob and not to me.

 

Of course. I quit talking with you a long time ago. I was addressing Bob.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

Of course. I quit talking with you a long time ago. I was addressing Bob.

 

 

ok.

 

I thought we were kosher. Apparently not.

[Dr. Balls]

 

Of course. I quit talking with you a long time ago. I was addressing Bob.

 

 

ok.

 

I thought we were kosher. Apparently not.

 

Yowch. Talk about the

[Dr. Balls]

Do you know the precise definition of "keyword spamming"? In your own words, paraphrase what the definition is. Let's see if you understand it.

 

The operative word used to describe the definition of spam is "Unrelated" - i.e., "It involves a number of methods, such as repeating unrelated phrases, to manipulate the relevance or prominence of resources indexed in a manner inconsistent with the purpose of the indexing system."

 

What I'm getting at is I think Ebay might be letting this slide because, although misleading, the phrase 'CGC it' is not unrelated. Is this what conditionfreak is driving at?

[Kenners]

I think I can boil all these pages down to one simple thing.

 

When I do a search on eBay for CGC's, I want to see the results come back to me for what the item "is" .. Not what it "could" be.

 

*spoon*ing infuriating when I'm looking for slabs, and *spoon*loads of raw books come up in the results!