• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sandman Movie!

Started by jonjesper,

324 posts in this topic

Mike's Rack

Mike's Rack

Posted
Posted
Shouldn't the burden of proof lay with the one who 1st made a claim? (shrug)

burden of proof is equally relevant to all claims, 1st, 2nd, nth.

 

lets make a Comic General thread and talk about :)

 

 

That's correct...the burden of proof is "equally relevant" (actually, "equally applicable") to all CLAIMS.

 

Saying "this is not true" is not a claim.

 

It is a refutation of it.

 

The burden does not lay with the one who challenged, but the one with the claim.

 

Awesome! A burden of proof debate! Where are the lawyers? :popcorn:

The burden of proof is actually a two fold analysis. First, it must be determined who bears the burden. This is typically the one who levies the accusation or makes the claim, in a criminal case, this would be the State and in a civil matter it would be the plaintiff. There are situations where the burden shifts but no one cares about those. The second question is how high is the burden. Generally, the higher the consequences, the greater the burden. The highest burden in most modern legal systems is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the burden the State faces when it seeks to take one's liberty (historically, there have been stricter burdens including beyond all doubt but in those situations, the jury was comprised of witnesses to the crime so meeting this burden was not as difficult as it might first appear.)

 

It is tough to determine the burden that a claimant should bear in this type of debate. Honestly, I don't give a fudge but I will say, when we get past the condescending prattle, I usually learn something from these spats and for that (thumbs u

 

meh

 

This is a PHILOSOPHIC burden of proof situation, as opposed to a LEGAL burden of proof...and half your last paragraph was deleted because of your use of the "eff" word.

 

That's such a special word, the mods set it up so that it obliterates 47 words before it.

 

:popcorn:

I forgot the fallout from the f word takes out all the words around it. I was having fun on my soapbox. Blame Jeff for asking for a lawyer. (shrug)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
RMA say the word and THE MAXX/KIETH army will descend on this thread like Superman after too many glasses of iced tea (he has to go to the bathroom)

 

someone trying to derail a thread with trolling does not involve back talking. But i'll happily put down anyone who tries to pass lies as facts, or play games with words.

 

That includes a whole army of kryptonians ;)

 

Ok, CBT, you've made your point...multiple times.

 

One more time, for those in the cheap seats: challenging someone's claim is NOT "trolling" them, no matter how much you wish it was, or how many times you say it is. You were wrong; be a man and own it. Quit trying to wriggle out of it.

 

And if you're going to ignore someone, IGNORE THEM. Putting someone on ignore and then continuing to talk ABOUT them is not ignoring them.

 

meh

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBT

CBT

Posted
Posted
Someone call in teh Maxx army?

 

his haters club is as big as his fan club, trust me, they just message in private.

 

He trolled, had no facts, and cant move on. If that's something you want to defend, by all means go for it.

 

I'll stick to answering and helping the OP with his requests, and educating people, including RMA apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBT

CBT

Posted
Posted

Haha, yeah I'll relieve you of the burden of when to sell. There's no time better than now!! :takeit:

 

if you bought several years ago, and have multiples, definitely is a great time to sell. If I was looking to buy, I'd probably wait a month or two.

 

Just like you dont want to sell when there is tons of supply available. You dont want to be a buyer, when supply has been gobbled up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBT

CBT

Posted
Posted
Yeah I hear you, just was seeing if someone wanted to give me a decent price on one. Just really bad timing for me, what a difference a week can make. So frustrating...

 

no doubt, I've been in that boat lots of times for stuff i wanted. as hard as it is, sometimes the best move is to wait it out.

 

For SS stuff, probably cant wait, but if just chasing the blue, let the mad scramble die down and see where it is in a month or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Yeah I hear you, just was seeing if someone wanted to give me a decent price on one. Just really bad timing for me, what a difference a week can make. So frustrating...

 

No offense meant to you, but unfortunately that statement won't bring the sellers running. And as strong as the content is in this series throughout, those prices may not cool as much as some may hope.

 

This series was always the perfect storm looking for a place to come ashore. All it needed was the right news bump to make it explode again. First with the return of Gaiman to follow up on the series, and now the movie news.

 

GLWTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awakeintheashes

awakeintheashes

Posted
Posted
By the way....there's a Sandman #1 on eBay 9.8 SS signed by Kieth and McKean....it's literally the last one left out of about 10 that were up or were put up in the last week. Crazy!

 

:whistle:

 

The one being sent to VA is heading to a good home :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
Shouldn't the burden of proof lay with the one who 1st made a claim? (shrug)

burden of proof is equally relevant to all claims, 1st, 2nd, nth.

 

lets make a Comic General thread and talk about :)

 

 

That's correct...the burden of proof is "equally relevant" (actually, "equally applicable") to all CLAIMS.

 

Saying "this is not true" is not a claim.

 

It is a refutation of it.

 

The burden does not lay with the one who challenged, but the one with the claim.

 

Awesome! A burden of proof debate! Where are the lawyers? :popcorn:

The burden of proof is actually a two fold analysis. First, it must be determined who bears the burden. This is typically the one who levies the accusation or makes the claim, in a criminal case, this would be the State and in a civil matter it would be the plaintiff. There are situations where the burden shifts but no one cares about those. The second question is how high is the burden. Generally, the higher the consequences, the greater the burden. The highest burden in most modern legal systems is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the burden the State faces when it seeks to take one's liberty (historically, there have been stricter burdens including beyond all doubt but in those situations, the jury was comprised of witnesses to the crime so meeting this burden was not as difficult as it might first appear.)

 

It is tough to determine the burden that a claimant should bear in this type of debate. Honestly, I don't give a fudge but I will say, when we get past the condescending prattle, I usually learn something from these spats and for that (thumbs u

 

meh

 

This is a PHILOSOPHIC burden of proof situation, as opposed to a LEGAL burden of proof...and half your last paragraph was deleted because of your use of the "eff" word.

 

That's such a special word, the mods set it up so that it obliterates 47 words before it.

 

:popcorn:

I forgot the fallout from the f word takes out all the words around it. I was having fun on my soapbox. Blame Jeff for asking for a lawyer. (shrug)

 

:acclaim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
Shouldn't the burden of proof lay with the one who 1st made a claim? (shrug)

burden of proof is equally relevant to all claims, 1st, 2nd, nth.

 

lets make a Comic General thread and talk about :)

 

 

That's correct...the burden of proof is "equally relevant" (actually, "equally applicable") to all CLAIMS.

 

Saying "this is not true" is not a claim.

 

It is a refutation of it.

 

The burden does not lay with the one who challenged, but the one with the claim.

 

Awesome! A burden of proof debate! Where are the lawyers? :popcorn:

The burden of proof is actually a two fold analysis. First, it must be determined who bears the burden. This is typically the one who levies the accusation or makes the claim, in a criminal case, this would be the State and in a civil matter it would be the plaintiff. There are situations where the burden shifts but no one cares about those. The second question is how high is the burden. Generally, the higher the consequences, the greater the burden. The highest burden in most modern legal systems is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the burden the State faces when it seeks to take one's liberty (historically, there have been stricter burdens including beyond all doubt but in those situations, the jury was comprised of witnesses to the crime so meeting this burden was not as difficult as it might first appear.)

 

It is tough to determine the burden that a claimant should bear in this type of debate. Honestly, I don't give a fudge but I will say, when we get past the condescending prattle, I usually learn something from these spats and for that (thumbs u

 

meh

 

This is a PHILOSOPHIC burden of proof situation, as opposed to a LEGAL burden of proof...and half your last paragraph was deleted because of your use of the "eff" word.

 

That's such a special word, the mods set it up so that it obliterates 47 words before it.

 

:popcorn:

I forgot the fallout from the f word takes out all the words around it. I was having fun on my soapbox. Blame Jeff for asking for a lawyer. (shrug)

 

:acclaim:

"FFFFF!"

 

:whee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing