When you receive a different CGC book than was pictured

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think what this thread illustrates is that even honest sellers and buyers don't always agree on what constitutes a flaw that needs to be disclosed.

 

This thread doesn't illustrate that at all.

 

Yes it does

 

All the flaws you brought up, everyone agreed it was important to disclose.

 

Eventually everyone agreed. But not at first. Which is the point.

 

At first, youmechoose didn't even seem to feel that a cracked case violated his rule that all modern 9.8s are the same:

 

I stand by what I said. The plastic case might not look the same, in this case cracked, but that book probably does.

 

Only after I asked him if he would have sold the book with those cracks in it without disclosure did he come around on that one point. But then he still insisted there was nothing else wrong with the book:

 

If there was no damage, you couldn't tell the difference between that slab or the picture you saw in the listing except for the Cgc serial number.

 

So then I pointed out the other flaws in the book, which are plainly obvious to me from the photos, but apparently not to him, and he changed his tune again:

 

If the paper is showing and there is fluff inside the case, completely different story.

 

The point is, he didn't see those flaws, or didn't seem to think they were important until AFTER they were pointed out to him, so he would not have disclosed those flaws if he were the seller of this book, without me there to help him see the flaws. How on earth could he disclose flaws he didn't know were there, or didn't think constituted flaws? Remember, in his opinion, it was impossible to tell the difference between that book and any other 9.8. It's right there in bold. So, clearly, he did NOT agree on what needed to be disclosed about that book.

 

As youmechoose has already pointed out, you are completely misrepresenting what he said and the context in which he said it. To your first point, he was talking specifically about the look of a book itself, and ONLY about the aesthetics of a book ITSELF. And, though I will grant you it certainly might be implied that he said what you claim he said, the fact is, a few posts later, he not only clarified it, but made it clear that he wasn't talking about the specific flaws you were referring to (note the use of the word "probably"), and not only that, made it clear that he doesn't always communicate in precisely correct ways all the time (hence, the initial discrepancy.)

 

In other words....the statement you claim he made, that the crack and other flaws "didn't need to be disclosed" (until you pointed them out to him) is not even close to what he was talking about. He was talking about GENERIC PRINCIPLES, and you were talking about a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.

 

You could not BE further apart in understanding at that point!

 

You call it "changing his tune." I call it "not talking about the same thing in the first place." I do not blame youmechoose for getting frustrated with you at all.

 

At that point, you should have accepted his clarification as his actual position, instead of bringing it up again and claiming that he kept "changing his position." He didn't need you to "point them out to him" because he wasn't talking about that specific book in the first place. As he made abundantly clear, once you and he were on the same page, talking about that specific book, he acknowledged that he absolutely would disclose all of those problems. He said it, you were unclear what he was referring to, he clarified it, and you refused to accept his clarification.

 

Dirty pool.

 

So, yes, this thread most certainly does illustrate that not everyone sees the same flaws, or agrees on what should be disclosed. And that's why photos matter.

 

Except that's not what happened. At all.

 

Look, I'm all up for the debate, and the exchange of ideas. I love it, back and forth and learning from one another is a wonderful thing.

 

But when the debate turns into an argument, and insults start creeping their way into the discussion, when people devolve to "in your face!!" commentary at a perceived semantic victory, and when other people's positions and statements are misrepresented, and worse, their clarifications are REFUSED in favor of your interpretation of their "original statements"...that's when it becomes a waste of time.

 

If (and I'm not suggesting you are, but if) you're just trying to wind people up into an argument, be honest about it. That way, no one wastes time thinking people are genuinely interested in the exchange.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The problem I have with the phrase as it is "used in the vernacular", is that the usage is pretty idiotic - people throw that out as an excuse for their sloppy use of language, that the fact that the absolute they stated isn't true because there are things that don't follow the rule is somehow proof that the rule IS correct.

 

Pondering this further, while walking the dog.

 

While I agree with the philosophical idea that there are very few genuine absolutes in the world, and that the deviation to a claimed absolute is not necessarily proof of the veracity of that standard or absolute, the truth is, in the realm of manufacturing, there is a standard, a model, to which the resultant products must adhere. In that sense, there is an absolute: the model.

 

When there is an example of the product which does not meet the standards of the model, it is considered defective. It is the "exception" to the "rule." Does it "make" or "prove" the standard is correct (or "best?) Not directly. But without the standard, without the model, no one would know if a resultant example was defective or perfect. Therefore, because the standard is defined, we know when we encounter a deviation; the deviation shows the merit of the standard, and thus is "proven" to be true.

 

Ehhh....shaky, but not without merit.

[kav]

I think there are absolutes in physics-eg all matter exerts a gravitational field.

[ttfitz]

 

The problem I have with the phrase as it is "used in the vernacular", is that the usage is pretty idiotic - people throw that out as an excuse for their sloppy use of language, that the fact that the absolute they stated isn't true because there are things that don't follow the rule is somehow proof that the rule IS correct.

 

More to the point, if you don't see that "They are all alike, unless they aren't" is a meaningless statement, there's really no need to continue. Although I suspect you do realize this, you just like to argue.

 

Which is fine with me, I'm always like that, too, except for now.

 

I disagree completely, and have made the points necessary to support my position. I like to discuss. I do not like to argue. I also won't suggest that anything you've said is "idiotic" or otherwise insult you and what you've said, because that's what people who just like to argue do. When anyone becomes insulting in a discussion, they've lost control of their emotions (however briefly), and allowed their personal feelings to overcome their ability to make a rational argument and stand by it.

 

If you happen to think the earth is a flat disc around which revolves the sun, moon, and stars, others will insult you and call you stupid. I will not (well...mostly. I am human. But I will make the effort.) Suffice it to say, I'm not going to call anyone's arguments"idiotic" or any other such insult, no matter what my personal opinion about them is, nor how obtuse I think they are being.

 

I do doff my hat to you for a vigorous debate.

 

I already pointed out, at great length, why they are "all alike", except the ones that have flaws, which is contrary to design and intention. If you wish to oversimplify the statement to "they are all alike, unless they aren't", you are free to do so....but *you* are then the one oversimplifying the point to its meaninglessness.

 

The fact is still the fact: in a picture, modern 9.8 slabs of the same book are functionally identical, unless there's a flaw, which is then disclosed.

 

 

Before I let this one go, I just wanted to point out a couple things - first off, I didn't call your arguments "idiotic", I called the popular usage of "exception that proves the rule" idiotic. Some usages are wrong, no matter how popular they might be - the use of "literally" when meaning the exact opposite is another example. The fact that you twisted my statement to being about your argument instead points to the notion that you are perhaps in the midst of one of those "losing control of your emotions" events you mention.

 

Secondly, as for who is oversimplifying, you may recall I entered this conversation with a simple question. I asked:

 

...your (informal) argument is that modern 9.8 books are all alike, unless they aren't?

 

Your response ended with:

 

Those comics are all alike, unless they aren't.

 

Just to make sure, I said:

 

Okay, so your argument IS that they are all alike, unless they aren't. Thanks.

 

And your response was:

 

That is the essence of "the exception that makes the rule", yes.

 

So while I suppose I was the one to use that phrase in questioning you, you appear to agree with the formulation. So you are welcome to change your mind about agreeing if you like, but I don't think I can be accused of being the one oversimplifying to meaninglessness. Your statement here of " they are 'all alike', except the ones that have flaws" is no less meaningless.

 

And I will also doff my hat to you for vigorous debate, as I bid you adieu.

[ttfitz]

When there is an example of the product which does not meet the standards of the model, it is considered defective. It is the "exception" to the "rule." Does it "make" or "prove" the standard is correct (or "best?) Not directly. But without the standard, without the model, no one would know if a resultant example was defective or perfect. Therefore, because the standard is defined, we know when we encounter a deviation; the deviation shows the merit of the standard, and thus is "proven" to be true.

 

Ehhh....shaky, but not without merit.

 

I would say this notion fits with the definition I spoke of, where "prove" means "to test".

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Before I let this one go, I just wanted to point out a couple things - first off, I didn't call your arguments "idiotic", I called the popular usage of "exception that proves the rule" idiotic. Some usages are wrong, no matter how popular they might be - the use of "literally" when meaning the exact opposite is another example. The fact that you twisted my statement to being about your argument instead points to the notion that you are perhaps in the midst of one of those "losing control of your emotions" events you mention.

 

 

I advocated the popular use of the phrase, which use you called idiotic.

 

What, then, is the resultant implication....?

 

As to your claim that your statement was twisted, rather than simply misinterpreted...that's an assumption on your part, is it not?

 

It's true, if I "twisted" your statement, your suggestion would be correct...I would be making an emotional response.

 

However, if it was a simple misinterpretation of your comments...as you have claimed...than a simple explanation would resolve it. And, if I accept said explanation...which I do....how, then, can it be suggested that my response is an emotional one?

 

Secondly, as for who is oversimplifying, you may recall I entered this conversation with a simple question. I asked:

 

...your (informal) argument is that modern 9.8 books are all alike, unless they aren't?

 

Your response ended with:

 

Those comics are all alike, unless they aren't.

 

Just to make sure, I said:

 

Okay, so your argument IS that they are all alike, unless they aren't. Thanks.

 

And your response was:

 

That is the essence of "the exception that makes the rule", yes.

 

You'll note who first suggested the "they are all alike, unless they aren't."

 

Since it is an oversimplification, and the contextual explanations that have already been made have been cut out of the above, there's not much more that can be said. You have oversimplified the oversimplification.

 

So while I suppose I was the one to use that phrase in questioning you, you appear to agree with the formulation. So you are welcome to change your mind about agreeing if you like, but I don't think I can be accused of being the one oversimplifying to meaninglessness. Your statement here of " they are 'all alike', except the ones that have flaws" is no less meaningless.

 

Without the contextual explanations, you would be correct. Put back in the contextual explanations, and your argument fails. That is, after all, the point of clarification and elucidation.

 

And I will also doff my hat to you for vigorous debate, as I bid you adieu.

 

Farewell!

[RockMyAmadeus]

When there is an example of the product which does not meet the standards of the model, it is considered defective. It is the "exception" to the "rule." Does it "make" or "prove" the standard is correct (or "best?) Not directly. But without the standard, without the model, no one would know if a resultant example was defective or perfect. Therefore, because the standard is defined, we know when we encounter a deviation; the deviation shows the merit of the standard, and thus is "proven" to be true.

 

Ehhh....shaky, but not without merit.

 

I would say this notion fits with the definition I spoke of, where "prove" means "to test".

 

I thought you bid me adieu...!

 

[bababooey]

[kav]

All CG arguments are the same-unless they're not.

[RockMyAmadeus]

All CG arguments are the same-unless they're not.

 

:smirk:

 

There are many important things that can be learned from disagreement....and not always the obvious things.

 

HOW someone disagrees tells me as much, if not more, about a person than WHY they disagree.

 

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

I learned that I don't read walls of text.

[kav]

I learned that I don't read walls of text.

What about walls of Voodoo?

[kav]

All CG arguments are the same-unless they're not.

 

:smirk:

 

There are many important things that can be learned from disagreement....and not always the obvious things.

 

HOW someone disagrees tells me as much, if not more, about a person than WHY they disagree.

 

Oh yeah.....

[RockMyAmadeus]

I learned that I don't read walls of text.

 

Quiet, you!

[ttfitz]

 

I thought you bid me adieu...!

 

 

Immediately after which, I saw you and I were cross-posting, so I slowed down at the door to quickly acknowledge your response.

[kav]

What if you guys suddenly realized you agreed with each other the whole time?

[Darkowl]

Kav, you've gotta be my favorite member on these boards. You have the ability to inject humor throughout entire heated arguments without ever getting caught up in them. Thats a talent and a skill that most people don't have (especially on here), and I don't know if anyone on here is as good at it as you. I commend you for your rare talent and breath of fresh air you bring to these boards. I think we could all learn something from you. I genuinely mean that

[ttfitz]

What if you guys suddenly realized you agreed with each other the whole time?

 

WHAT??? NEVER!!!!!

 

 

[kav]

Kav, you've gotta be my favorite member on these boards. You have the ability to inject humor throughout entire heated arguments without ever getting caught up in them. Thats a talent and a skill that most people don't have (especially on here), and I don't know if anyone on here is as good at it as you. I commend you for your rare talent and breath of fresh air you bring to these boards. I think we could all learn something from you. I genuinely mean that

[The-Collector]

 

Why not? What's the difference?

 

I'm not always comfortable with the grade CGC assigns a book. I know buyers are the same way.

 

 

 

It's not a matter of if you think there is a difference between cgc books of the same grade. What matters is if eBay does. Would they consider it to be not as described? Does anyone for certain? They allow stock photos, after all.

 

Just because ebay lets you get away with it does not mean it is morally correct.