Chuck explains his Mile High pricing

[dupont2005]

 

Um, actually, no, there isn't an example of that almost happening, there is an example of someone possibly having maybe gone to MH and could have bought something that her husband, you, me, and the butcher's son would consider overpriced. That's a long way off from your "paying $1600 for a $5 book." Which, by the way, is 31,900% overvalued.

 

And, once again, didn't actually happen.

 

There's certainly plenty to criticize about his pricing without making up ridiculous stuff.

Assuming he's sold something in his shop in forty years of business is not making up ridiculous stuff. Assuming he hasn't is.

 

Under what other scenario could any of those books have possibly sold?

 

Are you even reading what you are writing here? You said the only possible way Chuck has sold a book listed on his site at $1600 was if some unsuspecting fool bought a book that was really only worth $5. "... but if we assume he's EVER sold ANYTHING with a pricetag that high in his shop, it happened. That's the only way it could possibly happen" is the direct quote.

 

And I say THAT is a ridiculous stuff you are making up. I say that never happened, because I don't think there's ever been a $5 book listed on his site for $1600, or anything similar. If he has sold a book from his site listed at $1600, the most likely scenario is that someone bought it with a 50-60% off codeword, which means they paid $650-800, and that book might have been in the Guide for $200-300. Yeah, they paid too much, but not any ridiculous "$1600 for a $5 book", and once again, nobody forced them to buy it.

First of all, not everyone who visits his site knows about the codewords. Second of all, I was talking about his store in Colorado. Walk in purchases. But yeah, the website too. Anyway, what I'm saying is I assume he's made some four figure sales in the past forty years. It's possible he makes hundreds a year, but lets just assume it's a couple.

 

100% of those customers were completely ripped off. All of them. Every last one. I guarantee it.

 

You are treading a very, very delicate line, here. You are tapping on, if not outright crossing, the line of libel. That is a claim you cannot make, and have not a shred of proof for, and yet, you feel no compunction about boldly making it, publicly, for all to see.

 

You had best hope Chuck doesn't see this, and isn't in a litigious mood.

 

 

Just who do you think you are, to determine for everyone else that they were "ripped off"...?

 

 

You yourself said "Good, they deserved to be ripped off"

[RockMyAmadeus]

I do agree with guys like rfoii that he brings it upon himself by being vocal and open - you give people something to push against and they will push...but I do agree that the vitriol is disproportionate. He just makes an easy target.

 

If I were to say "Action Comics #37 is the first appearance of Deadpool! He first appeared in 1941, drawn by Rob Liefeld and inked by Lou Fine!" and insist on it, multiple times, and arrogantly dismiss anyone who tried to tell me otherwise, and passive/aggressively complain that people were being mean to me because they challenged "my reality" concerning Deadpool and Action Comcis #37, would the people challenging me be right in doing so....?

 

At what point do we just say "no, that's not correct, and no amount of noise will change that"...?

 

If you're going to insist on painting concentric red and white circles on your back, why wonder if people use you for target practice...?

 

That's not to say that people can't make vociferous, rigorous arguments...they should, absolutely. Argument that can't be challenged, and survive that challenge, are, like untested steel, absolutely worthless. The answer, then, is to not get upset, not be overly melodramatic, not be passive/aggressive, not be oversensitive and emotional...the answer is: make good, solid, better arguments. If you do that, people will respect what you have to say.

 

Done and done.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Um, actually, no, there isn't an example of that almost happening, there is an example of someone possibly having maybe gone to MH and could have bought something that her husband, you, me, and the butcher's son would consider overpriced. That's a long way off from your "paying $1600 for a $5 book." Which, by the way, is 31,900% overvalued.

 

And, once again, didn't actually happen.

 

There's certainly plenty to criticize about his pricing without making up ridiculous stuff.

Assuming he's sold something in his shop in forty years of business is not making up ridiculous stuff. Assuming he hasn't is.

 

Under what other scenario could any of those books have possibly sold?

 

Are you even reading what you are writing here? You said the only possible way Chuck has sold a book listed on his site at $1600 was if some unsuspecting fool bought a book that was really only worth $5. "... but if we assume he's EVER sold ANYTHING with a pricetag that high in his shop, it happened. That's the only way it could possibly happen" is the direct quote.

 

And I say THAT is a ridiculous stuff you are making up. I say that never happened, because I don't think there's ever been a $5 book listed on his site for $1600, or anything similar. If he has sold a book from his site listed at $1600, the most likely scenario is that someone bought it with a 50-60% off codeword, which means they paid $650-800, and that book might have been in the Guide for $200-300. Yeah, they paid too much, but not any ridiculous "$1600 for a $5 book", and once again, nobody forced them to buy it.

First of all, not everyone who visits his site knows about the codewords. Second of all, I was talking about his store in Colorado. Walk in purchases. But yeah, the website too. Anyway, what I'm saying is I assume he's made some four figure sales in the past forty years. It's possible he makes hundreds a year, but lets just assume it's a couple.

 

100% of those customers were completely ripped off. All of them. Every last one. I guarantee it.

 

You are treading a very, very delicate line, here. You are tapping on, if not outright crossing, the line of libel. That is a claim you cannot make, and have not a shred of proof for, and yet, you feel no compunction about boldly making it, publicly, for all to see.

 

You had best hope Chuck doesn't see this, and isn't in a litigious mood.

 

 

Just who do you think you are, to determine for everyone else that they were "ripped off"...?

 

 

You yourself said "Good, they deserved to be ripped off"

 

Quote, please.

 

And you haven't answered the question: just who are you, that you get to determine for all those people that they got ripped off?

 

Hmmm....?

[dupont2005]

I already know, as long as YOU profit and no law was broken, you think nothing was wrong. I disagree. I think plenty of scumbags, yes, SCUMBAGS, can be within the law and still do scummy things. I think that sometimes just because something is legal to do, doesn't mean it's okay to do. Chuck does that thing more than sometimes. He does it all day every day since before I was born.

 

Funny how you think I somehow crossed a line for speaking out about it though. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Oh, not when I say something you don't like though, right?

[dupont2005]

Quote, please.

 

And...?

 

Serves the wife right for being foolish with her money.

 

It is the era of the internet. If someone is not going to do literally 30 seconds worth of research, a fool and his money.....

 

Nobody, but NOBODY who is not completely broke or filthy rich, buys something without doing a modicum of research about whether it's a good buy or not.

 

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!!" has meaning, because it expresses the nannying attitude that leads people to do actual, real damage to those they perceive as "perpetrators", in the hopes of "protecting" a hypothetical "customer" from being ripped off.

 

You know what? Sometimes, we NEED to be ripped off. When that happens, then we REALLY understand the value of money, and do our homework before buying.

 

Your time and energy would be much, much better spent educating the public, rather than trying to protect them.

 

If I value my Comic X at $5,000, and someone wants to buy it from me for that price, I'm going to sell it to them for that price. It does not matter if they can go down the street and buy it for $10, because that is what *I* value Comic X to be worth to me..

[RockMyAmadeus]

I already know, as long as YOU profit and no law was broken, you think nothing was wrong. I disagree. I think plenty of scumbags, yes, SCUMBAGS, can be within the law and still do scummy things. I think that sometimes just because something is legal to do, doesn't mean it's okay to do. Chuck does that thing more than sometimes. He does it all day every day since before I was born.

 

That is your opinion, and it is dangerously close to, if not actually crossing over into, libel.

 

And I wasn't arguing about what's legal, I was arguing about what is ethical and moral.

 

Funny how you think I somehow crossed a line for speaking out about it though. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Oh, not when I say something you don't like though, right?

 

Seriously, there's really no need for the melodrama. "Freedom of speech" does not give you the right to defame someone's business practices without evidence.

 

Don't speak with your emotions. They will always get you in trouble.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Quote, please.

 

And...?

 

Serves the wife right for being foolish with her money.

 

It is the era of the internet. If someone is not going to do literally 30 seconds worth of research, a fool and his money.....

 

Nobody, but NOBODY who is not completely broke or filthy rich, buys something without doing a modicum of research about whether it's a good buy or not.

 

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!!" has meaning, because it expresses the nannying attitude that leads people to do actual, real damage to those they perceive as "perpetrators", in the hopes of "protecting" a hypothetical "customer" from being ripped off.

 

You know what? Sometimes, we NEED to be ripped off. When that happens, then we REALLY understand the value of money, and do our homework before buying.

 

Your time and energy would be much, much better spent educating the public, rather than trying to protect them.

 

If I value my Comic X at $5,000, and someone wants to buy it from me for that price, I'm going to sell it to them for that price. It does not matter if they can go down the street and buy it for $10, because that is what *I* value Comic X to be worth to me..

 

Again...quote, please.

 

Please find where I said "Good, they deserved to be ripped off."

 

You won't find that statement by me, because it doesn't exist.

 

If you're going to make statements up, and then claim I said them, you'd be better off not posting.

[wombat]

This thread would be way more entertaining if Chuck showed up.

[dupont2005]

There is no emotion in my assessment.

 

Chuck has a target demographic. And it's not savvy internet users or knowledgeable people in the hobby. It's people who are shopping online for the first time and don't know a thing about comics. Pretty much either brand new novice collectors, or the loved ones of collectors. People who Googled "Comic shop online" and stumbled upon his site. In other industries, people whose business model relies on taking advantage of novices have been described as predatory. Even when no laws are broken. Also, I'm not the one that assumes he's lying in his newsletters when he gripes about his dire financial situations and begs for sales to keep his shop doors open. But if that actually is the case, then that even makes him look worse.

 

Have you ever heard the common criticism that television pitchmen are taking advantage of the elderly? That Dr. Oz is? Dr. Oz isn't breaking any laws, but there is a movement to change the laws to put an end to what he's doing, because what he's doing is scummy. I don't think it's libel when I call out a scumbag when they complain about Dark Horse trying to earn money for Stan Sakai's wife at the same comic convention Chuck is trying to rip off customers with his crappy Adventure Time comics.

[dupont2005]

Quote, please.

 

And...?

 

Serves the wife right for being foolish with her money.

 

It is the era of the internet. If someone is not going to do literally 30 seconds worth of research, a fool and his money.....

 

Nobody, but NOBODY who is not completely broke or filthy rich, buys something without doing a modicum of research about whether it's a good buy or not.

 

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!!" has meaning, because it expresses the nannying attitude that leads people to do actual, real damage to those they perceive as "perpetrators", in the hopes of "protecting" a hypothetical "customer" from being ripped off.

 

You know what? Sometimes, we NEED to be ripped off. When that happens, then we REALLY understand the value of money, and do our homework before buying.

 

Your time and energy would be much, much better spent educating the public, rather than trying to protect them.

 

If I value my Comic X at $5,000, and someone wants to buy it from me for that price, I'm going to sell it to them for that price. It does not matter if they can go down the street and buy it for $10, because that is what *I* value Comic X to be worth to me..

 

Again...quote, please.

 

Please find where I said "Good, they deserved to be ripped off."

 

You won't find that statement by me, because it doesn't exist.

 

If you're going to make statements up, and then claim I said them, you'd be better off not posting.

If you can't stand by your own comments then you must know your comments were wrong.

[Park]

This thread would be way more entertaining if Chuck showed up.

 

That would be awesome.

[Timmay]

This thread would be way more entertaining if Chuck showed up.

 

Why, BizarroChuck is already here.

[COI]

There is no emotion in my assessment.

 

Chuck has a target demographic. And it's not savvy internet users or knowledgeable people in the hobby. It's people who are shopping online for the first time and don't know a thing about comics. Pretty much either brand new novice collectors, or the loved ones of collectors. People who Googled "Comic shop online" and stumbled upon his site. In other industries, people whose business model relies on taking advantage of novices have been described as predatory. Even when no laws are broken. Also, I'm not the one that assumes he's lying in his newsletters when he gripes about his dire financial situations and begs for sales to keep his shop doors open. But if that actually is the case, then that even makes him look worse.

 

Have you ever heard the common criticism that television pitchmen are taking advantage of the elderly? That Dr. Oz is? Dr. Oz isn't breaking any laws, but there is a movement to change the laws to put an end to what he's doing, because what he's doing is scummy. I don't think it's libel when I call out a scumbag when they complain about Dark Horse trying to earn money for Stan Sakai's wife at the same comic convention Chuck is trying to rip off customers with his crappy Adventure Time comics.

 

Old people definitely deserve it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Huh, if this isn't condoning ripping people off, and completely admitting it's exactly what Chuck does, then I must have misread it.

 

Yes, you misred it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Quote, please.

 

And...?

 

Serves the wife right for being foolish with her money.

 

It is the era of the internet. If someone is not going to do literally 30 seconds worth of research, a fool and his money.....

 

Nobody, but NOBODY who is not completely broke or filthy rich, buys something without doing a modicum of research about whether it's a good buy or not.

 

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!!" has meaning, because it expresses the nannying attitude that leads people to do actual, real damage to those they perceive as "perpetrators", in the hopes of "protecting" a hypothetical "customer" from being ripped off.

 

You know what? Sometimes, we NEED to be ripped off. When that happens, then we REALLY understand the value of money, and do our homework before buying.

 

Your time and energy would be much, much better spent educating the public, rather than trying to protect them.

 

If I value my Comic X at $5,000, and someone wants to buy it from me for that price, I'm going to sell it to them for that price. It does not matter if they can go down the street and buy it for $10, because that is what *I* value Comic X to be worth to me..

 

Again...quote, please.

 

Please find where I said "Good, they deserved to be ripped off."

 

You won't find that statement by me, because it doesn't exist.

 

If you're going to make statements up, and then claim I said them, you'd be better off not posting.

If you can't stand by your own comments then you must know your comments were wrong.

 

Now you're just playing silly games.

 

Come on, Dupont, you're smarter than that.

[VintageComics]

This thread would be way more entertaining if Chuck showed up.

 

That would be awesome.

 

I thought about asking him some questions out of this thread.

[RockMyAmadeus]

There is no emotion in my assessment.

 

I'm pretty sure you know this isn't true, and I know everyone else knows it.

 

Calling someone a "SCUMBAG" over and over again is not fueled by logic and reason.

 

[COI]

Chuck found the MH collection; he has earned the right to capitalize at everyone's expense.

[dupont2005]

There is no emotion in my assessment.

 

I'm pretty sure you know this isn't true, and I know everyone else knows it.

 

Calling someone a "SCUMBAG" over and over again is not fueled by logic and reason.

 

I don't pull any punches

 

Or maybe I don't have the vocabulary you do. What's the business casual term for scumbag?

[COI]

There is no emotion in my assessment.

 

I'm pretty sure you know this isn't true, and I know everyone else knows it.

 

Calling someone a "SCUMBAG" over and over again is not fueled by logic and reason.

 

 

Logic and reason is the SCUMBAG'S tool belt. Silver-tongued scumbags playing games.