Chuck explains his Mile High pricing

[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.

 

I don't pull any punches

 

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

 

Presser.

[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.

 

I thought the entire point of capitalism was that sellers are free to ask what they want for a product and buyers are free to choose to pay it. Or not.

 

 

Now I don't fish with ultra high prices personally, but I'm not going to get sucked into this discussion again (it's a monthly occurrence on here).

 

Anyone making a purchase needs to know why they are parting with their money.

 

But you can see that RMA is saying Chuck rips people off, and those people deserve to be ripped off, right?

 

I mean, regardless of your thoughts on the matter, those are obviously his, are they not?

 

No.

 

Would you please argue your own points, and stop trying to speak for me?

 

Thanks.

[RockMyAmadeus]

It should be easy for you to know if something has been pressed and resubbed just by looking at it if you were truly doing your homework and valuing the dollar.

 

This isn't true. Do you have much experience with pressing?

[COI]

If you're dumb enough to pay Chuck's prices, you must have stolen whatever money you have because dumb people are always broke. So what Chuck is doing is taking back stolen money that would have been spent on drugs, and gluten-free brownies, and power-bracelets.

[RockMyAmadeus]

considering that CGC can't reliably detect pressing

Oh they definitely could, it would just hurt their revenue to do so.

 

This is not true. Do you have much experience with pressing?

 

CGC can definitely identify a pressed comic. They just don't want to.

 

This is not true.

 

 

[Chip Cataldo]

If this week's codeword is SCUMBAG I'm going to p i s s myself laughing.

 

P i s s is NOT a swear word. Sheesh.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I don't see how you continue to think I think of myself as a victim, when it didn't happen to me. But you're right. I do think anyone who has ever bought a high priced item off Chuck WAS a victim. I don't see why you need to keep repeating that same line either. To me it's exactly like acting tough on the internet, which is something I'll never do, because it's what cowards do. I guarantee though, I'm not a coward or a victim

 

 

If you (and I don't mean you specifically) buy something for $1000 that's worth $5, and upon finding out, your assessment of the situation is "I was robbed", then you have a victim's mindset; things happen to you, not because of you; personal accountability is supplanted by blaming others.

 

So he's not calling you a victim of Chuck specifically, or a coward, or trying to be an "internet tough-guy" or any of that other junk; he's pointing out that placing all the blame on Chuck in a hypothetical scenario where someone overpays for a book is viewing the interaction through the victim's lens, the way someone who sees themselves as a victim would. It's a mindset. Whether or not you have that mindset generally, only you know, but that's what you're demonstrating here in regards to Chuck's pricing.

 

 

Yes, much better than I was putting it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Whew! All caught up!

[Park]

If you're dumb enough to pay Chuck's prices, you must have stolen whatever money you have because dumb people are always broke. So what Chuck is doing is taking back stolen money that would have been spent on drugs, and gluten-free brownies, and power-bracelets.

 

Imma get you a fedora for that one.

[Tony S]

I don't see how you continue to think I think of myself as a victim, when it didn't happen to me. But you're right. I do think anyone who has ever bought a high priced item off Chuck WAS a victim. I don't see why you need to keep repeating that same line either. To me it's exactly like acting tough on the internet, which is something I'll never do, because it's what cowards do. I guarantee though, I'm not a coward or a victim

 

 

If you (and I don't mean you specifically) buy something for $1000 that's worth $5, and upon finding out, your assessment of the situation is "I was robbed", then you have a victim's mindset; things happen to you, not because of you; personal accountability is supplanted by blaming others.

 

So he's not calling you a victim of Chuck specifically, or a coward, or trying to be an "internet tough-guy" or any of that other junk; he's pointing out that placing all the blame on Chuck in a hypothetical scenario where someone overpays for a book is viewing the interaction through the victim's lens, the way someone who sees themselves as a victim would. It's a mindset. Whether or not you have that mindset generally, only you know, but that's what you're demonstrating here in regards to Chuck's pricing.

 

 

Yes, much better than I was putting it.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I don't see how you continue to think I think of myself as a victim, when it didn't happen to me. But you're right. I do think anyone who has ever bought a high priced item off Chuck WAS a victim. I don't see why you need to keep repeating that same line either. To me it's exactly like acting tough on the internet, which is something I'll never do, because it's what cowards do. I guarantee though, I'm not a coward or a victim

 

 

If you (and I don't mean you specifically) buy something for $1000 that's worth $5, and upon finding out, your assessment of the situation is "I was robbed", then you have a victim's mindset; things happen to you, not because of you; personal accountability is supplanted by blaming others.

 

So he's not calling you a victim of Chuck specifically, or a coward, or trying to be an "internet tough-guy" or any of that other junk; he's pointing out that placing all the blame on Chuck in a hypothetical scenario where someone overpays for a book is viewing the interaction through the victim's lens, the way someone who sees themselves as a victim would. It's a mindset. Whether or not you have that mindset generally, only you know, but that's what you're demonstrating here in regards to Chuck's pricing.

 

 

Yes, much better than I was putting it.

 

 

Nay, Morpheus, that's far too subtle a distinction for the black and white worldviews of the long underwear types...

 

[Park]

I don't see how you continue to think I think of myself as a victim, when it didn't happen to me. But you're right. I do think anyone who has ever bought a high priced item off Chuck WAS a victim. I don't see why you need to keep repeating that same line either. To me it's exactly like acting tough on the internet, which is something I'll never do, because it's what cowards do. I guarantee though, I'm not a coward or a victim

 

 

If you (and I don't mean you specifically) buy something for $1000 that's worth $5, and upon finding out, your assessment of the situation is "I was robbed", then you have a victim's mindset; things happen to you, not because of you; personal accountability is supplanted by blaming others.

 

So he's not calling you a victim of Chuck specifically, or a coward, or trying to be an "internet tough-guy" or any of that other junk; he's pointing out that placing all the blame on Chuck in a hypothetical scenario where someone overpays for a book is viewing the interaction through the victim's lens, the way someone who sees themselves as a victim would. It's a mindset. Whether or not you have that mindset generally, only you know, but that's what you're demonstrating here in regards to Chuck's pricing.

 

 

Yes, much better than I was putting it.

 

 

 

Disagreeing is the first sign that you are a troublemaker, apologist, rabble rouser, scumbag, etc.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Is this the new thread?

 

[jaybuck43]

I'm still waiting for Chuck to send out a newsletter explaining how they are hurting for a Tripod and that they need us to buy books to get a tripod (Please please please let the new codeword be "TRIPOD")

 

P.S. if you've seen Video 5 HOLD THE DAMN CAMERA STEADY!!!!

[ttfitz]

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.

 

I have read messages by you in other threads around here, and on almost every other subject, you don't show the same sort of emotional blinders you seem to have when it comes to Chuck and Mile High. You did this before in the San Diego Con discussion, where anyone who could read what he wrote with an objective eye could see that your Stan Sakai's wife thing wasn't remotely what he was saying. I don't know why this is, but it leads you to overstating and overblowing everything that you say about him.

 

There's plenty to be critical of without all the overblown accusations and misinterpretations.

[ttfitz]

I'm still waiting for Chuck to send out a newsletter explaining how they are hurting for a Tripod and that they need us to buy books to get a tripod (Please please please let the new codeword be "TRIPOD")

 

P.S. if you've seen Video 5 HOLD THE DAMN CAMERA STEADY!!!!

 

Ever since - what, NYPD Blue? - people think that whole shaky hand-held stuff makes it more artistic.

[BarryAllen]

Whew! All caught up!

This statement sums up your attitude quite nicely. Are you done "dropping knowledge on us?" Have you sufficiently and soundly responded to every post you could? Have you resoundedly defeated the opposition with your witty ritort and unassailable logic and positioning? Are you ok with taking a break from your role of educating the boards?

 

I don't get it, you spend all your time talking about it is the individual's responsibility to protect or educate themselves (from being offending, from getting taken advantage of, from everything) - you have been relentless about this. Then you spend all this time either defending Chuck or his right to do business as he pleases. Isn't that his responsibility?

 

What examples are acceptable for people to defend others (or their "rights") and which are not?

 

Seriously, my biggest frustration with your posting is that you seemingly only want to show up and create a counter argument (many times intelligible and cohesive), but only because you want to show-off your self-appointed superior intellect or knowledge. Your posts wreak of elitism and it is utterly infuriating.

 

I am not perfect by any means and subject to getting over-heated or speaking out of turn, but it never ceases to astound me the extent to which you think you are right about everything and that people with different opinions are so unintelligent or uninformed. 99% of the conversations here are just opinions, yet you call people's statements out as untrue or incorrect with wanton abandon but then take "personal" offense if someone does the same to you.

 

 

 

Side note - I am sure you will find the time to "dissect" this post like you do everything else and tell me how wrong, or offensive I am or how this isn't personal.

[IchigosSoul]

Yea, Chucks pricing is bad, but is it any worse than all the opportunistic BIN's that languish on eBay? I don't think he does it with any ill intent on his part, and I'm not sure why any of you think he is.

[Buzzetta]

Pernts!

 

Wait... Never mind...

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

Which used car dealer is important to the hobby of owning classic cars?

 

None of them. They're car dealers. They didn't manufacture the cars, they didn't preserve the cars, they didn't restore the cars. They bought low and sold high. None of it matters.

 

Used cars are not a hobby, but I bet if you knew enough about auto collecting you could make a case for certain individuals who made certain cars popular...like race car drivers who put certain models into the spotlight, even though they had nothing to do with their creation.

Wayne Carini is the guru of classic cars.

 

 

He has put collecting classic cars back in the spotlight.

 

 

No one thinks of him as a used car dealer. They think of him as a classic car historian.