Amazing Spider-Man 667 1:100 Dell'Otto Variant

[RockMyAmadeus]

In the ASM #361 thread, is that what happened...? No, not at all. Those folks doubled and tripled down, saying that "well, the experience of all these people says otherwise, who are YOU to tell them their memories are flawed???" They couldn't even admit that what they were relaying was anecdotal, much less that it wasn't provable.

 

Except nobody wrote or did any of these things in that thread.

 

They did, multiple times.

 

Did you read the thread?

 

Here's an example:

 

This is pure conjecture, falsely attributing actions, motives, and theories that were contrary to my experience, and the experience and testimony of (now at least 10) other folks in this thread.

 

See that? Portraying anecdote as fact, after I had repeatedly said that anecdotes weren't evidence.

 

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you're going to go out of your way to correct me, you ought to have the information correct.

 

First of all, why not add what Gatsby77 was responding to? That is because has was responding to your anecdotal evidence presented as fact.

 

Why not add it yourself? Was there something preventing that? Are we now going to rehash that entire conversation here?

 

Or, could it be that I wasn't presenting "anecdotal evidence as fact"...? If I was, what anecdote(s), specifically, was I presenting as fact? Can you say?

 

Since when is economic theory "anecdote"? I'll say here what I said there: there is a difference between an anecdote (which is a story based on personal experience, whether yours or others) and economic theory, which is the scientific observation of human economic behavior over time.

 

If you misuse the word "anecdote", obviously you're going to make it fit to whatever point you're trying to make.

 

Also, I don't see Gatsby77 saying this isn't anecdotal and is fact. He clearly says this was in his "experience" and it was "testimony". That doesn't strike me as someone saying "this is fact".

 

You don't have to say "this is fact" to make that clear that you're presenting it as fact. I said that was anecdote over and over and over again, and never once did Gatsby say "yes, you're right, this IS anecdotal, and not real proof of what I'm saying. This is just my experience, which I know doesn't prove anything."

 

Quite the contrary! He kept hammering that point over and over and over again, as if the "testimony" and "experience" of a certain number of people somehow overrode general princples.

 

You don't need to see the flames if you can smell the smoke.

 

You play very loose with these concepts in your arguments, but have no problems jumping on them when presented in a similar way by others. "Generally".

 

I'll say the same thing to you that I said earlier to Manetteska: it's easy to accuse, not so easy to prove, especially when you are misrepresenting those "concepts" and how they are explained.

 

If you feel I've been inconsistent, you should be able to demonstrate specifically where that is, as I just did with the quote from Gatsby above, rather than just say "well, you play fast and loose with these concepts." I could say the exact same thing about you, and have, and probably will again.

 

I go to great (and probably pointless) lengths to document the hell out of the points I make, making sure every possible bit of available information is included, and that my conclusions are factual, reasonable, and clear...you documented nothing, not a single thing in that entire discussion, but you think I "play very loose with these concepts"...? Really...?

 

I guess it really comes down to perspective then, huh?

 

[Jaydogrules]

 

I guess technically you never say it is a fact, but you believe it, color your arguments as if it is, and deride others who think otherwise.

 

+1

 

I thought your interaction with me on this subject was at an end? Or was that only DIRECT interaction, and you can refer to me with no problem...?

 

 

Again...obviously I believe it, obviously it colors my argument, but no, no one has been "derided" if they think otherwise. How silly. (Is that derision...? )

 

That, and the fact that wampler's account is easily undermined by the fact that the entire estimated print run of the UXM 510 is 500.

 

According to whom?

 

WHO estimated that number?

 

You?

 

All 500 were not sent to SDCC. At least as many were sent to Heroes in a completely different shipment. So either there were 1000 copies printed, with 500 sent to SDCC with 350 being damaged, and another 500 sent to Heroes, or the rumour is simply unfounded and about 250 copies were sent to both Heroes and SDCC each as scheduled. I'm inclined to believe the latter.

 

Proof, Jay. Just any proof at all.

 

The point being that it's much easier to guesstimate the print run of an RI variant based on Marvel's published RI guidelines than a covention book.

 

Here we go again...

 

Marvel advertises a cover for the RI program and gives dealers a deadline to place their orders for the regular covers. If a dealer wants a copy of the variant he orders the requisite number of the regular covers to qualify. Marvel then prints the necessary amount of the variants to supply to the qualifying shops, with likely a certain percentage more in order to account for printing errors and damaged copies (which are likely pulped).

 

For the 10,736,293rd time: "Retailer incentives" ARE NOT PRINTED TO ORDER. They are DISTRIBUTED to order.

 

You say soooo many things that are soooo easily disproved, Jay. Why?

 

It is simply not true that "1:X" books are printed to the "necessary amount of the variants to supply the qualifying shops."

 

That is an invention borne of MISUNDERSTANDING.

 

You have been told, by many people, including retailers of CHAINS like Mr. Bedrock, that these books are NOT "printed to order", but you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that, and keep repeating the same false information as if no one had ever said anything to you about it.

 

Do you know HOW this is disproved?

 

Because Marvel and Diamond have an ONGOING PROGRAM of offering unsold :"1:X" variants to their accounts on a fairly regular basis.

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/05/15/marvel-liquidates-miracleman-1-10-in-all-its-variants/

 

In the case of the 667 the prevailing wisdom is that very few shops ordered enough batches of the regular cover to qualify for the incentive, this being attributed to Spider-Man variant fatigue after the 666 event which had nearly 150 variants.

 

As already proven, which you continue to ignore, the order numbers for these books doesn't support your "theory."

 

First, ASM #666 variants weren't ordered by everyone. There wasn't "nearly 150 variants." There were FOUR variants (Fan Expo, Midtown, Lizard Battle, and Bugle) with the Bugle/Lizard variant repeated 140 times, with the STORE names of participating stores being the only difference:

 

 

(There was also a 2nd printing variant, that didn't figure in to initial ordering.)

 

So, there wasn't "variant fatigue" with ASM #666. With only four variants, which store was going to order (or could even order) copies of competing store variants?

 

It is disingenuous to portray the issue as having "nearly 150 variants" without explaining what those variants ACTUALLY WERE.

 

Second, and maybe more important, issue #667 (apparently the numbers have been revised since we last visited them) was the SECOND HIGHEST ORDERED ISSUE OF THE YEAR.

 

So, that dispels the "order fatigue" you claim this issue had. This "attribution" is YOURS. YOU attributed it, but don't say that. You say it was "attributed", to make it sound "official." It is just made up, by you, because you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

 

If you insist on repeating this misinformation, it's going to be corrected.

 

Here was the RI advertisement for the 667:

 

http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/746?articleID=110712

 

Perhaps sometimes a few of those over printed copies turn up in a five pack or maybe even in a "warehouse" somewhere .

 

As stated above, this is inaccurate.

 

But clearly the odds of that happening with any particular one book (and especially an ultra rare and valuable one) are exceedingly remote,

 

Except that Marvel and Diamond have such sales on a regular basis, and they don't care if something is "ultra rare and valuable." "Ultra rare" and "valuable" don't mean anything to Marvel.

 

hence why no there are no documented cases of it actually happening.

 

With this book, yes...so far.

 

With other books...not, that's not correct.

 

The statements some have made about Marvel "not caring" about the secondary market are patently absurd.

 

Except that it's not at all.

 

Marvel is well aware that every book they print is a potential "collectors' item" otherwise why create a program that creates books with manufactured rarity (as opposed to the improperly used term "manufactured collectible") in the first place.

 

The answer to this is very simple: because they are in the business of selling comic books. If they need to Franklin Mint the situation to raise their bottom line, that is what they have done, are doing, and will continue to do.

 

They DO NOT CARE about the "after market" value of their books, because they don't see any of that money.

 

Of course they want to sell as many books as possible on the front end, but they do so knowing full well that their vendors have their eye on the secondary market almost from the moment a book is released (and often times even *before* a book is released via pre-orders). None of this is rocket science.

 

-J.

 

It's also not what Marvel does, or cares about. Marvel cares about one thing: selling comic books. What anyone does after they are sold aren't Marvel's concern, and never, ever have been.

 

It is this sort of mentality...that publishers are creating "collectibles", rather than entertainment...that devastated the market 20 years ago, from which it still hasn't recovered.

 

And you would be mistaken if you believe that "their vendors have their eye on the secondary market." No, "vendors" want to sell comic books. Are some of them focused on "collectibles"? Sure. Are most of them? Nope.

 

Here goes RMA derailing yet another thread (and this one for a third time). Are you going for a record or something ? I hear they miss you back in the ASM 361 print run thread . 95% of your post is complete and utterly unsupported nonsense, displays a galling amount of arrogance, and is dripping with hypocritical posturing that others have already called you out on, so no need to rehash that here.

 

Sufficeth to say, the link I provided directly from diamond (one of many links i have cited in this thread supporting my statements about the 667) contradicts most if not all of your misguided notions about RI variants (mainly being that Marvel arbitrarily prints comics that they have no intention or need to distribute). Why have an FOC, final order cut-off", if Marvel already knows they are going to print "at least 1000 copies" of a book, no matter what, or how many actual orders they receive, for the sole purpose of storing them in that mythical warehouse ?

 

That is just a stupid suggestion my man.

 

What a fabulous way to waste money that would be.

 

Your statement that Marvel sells off RI variants "all the time" is also stupid. Another boardie dug up exactly "two" times this has happened with utterly worthless variants in the last fifteen years. In fact, I'd like to see just one occasion- just one- were this happened with a famously rare and exceptionally valuable variant. That happen all the time too and I (and everyone else in the world) just missed it ?

 

You should really try practicing what you preach and stop over selling your opinions and beliefs as authority, because they are not. Because guess what....there are still only 20 copies of this 4 year old+ book on the census, it has still only come up for sale once raw all year, and it is still one of (if not the) toughest spidey books of all time with probably only 200 copies in existence, if not less. I said a few pages back that the reasons "why" can only be speculated on, that hasn't changed. Not a one of those potential reasons does anything to alter what has been the reality of this book since literally a week after it was first released. Whether you like or not.

 

-J.

[rjrjr]

In the ASM #361 thread, is that what happened...? No, not at all. Those folks doubled and tripled down, saying that "well, the experience of all these people says otherwise, who are YOU to tell them their memories are flawed???" They couldn't even admit that what they were relaying was anecdotal, much less that it wasn't provable.

 

Except nobody wrote or did any of these things in that thread.

 

They did, multiple times.

 

Did you read the thread?

 

Here's an example:

 

This is pure conjecture, falsely attributing actions, motives, and theories that were contrary to my experience, and the experience and testimony of (now at least 10) other folks in this thread.

 

See that? Portraying anecdote as fact, after I had repeatedly said that anecdotes weren't evidence.

 

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you're going to go out of your way to correct me, you ought to have the information correct.

 

First of all, why not add what Gatsby77 was responding to? That is because has was responding to your anecdotal evidence presented as fact.

 

Why not add it yourself? Was there something preventing that? Are we now going to rehash that entire conversation here?

 

Or, could it be that I wasn't presenting "anecdotal evidence as fact"...? If I was, what anecdote(s), specifically, was I presenting as fact? Can you say?

 

Since when is economic theory "anecdote"? I'll say here what I said there: there is a difference between an anecdote (which is a story based on personal experience, whether yours or others) and economic theory, which is the scientific observation of human economic behavior over time.

 

If you misuse the word "anecdote", obviously you're going to make it fit to whatever point you're trying to make.

 

Also, I don't see Gatsby77 saying this isn't anecdotal and is fact. He clearly says this was in his "experience" and it was "testimony". That doesn't strike me as someone saying "this is fact".

 

You don't have to say "this is fact" to make that clear that you're presenting it as fact. I said that was anecdote over and over and over again, and never once did Gatsby say "yes, you're right, this IS anecdotal, and not real proof of what I'm saying. This is just my experience

 

Quite the contrary! He kept hammering that point over and over and over again, as if the "testimony" and "experience" of a certain number of people somehow overrode general princples.

 

You don't need to see the flames if you can smell the smoke.

 

You play very loose with these concepts in your arguments, but have no problems jumping on them when presented in a similar way by others. "Generally".

 

I'll say the same thing to you that I said earlier to Manetteska: it's easy to accuse, not so easy to prove, especially when you are misrepresenting those "concepts" and how they are explained.

 

If you feel I've been inconsistent, you should be able to demonstrate specifically where that is, as I just did with the quote from Gatsby above, rather than just say "well, you play fast and loose with these concepts." I could say the exact same thing about you, and have, and probably will again.

 

I guess it really comes down to perspective then, huh?

 

I think many of these discussions would be shorter if you actually read what others wrote (advice you seem to dole out but seem to not use at times.) To me the key words in Gatsby77's statement are "experience" and "testimony". I never once read into his statement "this is fact". He clearly wrote "my experience" and "testimony of others" and you read into it something else entirely. You read "this is fact." He was responding to your anecdote with another anecdote. He made it very clear he thought what you wrote was conjecture (again, the key word he used was "conjecture") and followed up with anecdotal evidence of his own. And honestly, in any discussion there is nothing wrong with that. You go around making it seem like anecdotal evidence is somehow wrong. You yourself use it all the time and confuse it for fact.

[rjrjr]

And my apologizes for following up with RMA in this thread. I'm not sure why this spilled over here.

[Jaydogrules]

And my apologizes for following up with RMA in this thread. I'm not sure why this spilled over here.

 

No worries, you can't help yourself I totally get it. The bait RMA dangles is oftentimes impossible to resist, and yet you almost always regret it when you take it.

 

-J.

[rjrjr]

And my apologizes for following up with RMA in this thread. I'm not sure why this spilled over here.

 

No worries, you can't help yourself I totally get it. The bait RMA dangles is oftentimes impossible to resist, and yet you almost always regret it when you take it.

 

-J.

 

Only because it ends up in a circular stalemate. RMA presents anecdotes as facts, you try to make your point. He *has* to refute them, because he has deemed himself the keeper of [his] truth on these boards. Ad nauseam. I use to value his input on threads. Now I just dread it.

[James J]

Fact........ I like Walking Dead comics.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Here goes RMA derailing yet another thread (and this one for a third time).

 

You cannot derail a thread when you're talking about the subject. That's not what "derailing" means. "Exposing Jaydog's misinformation" is NOT "derailing", no matter how many times you say it.

 

Are you going for a record or something ? I hear they miss you back in the ASM 361 print run thread .

 

Pointless personal attack.

 

95% of your post is complete and utterly unsupported nonsense

\

 

In what way?

 

Are you ever going to answer a direct question? Ever?

 

, displays a galling amount of arrogance,

 

You find anyone who challenges your misinformation to be "arrogant."

 

So be it.

 

and is dripping with hypocritical posturing that others have already called you out on, so no need to rehash them here.

 

There's "no need to rehash them here" because you are incapable of and unwilling to do so.

 

One more time:

 

I thought your interaction with me on this subject was at an end?

 

That one question alone should be enough to demonstrate that you are careless with your words, that you say one thing, and then do the opposite.

 

That is called "hypocrisy." Actual hypocrisy.

 

Sufficeth to say, the link I provided directly from diamond contradicts most if not all of your misguided notions about RI variants (mainly being that Marvel arbitrarily prints comics that they have no intention or need to distribute).

 

That's not what I said. Please stop inventing things, and then saying I said them.

 

Why have an FOC if Marvel already knows they are going to print "at least 1000 copies" of a book, no matter what, or how many actual orders they receive ?

 

Because Marvel has a Final Order Cutoff (FOC) for everything. That has nothing to do with print run decisions of "1:X" ratio'd variants.

 

Here's the pertinent sentence from your link;

 

"Retailers may order one copy of the Amazing Spider-Man #667 Dell’Otto Variant (MAY118321D, $3.99) for every 100 copies of the regular Amazing Spider-Man #667 (JUN110622D, $3.99) ordered by its FOC date of Monday, July 18."

 

Note: "the regular ASM #667 ordered by itsFOC date." The FOC for ASM #667 is for the regular book itself, to determine print run for the entire issue.

 

Here's more info on ordering:

 

http://www.newsarama.com/259-retailing-101-ordering-what-does-it-all-mean.html

 

That is just a stupid suggestion dude.

 

Except that it's exactly what happens.

 

And so is your statement that Marvel sells off RI variants "all the time". Another boardie dug up exactly "two" times this has happened with utterly worthless variants in the last fifteen years.

 

You mean, that was reported at Bleeding Cool, that is....

 

The Miracleman variants, including the 1:100s, were selling for as much as $80 before the Marvel dump. I guess you have a different definition of "utterly worhless."

 

You should really try practicing what you preach and stop over selling your opinions and beliefs as authority, because they are not.

 

I don't. I rely on the facts, the data, the information, and draw my conclusions from there. My "opinions" and "beliefs" are worthless if they contradict the facts. You contradict the facts on a regular basis, but that doesn't stop you from "over selling your opinions and beliefs as authority."

 

Document, document, document. Belief and opinion is worthless without documentation.

 

Because guess what....there are still only 20 copies of this 4 year old+ book on the census,

 

True, for now.

 

it has still only come up for sale once raw all year,

 

I'll take your word for it. You can't prove it, and the burden of proof lies with you, but I'll simply take your word for it that that's true, that not a single other copy has sold anywhere, for any amount, except that one copy.

 

and it is still one of (if not the) toughest spidey books of all time

 

True, for now.

 

with probably only 200 copies in existence, if not less.

 

That's where you lose it. That IS pure conjecture, and you have no way to prove it. You have no reason to claim it, but you do anyways.

 

I said a few pages back that the reasons "why" can only be speculated on, that hasn't changed. Not a one of those potential reasons does anything to alter what has been the reality of this book since literally a week after it was first released. Whether you like or not.

 

-J.

 

I neither like nor dislike that.. That has been another invention of yours that you like to toss at anyone who challenges you: "if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it...IF you can find one!" as if that is the point.

 

However...if you wish to spread misinformation, you should expect to be challenged.

[krighton]

huge thread for 1 comic

[RockMyAmadeus]

And my apologizes for following up with RMA in this thread. I'm not sure why this spilled over here.

 

No worries, you can't help yourself I totally get it. The bait RMA dangles is oftentimes impossible to resist, and yet you almost always regret it when you take it.

 

-J.

 

Only because it ends up in a circular stalemate. RMA presents anecdotes as facts,

 

Again: do you have any SPECIFIC examples, or are you just going to accuse with no substance?

 

you try to make your point. He *has* to refute them, because he has deemed himself the keeper of [his] truth on these boards.

 

And what is it that you are doing...? The same thing. Sure, maybe to a lesser extent...but it's the same thing in the end.

 

Ad nauseam. I use to value his input on threads. Now I just dread it.

 

If what I have to say fills you with dread, by all means, feel free to put me on ignore. You have taken this all very, very personally...evidenced by the fact that you "dread" what I say. That isn't beneficial, to you or anyone else.

 

I have nothing personal against you. But you clearly have an issue with me.

 

So, it seems like the best course would be for you to ignore me.

 

Unless, of course, what I've said about you is true: that you are doing that which you accuse of me. I used to value your input, too, but you've gone over the edge and made these discussions into something personal, that you feel you need to have animus towards me, which is unfortunate. I know that people get bent out of shape in disagreements...but it's such a grand waste of time to actively dislike someone just because they disagreed with you.

 

But it's your choice.

[CBT]

, thought I had accidentally gone into the copper forum for a second, didnt realize we had a Copper outbreak in Moderns...

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think many of these discussions would be shorter if you actually read what others wrote (advice you seem to dole out but seem to not use at times.)

 

I read every word that every person in a discussion says. I have a basic level of respect and courtesy for others by doing just that.

 

To me the key words in Gatsby77's statement are "experience" and "testimony". I never once read into his statement "this is fact".

 

I think you didn't read what I wrote. You don't need to SAY "this is fact" for it to be clear in the consistent manner in which you apply those statements.

 

Once again: "never once did Gatsby say "yes, you're right, this IS anecdotal, and not real proof of what I'm saying."

 

He clearly wrote "my experience" and "testimony of others" and you read into it something else entirely. You read "this is fact." He was responding to your anecdote with another anecdote.

 

I've asked you before...are you ever going to answer, or continue to dodge the question...? What, specifically, was my anecdote?

 

He made it very clear he thought what you wrote was conjecture (again, the key word he used was "conjecture") and followed up with anecdotal evidence of his own. And honestly, in any discussion there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Of course there isn't. However...bringing it up over and over and over and over again, as IF it was proof (that is, FACT), means you're using it as FACT.

 

You go around making it seem like anecdotal evidence is somehow wrong. You yourself use it all the time and confuse it for fact.

 

Example? Any at all? Just one?

[Jaydogrules]

spoon thought I had accidentally gone into the copper forum for a second, didnt realize we had a Copper outbreak in Moderns...

 

RMA's pot-stirring spoon is a mighty long one.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And my apologizes for following up with RMA in this thread. I'm not sure why this spilled over here.

 

Let me reconstruct it for you:

 

So sometimes rumors are facts and sometimes rumors are rumors, based upon which side RMA is arguing at the time?

 

If someone had posted an anecdote as to the print run of ASM 361 you would have been all over them (as has happened multiple times)

 

And now you know.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

spoon thought I had accidentally gone into the copper forum for a second, didnt realize we had a Copper outbreak in Moderns...

 

RMA's pot-stirring spoon is a mighty long one.

 

-J.

 

I'm not going to sit here and insult you in return, Jay, tempting though it is.

 

I'll simply respond with the facts, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

And my apologizes for following up with RMA in this thread. I'm not sure why this spilled over here.

 

No worries, you can't help yourself I totally get it. The bait RMA dangles is oftentimes impossible to resist, and yet you almost always regret it when you take it.

 

-J.

 

I'm not going to sit here and insult you in return, Jay, tempting though it is.

 

I'll simply respond with the facts, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

You have consistently and determinedly spread misinformation on these boards, since the beginning of your tenure here.

 

Others may not care, and that's fine...but I'll be here, because people deserve not to be told misinformation, presented as "fact."

 

It's not personal.

 

[Jaydogrules]

And my apologizes for following up with RMA in this thread. I'm not sure why this spilled over here.

 

No worries, you can't help yourself I totally get it. The bait RMA dangles is oftentimes impossible to resist, and yet you almost always regret it when you take it.

 

-J.

 

I'm not going to sit here and insult you in return, Jay, tempting though it is.

 

I'll simply respond with the facts, and let the chifacts fall where they may.

 

You have consistently and determinedly spread misinformation on these boards, since the beginning of your tenure here.

 

Others may not care, and that's fine...but I'll be here, because people deserve not to be told misinformation, presented as "fact."

 

It's not personal.

 

 

More hypocritical posturing couched as "fact" from the master. I would sincerely recommend that you reevaluate your posting style. The world can't be wrong, RMA. You do have some insightful information to share at times, but your method of delivery is off putting more often than it's not. My mama always told me you can't tell a grown man anything, and she's right, but I figured I'd put it out there anyway.

 

Back on topic...

 

I wonder if we will see another copy of the 667 appear for sale by the end of the year. Or the UXM 510 for that matter.

 

 

-J.

[rjrjr]

And my apologizes for following up with RMA in this thread. I'm not sure why this spilled over here.

 

No worries, you can't help yourself I totally get it. The bait RMA dangles is oftentimes impossible to resist, and yet you almost always regret it when you take it.

 

-J.

 

Only because it ends up in a circular stalemate. RMA presents anecdotes as facts,

 

Again: do you have any SPECIFIC examples, or are you just going to accuse with no substance?

 

you try to make your point. He *has* to refute them, because he has deemed himself the keeper of [his] truth on these boards.

 

And what is it that you are doing...? The same thing. Sure, maybe to a lesser extent...but it's the same thing in the end.

 

Ad nauseam. I use to value his input on threads. Now I just dread it.

 

If what I have to say fills you with dread, by all means, feel free to put me on ignore. You have taken this all very, very personally...evidenced by the fact that you "dread" what I say. That isn't beneficial, to you or anyone else.

 

I have nothing personal against you. But you clearly have an issue with me.

 

So, it seems like the best course would be for you to ignore me.

 

Unless, of course, what I've said about you is true: that you are doing that which you accuse of me. I used to value your input, too, but you've gone over the edge and made these discussions into something personal, that you feel you need to have animus towards me, which is unfortunate. I know that people get bent out of shape in disagreements...but it's such a grand waste of time to actively dislike someone just because they disagreed with you.

 

But it's your choice.

 

RMA, honestly, I don't have an issue with you. What started much of the discussion in the ASM 361 thread was this statement you made:

 

And no, this book wasn't hoarded from day one. Books that sell out quickly enough to have a second printing aren't hoarded....they are distributed far and wide.

 

Several people said they did hoard the book (myself included although I understand you don't think my meager number of copies counts as a hoard.) Then you went on to frame your statement that you meant "generally, this book wasn't hoarded from day one" at some point in the discussion and you wrote this was implied in your original statement. Except, nobody but you understood it was implied, otherwise there wouldn't have been the discussion. So, rather than leave it at that or acknowledge that there was some level of hoarding that occurred (it doesn't matter if it was 1 collector or 100 collectors) and your initial statement wasn't true, you continued to double down and frame the original statement so that it would be true. The hoarders were the "exception, not the rule" is what I believe was discussed for a few pages which to me is you tacitly agreeing you do not think you original statement, as written, was true.

 

I also believe the discussion morphed into talking about speculation and probably other things, but it was this original statement that kicked it off.

 

How about we make this simple. We have 10 collectors, 9 of the collectors say they hated comic X and 1 said he loved it. So, in your words, would you say:

 

A) "Everyone hated comic X."

 

Or

 

B) "Generally everyone hated comic X."

 

And since you love parsing other peoples words, can you see that if you went with answer A, there is at least one person who would see this differently, because he/she in fact loved comic X. And since you love being precise, answer A is not true.

 

Honestly, I think we are just talking over each other at this point or maybe we are discussing 2 different things. So, I will let you have the last word. Unless this gets brought up in another thread, in which case I reserve the right to jump in again.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And my apologizes for following up with RMA in this thread. I'm not sure why this spilled over here.

 

No worries, you can't help yourself I totally get it. The bait RMA dangles is oftentimes impossible to resist, and yet you almost always regret it when you take it.

 

-J.

 

I'm not going to sit here and insult you in return, Jay, tempting though it is.

 

I'll simply respond with the facts, and let the chifacts fall where they may.

 

You have consistently and determinedly spread misinformation on these boards, since the beginning of your tenure here.

 

Others may not care, and that's fine...but I'll be here, because people deserve not to be told misinformation, presented as "fact."

 

It's not personal.

 

 

More hypocritical posturing couched as "fact" from the master.

 

I, and many others, have laid out the case proving that accusation, Jay.

 

I'm certainly willing to do so again.

 

You don't answer direct questions, so how is what I said "hypocritical"? Do I purposely spread misinformation, while telling others not to? That would be hypocritical.

 

I don't think you know what the word "hypocrite" means.

 

I would sincerely recommend that you reevaluate your posting style.

 

There's many directions I can take with this one, but I'll just say "thank you, but I'm fine."

 

The world can't be wrong, RMA.

 

Of course not. But you are not the world, and it's grandiose delusion to imagine you are.

 

One more time: you said you were not going to interact with me here. You have now broken that pledge twice. Now, don't misunderstand...I have no issue with you interacting with me. I just want to make sure everyone reading this understands that you say one thing, and then do another....

 

You do have some insightful information to share at times, but your method of delivery is off putting more often than it's not.

 

Most people who spread misinformation think that. I have no problem with that.

 

My mama always told me you can't tell a grown man anything, and she's right, but I figured I'd put it out there anyway.

 

Goodness, do you prove that one true.

 

Back on topic...

 

I wonder if we will see another copy of the 667 appear for sale by the end of the year. Or the UXM 510 for that matter.

 

 

-J.

 

Doubtful. If the September sale didn't flush one out (I speak of 667) by now, it's not likely.

 

The 510 might be another story. There's still time.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

RMA, honestly, I don't have an issue with you.

 

Yet, you "dread" my input....

 

Something seems contradictory, there...

 

 

What started much of the discussion in the ASM 361 thread was this statement you made:

 

And no, this book wasn't hoarded from day one. Books that sell out quickly enough to have a second printing aren't hoarded....they are distributed far and wide.

 

Several people said they did hoard the book (myself included although I understand you don't think my meager number of copies counts as a hoard.) Then you went on to frame your statement that you meant "generally, this book wasn't hoarded from day one" at some point in the discussion and you wrote this was implied in your original statement. Except, nobody but you understood it was implied, otherwise there wouldn't have been the discussion. So, rather than leave it at that or acknowledge that there was some level of hoarding that occurred (it doesn't matter if it was 1 collector or 100 collectors) and your initial statement wasn't true, you continued to double down and frame the original statement so that it would be true. The hoarders were the "exception, not the rule" is what I believe was discussed for a few pages which to me is you tacitly agreeing you do not think you original statement, as written, was true.

 

Here's the problem you're having....

 

There is casual commentary...and there is precise debate. There is figurative speech...and there is literal speech.

 

That comment was CASUAL. It was not meant to be a precise, accurate, down-to-the-last-jot-and-tittle accounting of the precise, exact situation, or I would have given you that, because it's obviously what I like to DO.

 

Surely, you can understand that, can't you?

 

"Except, nobody but you understood it was implied, otherwise there wouldn't have been the discussion." - That statement is demonstrably untrue. What IS true is that the people who challenged the statement didn't understand that it was implied. You have absolutely no way of knowing that NOBODY (hey, look, we're being precise!) but me understood that it was implied. No way at all. Those who took my casual comment literally didn't know. Those who did NOT take my casual comment literally DID.

 

Then, when I explain that it's FIGURATIVE, and not LITERAL, you come back with "well, now you're just trying to cover yourself."

 

 

Surely you know what when someone says "EVERYONE knows that!", they don't literally mean every single person on the planet, right? Surely, you know that when someone says "EVERYONE loves ice cream", they don't literally mean every single person on the planet, right?

 

When I said "this book wasn't hoarded from day one", I did not mean that literally not one single person who bought multiple copies of this book on day one didn't keep them throughout the book's initial rise and fall in value.

 

Why?

 

Because there are ALWAYS, ALWAYS exceptions that prove (test) the rule. That should be a granted, a given, in any discussion. I don't literally take what people say casually, and if I do, I ask them first if they mean that literally, or they are only speaking FIGURATIVELY.

 

The book wasn't hoarded. SOME people hoarded it. Those two statements, unless you insist on being 100% literal, aren't contradictions. By acknowledging the exception, I WAS acknowledging that some people hoarded this book.

 

One is figurative. The other is precise. FIGURATIVELY, the book wasn't hoarded. OVERARCHINGLY, the book wasn't hoarded. LITERALLY, some people DID hoard the book. There will ALWAYS be exceptions to the rule, and those exceptions don't change the rule.

 

No "waffling", or "back pedaling", or "tacitly admitting" or anything of the sort. My position has never changed, from the very beginning of the conversation. This entire discussion, you have sought to find fault in what I've said, and when I clarified upon being challenged, you call that back pedaling! That's a NO WIN situation. You have damned me if I don't, and you have damned me if I do. That's not very fair of you.

 

And if you want to think THIS explanation is "doubling down" and being "unwilling to admit I was wrong", when I was using FIGURATIVE, CASUAL language, rather than PRECISE, then knock yourself out (I mean that FIGURATIVELY, I don't literally want you to knock yourself out.)

 

 

I also believe the discussion morphed into talking about speculation and probably other things, but it was this original statement that kicked it off.

 

How about we make this simple. We have 10 collectors, 9 of the collectors say they hated comic X and 1 said he loved it. So, in your words, would you say:

 

A) "Everyone hated comic X."

 

Or

 

B) "Generally everyone hated comic X."

 

And since you love parsing other peoples words, can you see that if you went with answer A, there is at least one person who would see this differently, because he/she in fact loved comic X. And since you love being precise, answer A is not true.

 

Option A is a CASUAL COMMENT. In a CASUAL DISCUSSION, you don't HAVE to take every single word literally...at...face...value...all...the...time.

 

When we get down to a serious DEBATE...then YES, I can and WILL parse every word, because that sort of fine detail is important.

 

But in a CASUAL CONTEXT? Please. That's beyond silly.

 

And, if you have a question about it, you can say "well, I certainly enjoyed it. Am I part of everyone?" And then the person can respond by saying "I didn't mean literally everyone, no."

 

Without the ability to be CASUAL and FIGURATIVE, things can get really old around here, REALLY fast.

 

Honestly, I think we are just talking over each other at this point or maybe we are discussing 2 different things. So, I will let you have the last word. Unless this gets brought up in another thread, in which case I reserve the right to jump in again.

 

Whatever floats your boat.

 

(That's a FIGURATIVE comment. I don't mean your literal boat; I don't even know if you HAVE a boat.)