Can somebody help me understand this wedding present?

[Jeffro.]

And you know Megan is not real how?

 

No one knows if this whole thing is real or not. All speculation. I thought I was one cynical

. I've got nothin' on some of the people in this thread. I'm okay with that

[Hepcat]

For the last time.

 

The book is real and is owned by the OP. "Megan" is not.

 

I think there's a very decent chance Megan is real as well. But the reason she started this thread was not to get more information but to tout a comic of hers that recently rocketed up in price to nosebleed levels in a proverbial search for the greater fool.

 

 

 

[*Bronze age fan*]

Wow Garry, I wouldn't think you'd be that skeptical as well as others about this persons story.

 

And in the end, who really cares?

 

 

 

I thought it was pretty clear that you did care.

 

 

I really don't care if the story is real or not. What I'm posting about and care about is calling someone a liar without any proof. It's not cool. The person posted pictures of the book, a card from her uncle, an interesting story...from what she has posted it seems to point towards the true box. I haven't seen any proof being provided by the others vocal on here that show this person is a liar.

 

See my point? Probably not and its cool. I don't care

 

 

What I wrote i truly believe. And wrote it to help any fellow board members who might fall for that garbage and send this "person" money for the fake book.

 

Besides trying to cheat people, I truly don't care about anything. I make it an art form. I will name my new bridge I bought from Dave "Mark1".

 

Again you have no proof this is a fake book.

 

And call me gullible all you want. I've been buying comics my whole life and have never been scammed doing so. Can't say the same for many here.

 

I think I have a good radar on Bull$$$$

 

 

 

I know, deep in my soul that the book is fake. And I kinda always trust my deep in my soul feeling. I have not been scammed either. (Well some have tried, like that clown that wanted four times guide for a Strange Worlds #1 that had gross writing on the cover, because I guess he figured I would pay anything asked for a comic that was on my want list that I was very public with. Those guys always come back and call me names on the Internet that I have to look up what they mean ) But like you, I have seen people jump on dumb threads like this and get burned. So why not tell the guys who are like lambs to the slaughter "My opinion". Can the OP change the heading of this thread to Frankie land? That would be mega cool.

[Mark 1]

Wow Garry, I wouldn't think you'd be that skeptical as well as others about this persons story.

 

And in the end, who really cares?

 

 

 

I thought it was pretty clear that you did care.

 

 

I really don't care if the story is real or not. What I'm posting about and care about is calling someone a liar without any proof. It's not cool. The person posted pictures of the book, a card from her uncle, an interesting story...from what she has posted it seems to point towards the true box. I haven't seen any proof being provided by the others vocal on here that show this person is a liar.

 

See my point? Probably not and its cool. I don't care

 

 

What I wrote i truly believe. And wrote it to help any fellow board members who might fall for that garbage and send this "person" money for the fake book.

 

Besides trying to cheat people, I truly don't care about anything. I make it an art form. I will name my new bridge I bought from Dave "Mark1".

 

Again you have no proof this is a fake book.

 

And call me gullible all you want. I've been buying comics my whole life and have never been scammed doing so. Can't say the same for many here.

 

I think I have a good radar on Bull$$$$

 

 

 

I know, deep in my soul that the book is fake. And I kinda always trust my deep in my soul feeling. I have not been scammed either. (Well some have tried, like that clown that wanted four times guide for a Strange Worlds #1 that had gross writing on the cover, because I guess he figured I would pay anything asked for a comic that was on my want list that I was very public with. Those guys always come back and call me names on the Internet that I have to look up what they mean ) But like you, I have seen people jump on dumb threads like this and get burned. So why not tell the guys who are like lambs to the slaughter "My opinion". Can the OP change the heading of this thread to Frankie land? That would be mega cool.

 

It's cool....I think our bull radar are on opposite ends of the believability scale.

 

Happy holidays

[PovertyRow]

For the last time.

 

The book is real and is owned by the OP. "Megan" is not.

 

That reflects my own sense and sensibility.

[Dick Pontoon]

I'm in the same boat!

[RockMyAmadeus]

The gaz973 show faced cancellation some time ago but the RMA show still rolls on.

 

There is no "gaz973 show" and there is no "RMA show." There's just people, chatting on an internet message board. You trying to make an issue out of someone's posts (in this case, me) has nothing to do with that person, and everything to do with you.

 

It would be nice if you were honest about that, and learned how to deal with people and things you don't like in a healthier way.

[Hepcat]

Hmmmm, I don't see Architect among your list of (judges)....

 

The omission is strange since he is indeed the head judge on this forum, is he not?

 

Only to those seeking to make hay. It is completely irrelevant whether Arch is, or is not, included on such a list, never mind "strange", since the list is not exhaustive, and says so.

 

Why, then, are you even raising this point? And they say politics isn't allowed.

 

Politics? Don't be silly. I'm raising the point because in the context of this board Architect is the only judge that counts.

 

Which, of course, is commonly misunderstood, and the second part is usually ignored:

 

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

 

Not surprising. The longer passage is less pithy and thus less likely to be quoted.

 

And, also not surprisingly, less likely to be quoted because it clarifies the meaning of "Judge not lest ye be judged."

 

I'll grant you that the longer passage does indeed clarify the meaning. But it's not the added clarity that causes it to be less often quoted. The longer passage is just that, longer, and there's a reason why they say that brevity is the soul of wit,

 

So, are you saying we don't judge every single day, all the time?

 

What did you do to Megantron? You judged her. Did you "walk a mile in her shoes" before doing so? No.

 

It's just another example of "don't judge me! You don't have any right to judge me until you've gone through what I've gone through!!"

 

It's specious, because if that were true, there would be no law, and no one would ever be held responsible for anything, ever. That's anarchy.

 

Without an objective standard, no one would be guilty of anything...a pleasing thought to many, until they become "victim" to someone else who believes the same thing. "I want that. You have it. I am going to take it by force. You can't stop me, because I don't recognize your "laws." How dare you judge me??""

 

Quite clearly, a sitting judge need not have been raised in an upper-middle class white collar home to know that a CPA embezzling from her firm is wrong.

 

My "judgement" of Megantron was limited to her specific comments in this thread. These had already become an issue in the minds if many posters. Your judgement of the other people commenting on these issue was much broader, i.e. fit to judge, hypocritical, too ready to take offence, etc.

 

And incidentally, which posters in this thread might be guilty of "hypocrisy" and precisely how?

 

I didn't make any specific charges of hypocrisy, so this question isn't relevant to this specific discussion, but the answer, in a general sense, is all of us.

 

But you would not have introduced the subject of hypocrisy into this thread unless you thought the concept had a more direct application to some of the participants. There would have been no point. Let me repeat then; who do you think was being particularly hypocritical in this thread?

 

[oakman29]

[RockMyAmadeus]

Thankfully nobody in this thread is a judge in real life...are they?

 

Nobody? I'd have no problem being judged by Jeffro, Chuck, Caira, or a few others...I would even accept it from you (not that I have a problem with your judgment, but I would want the opportunity to hash it out with you, first.) Hell, I'd even trust Tranny to exercise fair judgment.

 

Hmmmm, I don't see Architect among your list of names....

 

 

And?

 

The omission is strange since he is indeed the head judge on this forum, is he not?

 

Only to those seeking to make hay. It is completely irrelevant whether Arch is, or is not, included on such a list, never mind "strange", since the list is not exhaustive, and says so.

 

Why, then, are you even raising this point? And they say politics isn't allowed.

 

Politics? Don't be silly. I'm raising the point because in the context of this board Architect is the only judge that counts.

 

Still not relevant, in any way, to the conversation. I don't know how many ways I can say that. What part of "this list is not exhaustive, and says so" isn't clear? What is the real reason you keep bringing up his user name, and why are you trying so hard to make an issue out of it? Really, why am I even entertaining it is the real question. And are you not aware that there is such a thing as "board politics", much like "office politics"?

 

Also...if you're going to quote me, please do not alter the context of my quotes. I have restored the context above. Likewise, if you feel I have altered the context of anything you've said, you have only to let me know, and I will make sure to rectify it.

 

My "judgement" of Megantron was limited to her specific comments in this thread.

 

Does that change the requirement to "walk a mile in her shoes" before doing so?

 

If it does, then why do you think it's inappropriate or impossible for others to do the same?

 

If it doesn't...then, by your own standard, you aren't qualified to judge her specific comments in this thread.

 

These had already become an issue in the minds if many posters. Your judgement of the other people commenting on these issue was much broader, i.e. fit to judge, hypocritical, too ready to take offence, etc.

 

I was making my judgments the same exact way that you were: based on specific comments in this thread. I did not judge anyone on hypocrisy (see below), you are clearly easily offended, and my judgment that others are fit to judge is generally considered a compliment.

 

Also...does it need to be said that the "appeal to the masses" isn't a legitimate argument?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

And incidentally, which posters in this thread might be guilty of "hypocrisy" and precisely how?

 

I didn't make any specific charges of hypocrisy, so this question isn't relevant to this specific discussion, but the answer, in a general sense, is all of us.

 

But you would not have introduced the subject of hypocrisy into this thread unless you thought the concept had a more direct application to some of the participants. There would have been no point. Let me repeat then; who do you think was being particularly hypocritical in this thread?

 

 

Let's review the context of what I actually said, and not what you're claiming I said. Here's the original quote that brought up the subject of hypocrisy:

 

And hopefully you don't pretend to be able to determine which posters fall into the first category as opposed to the second. How does that saying go again? "Judge not lest ye be judged?"

 

We judge every single day, all the time. The proscription isn't against judgment...it's against hypocrisy. Not judging someone for the things you that you also do. Those who run around saying "don't judge, don't judge!" don't want to be called to account. It's as simple as that.

 

You brought up "judge not, lest ye be judged" (which, again, is commonly quoted by those who, themselves, don't want to be judged, as if all judgment is bad, evil, and something to be desperately avoided at all costs...but I digress.)

 

I responded by clarifying that the context of that verse, and the ones surrounding it, had to do with hypocrisy, not judgment. That is, condemning people for doing the very things that you, yourself (the general "you" here) do.

 

As you can plainly see, I "introduced the concept of hypocrisy" to clarify the Bible verse you, Hepcat, brought up, and which had nothing to do with me "thinking the concept had a more direct application to some of the participants." It had nothing to do with anyone in the thread, specifically. It was just a response to your comment.

 

If you're going to attempt to read my mind, you're going to need a lot more practice. And if you're going to have a debate, which is perfectly fine and I encourage it, you have to argue against what I actually said, not what you think I said.

[Mark 1]

Ah, the old RMA is back.

 

I still miss the emoticon days.

 

 

[budsbundy]

"Can somebody help me understand" why this thread is still going?

[Mark 1]

Because this forum will debate anything to death

[gaz973]

The gaz973 show faced cancellation some time ago but the RMA show still rolls on.

 

There is no "gaz973 show" and there is no "RMA show." There's just people, chatting on an internet message board. You trying to make an issue out of someone's posts (in this case, me) has nothing to do with that person, and everything to do with you.

 

It would be nice if you were honest about that, and learned how to deal with people and things you don't like in a healthier way.

It's ironic that you've always gone on about how the ignore function isn't good enough yet if you hadn't decided to toggle past that ignore feature, you'd have never known that I'd mentioned your name.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The gaz973 show faced cancellation some time ago but the RMA show still rolls on.

 

There is no "gaz973 show" and there is no "RMA show." There's just people, chatting on an internet message board. You trying to make an issue out of someone's posts (in this case, me) has nothing to do with that person, and everything to do with you.

 

It would be nice if you were honest about that, and learned how to deal with people and things you don't like in a healthier way.

It's ironic that you've always gone on about how the ignore function isn't good enough yet if you hadn't decided to toggle past that ignore feature, you'd have never known that I'd mentioned your name.

 

Let's reasonably and rationally examine your statement here, and see if it stands up to scrutiny:

 

First, one of the "flaws" of this board is that even if you have someone on ignore, if someone else quotes them, the person doing the ignoring can still see what the ignored says. Several people quoted what you said, and that is how I saw it.

 

So, your claim that I would have "never known that I'd mentioned your name" fails on that account. This may seem hard for some to understand, but there really are people here who don't feel the need to (always) toggle to "see" what people are saying.

 

Second, as I have said many, many times in the past, the ignore function doesn't give the ignored carte blanche to make negative comments about those who are ignoring them, a fact the "you can't seem to not toggle" crowd doesn't want to acknowledge.

 

No insults, here. I'm not insulting or denigrating you. No snide emoticons. Just saying what is, gaz973.

 

As I said. I would appreciate it if you would simply pretend I wasn't here, rather than making negative comments about me.

 

Is that really that much to ask?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Ah, the old RMA is back.

 

I still miss the emoticon days.

 

 

What I said to gaz973 applies to you, too. If you don't like what someone says, just ignore them. Trying to instigate a confrontation puts you squarely in the wrong, and is made worse by your own comments about others doing it.

 

I ignored your earlier inaccurate (and, frankly, very dismissive to comic fans) observation that you can't judge someone based on their comments on a "comic book forum."

 

I would appreciate if you would extend me the same courtesy.

 

This is not an unreasonable request.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

"Can somebody help me understand" why this thread is still going?

 

Sure...the original purpose of the thread seems to have been fulfilled, and some people have decided to continue the conversation in a couple of different directions.

 

:shrug:

 

I'll never understand why people have a problem about what, when, where, and how others choose to discuss things, but hey, I don't understand string theory, either. If two (or more) people want to "debate something to death", why is that an issue with others (especially others who do the same thing)? There are literally thousands of other threads, and hundreds on "the front pages", to read.

 

[gaz973]

The gaz973 show faced cancellation some time ago but the RMA show still rolls on.

 

There is no "gaz973 show" and there is no "RMA show." There's just people, chatting on an internet message board. You trying to make an issue out of someone's posts (in this case, me) has nothing to do with that person, and everything to do with you.

 

It would be nice if you were honest about that, and learned how to deal with people and things you don't like in a healthier way.

It's ironic that you've always gone on about how the ignore function isn't good enough yet if you hadn't decided to toggle past that ignore feature, you'd have never known that I'd mentioned your name.

 

Let's reasonably and rationally examine your statement here, and see if it stands up to scrutiny:

 

First, one of the "flaws" of this board is that even if you have someone on ignore, if someone else quotes them, the person doing the ignoring can still see what the ignored says. Several people quoted what you said, and that is how I saw it.

 

So, your claim that I would have "never known that I'd mentioned your name" fails on that account. This may seem hard for some to understand, but there really are people here who don't feel the need to (always) toggle to "see" what people are saying.

 

Second, as I have said many, many times in the past, the ignore function doesn't give the ignored carte blanche to make negative comments about those who are ignoring them, a fact the "you can't seem to not toggle" crowd doesn't want to acknowledge.

 

No insults, here. I'm not insulting or denigrating you. No snide emoticons. Just saying what is, gaz973.

 

As I said. I would appreciate it if you would simply pretend I wasn't here, rather than making negative comments about me.

 

Is that really that much to ask?

Actually you are correct that someone had quoted me without me having realised it so I apologise for my incorrect statement saying that you wouldn't have seen my comment.

 

My original comment was me typing a brief thought aloud with almost no feeling behind it beyond a mild amusement on my part. I wouldn't still be posting back here if you weren't posting back at me. I barely post here anymore usually so I have no real investment or interest in this kind of silliness and I certainly don't take it seriously as I did in the old days. I'm sure that there is no need for either of us to add another reply to this conversation between us.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Actually you are correct that someone had quoted me without me having realised it so I apologise for my incorrect statement saying that you wouldn't have seen my comment.

 

Thank you. Apology gladly accepted.

 

My original comment was me typing a brief thought aloud with almost no feeling behind it beyond a mild amusement on my part. I wouldn't still be posting back here if you weren't posting back at me. I barely post here anymore usually so I have no real investment or interest in this kind of silliness and I certainly don't take it seriously as I did in the old days.

 

What you consider "silliness" and "mild amusement", I consider derogatory and unnecessarily confrontational, considering the history of our interactions. If it's not that big a deal to you in the first place, and I openly tell you that it IS a big deal to me, what's the harm in refraining from such comments going forward?

 

I'm sure that there is no need for either of us to add another reply to this conversation between us.

 

I agree.

[gaz973]

What you consider "silliness" and "mild amusement", I consider derogatory and unnecessarily confrontational, considering the history of our interactions. If it's not that big a deal to you in the first place, and I openly tell you that it IS a big deal to me, what's the harm in refraining from such comments going forward?

This does kind of go against comments you've made before about comments on the Internet should not be taken to heart especially when intent was not especially confrontational. Unfortunately I don't have the time or interest to go looking for such posts. You've also seriously offended me many times in our board history though apparently without intention to do so.

 

However, my original comment was intended as more of a humour/nostalgia thing since I don't spend the time here that I used to. Sort of along the lines of your old "everyone hates RMA" custom title that you used to have. (If I've misquoted your old title, that is not deliberate. Just down to faulty memory).

 

Anyway, I'm sure that we could do a pointless back and forth about his forever but I've no particular desire to. I just wanted to clarify my intent or lack of it. Happy New Year.