notice postal office opened and inspected media mail 2 2

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, s-dali said:

@Skeptic_Kepp - I got upset last night by the wording of RMA's response. He stated that the chart on the blueline website was a bad interpretation of the DMM rules and regulations and that it had been debunked, meaning that it had been proven to be false. How?? How can you PROVE that the chart is false? You can't!!!

Sure you can. When something is internally contradictory...as this chart is...it can easily be proven false.

Are pictures the issue? The rule for coloring books says it is, but the rule for graphic novels says it isn't. Films consist wholly of pictorial matter, but they're allowed. 

Are ads the issue? The rule for comic books suggest that it might not be, but the rule for graphic novels says it is.

Is "wholly reading matter" the issue? The rule for coloring books and activity books says yes, but then graphic novels don't "consist wholly of reading matter" (depending on what you consider "reading matter"), but they're explicitly allowed.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, Skeptic_Kepp said:

I don't understand why you seem upset. I thought this was a great discussion and was enjoying reading it. Both of you guys did a great job articulating your points.
 

Agree completely.

1 hour ago, Skeptic_Kepp said:

Creationists are wrong on their interpretation of fossils and easily debunked: Fossils are only one evidence of evolution that isn't even required to verify common descent. It's just a bonus. When one looks at all of the available evidence for common descent, the only way to reject it is to claim conspiracy.

Disagree completely.

 

[Skeptic_Kepp]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Agree completely.

Disagree completely.

 

Are you a creationist, or do you just disagree with the way I presented my argument?

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Awesome.

We've gone from Media Mail to Duane Gish. 

[Skeptic_Kepp]

[aszumilo]

8 hours ago, 01TheDude said:

You can argue it forever and never come to any conclusion that is 100% guaranteed to be correct when it comes to media mail usage. The real issue here is what we as buyers and sellers should do when sending comics if we care about the hobby.

Bottom line for me is simply this-- media mail is:

1 - SLOW

2 - often Handled with less care

3 - occasionally opened and inspected, possibly changing the initial packaging and possibly not sealed again

4 - often times saves very little money compared to first class mail - especially when sending one or two books

IMO - Those are four excellent reasons NOT to use this service when sending someone a collectible because I personally don't want people to send me a package this way and will very rarely buy a book from a seller who states they intend to use this method of shipping. Sending me 1 to 3 comic books can be accomplished using first class mail, sandwiched with two sturdy pieces of cardboard. More expensive books should be sent in a box via priority mail. The reasons are simple-- they limit the impacts of problem areas 1 through 4.

Why give the post office a reason to open your package ever? It simply is not worth it.

 

ps- IN the above statements, I am only referring to shipping traditional comic books. TPBs and other forms that have no advertising but are also significantly heavy are one exception that seems reasonable for media mail usage preferably in strong boxers with excellent packaging.

No matter what your stance on Media Mail is, THIS is the only right answer!!!!!

[The Lions Den]

1 hour ago, Ditch Fahrenheit said:

I do the same.  I have a cutter from when I used to have my own darkroom.  The nice thing is you can very precisely cut the cardboard.  This is important if you want to fit a comic book sandwiched between 8 sheets of cardboard (depending on the thickness) into a USPS Legal Flat Rate Envelope.

Looks like this.

[s-dali]

@RMA, I understand your point about contradictions, but that does not mean the main point is false. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water. I tire of debating this with you. As you've stated, this is all theoretical. There is an inherent aspect to theories, they can be logically debated to death. A theory cannot be proven. Once it is, it ceases to be a theory and becomes fact. As for your disseminating my arguments and labeling them, that is a classic defensive tactic called redirection. Although I'm sure that you will argue that statement also. Have a good weekend bro.

[Fan Boy]

All that points being made here. This is a paradox which will go on forever unsolvable maybe? 

While I do enjoy seeing many people having their own points ... however the Media Mail option isn’t a great option to me nor for any other comic collector. Not a preferred option to use. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, s-dali said:

@RMA, I understand your point about contradictions, but that does not mean the main point is false.

True. In this case, however, it does.

3 hours ago, s-dali said:

You are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

This metaphor doesn't make sense in the context of this discussion. If the chart is the baby, and its contradictions the bath water, it doesn't work, because it contradictions invalidate the entire document. They aren't separate, distinct concepts.

3 hours ago, s-dali said:

I tire of debating this with you.

Didn't you state, a few posts back, that you were going back to not posting for a couple of years? My, how time flies! In any event, if you're tired of debating, there's a simple solution: stop debating.

3 hours ago, s-dali said:

As you've stated, this is all theoretical.

That is not what I said. At all. I would explain, but I'm not sure there's value in explaining for the sake of others. 

3 hours ago, s-dali said:

There is an inherent aspect to theories, they can be logically debated to death. A theory cannot be proven. Once it is, it ceases to be a theory and becomes fact.

So which is it...? Theories cannot be proven, or they can...?

Theories are proven all the time. It's the foundation of the scientific method. Nitpicking? On the contrary, your premise here is that my "theory" cannot be proven, which you then contradict to say that theories CAN be proven. It is not surprising, then, to note that you don't have a problem with the chart you posted. How do you think theories are proven...? By being tested, by being debated "to death." 

3 hours ago, s-dali said:

As for your disseminating my arguments and labeling them, that is a classic defensive tactic called redirection.

I think the word you're looking for there is "disassembling", not "disseminating." I'm certainly not scattering them about. Your appeal to authority fallacy is completely germane to the subject, because your argument rests on it: the so-called "chart" is "official", and therefore "cannot be questioned", since it's from "people who know."

Not only is pointing out that that is an appeal to authority fallacy not even remotely redirection, it's right dead center to the heart of your argument. The chart doesn't become valid simply because it was composed by those "who know" (as you claim.) That is an appeal to authority, and it's always a fallacy, regardless of who, what, when, or where.

Einstein wasn't right, wherever he was correct, because he was Einstein. He was right because he proved it to be so. A doctor isn't right, just because she's a doctor. She's right...or wrong...because of the facts of the matter, not the MD behind her name. A USPS worker doesn't know more than the average Joe Blow, by virtue of being a USPS worker. Those would all be appeals to authority, and it's always a fallacy.

3 hours ago, s-dali said:

Although I'm sure that you will argue that statement also

Of course. Haven't you been doing the same...? Despite claiming, several posts back, that you were not going to post again for a few more years...? I can assure you, I won't take personal shots at you, as you have done, and no aspect of this discussion has upset me in any way, as you admittedly have become. I will only ask a simple question: you accused me of being "closed-minded." No doubt, many here agree with you, because I take strong positions, and cannot be easily persuaded, unlike my less stalwart colleagues. That doesn't mean, however, that I cannot be persuaded at all, nor that I don't consider the positions of others. My question, however, is this: would getting upset and taking personal shots because someone disagrees with your position be indicative of a closed mind, or an open one...?

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

26 minutes ago, Fan Boy said:

All that points being made here. This is a paradox which will go on forever unsolvable maybe? 

While I do enjoy seeing many people having their own points ... however the Media Mail option isn’t a great option to me nor for any other comic collector. Not a preferred option to use. 

Agreed. Media Mail is not for sending collectibles through the mail. It's almost always a bad decision to do so. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, Skeptic_Kepp said:

Are you a creationist, or do you just disagree with the way I presented my argument?

The shortest answer is "no and yes." The less short answer is "yes and yes." However, this is not the thread for that discussion.

 

[DavidTheDavid]

Dissemble, not disassemble.

RMA confuses his own interpretation with rational conclusion.

He's a logic chopper, not a debater. 

[s-dali]

17 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

3 hours ago, s-dali said:

As you've stated, this is all theoretical.

That is not what I said. At all. I would explain, but I'm not sure there's value in explaining for the sake of others. 

Earlier in this thread, you stated "Make no mistake: my argument is theoretical. not practical." Sounds as if you have contradicted yourself. And yes, after discussing this with some people, I decided to continue to post. I did something that I am sure is a new concept to you, I changed my mind.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, s-dali said:

Earlier in this thread, you stated "Make no mistake: my argument is theoretical. not practical." Sounds as if you have contradicted yourself. And yes, after discussing this with some people, I decided to continue to post. I did something that I am sure is a new concept to you, I changed my mind.

Yes, my argument is theoretical. I didn't say "this is all theoretical." There's a distinct difference, and it's an important one. 

As far as your continuing to take personal shots...again, is doing so indicative of a closed mind, or an open one...?

Ask yourself who is the one who is upset, or angry, or mad, or frustrated. That would be you, correct? Why? Because someone doesn't agree with you. That's really what it comes down to.

With regard to continuing to post, saying things like "I think I'll just wait a few more years before I comment on anything else here", and then immediately posting again, makes you look like a martyr with a flair for melodrama. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Dissemble, not disassemble.

Whenever you're unsure of a word and whether its usage is correct, it always helps to put the definition of the word in place of that word, and see if what is written still makes sense. In this case, "dissemble" means "to hide one's true motives." It's something that only an individual can do for him or herself; it's not something that can be imposed on another person, by virtue of the definition of the word.

So, let's put that word back in its context, and see if your suggestion makes sense:

Quote

As for your hiding my motives my arguments and labeling them, that is a classic defensive tactic called redirection.

You'll notice that that doesn't make any sense. 

Also..."disseminating"...that is, "spreading or dispersing"...clearly isn't the correct word, either.

As stated before, I think the word that "s-dali" was looking for is "disassembling"...that is, taking them apart.

He/she is free to correct me if I'm wrong; I'm only considering the context to arrive at my conclusion.

15 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

RMA confuses his own interpretation with rational conclusion.

Interesting that you make a claim, but don't do anything to explain how or why. 

I suspect you know what sort of value that places on the claim.

As far as confusing one's own interpretation with rational conclusion, I'd certainly suggest that that's something of which you are guilty to a far greater degree than I.

17 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

He's a logic chopper, not a debater. 

And yet, oddly enough, no one is able to explain just why these arguments are "confusing or specious."

I appreciate your position, but your confusion doesn't make the argument confusing. It just means you don't understand it.

 

[DavidTheDavid]

He is also prickly and doesn't take criticism well, but what's new there?

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 hours ago, s-dali said:

Plus, taking what he stated to the next logical step, if the interpretation on an USPS associated site is a bad interpretation and wrong, so is every other interpretation.

This is not true. It's the same appeal to authority fallacy. There is nothing authoritative about a "USPS associated site" that would render every other interpretation bad and wrong, just because that "USPS associated site" is.

5 hours ago, s-dali said:

To me, what he stated was a sign of debating with a very closed minded individual. I have better things to do than waste my time debating with such an individual.

This is personal commentary that has zero business being in any discussion. Whether the substance of such a claim is true, false, or anywhere in between, talking about the people involved in the discussion, rather than the subject of the discussion, means that 1. someone has taken the discussion personally and become offended, and 2. the offended party has usually lost the debate.

Would my opinion of the state of your "open or closed mindedness" have any bearing on this discussion? No. So, I don't state it. 

It's not too much to ask the same courtesy in return.

5 hours ago, s-dali said:

In this case. the Supreme Court would be the Postmaster General or perhaps a committee, whoever it is that oversees the rules and regulations of the USPS. 

In this case, the Supreme Court is the DMM. The opinion of the Postmaster General, unless and until such opinion is incorporated into the DMM, has no bearing or relevance.

5 hours ago, s-dali said:

The blueline site is equivalent, in my mind, to a lower court, perhaps even an appeals court. It is composed of USPS employees whose jobs are dictated by the DMM.

The "blueline site" is not an appeals court, or any court, of any kind. Once more: the USPS is governed by the DMM and only the DMM. If it's not in the DMM, it has no authority, regardless of what, who, where, why, or how, with the exception of Congress or specific actual court rulings (neither of which apply here as of this time.) This is more of the same appeal to authority fallacy.

5 hours ago, s-dali said:

These are knowledgeable people, or they should be, when it comes to the inner workings of the USPS. At the very least, they are more knowledgeable about every aspect of the USPS then the average citizen. For all we can tell, that chart could have been made up by a committee or an individual. It may have originated in an USPS office in Washington, DC.

But you don't know who this chart was made by...so how do you know that they are "more knowledgeable about every aspect of the USPS then (sic) the average citizen"...?

If you don't know who made it, you certainly can't speak to his/her/their knowledge, and certainly not about every aspect of the USPS. And, while I concede that the person or people who made this chart would, of necessity, be more knowledgeable about THIS aspect of the USPS than the average citizen, we're not talking about the knowledge of the average citizen.

5 hours ago, s-dali said:

 But it doesn't matter, to dismiss such a reference so flippantly comes across as arrogant and obnoxious. I hope that helps to explain why I was upset last night.

What may have appeared to be "flippant" was not. If you had a question about that, let me lay that to rest. Perhaps, if something appears "flippant" to you, before accusing someone of being "arrogant and obnoxious", you perhaps could give someone the benefit of the doubt first, and ask what they meant. However...as I took pains to explain before, this chart is contradictory, both of itself and the DMM, and thus carries no value in determining what actually is and is not allowed. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

10 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

He is also prickly and doesn't take criticism well, but what's new there?

Did you consider what I said about dissemble vs. disassemble...? Do you think that "disassemble" makes more sense now that "dissemble" has been explained...?

I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on the matter.

[DavidTheDavid]

RMA seems to confuse my posts about him as posts to him.