CGC census is high, but there aren't enough keys 5 5

[sfcityduck]

14 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

 "Reading" is not a "collecting goal." If their goal was to "read the story", they didn't even need to OWN those books to "achieve" their "collecting goal."

.

LOL!  You are far afield of the mainstream of comic collectors now.  And you are floating another strawman here.  I have said over and over:  A collector seeks out comics, buys them, and holds them, for the love of comics.  Folks whose collecting goal is to read, over and over, the stories they love, must possess the comic, or they can't read it over and over.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

"Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding."   He's a collector.  Consider these two pictures:



You'd call this kid a "hoarder" or "reader." After all, look at the disarray.

But that kid is this kid:



Now you're trying to speak for ME.

Here are two pictures for you to ponder:

and:

And now, the text of the DSM:

"Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding."

Read that again. The answers you seek are there.

And THANK YOU for posting that bit from the DSM! Much appreciated!

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

18 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

 "Reading" is not a "collecting goal." If their goal was to "read the story", they didn't even need to OWN those books to "achieve" their "collecting goal."

.

LOL!  You are far afield of the mainstream of comic collectors now.  And you are floating another strawman here.  I have said over and over:  A collector seeks out comics, buys them, and holds them, for the love of comics.  Folks whose collecting goal is to read, over and over, the stories they love, must possess the comic, or they can't read it over and over.

You're still using "strawman" incorrectly. I really don't think you grasp what that means. "Reading" is "reading." "Reading" is not a "collecting goal", because there's nothing TANGIBLE about reading. You cannot collect "reading." And you are quite incorrect that "folks whose collecting goal (sic) is to read...must possess the comic, or they can't read it over and over."

I guess you're just not aware that libraries have carried comics and graphic novels for decades...?

Or that digital copies have been available for over a decade now...?

I can read the entire Marvel Silver Age catalog, and never possess a single copy of an actual comic.

You're toast, man. Give it up already. Those defending your arguments would do well to recognize the silliness with which you are willing to go to not lose an argument.

[sfcityduck]

17 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

7. The quote that started this ENTIRE argument was your nonsensical actual assertion that "comics fandom was large and developed by 1964."

Enough. Is. Enough.

You are taking that quote of out of context.  Here is the full context of that quote:

 

 

Quote

 

   On 8/17/2018 at 1:36 PM, valiantman said:

Gotcha.  In terms of decades of popularity, the big 3 are well-known, and I think we can also identify the big 5.

Superman = first appearance too expensive

Batman = first appearance too expensive

Spider-man = first appearance too expensive

Hulk = first appearance too expensive

Wolverine = first appearance is becoming too expensive

The Big 5 are too expensive... or they will be... as soon as Hulk #181 settles.  

I think the Big 10 and Big 20 will be too.

Big big problem with your analysis.  Which of those is not like the others?

It is pretty common knowledge that any books published after 1964 were actively collected by a large and developed comic fandom.  It's the pre-1964 books which are rare.  

Grouping IH 181 with those other books ignores supply and demand.

 

The real gist of my point was that books published after 1965 are much more plentiful than those published before.  Why?  Because they were kept by a large and developed group of people who knew to keep comic books.  This was relevant to the notion that Hulk 181 is comparable to AF 16 and IH 1 (or more remotely Action 1 and D 27). As I noted up thread, Overstreet was quoted back in 1980 as follows:

Quote

Overstreet says that 1964 was the turning point for comic collectors.  "That's about when it became widely known that comic books had value," he says.  "So everyone started saving them about then, but before 1964 a lot of people just threw them away." 

Your entire line of argument has been a nitpick so you don't "lose."  

Up thread, you were demanding "proof" that there were more than 1,000 comic fans in 1970.  To try to win that point, you've been playing games with definitions.

[sfcityduck]

18 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Not treating your possessions with reasonable care to prevent further damage will eventually result in their loss by destruction. Your "newsstand fresh" pile that degrades to "fine" will eventually degrade to DESTROYED if you make no effort to preserve them. 

 

Once again you've constructed a strawman.  There is a difference between "no effort to preserve them," and not caring if reading the comics causes them to decrease in grade is vast.  Reading comics will NOT ultimately lead to their destruction.  And, yes, keeping your comics in stacks in your room is a form of preserving them from ultimate destruction, it just won't keep them perfectly preserved.  I'm not saying a kid who buys a comic, reads it, and throws it away is a collector.  I am saying a kid who seeks out comics, buys them, and holds them is.

[sfcityduck]

17 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

And now, the text of the DSM:

"Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding."

Read that again. The answers you seek are there.

And THANK YOU for posting that bit from the DSM! Much appreciated!

You really are having trouble reading the DSM.  It states:  "NOT ALL collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, ..."   Get it?  "NOT ALL"  Can you agree with that statement?  I can.  I can also agree with the statement that excites you so much that "they are much more LIKELY to do so" (not always, just more likely).  You are misreading the DSM.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Your entire line of argument has been a nitpick so you don't "lose."  

Up thread, you were demanding "proof" that there were more than 1,000 comic fans in 1970.  To try to win that point, you've been playing games with definitions.

Nonsense. "Up thread', I was attempting, in good faith, to reason with you, as others have, that there's no way to prove how many collectors there were in 1964, or 1965, or 1970, or, in fact, even today. You couldn't win on the "there's no way there were only 1,000 collectors by 1970!", because you had no way of proving whether my GUESS was accurate or not, so you shifted, midstream, to arguing about what made a "collector", nitpicking all the way yourself, and coming up with the absurd notion that "reading" is a "collecting goal", because someone must "possess the comic" to "read it over and over again"...which I handily demonstrated, by the mention of libraries and digital copies, among other things, wasn't even remotely true.

You started this entire discussion with insults and degradation ("your ignorance is showing" "your knowledge of comics history is appalling"), showing a distinct lack of basic courtesy, courtesy which you were shown and didn't deserve. You have operated in bad faith this entire discussion. But, no no! My "entire line of argument has been to nitpick so I don't "lose.""

Yeah. Sure. Go with that.

[sfcityduck]

14 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

I guess you're just not aware that libraries have carried comics and graphic novels for decades...?

 

Your contention is that "reading is not a collecting goal."  

That contention is not rebutted by the fact that there may be now an avenue to read comics without collecting them.  Setting aside that in the 60s and 70s there were not comics in libraries (other than the Fireside press books, 30s to the 70s books, a few others), that ignores a basic point  Just because today you might be able to read Masterworks of many Marvel comics (not all) or get them online, and thus you do not NEED to collect the SA Marvel comics to read them, that does not refute that a desire to read comics can still be a legitimate collecting goal today (and certainly was back in the 60s and 70s - in fact, it was the predominant goal!).  

It is certainly a legitimate motivation to collect comics for the purpose of reading the stories, possessing the comics, so they may be read over and over at your leisure.  

I'm aghast that you can, apparently with a straight face, assert otherwise.  

Have you ever read Ffieffer's book, All in Color for a Dime, etc.?  They are about the impact of the stories on collectors.   

[RockMyAmadeus]

10 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

You really are having trouble reading the DSM.  It states:  "NOT ALL collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, ..."   Get it?  "NOT ALL"  Can you agree with that statement?  I can.  I can also agree with the statement that excites you so much that "they are much more LIKELY to do so" (not always, just more likely).  You are misreading the DSM.

Yes...grab on to that single qualifier, like a man on a sinking ship grabs onto a life preserver, which isn't even the point of the text. 

Again: 

"Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding."

(Emphasis mine.)

Read it again. Yes, the writer says "not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects"...but read the context. See what it says? "the hoarded items are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection." That is the point the writer is making. Here's more: "non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments"

See that? The writer is stating, explicitly, that collectors put their possessions on display, RATHER THAN (that means "in opposition to") letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments."

So, putting the "NOT ALL" back into that context, you find that the writer is NOT saying that SOME collectors have their collections strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order", but that not all collectors are AS neat and tidy about it as other collectors, and are much more likely to be very neat and tidy than hoarders. 

Do you understand that distinction...?

You are misreading the DSM.

Edited August 26, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[sfcityduck]

19 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 You couldn't win on the "there's no way there were only 1,000 collectors by 1970!", because you had no way of proving whether my GUESS was accurate or not, so you shifted, midstream, to arguing about what made a "collector", nitpicking all the way yourself, and coming up with the absurd notion that "reading" is a "collecting goal", because someone must "possess the comic" to "read it over and over again"...which I handily demonstrated, by the mention of libraries and digital copies, among other things, wasn't even remotely true.

 

The posts of up thread speak for themselves.  Anyone who reads them will see that:

* Jerry Bails had the addresses of over 1,600+ fans in his Who's Who published in 1964;

* The Rocket's Blast ComicCollector had a circulation of 1,100 in 1965 (and, no, it didn't reach every comic collector in America);

* The "Academy" of comic fans had over 2,000 members in the mid-1960s;

* That the RBCC's circulation had grown to 2,000 in 1968 (and, no, it still didn't reach every comic collector in America);

* Bob Overstreet had a print run of 1,000 copies for his first OPG in 1970 (and, no, he didn't think he'd sell to every collector in America);

And there are other data points listed above.  So, yes, I think that there is ample proof that there were more than 1,000 collectors in 1970.  And that's setting aside the many testimonials by people who were collectors back then that you choose to ignore as unworthy of consideration because of your apparently inherent distrust of the wisdom of the guys who lived the experience.  

P.S.  There were no digital copies of comics in 1970.  And, based on my experience, there were no comics in libraries.  Just a very limited universe of strip reprints.  I don't think the 30s to the 70s books have even been published by 1970.  Only the Ffieffer book.

Edited August 26, 2018 by sfcityduck

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Your contention is that "reading is not a collecting goal."  

That contention is not rebutted by the fact that there may be now an avenue to read comics without collecting them.  Setting aside that in the 60s and 70s there were not comics in libraries (other than the Fireside press books, 30s to the 70s books, a few others), that ignores a basic point  Just because today you might be able to read Masterworks of many Marvel comics (not all) or get them online, and thus you do not NEED to collect the SA Marvel comics to read them, that does not refute that a desire to read comics can still be a legitimate collecting goal today (and certainly was back in the 60s and 70s - in fact, it was the predominant goal!).  

It is certainly a legitimate motivation to collect comics for the purpose of reading the stories, possessing the comics, so they may be read over and over at your leisure.  

I'm aghast that you can, apparently with a straight face, assert otherwise.  

Have you ever read Ffieffer's book, All in Color for a Dime, etc.?  They are about the impact of the stories on collectors.   

We have already discussed "All In Color For a Dime" previously in this thread.

Once more: you cannot COLLECT "reading." You cannot COLLECT intangible concepts. "Reading" is not, and never will be, a "collecting goal." You can collect books SO THAT you can read them...but reading, ITSELF, is not something you can "collect." 

"Hey, are you collector?"

"Yeah, totally man. I've read ALL the issues of X-Men!"

"Cool! So you own a complete run?"

"Nah, man...I've just read them all!"

"So...you don't actually own any copies at all...?"

"Nah, man, my collecting goal was to read the stories, not own the books!"

"How have you collected anything if you don't own any of them...?"

"Man, quit harshing my vibe! You can't tell me what my collecting goals can or can't be!"

"Uh. Ok. I guess."

Your mention of the "Fireside press books" and other books is a nitpicky, irrelevant detail. The fact is, a person did not need to possess...which you said they MUST...a comic book to be able to read it. And "reading" isn't a "collecting goal." It's a reading goal.

You're trying not to "lose" the argument. You're trying to make believe that someone can "collect" the intangible. 

[sfcityduck]

 

Quote

 

Posted 46 minutes ago

"Accumulator" and "collector" are synonyms.  What do you think the difference is between those two terms? 

Already explained, at great and very exhaustive length. I invite you to read the thread again; the answers you seek are already there.

 

 

They are synonyms.  You have NOT set forth any sourced defintions of those terms that distinguish between them.  Just your own ramblings, which don't really amount to definitions at all.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

22 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

The posts of up thread speak for themselves.  Anyone who reads them will see that:

* Jerry Bails had the addresses of over 1,600+ fans in his Who's Who published in 1964;

* The Rocket's Blast ComicCollector had a circulation of 1,100 in 1965 (and, no, it didn't reach every comic collector in America);

* The "Academy" of comic fans had over 2,000 members in the mid-1960s;

* That the RBCC's circulation had grown to 2,000 in 1968 (and, no, it still didn't reach every comic collector in America);

* Bob Overstreet had a print run of 1,000 copies for his first OPG in 1970 (and, no, he didn't think he'd sell to every collector in America);

And there are other data points listed above.  So, yes, I think that there is ample proof that there were more than 1,000 collectors in 1970.  And that's setting aside the many testimonials by people who were collectors back then that you choose to ignore as unworthy of consideration because of your apparently inherent distrust of the wisdom of the guys who lived the experience.  

P.S.  There were no digital copies of comics in 1970.  And, based on my experience, there were no comics in libraries.  Just a very limited universe of strip reprints.  I don't think the 30s to the 70s books have even been published by 1970.  Only the Ffieffer book.

The posts "up thread" only have value if either one of these two things happens:

1. All participants operate in good faith, and faithfully represent what other parties have said, which has not happened...

or...

2. People read the entire thread, critically.

As to your claims:

"* Jerry Bails had the addresses of over 1,600+ fans in his Who's Who published in 1964;" - you have no way of knowing how many of these people were comic COLLECTORS, so that figure is moot.

"* The Rocket's Blast ComicCollector had a circulation of 1,100 in 1965 (and, no, it didn't reach every comic collector in America);" - you have no way of knowing how many of those subscribing were comic COLLECTORS, so that figure is also moot. As well, I don't recall you mentioning this circulation, but it's neither here nor there. I'll concede that it didn't reach every comic collector...obviously...if you'll concede that A. you have no idea how many of those subscribers were comic COLLECTORS, and B. you have no idea how many comic COLLECTORS OR FANS were in America in 1965.

"* The "Academy" of comic fans had over 2,000 members in the mid-1960s;" - you're fudging the numbers, here. The number given in that newspaper article Ditch posted AND by Schelly is "2,000." Conveniently, you do not mention that that number in 1963 was a mere 90, and that the Academy, according to Maggie Thompson, was completely defunct by 1968, because, of course, those tend to DISPROVE your claims.

"* That the RBCC's circulation had grown to 2,000 in 1968 (and, no, it still didn't reach every comic collector in America);" - same as above

"* Bob Overstreet had a print run of 1,000 copies for his first OPG in 1970 (and, no, he didn't think he'd sell to every collector in America);" - a figure which *I* provided, and which we do not know if that number represents the FIRST printing, the SECOND printing, BOTH printings, and how many Bob actually expected to sell. You don't know what he "thought" he'd sell, because you're not a mind reader. If you are...quick, what am I thinking RIGHT NOW??

22 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

And there are other data points listed above.  So, yes, I think that there is ample proof that there were more than 1,000 collectors in 1970.  And that's setting aside the many testimonials by people who were collectors back then that you choose to ignore as unworthy of consideration because of your apparently inherent distrust of the wisdom of the guys who lived the experience.  

I think there's circumstantial evidence to that effect, to which my reply MANY, MANY, MANY posts back was "fine...make it 2,000. Make it 3,000." 

As far as "many testimonials that you...that you choose to ignore"...where are they? Point to them. I didn't "ignore" them. You haven't PRODUCED them. "I said so!" isn't proof.

When you produce them, then they can be considered.

Edited August 26, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

 

Posted 46 minutes ago

  1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

"Accumulator" and "collector" are synonyms.  What do you think the difference is between those two terms? 

Already explained, at great and very exhaustive length. I invite you to read the thread again; the answers you seek are already there.

 

 

They are synonyms.  You have NOT set forth any sourced defintions of those terms that distinguish between them.  Just your own ramblings, which don't really amount to definitions at all.

This quote "nest" is a mess.

...I'm beginning to suspect that you're not at full capacity.

Perhaps this should be continued some other time when you are.

Edited August 26, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[sfcityduck]

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes...grab on to that single qualifier, like a man on a sinking ship grabs onto a life preserver, which isn't even the point of the text. 

Again: 

"Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding."

(Emphasis mine.)

Read it again. Yes, the writer says "not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects"...but read the context. See what it says? "the hoarded items are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection." That is the point the writer is making. Here's more: "non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments"

See that? The writer is stating, explicitly, that collectors put their possessions on display, RATHER THAN (that means "in opposition to") letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments."

So, putting the "NOT ALL" back into that context, you find that the writer is NOT saying that SOME collectors have their collections strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order", but that not all collectors are AS neat and tidy about it as other collectors, and are much more likely to be very neat and tidy than hoarders. 

Do you understand that distinction...?

You are misreading the DSM.

First, the guy in that picture, is posing with his comics.  He's not overly concerned with their condition, that's apparent from the picture.  Which does not mean he's not a collector.  It does mean that collector's sometimes pose with the comics in ways you find alarming.   But, nothing in that picture establishes he is a hoarder as defined by the DSM.  To the contrary, we don't see floor to ceiling stacks of junk, and no room to move.  

And this is where you once again misstate what is plain English.  The Psychology Today article states:

Quote

Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding.

Get it?  "NOT ALL collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects."  

The guy in the staged picture you are complaining about, which causes you to conclude he's not a "collector," actually does have a neat room.  And it's obvious from the picture that he normally, when not staging for a picture, keeps his comics in big stacks.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Some of the best collections in comics history were stored in big stacks.  As the writer notes, he doesn't need to keep them always "nice and tidy" and there are no other indicia that he is a "hoarder."  

You really are off the deep end on your interpretation of the DSM.

[sfcityduck]

17 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Once more: you cannot COLLECT "reading." You cannot COLLECT intangible concepts. "Reading" is not, and never will be, a "collecting goal." You can collect books SO THAT you can read them...but reading, ITSELF, is not something you can "collect." 

"

Yet another strawman.  No one has argued that you can collect reading.  But you can collect comic books, for the collecting goal of being able to read the entire X-Men story.  The objects being collected are comic books.  The collecting goal is to possess the whole story for the purposes of reading.

That you are trying to conflate a "collecting goal" with the object to be collected is absurd.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

37 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes...grab on to that single qualifier, like a man on a sinking ship grabs onto a life preserver, which isn't even the point of the text. 

Again: 

"Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding."

(Emphasis mine.)

Read it again. Yes, the writer says "not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects"...but read the context. See what it says? "the hoarded items are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection." That is the point the writer is making. Here's more: "non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments"

See that? The writer is stating, explicitly, that collectors put their possessions on display, RATHER THAN (that means "in opposition to") letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments."

So, putting the "NOT ALL" back into that context, you find that the writer is NOT saying that SOME collectors have their collections strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order", but that not all collectors are AS neat and tidy about it as other collectors, and are much more likely to be very neat and tidy than hoarders. 

Do you understand that distinction...?

You are misreading the DSM.

First, the guy in that picture, is posing with his comics.  He's not overly concerned with their condition, that's apparent from the picture.  Which does not mean he's not a collector.  It does mean that collector's sometimes pose with the comics in ways you find alarming.   But, nothing in that picture establishes he is a hoarder as defined by the DSM.  To the contrary, we don't see floor to ceiling stacks of junk, and no room to move.  

And this is where you once again misstate what is plain English.  The Psychology Today article states:

Quote

Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding.

Get it?  "NOT ALL collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects."  

The guy in the staged picture you are complaining about, which causes you to conclude he's not a "collector," actually does have a neat room.  And it's obvious from the picture that he normally, when not staging for a picture, keeps his comics in big stacks.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Some of the best collections in comics history were stored in big stacks.  As the writer notes, he doesn't need to keep them always "nice and tidy" and there are no other indicia that he is a "hoarder."  

You really are off the deep end on your interpretation of the DSM.

Ack! Format, man, FORMAT!! That is HARD on the EYES!

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

26 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Once more: you cannot COLLECT "reading." You cannot COLLECT intangible concepts. "Reading" is not, and never will be, a "collecting goal." You can collect books SO THAT you can read them...but reading, ITSELF, is not something you can "collect." 

"

Yet another strawman. 

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

[sfcityduck]

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

Actually it does.  Your strawman argument is:

Quote

Once more: you cannot COLLECT "reading."  You cannot COLLECT intangible concepts.

But, I'm not arguing that you can collect "reading."  I'm arguing that you can collect comic books for the collecting goal of reading them.  Hence, your argument is a strawman.  It is an argument you are falsely claiming that I am making, when I am not.

You can collect comics for the collecting goal of admiring their cover art.  That also is not collecting "admiring".  Sheesh.  For a guy who likes to talk about intellectual integrity, you sure are struggling with it here.

[RockMyAmadeus]

11 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

No one has argued that you can collect reading.  But you can collect comic books, for the collecting goal of being able to read the entire X-Men story.  The objects being collected are comic books.  The collecting goal is to possess the whole story for the purposes of reading.

That you are trying to conflate a "collecting goal" with the object to be collected is absurd.

Again..."reading" is not a collecting goal. You don't collect "reading." Yes, you can buy books TO read, but you're not collecting reading experiences...you're buying books to read.

If your goal is to read, you neither need to be, or necessarily are, a collector. 

"I'm buying an X-Men #1 because I want to read the story!"

X-Men #1 has been reprinted many, many, many times, in many, many different formats, starting with Marvel Tales #2 in 1964, a year or so after X-Men #1 came out.

So, why would someone who merely wanted to READ spend the money on a copy of X-Men #1, when they could buy a reprint for a lot less...?

"Being able to read the entire X-Men story" is not a "collecting goal." It is a READING goal, and it has already been long established in this thread that there were far more READERS of comics, then as now, than there are COLLECTORS of comics, and being a READER does not mean one was or is a COLLECTOR. 

And you STILL don't need to "possess the comic book to read it" as you irrationally claimed earlier. There are many ways to read a story without having to own a copy of it, then as now...and if you don't own a copy...what are you collecting?