Detective Comics 359 2 2

[kav]

Not to mention the many worlds hypothesis which seems to be the case-a book can be restored in one world, unrestored in another.  Both legitimate realities.

[porcupine48]

"If I hadn't seen them [the orange peels], then I wouldn't know they were there, and if I didn't know they were there, I wouldn't be able to say that they even exist. […] Some of them are starting to sink now. In a few minutes, the only place they'll still be floating will be inside my mind. That's quite interesting, because if you look at it a certain way, that's where they started floating in the first place. If I'd never been standing here at all, or if somebody'd come along and sort of chopped my head off right while I was –" 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, kav said:

43 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

As far as the idea that "If restoration exists, it is absolute," that's a pretty naive opinion, actually

It assumes some perfect entity that never makes mistakes.  Or that some things can always be detected.  This is incorrect.

Your conclusion is erroneous. It has nothing to do with "some perfect entity that never makes mistakes", because saying "if restoration exists, it is absolute" has nothing to do with whether or not that restoration is...and/or can be...detected. A book is either restored or it is not...utterly and totally independently of whether or not that restoration is, or can be, detected, and vice versa.

It's not about detection, and thus not about perfection of detection. It's about a state of existence.

[kav]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

Your conclusion is erroneous. It has nothing to do with "some perfect entity that never makes mistakes", because saying "if restoration exists, it is absolute" has nothing to do with whether or not that restoration is...and/or can be...detected. A book is either restored or it is not...utterly and totally independently of whether or not that restoration is, or can be, detected, and vice versa.

It's not about detection, and thus not about perfection of detection. It's about a state of existence.

see above.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, porcupine48 said:

"If I hadn't seen them [the orange peels], then I wouldn't know they were there, and if I didn't know they were there, I wouldn't be able to say that they even exist. […] Some of them are starting to sink now. In a few minutes, the only place they'll still be floating will be inside my mind. That's quite interesting, because if you look at it a certain way, that's where they started floating in the first place. If I'd never been standing here at all, or if somebody'd come along and sort of chopped my head off right while I was –" 

And yet...the orange peels were always there........

[kav]

An electron, for one example, does not have a 'state of existence'.  It has a probability of existence in different spin states.  It's not that we just cannot tell what the spin is before observing it, it is that it is in both spin states simultaneously and observation collapses the probability wave.

[porcupine48]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And yet...the orange peels were always there........

I just reread 'Teddy' last night,quote still fresh in my mind.Great collection,Nine Stories.

[kav]

Think of it as Schrodinger's comic book.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, porcupine48 said:

I just reread 'Teddy' last night,quote still fresh in my mind.Great collection,Nine Stories.

Did you find Schrödinger's cat in there...? And was it restored, or unrestored...?

[Tedsaid]

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You might have noticed, since you gave your hearty endorsement to the post announcing it, but I am banned from the CBCS forum, and cannot comment there.

Was it for excessive and poorly done pedantry?    Also, I don't know who you are, or were over there.

To say I crossed a line when I didn't is an insult.  It is a (false) claim that i am purposefully unethical.  What would you call it?  "I'm merely stating a negative opinion about you, based on the words you wrote and my misinterpretation of them."  Yeah, that doesn't fly.

 

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As I said before...whether it is detected or not doesn't matter. It either exists...it happened...or it did not. There's no "grey area" with restoration; either someone intentionally did something to improve the look of the book at some point, or it's not restored.

Which adds exactly nothing to the conversation that is about the detection of restoration.  You're right though ... I was giving you too much credit; I assumed you would be trying to make a contribution to the discussion.  Apologies for the oversight.

 

13 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes, and that is precisely what "gaming the system" is.

Actually, it isn't.  YOU defined "gaming the system," in this case, as me hoping CBCS would not spot restoration that is actually there.  That was a lie, which you later conceded.  But here's what I don't get ... you conceded the point and admitted you were wrong ... and then you keep referring back to the same instance as if you were never wrong.  Which is it? 

My words were clear.  If you can't read them properly, that's on you, not me.

[Tedsaid]

11 minutes ago, kav said:

Think of it as Schrodinger's comic book.

CGC: Your comic has restoration.

Schrödinger: That's your fault for looking at it.  Thanks a lot, #!&*%

Edited August 1, 2019 by Tedsaid

[kav]

1 minute ago, Tedsaid said:

CGC: Your comic has restoration.

Schrödinger: That's your fault for looking at it.  Thanks a lot, ****.

meanwhile on Earth 616:
This comic is unrestored-

[kav]

Then on Earth 717:
The first wolverine, Hulk 180, sold for-

[porcupine48]

21 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Did you find Schrödinger's cat in there...? And was it restored, or unrestored...?

It was sitting on Occams lap,who was eating the apple he got from the snake.

(I had to go change an oranges existence,it was delicious)

[RockMyAmadeus]

28 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

Was it for excessive and poorly done pedantry? 

No, it was for voicing dissenting opinions that others didn't like being voiced, including the moderation and administration. 

I'm not the only one, either.

28 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

Also, I don't know who you are, or were over there.

Which is why letting you know that I was banned there, and could only reply here, was important.

28 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

To say I crossed a line when I didn't is an insult.

If you wish to take it as an insult, that is certainly your choice. It was not, however, intended as one, nor was it expressed as one. If I wanted to insult you, as I have with Jesse_O, whose incompetence and lack of moral clarity knows no bounds, I could have done so. I did not. Why, then, not take Buzzetta's advice here: " I will take your comment not as one of a criticism of my character as to not raise unnecessary drama and chalk it up to the fact that you did not know that or I did not word my phrasing correctly."?

28 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

It is a (false) claim that i am purposefully unethical.  What would you call it?  "I'm merely stating a negative opinion about you, based on the words you wrote and my misinterpretation of them."  Yeah, that doesn't fly.

Make no mistake: your analysis, that CGC missed not one, not two, but three different types of restoration, is so incredibly unlikely as to be statistically moot. Therefore, hoping that CGC missed three different types of restoration, and it was CBCS that "got it right the first time", and that was a gamble you were willing to take comes right up to the line.

I conceded that you didn't cross it. I did NOT concede that you didn't come right to up it and come as close to the line without actually going over as you possibly could.

You're hoping that one of the two made a SERIOUS error, and suggesting that CGC is so incompetent that, in your opinion of course, there was a "greater than 50% chance" that they might have missed not one, not two, but three different types of restoration.

So let's not pretend you have the high moral ground, here.

28 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

48 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As I said before...whether it is detected or not doesn't matter. It either exists...it happened...or it did not. There's no "grey area" with restoration; either someone intentionally did something to improve the look of the book at some point, or it's not restored.

Which adds exactly nothing to the conversation that is about the detection of restoration.  

Except you made it an issue. Here's your quote:

Quote

As far as the idea that "If restoration exists, it is absolute," that's a pretty naive opinion, actually. 

You can't make an issue of something, and then complain that it doesn't add anything to the conversation. In fact, it certainly does, but the larger point remains.

28 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

You're right though ... I was giving you too much credit; I assumed you would be trying to make a contribution to the discussion.  Apologies for the oversight.

No need to be snarky. What is tolerated over at CBCS is most certainly NOT tolerated here.

28 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

Actually, it isn't.  YOU defined "gaming the system," in this case, as me hoping CBCS would not spot restoration that is actually there.  That was a lie,

It was no lie. I did not purposely misrepresent what you said with malignant intent. Dial it down.

The restoration IS actually there. CGC did not see three different types of restoration that isn't actually there..So, it is a FAIR claim...if not completely accurate...to say that you're hoping CBCS would not spot restoration that is actually there. I interpreted your comment in a reasonable way...it just wasn't the way you intended it, to which I said "fair point." 

28 minutes ago, Tedsaid said:

But here's what I don't get ... you conceded the point and admitted you were wrong ... and then you keep referring back to the same instance as if you were never wrong.  Which is it? 

So, someone concedes you a point...and points out how the original interpretation was a reasonable one to make...but that's not good enough for you? 

You fit in well at the CBCS board. 

Edited August 1, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, porcupine48 said:

It was sitting on Occams lap,who was eating the apple he got from the snake.

(I had to go change an oranges existence,it was delicious)

I'll bet that was a close shave. Hope you didn't get the boot!

[kav]

@Buzzetta now is the time.

[Buzzetta]

11 minutes ago, kav said:

@Buzzetta now is the time.

I just got finished watching "The Boys" 

Garth Ennis plagiarized himself... fun watch... An 8 episode season was just right. 

[kav]

Just now, Buzzetta said:

I just got finished watching "The Boys" 

Garth Ennis plagiarized himself... fun watch... An 8 episode season was just right. 

that was awesome.  after that I watched umbrella academy.

[Tedsaid]

19 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Make no mistake: your analysis, that CGC missed not one, not two, but three different types of restoration, is so incredibly unlikely as to be statistically moot.

It's not statistically insignificant if the three things are correlated.  Which they are, of course.  Someone spots what they think is one type of resto they are much more likely to think there are other types.  And besides that, even if you think it ridiculous, it must then be equally ridiculous that CBCS MISSED "three different types of restoration."  Those are the only two choices, after all.

Unless you think someone cracked a 9.2 $10,000 comic, used color touch, tear seals on tears that aren't there, and trimmed a perfect cover edge, just to send it in to CGC and hope they wouldn't detect it?  I think we can all agree, that is the most absurd scenario.  Which pretty much only leaves: either CBCS was wrong, or CGC was.  I think, of the two, it's more likely CGC was careless.  You think otherwise.  That's fine.  I'm not gonna make it out to be some moral issue like you did.  Agree to disagree, even when you are wrong.

Also, my opinion isn't that CGC missed restoration ... it's that they saw restoration that isn't there.  Are you still not getting that?  I don't know how to say it more plainly.

I remember you now.  You're the one who wrote pages and pages about how eBay sellers who put "not CGC" in their listings are morally bankrupt scoundrels who will bring about the end of civilization, right?  Yeah, I remember.  I thought that was a bit excessive.  I particularly liked how you could never let a single issue go, no matter how wrong you were.  In fact, the more wrong, the more likely you were to defend your posts to the nth degree.  It was ... tiring.  But hey, looks like they let you back in here!  Congrats!

How is it CGC doesn't tolerate snarky?  Please explain.  Because I've read the posts, and I'm pretty sure that's another lie.  Or "a-lie-but-not-on-purpose."