CGC 3, Ewert 0

[tth2]

Oh, yeah. The other word besides "witchhunt" that makes me all warm and fuzzy inside is "mob".

 

You're seriously asking me to rehash all my criticisms of how CGC has handled both the Ewert situation and the rollout/non-rollout of PCS? I don't have the time and no one really wants to hear all of it again.

Brad, I'm fully aware of all those prior discussions. I'm simply saying the accusations and criticisms of CGC for finding that Paperheart's Ewert books were not trimmed are unfounded.

 

And expressing my frustration that NO result from CGC's re-inspection could satisfy the more militant members of these boards when they have a mindset that they will be critical no matter what.

[tth2]

Perhaps somebody would fully explain the American concept of 'taking the 5th'?

 

From my woefully inadequate knowledge, it usually is used when the giving of details is likely to implicate the person giving those details?

 

And it usually indicates that the person taking the 5th has something to hide?

 

If this is about right...why has CGC, on all manner of topics, chosen to adopt the message board equivalent of 'taking the 5th'?

Yes. Basically, you can't be forced to testify against yourself if doing so could incriminate you. One of those pesky rights we adopted as a reaction to Brit rule.

 

And CGC are "taking the 5th" because it's prudent to do so, to avoid saying anything that might be potential ammo against them in a civil lawsuit. You act as if CGC are the only company in the world that acts like this. What, you think upon the launch of every new model, the President of General Motors is going to volunteer to speak at length about every dangerous aspect of those cars?

[Flaming_Telepath]

Perhaps somebody would fully explain the American concept of 'taking the 5th'?

 

From my woefully inadequate knowledge, it usually is used when the giving of details is likely to implicate the person giving those details?

 

And it usually indicates that the person taking the 5th has something to hide?

 

If this is about right...why has CGC, on all manner of topics, chosen to adopt the message board equivalent of 'taking the 5th'?

Yes. Basically, you can't be forced to testify against yourself if doing so could incriminate you. One of those pesky rights we adopted as a reaction to Brit rule.

 

And CGC are "taking the 5th" because it's prudent to do so, to avoid saying anything that might be potential ammo against them in a civil lawsuit. You act as if CGC are the only company in the world that acts like this. What, you think upon the launch of every new model, the President of General Motors is going to volunteer to speak at length about every dangerous aspect of those cars?

 

I accept that, Tim.

 

However, I don't think GM have been attempting to pass themselves off as 'an independant, third-party' anything for the last five years?

 

Which is why I continue to maintain that all is not as it has been purported to be with CGC.

[tth2]

And CGC are "taking the 5th" because it's prudent to do so, to avoid saying anything that might be potential ammo against them in a civil lawsuit. You act as if CGC are the only company in the world that acts like this. What, you think upon the launch of every new model, the President of General Motors is going to volunteer to speak at length about every dangerous aspect of those cars?

 

I accept that, Tim.

 

However, I don't think GM have been attempting to pass themselves off as 'an independant, third-party' anything for the last five years?

 

Which is why I continue to maintain that all is not as it has been purported to be with CGC.

Okay, PricewaterhouseCoopers or any of the Big 4 accounting firms, who for auditing purposes are legally required to be independent third parties. The Chairman of PWC is not going to say anything, good or bad, about the audits they perform. And if you've ever looked at an audit opinion or comfort letter from one of these firms, after wading through all the disclaimers and other boilerplate, you will wonder if they've even said anything and therefore whether they're even worth the paper they're printed on.

 

Now of course there is much about the auditing firms that is public, including the auditing standards they apply (although the room for discretion is huge), and they are now legally required to disclose and avoid conflicts of interest, including providing lucrative services like consulting if they're a company's auditor. But it took an act of Congress to cause that to happen. Now, if that's what it took to modify the behavior of a heavily regulated profession upon whose expertise, integrity and independence trillions of dollars was riding, how realistic is it for us to expect a small collectible certification service to adhere to a higher standard?

[awe4one]

And CGC are "taking the 5th" because it's prudent to do so, to avoid saying anything that might be potential ammo against them in a civil lawsuit. You act as if CGC are the only company in the world that acts like this. What, you think upon the launch of every new model, the President of General Motors is going to volunteer to speak at length about every dangerous aspect of those cars?

 

I accept that, Tim.

 

However, I don't think GM have been attempting to pass themselves off as 'an independant, third-party' anything for the last five years?

 

Which is why I continue to maintain that all is not as it has been purported to be with CGC.

Okay, PricewaterhouseCoopers or any of the Big 4 accounting firms, who for auditing purposes are legally required to be independent third parties. The Chairman of PWC is not going to say anything, good or bad, about the audits they perform. And if you've ever looked at an audit opinion or comfort letter from one of these firms, after wading through all the disclaimers and other boilerplate, you will wonder if they've even said anything and therefore whether they're even worth the paper they're printed on.

 

Now of course there is much about the auditing firms that is public, including the auditing standards they apply (although the room for discretion is huge), and they are now legally required to disclose and avoid conflicts of interest, including providing lucrative services like consulting if they're a company's auditor. But it took an act of Congress to cause that to happen. Now, if that's what it took to modify the behavior of a heavily regulated profession upon whose expertise, integrity and independence trillions of dollars was riding, how realistic is it for us to expect a small collectible certification service to adhere to a higher standard?

 

OK...now speak in language the common man can understand...what point were you trying to make?

 

Jim

[Red Hook]

Brad, I'm fully aware of all those prior discussions. I'm simply saying the accusations and criticisms of CGC for finding that Paperheart's Ewert books were not trimmed are unfounded.

 

And expressing my frustration that NO result from CGC's re-inspection could satisfy the more militant members of these boards when they have a mindset that they will be critical no matter what.

 

Tim, I don't think I ever even mentioned Paperheart's three books. Where did you come up with that? Who said I was grousing about them? I was just generally grousing...as I will until some real answers come down the pipe. You want to complain about the endless-loop nature of this situation? Send an e-mail to Scott Schechter and tell him the board would like some answers. I sent mine. CGC has only themselves to blame for the skepticism with which their actions are being treated. The only information that's coming through is anecdotal info from customers. And not much of it, at that. Until the dialogue between CGC and it's customers reverts back to a two-way conversation you're just going to have to deal with being frustrated with our frustration.

 

Finally....Tim, you're a lawyer right? Then write more succinctly. I'm "militant"? Part of a "mob"? Where are you coming up with this stuff? I would suggest you buy yourself a good thesaurus, dump the hyperbole and start using accurate descriptive English instead of buzzwords.

 

Red

[arexcrooke]

 

My personal belief is that CGC are subjecting these books to the tightest scrutiny they've ever applied to any books.

 

Tim, you are using good rationale and perfect business sense. That doesn't sit too well here on the forum. We'd rather believe something sinister, something being concealed. It's the more popular belief system around here. Make a note of it.

 

Oh, you mean like me suggesting over a year ago that Friesen was undertaking 'conservation' work whilst still employed by CGC?

 

And that he was going to announce in the spring of this year that he was setting up his own company, under the CGC umbrella, to do this sort of thing in the open?

 

Yeah, total red herring that turned out to be.

But that rationale does not fit the CGC apologist stance, hence the not rationale and perfect business sense.

 

Rationale and rational are two totally different words.

 

And FT is neither an apologist nor anti - CGC. He's a realist.

Andy, you missed the sarcasm in my post as i was actually agreeing with FT on this one. I mightta switched between Rationale and Rational, but I was agreeing, just in my smart arse way

[goldust40]

 

My personal belief is that CGC are subjecting these books to the tightest scrutiny they've ever applied to any books.

 

Tim, you are using good rationale and perfect business sense. That doesn't sit too well here on the forum. We'd rather believe something sinister, something being concealed. It's the more popular belief system around here. Make a note of it.

 

Oh, you mean like me suggesting over a year ago that Friesen was undertaking 'conservation' work whilst still employed by CGC?

 

And that he was going to announce in the spring of this year that he was setting up his own company, under the CGC umbrella, to do this sort of thing in the open?

 

Yeah, total red herring that turned out to be.

But that rationale does not fit the CGC apologist stance, hence the not rationale and perfect business sense.

 

Rationale and rational are two totally different words.

 

And FT is neither an apologist nor anti - CGC. He's a realist.

Andy, you missed the sarcasm in my post as i was actually agreeing with FT on this one. I mightta switched between Rationale and Rational, but I was agreeing, just in my smart arse way

 

Dammit, I missed that.

[Red Hook]

I missed it toooo!

[BassGMan]

Brad, I'm fully aware of all those prior discussions. I'm simply saying the accusations and criticisms of CGC for finding that Paperheart's Ewert books were not trimmed are unfounded.

 

And expressing my frustration that NO result from CGC's re-inspection could satisfy the more militant members of these boards when they have a mindset that they will be critical no matter what.

 

Tim, I don't think I ever even mentioned Paperheart's three books. Where did you come up with that? Who said I was grousing about them? I was just generally grousing...as I will until some real answers come down the pipe. You want to complain about the endless-loop nature of this situation? Send an e-mail to Scott Schechter and tell him the board would like some answers. I sent mine. CGC has only themselves to blame for the skepticism with which their actions are being treated. The only information that's coming through is anecdotal info from customers. And not much of it, at that. Until the dialogue between CGC and it's customers reverts back to a two-way conversation you're just going to have to deal with being frustrated with our frustration.

 

Finally....Tim, you're a lawyer right? Then write more succinctly. I'm "militant"? Part of a "mob"? Where are you coming up with this stuff? I would suggest you buy yourself a good thesaurus, dump the hyperbole and start using accurate descriptive English instead of buzzwords.

 

Red

 

First we have to disect every little detail about CGC and debate it over and over again, then we have to argue over HOW we debate the issue.

No, this doesn't bother me as I have the freedom not to read it all and I know I've been guilty of all this in the past myself. I guess it is the nature of message boards. I just find it funny to see how so many of us are spending our time doing this. Is this also the nature of comic book collectors? Anyway, carry on.......

[Flaming_Telepath]

I didn't...because I know Arex is a smart-arse.

[Red Hook]

No, this doesn't bother me as I have the freedom not to read it all and I know I've been guilty of all this in the past myself. I guess it is the nature of message boards. I just find it funny to see how so many of us are spending our time doing this. Is this also the nature of comic book collectors?

 

No, but I hear it's the nature of porn addicts!

[Darthdiesel]

No, this doesn't bother me as I have the freedom not to read it all and I know I've been guilty of all this in the past myself. I guess it is the nature of message boards. I just find it funny to see how so many of us are spending our time doing this. Is this also the nature of comic book collectors?

 

No, but I hear it's the nature of porn addicts!

 

Please don't insult us porn addicts by bringing us down to the level of you militant witchhunting mobsters who do nothing all day but dwell on hyour conspiracy theories.

[Red Hook]

No, this doesn't bother me as I have the freedom not to read it all and I know I've been guilty of all this in the past myself. I guess it is the nature of message boards. I just find it funny to see how so many of us are spending our time doing this. Is this also the nature of comic book collectors?

 

No, but I hear it's the nature of porn addicts!

 

Please don't insult us porn addicts by bringing us down to the level of you militant witchhunting mobsters who do nothing all day but dwell on hyour conspiracy theories.

 

Militant witchhuning Mobsters. I see an HBO drama series there. Throw in a couple of pornographers and I guarantee an Emmy!

[Darthdiesel]

throw in greggy and it's a Showtime Original Series alternative lifestyle hit; add some porn and we've got airtime on late night Skinemax

[arexcrooke]

I didn't...because I know Arex is a smart-arse.

[sfilosa]

Congrats on the clean bill of health.

[paperheart]

Congrats on the clean bill of health.

 

contrary to what many here had suspected, there are no new serial #'s. am i the only one who bothered w/ this exercise?

[Darthdiesel]

Congrats on the clean bill of health.

 

contrary to what many here had suspected, there are no new serial #'s. am i the only one who bothered w/ this exercise?

 

example of misinformation from the witchhunt mob rumor mill turning into "fact"... based on past experiences with reholdering, which is essentially what this exercise is (it isn't a regrade? just checking to see if trimming is missed), CGC has always kept the same serial numbers. only time you get different serial numbers is if you crack it out and resubmit for regrading. as for the second point, probably yes. Out of all the people vocalizing about negatively about CGC's hand and involvement in the Ewert scandal, I'd say very few people even have a Ewert book and if so, one from the 9 month time period that there is concern about. Even if they did, how many books are even worth the effort to check? Do I really want to send in a modern or bronze non-key Ewert high grade?

[Red Hook]

Carl...hate to interrupt the rant....but when did anyone say they were getting new serial numbers?