Who Comprises CGC's restoration detection division? Where are Friesen & Brevard?

[divad]

You're only here because you tanked in Fantasy today . . .

[esquirecomics]

Kenny, if that is true - and I am not saying it is - frankly that is CGC's problem to deal with, not mine or anyone else's. CGC is part of a multi-million dollar company. Surely they can, or should learn to, deal with PR issues (and I am not talking about responding to conspiracy theories which I do not believe my questions equate to). My business involves words and arguments. I place my positions down on paper all the time and I stand by what I write. In that sense there is little difference.

 

And, as I said above, I am not asking for CGC to rush a response out, not that these questions should be very difficult to answer (one would think).

 

With respect to calling someone at CGC on the phone and asking these same questions, why would I do that? My only reason for doing so would be to then publicize the answers (with permission of course, and I would state that up front). That creates the potential for me to misquote or misinterpret the answers and I would not want that to occur.

 

Now I could have first e-mailed these questions to CGC and asked them to answer. I could then have posted the answers (again, with permission). But how would that be any different than simply creating a thread?

 

The best, or certainly at least reasonable, way is to simply have CGC answer these questions directly in the open.

[FFB]

There seems to be a few posters who dislike seeing the boards being used to post certain questions, especially if the questions contain, in their opinion, controversial language. They would prefer that these questions be posed by telephone rather than by post. Everyone is, of course, fully entitled to their preference. I am not sure though, if this entitles one to be upset if other people think differently.

 

p.s.

It would take one massive conference call to match the level of dissemination achieved through the boards.

 

I am entitled to feel however I want about whatever I want. If I truly believed after reading Mark's initial post that all he wanted were answers to those questions, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the confrontational and borderline accusatory tone to his initial post suggests that he's trying to stir up another controversy rather than simply asking for information which I am 100% certain he would have no problem transcribing into a post if he were to just call Steve and ask whatever questions he has. On the other hand, even if his initial post had been politely and neutrally worded, I still don't think that Mark would be as likely to get answers on the boards, because Steve B. has said innumerable times before that he does not like to answer controversial questions on the boards because he doesn't like having to type out long responses and because if he isn't super careful about how he phrases everything, then the peanut gallery jumps all over him. (And Mark knows this, so it's almost like he is just trying to impose his will over Steve by peer-pressuring him into coming here to accede to Mark's demands for another public flogging, despite the fact that Steve has said a million times that he doesn't like to do that.) It isn't fun when you're the target of that, as I'm sure any of you would admit if you were the target of as many forum member storms as Steve is on a constant basis.

 

So, if you really want information, I think you at least need to pick up the phone and ask your questions before you are justified in accusing CGC of being "shrouded in mystery" or refusing to answer questions. Otherwise, I think it's more significant that you're too lazy to pick up the phone (or perhaps there's another reason?) or you're not as interested in the answers as you are in whipping up yet another forum member "let's jump on CGC" frenzy.

[esquirecomics]

There seems to be a few posters who dislike seeing the boards being used to post certain questions, especially if the questions contain, in their opinion, controversial language. They would prefer that these questions be posed by telephone rather than by post. Everyone is, of course, fully entitled to their preference. I am not sure though, if this entitles one to be upset if other people think differently.

 

p.s.

It would take one massive conference call to match the level of dissemination achieved through the boards.

 

I am entitled to feel however I want about whatever I want. If I truly believed after reading Mark's initial post that all he wanted were answers to those questions, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the confrontational and borderline accusatory tone to his initial post suggests that he's trying to stir up another controversy rather than simply asking for information which I am 100% certain he would have no problem transcribing into a post if he were to just call Steve and ask whatever questions he has. On the other hand, even if his initial post had been politely and neutrally worded, I still don't think that Mark would be as likely to get answers on the boards, because Steve B. has said innumerable times before that he does not like to answer controversial questions on the boards because he doesn't like having to type out long responses and because if he isn't super careful about how he phrases everything, then the peanut gallery jumps all over him. (And Mark knows this, so it's almost like he is just trying to impose his will over Steve by peer-pressuring him into coming here to accede to Mark's demands for another public flogging, despite the fact that Steve has said a million times that he doesn't like to do that.) It isn't fun when you're the target of that, as I'm sure any of you would admit if you were the target of as many forum member storms as Steve is on a constant basis.

 

So, if you really want information, I think you at least need to pick up the phone and ask your questions before you are justified in accusing CGC of being "shrouded in mystery" or refusing to answer questions. Otherwise, I think it's more significant that you're too lazy to pick up the phone (or perhaps there's another reason?) or you're not as interested in the answers as you are in whipping up yet another forum member "let's jump on CGC" frenzy.

 

I believe I answered many of your concerns/comments in my subsequent posts.

 

People can reach their own opinion.

[FFB]

You're only here because you tanked in Fantasy today . . .

 

When I drafted my team, I did so knowing that weeks 6 and 7 were going to be tough due to byes. The object isn't to win weeks 6 and 7 though, is it?

[FFB]

There seems to be a few posters who dislike seeing the boards being used to post certain questions, especially if the questions contain, in their opinion, controversial language. They would prefer that these questions be posed by telephone rather than by post. Everyone is, of course, fully entitled to their preference. I am not sure though, if this entitles one to be upset if other people think differently.

 

p.s.

It would take one massive conference call to match the level of dissemination achieved through the boards.

 

I am entitled to feel however I want about whatever I want. If I truly believed after reading Mark's initial post that all he wanted were answers to those questions, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the confrontational and borderline accusatory tone to his initial post suggests that he's trying to stir up another controversy rather than simply asking for information which I am 100% certain he would have no problem transcribing into a post if he were to just call Steve and ask whatever questions he has. On the other hand, even if his initial post had been politely and neutrally worded, I still don't think that Mark would be as likely to get answers on the boards, because Steve B. has said innumerable times before that he does not like to answer controversial questions on the boards because he doesn't like having to type out long responses and because if he isn't super careful about how he phrases everything, then the peanut gallery jumps all over him. (And Mark knows this, so it's almost like he is just trying to impose his will over Steve by peer-pressuring him into coming here to accede to Mark's demands for another public flogging, despite the fact that Steve has said a million times that he doesn't like to do that.) It isn't fun when you're the target of that, as I'm sure any of you would admit if you were the target of as many forum member storms as Steve is on a constant basis.

 

So, if you really want information, I think you at least need to pick up the phone and ask your questions before you are justified in accusing CGC of being "shrouded in mystery" or refusing to answer questions. Otherwise, I think it's more significant that you're too lazy to pick up the phone (or perhaps there's another reason?) or you're not as interested in the answers as you are in whipping up yet another forum member "let's jump on CGC" frenzy.

 

I believe I answered many of your concerns/comments in my subsequent posts.

 

People can reach their own opinion.

 

No, "the Mets suck" is not a valid excuse for not picking up a phone and asking your questions.

[MutantKeys]

There seems to be a few posters who dislike seeing the boards being used to post certain questions, especially if the questions contain, in their opinion, controversial language. They would prefer that these questions be posed by telephone rather than by post. Everyone is, of course, fully entitled to their preference. I am not sure though, if this entitles one to be upset if other people think differently.

 

p.s.

It would take one massive conference call to match the level of dissemination achieved through the boards.

 

I am entitled to feel however I want about whatever I want. If I truly believed after reading Mark's initial post that all he wanted were answers to those questions, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the confrontational and borderline accusatory tone to his initial post suggests that he's trying to stir up another controversy rather than simply asking for information which I am 100% certain he would have no problem transcribing into a post if he were to just call Steve and ask whatever questions he has. On the other hand, even if his initial post had been politely and neutrally worded, I still don't think that Mark would be as likely to get answers on the boards, because Steve B. has said innumerable times before that he does not like to answer controversial questions on the boards because he doesn't like having to type out long responses and because if he isn't super careful about how he phrases everything, then the peanut gallery jumps all over him. (And Mark knows this, so it's almost like he is just trying to impose his will over Steve by peer-pressuring him into coming here to accede to Mark's demands for another public flogging, despite the fact that Steve has said a million times that he doesn't like to do that.) It isn't fun when you're the target of that, as I'm sure any of you would admit if you were the target of as many forum member storms as Steve is on a constant basis.

 

So, if you really want information, I think you at least need to pick up the phone and ask your questions before you are justified in accusing CGC of being "shrouded in mystery" or refusing to answer questions. Otherwise, I think it's more significant that you're too lazy to pick up the phone (or perhaps there's another reason?) or you're not as interested in the answers as you are in whipping up yet another forum member "let's jump on CGC" frenzy.

 

I believe I answered many of your concerns/comments in my subsequent posts.

 

People can reach their own opinion.

 

No, "the Mets suck" is not a valid excuse for not picking up a phone and asking your questions.

Who said the Mets suck

[THE_BEYONDER]

What's the big deal? If I wanted to know what Newt's current position at CGC was...I assume I'd get a public answer.

[awe4one]

Scott...would you agree that the collective Forum shouldn't have to get their CGC policy information second-hand? Because the scenario you used means just that. Someone at CGC should be available to clearly answer these questions, and these have been questions that have been asked repeatedly over a long timeframe by multiple people, in a public forum. That's the problem here...no one is available as a CGC spokesman. Steve is uncomfortable to post on sensitive matters (according to you). Arch has stated he isn't a spokesman on CGC policy. And it looks as if Plitch, West, or Newt aren't the guys.

 

So who is it going to be? Because this has been an on-going problem for a couple years now and causes more confusion than clears issues up...

 

Jim

[esquirecomics]

There seems to be a few posters who dislike seeing the boards being used to post certain questions, especially if the questions contain, in their opinion, controversial language. They would prefer that these questions be posed by telephone rather than by post. Everyone is, of course, fully entitled to their preference. I am not sure though, if this entitles one to be upset if other people think differently.

 

p.s.

It would take one massive conference call to match the level of dissemination achieved through the boards.

 

I am entitled to feel however I want about whatever I want. If I truly believed after reading Mark's initial post that all he wanted were answers to those questions, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the confrontational and borderline accusatory tone to his initial post suggests that he's trying to stir up another controversy rather than simply asking for information which I am 100% certain he would have no problem transcribing into a post if he were to just call Steve and ask whatever questions he has. On the other hand, even if his initial post had been politely and neutrally worded, I still don't think that Mark would be as likely to get answers on the boards, because Steve B. has said innumerable times before that he does not like to answer controversial questions on the boards because he doesn't like having to type out long responses and because if he isn't super careful about how he phrases everything, then the peanut gallery jumps all over him. (And Mark knows this, so it's almost like he is just trying to impose his will over Steve by peer-pressuring him into coming here to accede to Mark's demands for another public flogging, despite the fact that Steve has said a million times that he doesn't like to do that.) It isn't fun when you're the target of that, as I'm sure any of you would admit if you were the target of as many forum member storms as Steve is on a constant basis.

 

So, if you really want information, I think you at least need to pick up the phone and ask your questions before you are justified in accusing CGC of being "shrouded in mystery" or refusing to answer questions. Otherwise, I think it's more significant that you're too lazy to pick up the phone (or perhaps there's another reason?) or you're not as interested in the answers as you are in whipping up yet another forum member "let's jump on CGC" frenzy.

 

I believe I answered many of your concerns/comments in my subsequent posts.

 

People can reach their own opinion.

 

No, "the Mets suck" is not a valid excuse for not picking up a phone and asking your questions.

 

 

 

 

Hey, 5 - 3, Met's are leading!

[MutantKeys]

There seems to be a few posters who dislike seeing the boards being used to post certain questions, especially if the questions contain, in their opinion, controversial language. They would prefer that these questions be posed by telephone rather than by post. Everyone is, of course, fully entitled to their preference. I am not sure though, if this entitles one to be upset if other people think differently.

 

p.s.

It would take one massive conference call to match the level of dissemination achieved through the boards.

 

I am entitled to feel however I want about whatever I want. If I truly believed after reading Mark's initial post that all he wanted were answers to those questions, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the confrontational and borderline accusatory tone to his initial post suggests that he's trying to stir up another controversy rather than simply asking for information which I am 100% certain he would have no problem transcribing into a post if he were to just call Steve and ask whatever questions he has. On the other hand, even if his initial post had been politely and neutrally worded, I still don't think that Mark would be as likely to get answers on the boards, because Steve B. has said innumerable times before that he does not like to answer controversial questions on the boards because he doesn't like having to type out long responses and because if he isn't super careful about how he phrases everything, then the peanut gallery jumps all over him. (And Mark knows this, so it's almost like he is just trying to impose his will over Steve by peer-pressuring him into coming here to accede to Mark's demands for another public flogging, despite the fact that Steve has said a million times that he doesn't like to do that.) It isn't fun when you're the target of that, as I'm sure any of you would admit if you were the target of as many forum member storms as Steve is on a constant basis.

 

So, if you really want information, I think you at least need to pick up the phone and ask your questions before you are justified in accusing CGC of being "shrouded in mystery" or refusing to answer questions. Otherwise, I think it's more significant that you're too lazy to pick up the phone (or perhaps there's another reason?) or you're not as interested in the answers as you are in whipping up yet another forum member "let's jump on CGC" frenzy.

 

I believe I answered many of your concerns/comments in my subsequent posts.

 

People can reach their own opinion.

 

No, "the Mets suck" is not a valid excuse for not picking up a phone and asking your questions.

 

 

 

 

Hey, 5 - 3, Met's are leading!

[divad]

You're only here because you tanked in Fantasy today . . .

 

When I drafted my team, I did so knowing that weeks 6 and 7 were going to be tough due to byes. The object isn't to win weeks 6 and 7 though, is it?

 

No, apparently the object is to attempt to hold the top spot as long as possible so that you can boast the most

[FFB]

Scott...would you agree that the collective Forum shouldn't have to get their CGC policy information second-hand? Because the scenario you used means just that. Someone at CGC should be available to clearly answer these questions, and these have been questions that have been asked repeatedly over a long timeframe by multiple people, in a public forum. That's the problem here...no one is available as a CGC spokesman. Steve is uncomfortable to post on sensitive matters (according to you). Arch has stated he isn't a spokeman on CGC policy. And it looks as if Plitch, West, or Newt aren't the guys.

 

So who is it going to be? Because this has been an on-going problem for a couple years now and causes more confusion than clears issues up...

 

Jim

 

What do you mean, second-hand? There's no limit on who can call CGC and get questions answered. Anyone can call if they want to know and can get answers first hand. If anyone feels the need to post what they are told, they can. If other people want to call after reading the posts, they can do that too. The big gripe doesn't seem to be that CGC isn't willing to answer questions -- it is that CGC isn't "Burger King" and you don't get it "your way." And boy, isn't it suspicious and mysterious and shady that you don't get it your way!

 

CGC has made the decision not to come and respond to every question directed at them on these forums. That is CGC's decision to make. You're not "entitled" to have a CGC spokesperson here to answer your questions. If you want answers, you are free to call and get them, and you and everyone else knows that if you actually made the effort to pick up a phone, you'd get those answers. But it seems like those who thrive on the constant gripe-fest aren't interested in answers. They're interested in the ego-massage that comes with being the latest person to rattle the cage.

[THE_BEYONDER]

person_without_enough_empathyiest Post Ever....

[VintageComics]

person_without_enough_empathyiest Post Ever....

 

And it's right on the money.

 

[esquirecomics]

Scott...would you agree that the collective Forum shouldn't have to get their CGC policy information second-hand? Because the scenario you used means just that. Someone at CGC should be available to clearly answer these questions, and these have been questions that have been asked repeatedly over a long timeframe by multiple people, in a public forum. That's the problem here...no one is available as a CGC spokesman. Steve is uncomfortable to post on sensitive matters (according to you). Arch has stated he isn't a spokeman on CGC policy. And it looks as if Plitch, West, or Newt aren't the guys.

 

So who is it going to be? Because this has been an on-going problem for a couple years now and causes more confusion than clears issues up...

 

Jim

 

What do you mean, second-hand? There's no limit on who can call CGC and get questions answered. Anyone can call if they want to know and can get answers first hand. If anyone feels the need to post what they are told, they can. If other people want to call after reading the posts, they can do that too. The big gripe doesn't seem to be that CGC isn't willing to answer questions -- it is that CGC isn't "Burger King" and you don't get it "your way." And boy, isn't it suspicious and mysterious and shady that you don't get it your way!

 

CGC has made the decision not to come and respond to every question directed at them on these forums. That is CGC's decision to make. You're not "entitled" to have a CGC spokesperson here to answer your questions. If you want answers, you are free to call and get them, and you and everyone else knows that if you actually made the effort to pick up a phone, you'd get those answers. But it seems like those who thrive on the constant gripe-fest aren't interested in answers. They're interested in the ego-massage that comes with being the latest person to rattle the cage.

 

I'm sure you don't mean that I am one of those people you described Scott as you certainly know I have little need for the ego massage and want answers. And while you can certainly hold the opinion you do, we (and no doubt others) differ on this matter.

 

I don't expect CGC to answer each and every question people pose to them. They can certainly choose not to respond to my questions and we can then interpet that fact accordingly. But nor do I feel the need to have to call them every time to have a question answered. And people can interpret that however they wish as well.

 

By the way, ANYONE should feel free to take my work product above and call CGC directly to ask them the questions.

 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Mets 11, Cardinals 3, top of the 6th, 0 outs, man on second.

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ze-man]

 

I don't expect CGC to answer each and every question people pose to them. They can certainly choose not to respond to my questions and we can then interpet that fact accordingly. But nor do I feel the need to have to call them every time to have a question answered. And people can interpret that however they wish as well.

 

 

Then why do you feel the need to make a thread about every question you want answered?

 

Picking up the phone can take less time then making a single post,let alone a bakers dozen, and you will probably recieve a better answer then you would on the boards too.

 

I dont get your logic Mark.

 

And YES the Mets score IS more important then this thread.

 

 

 

Ze-

[drbanner]

How successful have posts like this been in the past to get answers from CGC to questions like these? Not very...if "not very" = zero. You know what they say about the definition of insanity!!

 

How successful have those that have called Steve/CGC to ask these types of questions been? Pretty successful, and every time I called Steve/CGC with an issue or question I got that issue/question answered.

 

In reading between the lines, it still appears that there are rumors out there that Chris Friesen was/is performing restoration/conservation services (pressing, etc.,.) while employed by CCG before, during, and after PCS's mysterious existence, and I would sure be interested in hearing CGC's comments on that rumor...but no, I'm not going to call either. It would be nice to hear from someone that has actually had Chris work on their books to confirm that is/was happening, but unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be forthcoming anytime soon.

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

In reading between the lines, it still appears that there are rumors out there that Chris Friesen was/is performing restoration/conservation services (pressing, etc.,.) while employed by CCG before, during, and after PCS's mysterious existence, and I would sure be interested in hearing CGC's comments on that rumor...but no, I'm not going to call either. It would be nice to hear from someone that has actually had Chris work on their books as well, but that doesn't appear to be happening either.

 

If true...would you still deal with CGC?