dragonmgmt

 

Five signatures, three conventions, and one sketch artist later...

 

 

All praise to dscott for shuttling this thing around the country and Scott Blair for the sketch.

 

really cool book Dragon !

Thanks! I purchased it as a 9.8 with the Stan Lee and Michael Rooker sigs already on it...I'm just blown away that it stayed a 9.8. Again, Doug and Scott obviously handled it with the greatest of care.

Five signatures, three conventions, and one sketch artist later...

All praise to dscott for shuttling this thing around the country and Scott Blair for the sketch.

Josh sent payment immediately after we agreed on a price. Highly recommended.

Read 'em and weep, boys.

Purchased two Silver Age books from James. He was reasonable, communicative throughout the purchase process, and packed the books extremely well.

It should come as no surprise to anyone on the boards that I HIGHLY RECOMMEND him.

Keep up the great work, James!

A brand new instalment of the Infinity saga arrives in April 2014!

 

Thanos: The Infinity Revelation is a 100-page OGN written and pencilled by Starlin:

 

http://www.newsarama.com/19918-jim-starlin-details-2014-s-thanos-the-infinity-revelation.html

 

Color me excited

Yeah, this is good chit.

Does Fox still own the rights to Silver Surfer?

I was under the impression that Marvel and Fox made a deal with Silver Surfer since Fox did not produce an FF movie in time to keep the rights. Any one know about this?

Well, I can't say I agree it's the same thing.

 

Anyway, surely we were done with this part of the discussion a couple of hours ago when I apologised for calling you a knob...?

I deserved being called a knob.

By the way, in case anyone missed it, bffnut has done a really wonderful job with this project. Keep up the good work!

Let me try and explain my comment, as I don't think it was understood:

 

Slym posted that he "didn't trust" the extrapolation, or any conclusion based on what he thought was a small sample size. You followed up with what I thought was a patronising comment telling him to admit he was going on a gut feeling, which is exactly what I thought he had already done (he wasn't saying that the stats were objectively wrong, just that he didn't trust them). That is why I said you were being a bit of a knob.

 

Anyway, on reflection, it was a bit of an uncalled for comment from me - so I apologise.

The comment was patronizing, snarky (whatever you want to call it) because saying that you don't trust the stats (or didn't trust the "extrapolation" from the sample to the population) is the same thing as saying you don't believe in the basic premise of what an entire field of study is built upon, a field that is pervasive in every area of policy, business, and high level decision making in Western society. To say that you don't trust the extrapolation is to render judgement on the veracity of the conclusions that stats, as a field, can make, which is, in my opinion, really silly, thus deserving of some snarkiness. The latitude to disagree with the numbers is built into the stats bffnut provided: the confidence interval. It was an ill informed, however well intentioned, opinion that was based on anecdotal evidence, but my annoyance stemmed from the unwillingness to change the opinion based on.....

AWW F IT. Here's a picture of a cute puppy.

My goodness there has been so much snippiness on the boards lately. Can everyone just exhale?

Me, giving ComicsNYC what he wants.

My goodness there has been so much snippiness on the boards lately. Can everyone just exhale?

Me, incredulous.

Balham, I love it when people use "knob" as a put down. Seriously. It's not used enough in the States.

I have a hard time taking anything seriously that has, at best, 20% of the known copies as its sample for survey. I know you are extrapolating using that data, I just don't trust that extrapolation. Same as I don't trust anyone telling me that "America wants X because our poll of .001% of the population says so." I trust the 20% population data more, and I don't trust it at all.

 

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why remediation is necessary in post-secondary institutions.

 

Sheesh.

 

slym, just admit that statistics isn't your thing and that you're trusting your gut on this one. That would be more honest than trying to takedown an entire field of study.

 

You are being a bit of a knob about this. That's pretty much exactly what his post that you quoted says. What more do you want? Let him have his opinion and kick back feeling smug about how deep your understanding of stats is.

Yes, I am being a knob about slym's willful dismissal of fairly sound statistical evidence re: the percentage of black labels vs. white labels. At least three people have pointed out that the methodology is appropriate and that the findings tend to contradict slym's anecdotal evidence.

At this point, he has admitted he might be wrong about the white vs black label issue (which is not what prompted my snarky reply) but continues to assert that "I don't trust that extrapolation," meaning he doesn't trust what statistics is capable of doing in terms of making claims about a population based on a small sample (which was the cause of my snarky reply).

My understanding of stats is above average but not stellar. The stats stuff people have been talking about on the board here can be found with a simple Google search. I'm not being smug; I'm asking that someone yield at least part of their opinion to the quantifiable evidence gathered by bffnut, and then, I'm scoffing when that someone still believes their gut instead, which in this matter (about prints runs) seems just silly.

I have a hard time taking anything seriously that has, at best, 20% of the known copies as its sample for survey. I know you are extrapolating using that data, I just don't trust that extrapolation. Same as I don't trust anyone telling me that "America wants X because our poll of .001% of the population says so." I trust the 20% population data more, and I don't trust it at all.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why remediation is necessary in post-secondary institutions.

Sheesh.

slym, just admit that statistics isn't your thing and that you're trusting your gut on this one. That would be more honest than trying to takedown an entire field of study.

Thanks. Missed that in your original post.

(Hey, bffnut, can you work that up? How many new data points would have to be recorded in order to support Kirkman's estimates?)

 

Already done, my friend! :Thumbsup:

 

Using the formula provided by the text, only 150 samples would be needed if you wanted a CI of 95% and an error of 8%, assuming the occurrence is 50/50. Only 144 would be needed if the ratio is 40/60. Even with a margin of error of 5%, only 369 to 384 samples would be needed.

As soon as you can definitively tell me how many of the CGC submissions were CPR'd, and tell me how many copies of TWD #1 are still in private collections, I will recant my statements here.

 

 

 

 

-slym

You're asking for population data. Statistics, by definition, is concerned with sample data that can then be applied to the population. If we had population data, we wouldn't need statistics. I think you're missing the point entirely.

And, as bffnut gathers more data, his findings become more and more compelling. Think about how much data would have to be found in order to support Kirkman's #s vs bffnut's #s.

(Hey, bffnut, can you work that up? How many new data points would have to be recorded in order to support Kirkman's estimates?)

The point is, you're relying on a very informed source, but that informed source is still making an educated guess. bffnut's #s may not be the exact truth, but a 95% CI for this type of work is about as good as it gets in academia and business.

I still stick with Kirkman and his observations.

 

A true scientific poll will have at least 2000 results to compare, and with the CPR game, even that number is going to be skewed. How many of those 9.2-9.6 copies got cracked, pressed, and resubbed?

 

This and other reasons are why I stick with Kirkman's statement.

 

 

 

-slym

Sticking with Kirkman on this seems a bit silly, especially in light of the data. Kirkman is a writer, not a statistician. He's a guy making an educated guess based on his own anecdotal, not statistical, data. While he's def an authority on many things WD, it doesn't mean that he knows the errors runs on his books.

It will be interesting to see if these numbers will be further refined as more data comes in.

Great seller. Would do business with again in a heartbeat. A++++

Groot from Planet X...one and the same as Groot from GotG.

And I have to give a shout out to bffnut, who snagged it for me a Megacon for WAAAAAY less than it is worth. He knew I was looking for it in order to get it signed, he saw it in a longbox, and sold it to me for what he paid. True friend.

As best as I can tell, this is the highest graded SS in the census. WOOT!!

(Sorry about the poor image quality.)