JTLarsen

Member
  • Content Count

    830
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JTLarsen

  • Boards Title
    Talkative?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. THANK YOU! I have some of these but wasn’t sure where to look in the UK...
  2. Galway was a bust. No back issues at Sub City. Sean at Sub City Dublin on Mary Street is kickass. Tell him Jonathan sent you. I also recommend Coffee and Heroes and Atomic Books Comics and Muzic both in Belfast. Also...check charity shops! Good hunting!
  3. I can do both. I’m arriving Saturday! No more recommendations? Edinburgh? Southern Ireland?
  4. Some Dredds aren’t dollar bin fodder. And definitely some Marvelman.
  5. I'd elaborate on whether I just found ground to promote her with this thread if I understood what that meant. As you can clearly see in my original post, there was confusion about which variant was the subject of the cease-and-desist letter. I was trying to clear that up so that people wouldn't pay needlessly high amounts for variants they could still obtain for at or near cover price. And as for the wacky notion that popularity might correlate with high prices, gosh, I think maybe you're on to something there.
  6. Stating the thing you're asked to prove is not proof of it. Is this honestly the level you're debating on? The variant that was the SUBJECT of the cease-and-desist letter is NOT "readily available by tens of vendors." It's available on eBay, and it's certainly possible that (a) DC didn't send cease-and-desist letters to individual eBayers (b) did do that but stopped, and/or (c) didn't do anything AFTER sending cease-and-desist letters. As I tried to explain already, a cease-and-desist letter isn't magic--it doesn't MAKE people cease and desist. If a cease-and-desist letter isn't obeyed, it takes ADDITIONAL legal action to enforce it. That costs money. DC doesn't HAVE to spend that money, because its primary motive here is to protect against FUTURE copyright infringement, which is more difficult to do if you do NOTHING to protect your copyright now--which is exactly why DC could content itself with initial letters to Devil's Due and Collector Cave and NOT CARE whether they're followed or not. And, no, you're not just like me. You're just assuming another factual claim without backing it up. For instance, I'm NOT just taking the news at face value. Did you go to the shop in the Bronx and talk to the owner? Didn't think so. I did. Glad we can agree on your last point, though.
  7. For anyone not sure whether Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is famous: Associated Press: https://www.apnews.com/cfbdab50d2be4ba9bc9bcf499dbb85fe USA Today: https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+ocasio-cortez+hours&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS824US824&oq=fox+news+ocasio-cortez+hours&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.5543j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Here's Fox News' AOC coverage. You'll note that lately they're averaging one new AOC story EVERY DAY: https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/alexandria-ocasio-cortez
  8. My grounds? For what? If you're disputing the factuality of something I'm saying, share with the class. What have I said that's untrue? Your proof that the book is shilled rests on the following: - The book is over inflated. That's a subjective opinion. - It spiked to to nothing. Sorry, "NOTHING." Again, subjective. I and others have laid out multiple reasons OTHER PEOPLE might have for the price spike. Your belief in the subjective opinion of over-inflation, and your groundless ignoring of the fact that OTHER PEOPLE have genuine reasons to want this book... do not constitute proof that it's been shilled. Shilling is a pretty well-defined phenomenon that others on this site have proven adept at documenting. Try that. Your claim that I just killed the hobby, I think, does more to undercut your credibility than anything here. So, thanks.
  9. Your willingness to just assert things as fact without any basis is kind of amazing/terrifying. Just because DC hasn't unleashed the lawyers to pro-actively quash any sales doesn't mean they never issued a cease-and-desist letter. One news/gossip outlet reported that DC did just that. DC HAS NOT DENIED IT. You've cited ZERO proof that DC sent NO cease-and-desist letters. If you have that proof, please share it. Otherwise, the statement that "THERE IS NO CEASE AND DESIST ON THIS BOOK" is utterly baseless. Maybe it wasn't sent to EVERYONE. Maybe DC hasn't bothered to follow it up with legal action. Maybe, just maybe the cease-and-desist was pro forma so they can cite it in future copyright battles. But you have literally NO source to claim that DC issued NO cease and desist. I will admit, of course, that you putting it in all caps sure feels impressive, though. So, I guess if font size is the new substitute for facts, you've proved your point.