Hunting the 6 variants of Batman 457 (1st Tim Drake ROBIN) 8 8

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Semantics over the word known....

Inability to recognize distinctions that completely change the meaning of a concept.

It's unfortunate that so many people, when they have no rational argument, fall back to the "semantics defense."

99% of the time, that defense is used because the person using it doesn't have a valid counterargument, and lacks the ability to explain their own position, so when they misrepresent what you say, on a material point, and you correct them, they accuse you of "semantics."

Let me explain it again:

"There are only 4 copies"

"There are 4 known copies"

...are two completely different, separate statements, expressing two completely different ideas.

[ygogolak]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Inability to recognize distinctions that completely change the meaning of a concept.

It's unfortunate that so many people, when they have no rational argument, fall back to the "semantics defense."

99% of the time, that defense is used because the person using it doesn't have a valid counterargument, and lacks the ability to explain their own position, so when they misrepresent what you say, on a material point, and you correct them, they accuse you of "semantics."

Let me explain it again:

"There are only 4 copies"

"There are 4 known copies"

...are two completely different, separate statements, expressing two completely different ideas.

In this case, no. They both have the same meaning. Trying to establish that there are only four copies in circulation.

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

What have I done that is dishonest?

Have I told someone there are four copies of a book and then provide a link to a live auction?

 

I already explained it, in great detail, above. I'm not going to explain it again.

That you have the chutzpah to ask what you have done that is dishonest and then, in the very next breath, repeat something that nobody said, demonstrates the point.

Nobody said there are four copies of a book.

Ever.

At any time.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, ygogolak said:

In this case, no. They both have the same meaning. Trying to establish that there are only four copies in circulation.

Wrong.

[ygogolak]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I already explained it, in great detail, above. I'm not going to explain it again.

That you have the chutzpah to ask what you have done that is dishonest and then, in the very next breath, repeat something that nobody said, demonstrates the point.

Nobody said there are four copies of a book.

Ever.

At any time.

 

You can say whatever you want about my chutzpah. That's exactly how it reads. It's misleading.

Fact of the matter you made that statement in a thread that was started stating there were 7 known copies. Then prices started to skyrocket and more came out. More than are even documented in this thread. Exact same thing could happen.

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by ygogolak

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, ygogolak said:

You can say whatever you want about my chutzpah. That's exactly how it reads. It's misleading.

Fact of the matter you made that statement in a thread that was started stating there were 7 known copies. Then prices started to skyrocket and more came out. More than are even documented in this thread. Exact same thing could happen.

As per the usual, you're inventing straw men, knocking them down, and claiming victory. Nobody said anything to the contrary. Follow along, now. 

Do you actually know what statement I made...? Because heretofore, you keep repeating something I never said, and pretending it means the same thing as what I actually said.

[mysterio]

1 hour ago, ygogolak said:

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Inability to recognize distinctions that completely change the meaning of a concept.

It's unfortunate that so many people, when they have no rational argument, fall back to the "semantics defense."

99% of the time, that defense is used because the person using it doesn't have a valid counterargument, and lacks the ability to explain their own position, so when they misrepresent what you say, on a material point, and you correct them, they accuse you of "semantics."

Let me explain it again:

"There are only 4 copies"

"There are 4 known copies"

...are two completely different, separate statements, expressing two completely different ideas.

In this case, no. They both have the same meaning. Trying to establish that there are only four copies in circulation.

Ok, I'll play. They do not have the same meaning.

"There are only four copies" means just that, only four copies in the world. Period, end of story.

"There are four known copies" means that there are currently four copies that are known to exist, but it leaves open the possibility/probability that more copies will surface in the future.

[ygogolak]

12 minutes ago, mysterio said:

Ok, I'll play. They do not have the same meaning.

"There are only four copies" means just that, only four copies in the world. Period, end of story.

"There are four known copies" means that there are currently four copies that are known to exist, but it leaves open the possibility/probability that more copies will surface in the future.

Where was this survey taken place regarding how many known copies?

Also, you're taking this out of context. It was in the context of relating to a live auction. In which the poster has a vested interest.

Edited July 6, 2018 by ygogolak

[Carl Elvis]

Well I’m the current high bidder so no one fear that I don’t know a box full of these could pop up tomorrow 

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Carl Elvis

[divad]

54 minutes ago, Carl Elvis said:

Well I’m the current high bidder so no one fear that I don’t know a box full of these could pop up tomorrow 

 

 

[mysterio]

1 hour ago, ygogolak said:

1 hour ago, mysterio said:

Ok, I'll play. They do not have the same meaning.

"There are only four copies" means just that, only four copies in the world. Period, end of story.

"There are four known copies" means that there are currently four copies that are known to exist, but it leaves open the possibility/probability that more copies will surface in the future.

Where was this survey taken place regarding how many known copies?

Also, you're taking this out of context. It was in the context of relating to a live auction. In which the poster has a vested interest.

How would any context change the meaning of the phrases being discussed? I quoted them just as they were being discussed as meaning the same thing. If there is some context that would change the meaning of these words in this order please enlighten me. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by mysterio

[ygogolak]

2 minutes ago, mysterio said:

How would any context change the meaning of the phrases being discussed? I quoted them just as they were being discussed as meaning the same thing. 

That's where the whole context of the pump and dump originated and the whole discussion.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, ygogolak said:

Where was this survey taken place regarding how many known copies?

Also, you're taking this out of context. It was in the context of relating to a live auction. In which the poster has a vested interest.

The survey was taken among people who would be in the best position to know. Myself, Kirk, etc. Or do you not know that I'm the one who discovered and documented the existence of the book in the first place....? Your comments continue to demonstrate that you don't understand what this book, and books like it, are.

Nothing has been taken out of context, and you are inaccurately using the phrase "vested interest." 

Again, just because YOU have dishonest motives, doesn't mean everyone else does, too.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, ygogolak said:

1 hour ago, mysterio said:

How would any context change the meaning of the phrases being discussed? I quoted them just as they were being discussed as meaning the same thing. 

That's where the whole context of the pump and dump originated and the whole discussion.

You didn't answer his question. Like, at all.

It's pretty simple: if you're going to accuse people of dishonest motives....that is, "pumping and dumping"...you'd better have evidence to do so.

[bababooey]

Thankfully this thread is about the carefully worded "known copies" theory created and put forward by a couple current owner/bidders rather than the totally irrelevant and biased NASales estimates or CGC census.

Theorizing on social media about the number of extant copies as a means to create market interest always looks the same to me.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

16 minutes ago, bababooey said:

Thankfully this thread is about the carefully worded "known copies" theory created and put forward by a couple current owner/bidders rather than the totally irrelevant and biased NASales estimates or CGC census.

Theorizing on social media about the number of extant copies as a means to create market interest always looks the same to me.  

You really need to ask yourself at what point does something become so niche that you don't need to suspect the motives of people interested in it.

I would imagine your answer is "never", but some of you have a hypercynical view of things. Sometimes, a spade really is just a spade.

If there was an attempt to "pump and dump", as it has been accused...why was the first sale...the $117 sale...not highlighted here...? Shouldn't that have been...ya know...MENTIONED if there was a "pump and dump" effort going on...? Especially after the bidding on the book far exceeded the value of a regular copy?

Some elaborate coverup, I imagine...or, it could just be that not everyone is secretly out to get everyone else. It could simply be that people who are 1. interested in the book, and 2. in a better position than most to know about the relative scarcity of such a book, are interested in the number of extant copies for scholarly reasons, rather than hidden financial motives. Nah, couldn't be that. 

You can't "pump" if there isn't anything to "dump." "Ygogolak" makes a big effort to claim that going from "7 known copies" to "double that" is some big pump and dump conspiracy...for a book that, in the regular edition, was printed to the tune of 200k-300k copies, and has over 100 different examples for sale right now on e bay...think about that: the "7 known" manages to double in a few YEARS, and that is somehow a "pump and dump" conspiracy...?

They are freaks of nature. They shouldn't exist AT ALL. That we are discussing books that would be Gerber 9s and 10s should be your clue that there are easier targets to "pump and dump."

Time to take off the tinfoil. Not everyone is out to get you. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, LameGame said:

6 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Inability to recognize distinctions that completely change the meaning of a concept.

It's unfortunate that so many people, when they have no rational argument, fall back to the "semantics defense."

99% of the time, that defense is used because the person using it doesn't have a valid counterargument, and lacks the ability to explain their own position, so when they misrepresent what you say, on a material point, and you correct them, they accuse you of "semantics."

Let me explain it again:

"There are only 4 copies"

"There are 4 known copies"

...are two completely different, separate statements, expressing two completely different ideas.

You expect people to swallow this bullcarp?  Worst backpedal ever.

Look, "Stu Cathell", who has been banned from this board since, what, 2004?...making up his, what, 733rd? 734th?...new "user id" to take a shot at people and things he doesn't like.

And he expects people to swallow his "bullcarp"...? 

No, he's a liar, and his motive is simple spite. He doesn't believe what he's saying...he's just taking advantage of what he considers an opening.

[ygogolak]

vest·ed in·ter·est

ˌvestəd ˈint(ə)rəst/

noun

1. a personal stake or involvement in an undertaking or state of affairs, especially one with an expectation of financial gain.

[RockMyAmadeus]

10 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

vest·ed in·ter·est

ˌvestəd ˈint(ə)rəst/

noun

1. a personal stake or involvement in an undertaking or state of affairs, especially one with an expectation of financial gain.

That is the correct definition, which makes your usage of it incorrect. 

I have no personal stake in the listing mentioned, nor do I have any expectation of financial gain in the matter. I do not care if you believe me or not; I merely wish you'd stop making hay of it. 

[WolverineX]

On 7/1/2018 at 11:15 PM, Cpt Kirk said:

Thanks for the explanation Rock.   Also love that you were "Timdrake72" once... lol.

And I agree that only one Superman 50 2nd print newsstand has been discovered and noted on this website.   If anyone else finds one, I would gladly pay $200 in FN or better.   Wait... let's make that $300 to prove that point that at least one nutty variant collector cares about it.

To all... I have Robin #1 second print newsstand on hand if anyone is interested in buying it from me.  If you are, just send me a PM.   Thanks

anyone have a photo of superman 2nd print newstand?  I can't find it.