What's up with Rob Liefeld? No CGC? 4 4

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, kevhtx said:

AFTER taking my money, Nichelle Nichols told me that she would not sign my cast photo because the photographer that took it (from back in the 60's mind you) was a racist. Nothing I could do to change her mind. I told her that I was not racist and just wanted my cast photo signed since I had other signatures on it. She refused. Her signature, her choice. But, my choice to pay her for her signature. 

By the way...reading this here, it doesn't seem as if she gave you back your money. Was that actually the case? If so, she stole from you.

I mean, I assume she signed something else, but that can't be gleaned from the information you've shared here. 

[reddwarf666222]

18 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Did you read the post which started this thread?

I'm getting the impression that you didn't.

I read the opening post and can put it towards the character of person he is. Liefeld and a few other creators cough N. Adams cough are simply greedy and both come across as they only care about money. Liefeld was probably offered a lucrative contract by a certain grading company who was just acquired by one of the biggest overall grading companies in the world who has Steve Grad with them the autograph authenticator from Pawn Stars. Grad could have easily put  Liefeld in as comics/comic art evaluator expert for Pawn Stars to make TV appearances on the show.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, reddwarf666222 said:

28 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Did you read the post which started this thread?

I'm getting the impression that you didn't.

I read the opening post and can put it towards the character of person he is. Liefeld and a few other creators cough N. Adams cough are simply greedy and both come across as they only care about money.

But, wait, why are you complaining that they're greedy? After all, it's their right to be greedy, so no use complaining about it or crying over spilt milk...

N'est-ce pas...?

But my post was in response to your contention that Liefeld has no issue with CGC. That is quite obviously not the case, whatever the underlying reasons may be.

[seanfingh]

I first ran into this in 2010 or 2011. Jackson Bostwick (who played Captain Marvel on the old SHAZAM! Saturday morning live action show). He had a sign on his area that said "ALL signatures are $20. 

I handed two Shazam! #1s and a #5 and he held them for a while and said "I have to charge you $40 for these." I said "Why? Your little sign says ALL signatures $20."  He rambled and mumbled incoherently for a while.  I called the guy who was facilitating the show, he cleared the extra bread, and i paid it. But it was a head scratcher of all head scratchers.  It only got worse from there . . . 

 

[DjMartini]

Well it now looks like Liefeld is going to be a bigger head now that his "EXTREME" comic books are to be optioned 

Extreme Link

Edited March 8, 2018 by martini25

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 minutes ago, martini25 said:

Well it now looks like Liefeld is going to be a bigger head now that his "EXTREME" comic books are to be optioned 

Extreme Link

I'm rich!

Now my 600 copies of Brigade #1 Gold that I have been carting around for nearly 20 years will FINALLY be worth something!

MWAH HA HA HA!!!! I have CORNERED the MARKET!!

[DjMartini]

I feel like the 90s comic scene is about to catch up with the comic movie scene, where there is going to be too much /unsuccessful comic book movies and not any real talent/success.

[reddwarf666222]

23 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

But, wait, why are you complaining that they're greedy? After all, it's their right to be greedy, so no use complaining about it or crying over spilt milk...

N'est-ce pas...?

But my post was in response to your contention that Liefeld has no issue with CGC. That is quite obviously not the case, whatever the underlying reasons may be.

I'm not complaining it is how their actions and prices speak as apart of their character. I honestly think he got offered lucrative contract and took it. It's not that he has an issue with CGC just one place offered him more.

[reddwarf666222]

4 minutes ago, martini25 said:

I feel like the 90s comic scene is about to catch up with the comic movie scene, where there is going to be too much /unsuccessful comic book movies and not any real talent/success.

I felt we hit a wall awhile back with Civil War, it is just when is the foreign market going to drop out and we already seeing signs of that.

[jasonms711]

This is America. I love capitalism at its finest.

[Wilddragon]

On 3/6/2018 at 11:39 AM, RadiantGraphix said:

I’m wondering if this has anything to do with the Stan Lee/Max/Anastasia’s/Excelsior situation right now?  Or is this another situation where a fan screwed it up for the rest of us?  ... with Rob it seems to come down to getting paid for every little thing he does. I bet he wanted a kickback from each submitted slab (despite already charging for graded signatures) and CGC said no.  It sounds like EGO, and not like “business” as he claims it to be?

No idea how this works when trying to get somebodys attention haha, @RadiantGraphix can you elaborate on this situation with said groups you mentioned? I ask because they attended Calgary Fan Expo last year in April 2017. I got Stan's sig, then was told I couldnt get Todd's because he only does private signings for his sig to be graded, however they assured me they could get his sig for me at one of his two private signings. I thought well that would be swell. It is now March of the next year and through difficult times trying to contact them, I have discerned they have yet to attain Todds signature on the 4 books left with him. I expressed me disappointment in as polite a way as possible. They told me the first signing was May of 2017, they missed it because of scheduling with Stan. I thought ok fair enough. The next they would for sure get it. The next signing got pushed to December as CGC told me in October when I was trying to get answers. Finally in Feb 2018, they told me everything should be squared up at the end of the month, get at them at the end of the month. Which I did, only to find out things were not squared up at all. They then said they are going to try for May 2018. At this point I dont know who else to go through to get Todds signature. As if I tell Anastasia's to submit the books as they are to be graded, I will then need somebody to crack them again and get Todds on, then get them regraded. Presuming that can even be done once a book is graded with a sig(im new). So can you explain what the situation is with Excelsior/Anastasia's is? Thanks. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, Wilddragon said:

No idea how this works when trying to get somebodys attention haha, @RadiantGraphix can you elaborate on this situation with said groups you mentioned? I ask because they attended Calgary Fan Expo last year in April 2017. I got Stan's sig, then was told I couldnt get Todd's because he only does private signings for his sig to be graded, however they assured me they could get his sig for me at one of his two private signings. I thought well that would be swell. It is now March of the next year and through difficult times trying to contact them, I have discerned they have yet to attain Todds signature on the 4 books left with him. I expressed me disappointment in as polite a way as possible. They told me the first signing was May of 2017, they missed it because of scheduling with Stan. I thought ok fair enough. The next they would for sure get it. The next signing got pushed to December as CGC told me in October when I was trying to get answers. Finally in Feb 2018, they told me everything should be squared up at the end of the month, get at them at the end of the month. Which I did, only to find out things were not squared up at all. They then said they are going to try for May 2018. At this point I dont know who else to go through to get Todds signature. As if I tell Anastasia's to submit the books as they are to be graded, I will then need somebody to crack them again and get Todds on, then get them regraded. Presuming that can even be done once a book is graded with a sig(im new). So can you explain what the situation is with Excelsior/Anastasia's is? Thanks. 

This is one of the unintended consequences of having "exclusive" representation of creators: the "exclusive" facilitators, like all monopolies, become unresponsive to customer concerns, because, well...where are you going to go if you want a Todd McFarlane signature in a yellow label...?

This is a tale that has been told over and over and over and over again, and yet...nothing changes, because, well...where are you going to go if you want a Todd McFarlane signature in a yellow label...?

And if you don't trust the "exclusive" people, then what? Trust is hard to earn and easy to burn, justified, unjustified, if you don't trust someone, you don't trust them. It's one thing to have the creator manhandle your books. My facilitator can attest to watching me have silent heart attacks when someone bends your books in half. That's the "suck it up, fanboy, that's just the way it is, and you have to deal with it" part of the equation.

But it's entirely another to have someone who is NOT the creator handle, and potentially mishandle, your books...books that you spent perhaps decades worrying over like a mother hen over her chicks, making sure not the slightest damage came to them in any way. Whether that's physically mishandling them, or losing them, or not turning them in when they need to be, or whatever.

And it's not like Todd doesn't go to cons and sign all the time. He does. So there's no logistical reason why he should operate with CGC the way he does. But he thinks that CGC is a "dealer" thing, which is why he has those private signings only, to which you must trust a group of individuals, and only that group, with your books, start to finish, and if you don't...again, justified or not...too bad. You're out of luck. 

And, again...addicts...God forbid you say or do anything that makes any of these guys angry, because some of them have no problem cutting you off. I've watched it happen with my own eyes. So, scenarios like this get repeated over and over and over again...but if there was free trade and competition, these guys would have to earn trust, rather than saying "where else are you going to go?"

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[kevhtx]

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Your analogies do not work. You are not accurately describing the situation being discussed.

At issue here is the DIFFERENCE in price for the SAME service. You're not asking for a "special color" or a "specially designed room." You're asking for the same thing as the "raw" customer: a signature. The "raw" customer pays $X, but the "slabbed" customer pays more.  You're not asking for a "special" signature, or a "sketch", or anything other than the exact same thing they're ALREADY WILLING TO DO for the "raw" customer for a lower price.

As far as the services you mention, it's none of their business what you intend to do with it. If they find out, then yes, they might attempt to scam you. But that doesn't make it good business practice.

Got any real life examples of your contention...? Not just "might", but "do"? 

 

They work just fine. When I said special it wasn't to make it different from anything. Same thing as the other. Exact same service. Im not saying they are doing anything different for anyone and charging differently.  I gave an example. A contractor doing a job (doesn't matter what it is). If they are doing it for someone and they know its for someone doing it as a flip, they sometimes will charge more due to it (SAME SERVICE). Its not abnormal. Its economics 101. Its called price discrimination and is a normal economic strategy used in the marketplace.

The same logic applies to discounting for the exact same service for someone for X factor. These creators could easily just say they are subsidizing the cost of the non-CGC signatures with the cost of the CGC signatures. Their argument is obviously that they think people are making money with the slabs. You can argue with them all day that they have no business with what you do with the comic after they sign it, but again, they control the pen. 

Like I said before, I agree with you guys that I think they shouldn't charge more for CGC signatures. I just don't believe that argument is winnable in this market.

[kevhtx]

8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Great. 

Got any....?

And I don't mean where people pay different amounts because of scuzzy business practices. I mean people who are CHARGED different amounts for the exact same service/product, under the exact same conditions as everyone else.

The problem is that you aren't being accurate. Someone who is getting something slabbed is NOT in the exact same condition as someone who is not. They have a witness with them so it requires someone from CGC or a facilitator. It does alter their scenario. It is a factor that allows the service provider a means to discriminate. The same thing as if the service provider offered a discount to someone with a child, or if they were wearing a military uniform, or they were 55+ years old. Its price discrimination based on a factor. It's not illegal. You situation is not EXACTLY the same.

The way around it though, is to get a facilitator who is not dressed as a CGC witness and then the creator won't know who they are, then it wouldn't really matter. I would think in this case, that would be a way around Rob's boycott too?

[kevhtx]

8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

By the way...reading this here, it doesn't seem as if she gave you back your money. Was that actually the case? If so, she stole from you.

I mean, I assume she signed something else, but that can't be gleaned from the information you've shared here. 

There were a lot of people behind me. She was getting irritated talking about the racist photographer. She went into why he was racist. It was something about how he put her in the back row of the photograph. I almost commented that she was in the back row because she wasn't in the A list of the cast (Kirk, Spock and Bones were in the front row). She was in the back with Scotty, Sula and I cant remember where Chekov was. 

I was polite to her so I didn't cause a scene. I selected one of her photos for her to sign and I moved on. Someone else from the line later came up to me and we kinda laughed about it. But, she grew up in that era, so she has a different mindset about it I guess.

[RockMyAmadeus]

41 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

They work just fine. When I said special it wasn't to make it different from anything. Same thing as the other. Exact same service. Im not saying they are doing anything different for anyone and charging differently.  I gave an example. A contractor doing a job (doesn't matter what it is). If they are doing it for someone and they know its for someone doing it as a flip, they sometimes will charge more due to it (SAME SERVICE). Its not abnormal. Its economics 101. Its called price discrimination and is a normal economic strategy used in the marketplace.

No, sorry, but with the respect that is due, none of that makes any sense and you're making confused arguments. A "contractor doing his job" isn't an example. And if a customer finds out that someone is charging them more than they would charge under other circumstances, the answer is simple: they hire another contractor. And none of this has anything to do with "Economics 101", and price discrimination takes place because of different conditions. That is, commercial customers are charged different prices than residential customers, or there are different quantities involved, or there are different types of customers involved (seniors, adults, children, for example), or timing differences. In all those cases, the CONDITIONS are DIFFERENT.

That has nothing to do with the situation being discussed here.

I don't walk into Home Depot, pick up a hammer, and have the cashier ask me what I intend to do with it, then charge me a DIFFERENT PRICE depending on what my answer is. 

THAT is the issue being discussed here.

I'll ask again: do you have any REAL LIFE examples, not THEORETICAL examples, to demonstrate your point?

Once more: Guy in front of me has a copy of X-Men #237, wants it signed by Chris Claremont. It's "not for CGC." It's $5. Guy behind me has a copy of X-Men #237, wants it signed by Chris Claremont. It's "not for CGC." It's $5. I have a copy of X-Men #237, want it signed by Chris Claremont. Because I'm honest, I tell him it IS for CGC. It's $10.

What was the difference? Nothing. The same exact conditions, the same exact circumstances, the same exact service, the same exact effort, the same exact product, on the same exact comic, at almost the same exact time. Nothing is different other than where Chris Claremont thinks my book is going to end up, which is none of his business. It's not his right to know that. It IS his right to control his signature any way he sees fit, but there are CONSEQUENCES to discrimination. 

57 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

The same logic applies to discounting for the exact same service for someone for X factor. These creators could easily just say they are subsidizing the cost of the non-CGC signatures with the cost of the CGC signatures. Their argument is obviously that they think people are making money with the slabs. You can argue with them all day that they have no business with what you do with the comic after they sign it, but again, they control the pen. 

Like I said before, I agree with you guys that I think they shouldn't charge more for CGC signatures. I just don't believe that argument is winnable in this market.

Except it's not the same logic, as explained above. And that's not what subsidizing means, or how it works. Regardless, their justification could be that they're supporting homeless cats; the reason is irrelevant. 

You and a couple people making the same type of argument as you don't seem to recognize that creators are human beings, and business people, who aren't in the habit of alienating their fans unnecessarily. The reason they come to cons...and let's be honest, creators don't come to cons because they think they're fun. They are WORK. The goal is to MAKE MONEY. It is COUNTER to that goal to make bad business decisions based on bad information. Marv Wolfman could have made a couple thousand dollars from just me alone in the last 2+ years for literally a couple of hours...AT MOST...of his time. It's some of the easiest money there is! And he's not opposed to signing, obviously.

He's made nothing from me. That's not a good business decision. 

By all means, if you want to pay more for the same service, there's nothing whatsoever stopping you from handing more money to creators. Is there? No. If you don't think they should charge more, why are you arguing so vociferously in opposition to people making that case to them...? What advantage is it to you to sit here and argue the opposite? Just to be argumentative...? At least I, and those like me, have a goal in mind.

Sitting here and arguing that "well, they have the right to do whatever they want!" when that's NEVER been in contention, and "it's their pen, you want it, you'll fork over the dough!" as if creators can't be reasoned with, doesn't really make much sense.

But you are entirely correct about one thing: if no one speaks up, you're 100% correct that nothing will change, and it will only get worse.

 

 

[kevhtx]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And none of this has anything to do with "Economics 101", and price discrimination takes place because of different conditions. That is, commercial customers are charged different prices than residential customers, or there are different quantities involved, or there are different types of customers involved (seniors, adults, children, for example), or timing differences. In all those cases, the CONDITIONS are DIFFERENT.

It is a fact that price discrimination is what is happening here. There is no debating that. Period end of story. Now that is out of the way...

Theres no point in arguing this anymore. The big difference here is I do believe getting CGC to get in line with you to witness the signing is making the conditions different (just like I was pointing out earlier) and also the market group (people wanting their comics slabbed vs those who do not).

The service by the provider is the same, but the customer wanting the service has an additional factor that makes them different so the provider here is choosing to price discriminate based on it. Its absolutely what is happening here. They are different market groups to the service provider so they are choosing to charge more to the group who wants their product graded.  

I believe it's clearly different conditions. You do not. I don't want to get into an argument further about it. It's my opinion and we can run around in circles all day arguing it. You've stated yours clearly. We can agree to disagree.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, kevhtx said:

The problem is that you aren't being accurate. Someone who is getting something slabbed is NOT in the exact same condition as someone who is not. They have a witness with them so it requires someone from CGC or a facilitator. It does alter their scenario.

No, you are incorrect again. Have you ever gone through the Sig Series program as a witness and/or facilitator...? It seems like you haven't, so let me explain it for you in some detail:

First, there are several people who are witnesses who work with facilitators as a team. You would not be able to identify us in a line if you did not know us personally. We do not wear "special clothes", or anything else that identifies us, nor should we, because our reasons for being in line FREQUENTLY aren't solely because of CGC. Creators do not identify us in line. In fact, the opportunity to lie to creators about who you are and why you want your books signed is a very real one, and though I won't do it, I have little doubt that others have.

Second, even if you do have a "red shirt" with you, the "scenario" is only "altered" for the person obtaining the signature...NOT the creator. The creator has nothing to do with any of that. The creator has books placed in front of her or him, he or she signs them, and that's it. And that's true for everyone getting a signature, CGC or not.

So, no, quite accurate here. The presence of a witness and/or facilitator has zero impact on what a creator is doing. And if it DOES have an impact, it's nearly universally the result of the inexperience of the person obtaining the signature. Nothing wrong with that, but that would be true of just about anyone who was new to something, CGC or not.

1 hour ago, kevhtx said:

It is a factor that allows the service provider a means to discriminate.

Again, you must have very little experience with the program and obtaining signatures for yourself if you think this. Nothing wrong with that, but your opinion isn't an informed one.

And even if that were not true, your reasoning is unsound. If a creator did identify someone wanting to be CGC'd...and EVERY honest witness/facilitator let's them know AHEAD OF TIME if they have two-tiered pricing...that doesn't justify having two different prices for the same service.

1 hour ago, kevhtx said:

The same thing as if the service provider offered a discount to someone with a child, or if they were wearing a military uniform, or they were 55+ years old.

These are more scenarios that aren't analogous.

Giving a discount to a child is done because that person is a child...not because of what they intend to do later.

Giving a discount to a service member is because that person is a service member...not because of what they intend to do later.

Giving a discount to a senior is because that person is a senior...not because of what they intend to do later.

In other words, the discount is dependent upon who the person obtaining the signature IS, not what they might do with it later.

Such a discount by a creator is available to ALL children, or ALL service members, or ALL seniors, completely irrespective of their intentions with that signature afterwards.

But with "raw" pricing and "slabbed" pricing, the entire premise for the separate charge is what the person obtaining the signature intends to DO with it afterwards. In other words, Joe Shlub in front of me is charged a different price than I am, not because he's a kid, or a service member, or a senior...but because of what the creator thinks he might do with it. 

And that is NOT "price discrimination" as you are trying to make it be. 

Can you imagine? I call up an airline, say I want to book a flight to New York, and they say "what is the purpose of your trip?" and I say "well, not that it's any of your business, but it's a business trip" and they say "oh, well, in that case, it will cost double, because you'll be making money, and since we helped you do that, we deserve a cut of your profit."

Or the bus saying "oh, you're going to work? Great! That will be double the cost, because you're using our bus to make money, and since we made that possible, we deserve a cut of your wages."

It's patent nonsense when applied to the real world, clearly.

1 hour ago, kevhtx said:

The way around it though, is to get a facilitator who is not dressed as a CGC witness and then the creator won't know who they are, then it wouldn't really matter. I would think in this case, that would be a way around Rob's boycott too?

NO. CGC WILL NOT damage relationships with creators by willingly disregarding their requests, as petulant and ridiculous as they  may be. CGC respects the right of EVERY creator to NOT have their signatures slabbed, if that's their choice. So far as Liefeld is concerned, until and if he changes his mind, there will NEVER. EVER be another slabbed book going forward under the SS program with his sig on it.

And if you're a facilitator and/or witness, and a creator has a sign that has two-tiered pricing, and you just ignore it, you have no business being part of the Sig Series program. That doesn't mean you can't talk to the creator. It doesn't mean you can't negotiate with the creator. But if you just ignore them, and/or lie about your books and their ultimate destination, when they've made it clear that that have two-tiered pricing, you better hope no one finds out about it. 

I'm not sure why you think it "wouldn't really matter." Of course it matters. Integrity is key to the entire SS program, and a good deal of the shenanigans that have gone on have happened because people decided they didn't want to be honest. 

[Celestial Comics]

On 3/6/2018 at 6:07 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

JUST SAY NO to two-tiered, discriminatory pricing.

JUST SAY NO to "oh, there's raw pricing, and CGC pricing" FOR THE EXACT SAME ACTION...signing a comic.

JUST SAY NO to people asking you what you plan on doing WITH YOUR OWN PROPERTY, when it's none of their damn business in the first place.

And yes, I'm just as much of an addict as the rest of you. I paid Claremont his extortion fee, I mean, his "CGC upcharge"....$3,000...at the NYCC, when he would have signed the exact same number of comics, in the exact same way, if someone said they WEREN'T "CGCing" them, for $1500. Yes, I paid it. Yes, Chris Claremont discriminated against me.

But at least I got to deal with Claremont MYSELF.

Creators can charge whatever they want...if Neal Adams wants $10,000 for his signature, more power to him. But if he's charging a DIFFERENT PRICE for the EXACT SAME SERVICE, based on what he thinks you *might* be doing with YOUR OWN PROPERTY...that's discrimination, and ought not be tolerated.

This is the first I have heard of facilitators asking customers what they will be doing with their books?? Unless you are referring to facilitators asking a customer if they are grading their book, then the facilitator, especially one who manages/handles a creator needs to make sure a creator's wishes are respected and observed. As for criticizing a creator for charging a higher fee for books to be graded, that is their right.

[RockMyAmadeus]

28 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

It is a fact that price discrimination is what is happening here. There is no debating that. Period end of story. Now that is out of the way...

Famous last words...

Of course, you are incorrect. And of course, there is debating that, because you're using "price discrimination" in a way that is not what it means.

Here's a really good extract of what price discrimination really is, from the book "Pricing and Revenue Optimization" by Robert Lewis Phillips:

https://books.google.com/books?id=InuQPrC6GtQC&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false

Notice that when the economist refers to different prices for the exact same product/service, he's not talking about different prices in the exact same market, but in DIFFERENT markets. And, what is called "first degree price discrimination", or selling to each customer at a different price, is based on what the customer is willing to pay...not what the seller is requiring different customers to pay for the same product/service. The two are entirely different concepts.

37 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

Theres no point in arguing this anymore. The big difference here is I do believe getting CGC to get in line with you to witness the signing is making the conditions different (just like I was pointing out earlier) and also the market group (people wanting their comics slabbed vs those who do not).

There wasn't any point in arguing it 12 hours ago, and here we are. Your argument doesn't follow, because the conditions for the creator do not change. He or she is doing the exact same thing...signing a comic...utterly and completely regardless of what the owner of that comic is doing before, during, or after. Believe it or not, that doesn't change the fact, and it's quite the leap in logic to claim otherwise. "Here's my comic/s, will you sign it/them? Thanks." Creator signs. Same process, CGC, Voldermort, PGX, raw, doesn't matter. That SOME people in line MIGHT make a production of it doesn't change the fundamental reality: creator is signing. Same effort, same activity, same service, same product, regardless of where the book they signed ends up.

42 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

The service by the provider is the same, but the customer wanting the service has an additional factor that makes them different so the provider here is choosing to price discriminate based on it. Its absolutely what is happening here. They are different market groups to the service provider so they are choosing to charge more to the group who wants their product graded.  

I believe it's clearly different conditions. You do not. I don't want to get into an argument further about it. It's my opinion and we can run around in circles all day arguing it. You've stated yours clearly. We can agree to disagree.

It's a bad argument, based on bad reasoning. You can try and shoehorn the logic by saying the conditions of the person OBTAINING the signature are different, therefore it's entirely different altogether, but that doesn't make it so. The fundamental act of a creator signing a comic remains precisely the same. No one is arguing that creators don't TRY to justify their decision based on these conditions...of course they do!...but that doesn't alter the fact that what they're being asked to actually DO isn't any different., whether the book is raw, graded, burned, chopped into a delicious salad, or used as a chew toy for the dog.

Sorry.

Fascinating exchange, to be sure, but your reasoning isn't sound.