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

[newshane]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You're in hell now.

 

[Logan510]

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, OhThatsRight said:

You are whacked right out of your skull, you ain't never coming back 

You can always tell how closely the hammer has met the nail, based on the substance...or lack thereof...of the reply.

Of course he complains about people "telling" others what they can and cannot do...he won't even respect the actual right and ability of the CGC board admins to tell HIM what to do on THEIR board.

[RockMyAmadeus]

34 minutes ago, newshane said:

 

Bloody n' gooey. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, OhThatsRight said:

Actually it reflects the level of insanity I'm replying to. So yeah, I definitely don't want to argue with a religious fruitcake going into zealot mode; you got me there. FYI, if anyone out there is an athiest, don't tell Jesus Joe, you'll make his List for sure!

Why don't you take a break from your endless new ID creations to get around the CGC board ban and go play with your children instead. Despite the sociopath they have for a father, they deserve your time and attention, instead of more lies from "Alex Forrest/Eric Cartman Lyin' Stu" who will NOT be ignored. 

 

1 hour ago, OhThatsRight said:

And yet you said nothing about this all these years. Shame on you.

See? Told ya. The "religious zealot" here is "Alex Forrest/Eric Cartman Lyin' Stu", who not only will NOT be ignored, but he'll hypocritically and self-righteously proclaim how self-righteous and hypocritical he imagines everyone else is, and try to shame people into silence. I "said nothing" because I recognized long ago...you know, when you refused to honor the CGC board ban...or any ban, of any kind..."EFF YOU! EFF YOU AND YOUR "BAN"! YOU CAN'T BAN **ME**!!!" I can hear you screaming at the monitor from here...that you were not stable. "Saying nothing" isn't tacit approval. But, hey, try to reason with sociopaths....

Edited March 17, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

[joeypost]

Well, Goebbels said it: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." But to whom does this really apply  

 

Sorry, I forgot to add that this is not a quote I would normally use based on the source. I was quoting someone else to make a point. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by joeypost

[jcjames]

 

This is like 17 pages of confirmation bias regarding certain members here.

 

[Logan510]

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, joeypost said:

Well, Goebbels said it: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." But to whom does this really apply  

My money's on the guy who won't let anyone have the on-topic discussion, who's created, and had subsequently banned, perhaps more than a thousand user ids by now, but who won't take the "hint." But by all means, go ahead and continue to muddy the water with implications and suggestions which have nothing to do with the topic. 

Isn't the internet just wonderful...?

[Logan510]

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

+1

[reddwarf666222]

54 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

My money's on the guy who won't let anyone have the on-topic discussion, who's created, and had subsequently banned, perhaps more than a thousand user ids by now, but who won't take the "hint." But by all means, go ahead and continue to muddy the water with implications and suggestions which have nothing to do with the topic. 

Isn't the internet just wonderful...?

Or the dealer who keeps pushing his agenda instead of saying his point once and moving on. It's like the Boy who cried Wolf by now.

[Logan510]

11 minutes ago, reddwarf666222 said:

Or the dealer who keeps pushing his agenda instead of saying his point once and moving on. It's like the Boy who cried Wolf by now.

It's not about that, it's never been about that. It's about this:

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, reddwarf666222 said:

56 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

My money's on the guy who won't let anyone have the on-topic discussion, who's created, and had subsequently banned, perhaps more than a thousand user ids by now, but who won't take the "hint." But by all means, go ahead and continue to muddy the water with implications and suggestions which have nothing to do with the topic. 

Isn't the internet just wonderful...?

Or the dealer who keeps pushing his agenda instead of saying his point once and moving on. It's like the Boy who cried Wolf by now.

So let's look at your statement rationally and break it down.

The train of thought goes like this: "joeypost" asks the readers to consider that someone is lying. 

But lying about what? We don't know. The charge isn't specific (as they never are when you're pushing propaganda, rather than fact.)

Your response here...following the straightforward train of thought...is an accusation that *I* am lying. 

But again...lying about what? You don't say either.

So let's consider the facts against your comment.

First, I'm not a dealer, and never have been. I am a collector who sells to support his addiction. 

Second, what is my agenda? I've said it before, and I'll say it here again: to get rid of the "CGC punishment tax", and to educate creators to the realities of the market, so that everyone can do unrestricted, mutually beneficial business that helps everyone...creators, customers, CGC, facilitators.

The process as it stands now with more and more creators is harmful, for all the reasons I stated before.

Third, when the situation changes, that is the time to "move on." Until and if it changes, saying a point "once" ensures that nothing changes. As I said before...none of the great (and terrible) social changes that have occurred...ever...came about because someone "made their point once and moved on." That's just an attempt by you to diminish the issue in the minds of others. If you want to continue discussing it...by all means, let's continue discussing it. 

Finally..."the Boy who cried Wolf" makes no sense in the context of this discussion. That phrase refers to someone pretending there's a problem, when there isn't really one, so that people become numb to his cries, and ignore him when a problem actually comes about. Are you suggesting there's no problem as it stands right now? I'm sure you are, but the facts of the matter don't agree with you.

[TheCollector2016]

I have a question. Let's say you're a CGC witness. And you have a book signed for yourself. Or you know someone who is, and they witness a signing for you.

How would Liefield know this even occurred?

[jsilverjanet]

the enemy of my enemy is my friend....(even if they were my enemy first) 

 

[jsilverjanet]

1 hour ago, Logan510 said:

[RockMyAmadeus]

I would encourage anyone on the fence to consider just what it is that the likes of "Alex Forrest/Eric Cartman Stu", "Logan510", "reddwarf" and others are actually arguing in favor of. 

They're making the claim that, since  I am arguing in my own interest, my arguments are therefore invalid. That is the common charge by the socialist. But of course I'm arguing in my own interests...that's the point of business: two parties willingly engaging in a transaction that is mutually beneficial. That's what actual capitalism is: free (meaning unrestricted) trade between willing parties, to their mutual benefit (emphasis on the MUTUAL.)

Meanwhile, "Alex Forrest/Eric Cartman Stu"...who won't be told what to do, not by CGC board admins, not by nobody...is arguing against capitalism, while perversely accusing me of "hating capitalism." 

Let's go back to Marv Wolfman for a second and use him as an example.

I am in favor of Marv. I want to support Marv. His work meant a lot to me at a formative time in my life. 

I am willing to pay Marv. Marv is willing to sign comic books for a certain price. That price is irrelevant. If Marv and I can come to an agreement about the price of his signature, then we will enter a transaction willingly, that will be to our mutual benefit. Again, that's the actual meaning and heart of capitalism. And not only to OUR benefit, but also to the benefit of CGC, and the USPS, and to other collectors who are also interested in owning something signed by him, but don't want to go to the effort and cost to do it themselves...perfectly reasonable...but are willing to willingly engage in a transaction with me to our mutual benefit.

Marv is willing to sign for a certain amount...BUT...if you intend to slab the book, the price he will charge you goes up. 

He is perfectly willing to sign for that lower charge. The price isn't relevant to him, either...he wants to prevent people from treating his signed comics like "trading cards" (which is a bit silly, since people have treated his signed comics like trading cards since the first one he signed, slab or no.)

Again: the price he charges is irrelevant. He can charge $0, or he can charge $10 billion. The price is utterly irrelevant. The issue is that he is perfectly willing to perform an action at that certain price. And I would be perfectly willing to pay that certain price. And then we would engage in a transaction, or a series of transactions, that is mutually beneficial to both of us. Marv makes money, I get my books signed, everyone is happy.

What I am NOT willing to pay is a higher price based on a completely unrelated (to Marv Wolfman) destination for that signed book, based on a perception that isn't actually true, or entirely true, and regardless, is still none of Marv Wolfman's business. It is an emotional argument that Marv Wolfman is making: Marv doesn't want people to "profit" off of him, in a way that he doesn't understand (and again, I know this, because he's said it to me personally.)

But the entire foundation of commerce...the entire existence of trade...is people profiting...MUTUALLY...off of each other! That's how commerce WORKS. You willingly trade your effort in exchange for money, and willingly exchange your money for other people's effort.  This is the process which built civilization: free trade. This is why you and I can enjoy a standard of living that is higher than the wealthiest people living as recently as 1920. 

Marv writes comics. Since Marv is one person, he cannot publish, print, distribute, and retail the comics he writes. So, in exchange for a portion of the price of the comic, Marv is willing to get less money per unit, in the hopes of selling vastly more units. This is how commerce works.

Marv sells 200 books that he wrote, drew, edited, published, and printed, out of the back of his car...? He might make $1 per comic. Maybe. If he's lucky...and manages to find 200 customers for his book in his incredibly limited market. 

Marv sells 200,000 books that he wrote and edited, and someone else published, and someone else printed, and someone else distributed, and someone else retailed...? He stands to make a LOT MORE than $200. For a smaller percentage of the cost PER comic, sharing his profit with others ensures that he can make substantially more than if he did it by himself by selling exponentially more UNITS of that comic. So Marv makes 10 cents a copy, instead of $1. At 200,000 copies sold, he's made $20,000. 

I'll take it.

And if you work for someone else, they are profiting off of you and your effort. Their goal is to make more money than it costs to pay you your wages. And if that bothers you, you should go start your own business, so no one can "profit" off of you.

Back to Marv: so, instead of freely engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction, I decline to pay the higher charge, and Marv gets $0. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

This hurts Marv. I have money here that I am perfectly willing to pay him, at the price he is perfectly willing to charge.

But instead, Marv gets $0. He loses.

I don't get my books signed. I lose.

CGC doesn't get submissions. CGC loses.

The USPS doesn't get books mailed that otherwise would be. The USPS loses.

Collectors don't have books available to them that they would like to trade me cash for. The collectors lose.

I don't have more cash to trade for the books *I* want. Dealers lose.

Facilitators get fewer submissions. Facilitators lose.

All up and down the commerce chain, individuals and entities lose, directly AND indirectly, because of the halting of commerce based on an inaccurate, emotional understanding of how things are happening.

Totally their right to do whatever they want. But if they're already willing to sign...and they are...then making bad business decisions that hurt them and others, when that doesn't have to be the case, is worthwhile to sound the alarm about. I want to support Marv Wolfman. I want to support Frank Miller. I want to support all sorts of creators whose work I like and admire. But if they're going to charge me more for a service than they'll charge someone else in the exact same circumstance as me...they're really just cutting off their noses to spite their faces. And the facilitators who encourage and support this kind of action...? Same thing: ignoring the long term effects for short term $$$. They're hurting everyone...including themselves...too.

The folks on "the other side" of this argument? They recognize they have no rational counterargument, so they engage in the politics of personal destruction: dismiss the messenger, and you dismiss the message. 

They're arguing against the creators, against customers, against CGC, against willing, unrestrained commerce. They're arguing for a position that actively...not passively...hurts people up and down the process. And that's really the heart and soul of socialism, and why it "feels good" on the surface, but is immoral and falls apart when you break it down. 

Just what agenda is the valid one, here...? 

Edited March 18, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

55 minutes ago, TheCollector2016 said:

I have a question. Let's say you're a CGC witness. And you have a book signed for yourself. Or you know someone who is, and they witness a signing for you.

How would Liefield know this even occurred?

CGC won't honor the signature.