CGC census is high, but there aren't enough keys 5 5

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes, it's Wikipedia...but someone out there, in an EXPANDED explanation of the concept, agrees with me.

Quote

 

Wait, your whole argument is based on Wikipedia entries?   Mr Scholarly Research is quoting Wikipedia? Any credibility you might've had is now gone with the wind...

 

And we have a winner in the Pool, this was predicted 2 days ago.

 

This is "Stu", the guy who's been banned from this board for perhaps a decade and a half, who has made hundreds of new ids (wasting those for other users, by the way) to continue to post here, despite the fact that the administration has made it quite plain he's not allowed here.

If there was ever a more apt "consider the source"...I can't think of one.

Edited August 26, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[namisgr]

This thread jumped the shark at least 10 pages ago.  I could beg for some exercising of self-restraint, but would expect it to fall on deaf ears.

[Callaway29]

[oakman29]

This has certainly been a fun read on a leasurely Sunday morning.

[Get Marwood & I]

13 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

This has certainly been a fun read on a leasurely Sunday morning.

Yes. And for once, a clear winner! 

 

Satan. 

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Mission: Comics & Art In San Francisco is kinda local to both of you.  Does it have a parking lot? 

[thunsicker]

15 minutes ago, BlowUpTheMoon said:

Mission: Comics & Art In San Francisco is kinda local to both of you.  Does it have a parking lot? 

San Francisco is local to LA?  As RMA would say:

[Logan510]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGus said:

At its core Preservation has nothing to do with being a collector. It can be an element of collecting, but in no way is it a requirement to being classified a collector.

I'm still wondering why you being banned has anything to do with the points you make. The other person has been banned from at least two other comic book message boards and by his own admission claims that for a time he was a hair away from getting banned here, to the point where he said he was afraid to have any heated discussions for fear of getting banned.

Should any of that have any bearing on any of the points he's trying to make?

Or is it a desperate attempt to try and discredit some valid points being made?

[DavidTheDavid]

6 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I'm still wondering why you being banned has anything to do with the points you make. The other person has been banned from at least two other comic book message boards and by his own admission claims that for a time he was a hair away from getting banned here, to the point where he said he was afraid to have any heated discussions for fear of getting banned.

Should any of that have any bearing on any of the points he's trying to make?

Or is it a desperate attempt to try and discredit some valid points being made?

RAM wants to poison the well, one of a number of fallacies he repeatedly makes here and elsewhere. If I ever teach a class on informal fallacies again, I've a wealth of examples thanks to him.

Edited August 26, 2018 by DavidTheDavid

[comicdonna]

I'm glad I didn't stay up all night posting.  That's all I have for this thread today.  

Edited August 26, 2018 by comicdonna

[RockMyAmadeus]

20 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

23 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I'm still wondering why you being banned has anything to do with the points you make. The other person has been banned from at least two other comic book message boards and by his own admission claims that for a time he was a hair away from getting banned here, to the point where he said he was afraid to have any heated discussions for fear of getting banned.

Should any of that have any bearing on any of the points he's trying to make?

Or is it a desperate attempt to try and discredit some valid points being made?

RAM wants to poison the well, one of a number of fallacies he repeatedly makes here and elsewhere. If I ever teach a class on informal fallacies again, I've a wealth of examples thanks to him.

Oh for God's sake, you two are more transparent than a sheet of window glass. 

"Stu" doesn't have to operate under the rules, which means he can say...and has said...anything he wants. Even YOU two wouldn't dare say the things that "Stu" says, because you know you would both be banned, too. You only say the things you do here because you think you can get away with it, despite being provocation. And you probably will.

How do you "poison a well" that is already filled with arsenic..?

"wealth of examples."  Sure. Go with that. Let me know when that class starts; I'd love to audit it.

Edited August 26, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

21 minutes ago, thunsicker said:

41 minutes ago, BlowUpTheMoon said:

Mission: Comics & Art In San Francisco is kinda local to both of you.  Does it have a parking lot? 

San Francisco is local to LA?  As RMA would say:

Well....it's local compared to Buffalo, I suppose.

 

[thehumantorch]

5 days and 20 pages of off topic arguments that have destroyed this thread. 

It would be lovely if those of you who argue off topic would start your own thread rather than destroy a perfectly good thread. 

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

16 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

5 days and 20 pages of off topic arguments that have destroyed this thread. 

It would be lovely if those of you who argue off topic would start your own thread rather than destroy a perfectly good thread. 

The Official Debate Overflow Thread

[Lazyboy]

5 hours ago, NoMan said:

I’m not sure where to post this thought so I’ll just do it here: I believe the photo of the kid on the sofa with the comics all around his feet (with the funny socks) and piled up to his elbows is staged. As in the the photographer thought how best to show as a visual the size of his collection was spreading them around the floor. 

I, of course, was not there but use my 3 decades in photography and show biz to arrive at this conclusion. I think it would be foolish to conclude the guy didn’t care about his comics from looking at that photo. 

No doubt. I'm sure that wasn't the normal state of the room and comics.

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

5 hours ago, NoMan said:

I’m not sure where to post this thought so I’ll just do it here: I believe the photo of the kid on the sofa with the comics all around his feet (with the funny socks) and piled up to his elbows is staged. As in the the photographer thought how best to show as a visual the size of his collection was spreading them around the floor. 

I, of course, was not there but use my 3 decades in photography and show biz to arrive at this conclusion. I think it would be foolish to conclude the guy didn’t care about his comics from looking at that photo. 

No doubt. I'm sure that wasn't the normal state of the room and comics.

Sure, or the guy wouldn't be able to sleep on his bed.

However...would a collector allow a photographer to suggest he strew his comics all over the floor, stepping on them, and also make haphazard stacks of them on the bed...?

Did the guy care about his comics? Clearly; he had a ton of them. He obviously enjoyed them.

Did he care about preserving their condition in any way...? I'm guessing no.

[DocGo]

2 hours ago, Logan510 said:

I'm still wondering why you being banned has anything to do with the points you make. The other person has been banned from at least two other comic book message boards and by his own admission claims that for a time he was a hair away from getting banned here, to the point where he said he was afraid to have any heated discussions for fear of getting banned.

Should any of that have any bearing on any of the points he's trying to make?

Or is it a desperate attempt to try and discredit some valid points being made?

Wow. You clearly haven’t read anything RMA has actually posted (he’s answered Stu’s question ad nauseam for at least the last 10 pages).

Of course, that’s not your point is it 

[Logan510]

18 minutes ago, docgo said:

Wow. You clearly haven’t read anything RMA has actually posted (he’s answered Stu’s question ad nauseam for at least the last 10 pages).

Of course, that’s not your point is it 

I say what I mean and mean what I say.

Instead of actually addressing the points it's the same formula ad nauseam.

Disagree and you're making it a personal attack or dealing in bad faith.

Now I expect the usual suspect(s) to come along and explain ( again ) how they've had many, many disagreements but can be civil and remain good friends.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

38 minutes ago, docgo said:

Wow. You clearly haven’t read anything RMA has actually posted (he’s answered Stu’s question ad nauseam for at least the last 10 pages).

Of course, that’s not your point is it 

I say what I mean and mean what I say.

Instead of actually addressing the points it's the same formula ad nauseam.

Disagree and you're making it a personal attack or dealing in bad faith.

Now I expect the usual suspect(s) to come along and explain ( again ) how they've had many, many disagreements but can be civil and remain good friends.

 

Spoiler

 

Everything you post with regard to me is in bad faith. 

Like this post here. This isn't "disagree." This is the same story, chapter 497.

Or do you think people are really that dumb, and don't notice you serial liking every....single...post....that could even remotely be interpreted as contrary to me in any way...? Do you think people don't notice that...? That they're just too dumb to see it...?

And, you don't miss the opportunity to take a shot at Chuck, too.

 

(Spoilered, so people don't have to read if they don't wish to.)

Edited August 26, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus