Faithless #1 "DO NOT ENCAPSULATE" 1 1

[NoMan]

59 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

  That's more than cool with me.

I'm not sure what my post has to do with gun violence, but if that's what you got out of my post, then I guess my words had a very strong impact on you.

I'm simply trying to drive the point home that CGC has every right to shape their own policy and that people should respect that.

 

I'm hiding my torch violence with gun violence. 

[Get Marwood & I]

3 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

They listened, but a change in labelling request is not really an "opinion".

In your opinion! 

[NoMan]

59 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Was that near the intersection of Olive and Verdugo...? I think that was a Vons by the time I moved there in '99, and is now a CVS.

I strolled by Bruce's store "downtown" a few weeks back...same ol' Bruce. That guy's a vampire.

He's got a store now? Or are you refering to the con at the Reef.

I lived in the Olive Caprie furnished apartments (bed bugs and all) at Olive and Buena Vista

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

  That's more than cool with me.

I'm not sure what my post has to do with gun violence, but if that's what you got out of my post, then I guess my words had a very strong impact on you.

I'm simply trying to drive the point home that CGC has every right to shape their own policy and that people should respect that.

 

What do you mean by "respect that"? From your posts, it appears that anyone expressing any opinion at all is "pushing their beliefs." I'm not sure how someone can "push their beliefs" about anything, when they have no editorial ability, and everyone else has the same right and ability to post.

The fact is, people discussing the issue CAN influence CGC, in various and sundry ways, and numerous individual opinions have changed policies, both big and small. No one, in this entire conversation, has suggested that CGC does not have the right to shape their own policy...but that doesn't mean that concerned parties need shut up and say nothing about those policies. In fact, doing so would be detrimental to the company; many positive and financially beneficial policy changes have come about as the result of people expressing their views. Without customer feedback, no company is going to know if people are satisfied or not. "Private entity" or not, CGC is a for profit company, and you don't make profit if you have no customers.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, NoMan said:

He's got a store now? Or are you refering to the con at the Reef.

I lived in the Olive Caprie furnished apartments (bed bugs and all) at Olive and Buena Vista

Yeah, he's had a store for years...over on Orange Grove? Up near the AMC 16 and Market City Caffe.

[NoMan]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yeah, he's had a store for years...over on Orange Grove? Up near the AMC 16 and Market City Caffe.

In all seriousness, I'm confused. I know Bruce puts on the Con at The Reef (Downtown Los Angeles, south of The 10)a couple times a year. Does Bruce currently have a comic store in downtown Burbank that is open everyday, etc, etc.

Also:

Have you checked out the Comic/vintage toy shop in Whitter, Fisk Comics?

9826 Painter Ave.

Unit M

Whitter 90605

Was at a Stan Ridgway concert at Whitter college in Feb and he had just opened it. Owner seemed cool. Interesting vintage toys. Just kinda stumbled in waiting for concert to start so didn't have time to check out back issues. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by NoMan

[masterlogan2000]

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

but that doesn't mean that concerned parties need shut up and say nothing about those policies

When did I tell you (or anyone) to shut up?

You should take a step back, calm down, and realize that not every post I make is an attack at you or your freedom to post on these boards.  Stop chasing down and singling out my posts because it's fun to argue with me.  It's tiring.

Re-read what I wrote here.  My whole argument, and nothing more, is that CGC is free to shape their own policy.  That FACT is what should be respected, even if one disagrees with said policy.

[RockMyAmadeus]

16 minutes ago, NoMan said:

In all seriousness, I'm confused. I know Bruce puts on the Con at The Reef (Downtown Los Angeles, south of The 10)a couple times a year. Does Bruce currently have a comic store in downtown Burbank that is open everyday, etc, etc.

Yes. Same Bruce. His store is right before the parking garage "underpass" on Orange Grove...230 E Orange Grove is the vicinity. And yes, same guy who has run the "Shrine show" (you still call it that, right? We all do!) at now the Reef for the last 30 or so years.

25 minutes ago, NoMan said:

Have you checked out the Comic/vintage toy shop in Whitter, Fisk Comics?

Have not. I try to avoid Whittier if I can.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

17 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

31 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

but that doesn't mean that concerned parties need shut up and say nothing about those policies

When did I tell you (or anyone) to shut up?

It's a euphemism. Your language...as noted by others...was more than a bit confrontational.

19 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

You should take a step back, calm down, and realize that not every post I make is an attack at you or your freedom to post on these boards.  Stop chasing down and singling out my posts because it's fun to argue with me.  It's tiring.

Slow down there, son. I think you're projecting quite a bit, here. You posted in a thread, guns blazing, in which I was already an active and current participant; I know it may seem otherwise, but this song isn't about you. Really. No one you're responding to is upset, nor needs to "calm down." And while conversing with you can be interesting, "fun" is not a word I would choose to describe it. And if you don't want to argue with someone, the choice, as always, is yours: don't argue.

23 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Re-read what I wrote here.  My whole argument, and nothing more, is that CGC is free to shape their own policy.  That FACT is what should be respected, even if one disagrees with said policy.

You didn't answer my question: what does "respect" mean to you? If you want to have a discussion, let's have a discussion. No one disputes, nor has disputed, your contention. But what isn't clear is what you mean by "that FACT is what should be respected." Does that mean people aren't allowed to discuss it? People aren't allowed to express their opinions about it? People aren't allowed to suggest changes? What does that mean, as you use it?

Because no one...in this entire conversation...has said that CGC isn't free to shape their own policy. The issue, here, is whether or not people are allowed to disagree with, or question, or attempt to change their policy.

[RockMyAmadeus]

50 minutes ago, NoMan said:

I'm hiding my torch violence with gun violence. 

It's the torch violence that gets you in trouble....

 

[OrangeNemesis]

I asked cgc and cbcs to signature verify these for me for grading at HeroesCon and was turned down by both. I get it, its their call and can do what they want. Doesn't change my opinion of them. So instead I had Del Ray etc sign them and get a pic together with me and the book. Good times. They both love the covers and were super proud of their work.

Edited June 22, 2019 by OrangeNemesis

[masterlogan2000]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

what does "respect" mean to you?

In this context, Respect = Acknowledged.  Most people have stated their opinions on why CGC should or should not encapsulate the book.  Few, up to that point, have acknowledged that it is fully within their rights.

 

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

but that doesn't mean that concerned parties need shut up and say nothing about those policies

When did I tell you (or anyone) to shut up?

It's a euphemism. Your language...as noted by others...was more than a bit confrontational. 

Show me where it was confrontational.  And how does confrontational equate to me telling people to shut up?  If anything, it's your posts that attempt to reframe my whole argument that incites confrontation.  And as always, the thread gets derailed by you and I bickering.

It's funny how you can play the euphemism card for your own words, yet you're so fixated on nitpicking the word "respect" just so you can base a made-up argument with me around it.

Let me stress this again, FOR THE LAST TIME... CGC is free to shape their own policy.  That FACT is what should be respected, even if one disagrees with said policy.

 

[s-dali]

4 hours ago, NoMan said:

I'm hiding my torch violence with gun violence. 

Torches don't kill people, people kill people!!

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

In this context, Respect = Acknowledged.  Most people have stated their opinions on why CGC should or should not encapsulate the book.  Few, up to that point, have acknowledged that it is fully within their rights.

That's because it's granted, a given. It can go without stating. No one disputed that, because it's indisputable. There's no need to belabor the obvious.

3 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Show me where it was confrontational.

As I said, others had the same reaction to your post...and said so. Do you think that all of us are making it up, and seeing what isn't there?

3 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

And how does confrontational equate to me telling people to shut up?

Here's what I said, in its context:

5 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The fact is, people discussing the issue CAN influence CGC, in various and sundry ways, and numerous individual opinions have changed policies, both big and small. No one, in this entire conversation, has suggested that CGC does not have the right to shape their own policy...but that doesn't mean that concerned parties need shut up and say nothing about those policies. In fact, doing so would be detrimental to the company; many positive and financially beneficial policy changes have come about as the result of people expressing their views. Without customer feedback, no company is going to know if people are satisfied or not. "Private entity" or not, CGC is a for profit company, and you don't make profit if you have no customers.

That is not me claiming you're "telling people to shut up." It is me saying "...that doesn't mean concerned parties need shut up and say nothing about those policies." There is a substantial rhetorical difference between those two statements, much like saying "that is inaccurate" is different from "You're so wrong, no one has ever been more wrong in the entire history of wrongness than you are right now." The former is a simple statement of fact, the latter is a bit over the top.

3 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

If anything, it's your posts that attempt to reframe my whole argument that incites confrontation.  And as always, the thread gets derailed by you and I bickering.

As I said before, I was already an active and current participant in this thread. I did not seek you out to reply to a comment of yours in a thread in which I was not participating. You came into the thread, guns blazing, and other people besides me noticed it, too. As stated before, others interpreted the same confrontational tone in your initial post, and said so. Were those others trying to "reframe your whole argument to incite confrontation"...?

If you don't want a thread to be "derailed by bickering"...don't bicker. Not being flippant, here. 

3 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

It's funny how you can play the euphemism card for your own words, yet you're so fixated on nitpicking the word "respect" just so you can base a made-up argument with me around it.

I am neither playing cards, nor nitpicking your words. I asked you what you meant, about a comment that is germane to this discussion. That is not "nitpicking"; I'm trying to understand what you mean. Now that I know that "That FACT is what should be respected" means that people should repeat that...if I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong..."CGC can do what they want" with every comment...then I will say that that is redundant, it's a given, and no one disputes it, and so isn't necessary to be repeated. 

If you disagree...that's perfectly fine. But it doesn't mean that others ought to tailor their comments to suit you. 

3 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Let me stress this again, FOR THE LAST TIME... CGC is free to shape their own policy.

Correct. No one disagrees with you. 

3 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:

That FACT is what should be respected, even if one disagrees with said policy.

Using the definition you gave, I disagree, and I would imagine that so do most (if not all) of the other people who've posted about this topic. But I don't speak for them. One doesn't need to repeatedly acknowledge that CGC has the right to do something which everyone agrees they have the right to do. It's redundant.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position! It's much appreciated.

 

[masterlogan2000]

6 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Now that I know that "That FACT is what should be respected" means that people should repeat that...if I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong..."CGC can do what they want" with every comment...then I will say that that is redundant, it's a given, and no one disputes it, and so isn't necessary to be repeated. 

Wrong.  I'm at a loss of words for how your interpretation is to assume that I'm trying to impose posting rhetoric rules on everyone.    (However, thank you for allowing me to correct this misunderstanding.)

When I made my first post in this discussion, only one person had mentioned that it is within CGC's rights to refuse service and set their own policies.  I felt that this was not only important, but THE single most important point in the entire discussion.  This needed to be emphasized, or there's the risk that it gets lost in all the discussions of people's own opinions (of which there were many).  My strong tone (which you labelled as combative), does seem to have driven that point home.

With this emphasis, and through every post I've made since, I've actually accomplished the EXACT OPPOSITE of your interpretation of my words.  The FACT that CGC can set their own policies has now been acknowledged... even accentuated by every post you make to attack my own rhetoric (thank you for that as well).  Any additional mention of this thought may now be considered redundant, thus making it unnecessary for people to repeat it in every post they make.

 

[masterlogan2000]

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's because it's granted, a given. It can go without stating. No one disputed that, because it's indisputable. There's no need to belabor the obvious. 

Wait, can I only make comments now that are disputable?  Are you really arguing because you agree with me TOO much?

Again, this is a point that deserved to be emphasized.  I'm sorry you feel so strongly in the opposite direction and feel compelled to tell me about it.  More than one person (plural) has "Liked" the post, showing that there's support for my sentiments.

 

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It's a euphemism. Your language...as noted by others...was more than a bit confrontational. 

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As I said, others had the same reaction to your post...and said so. Do you think that all of us are making it up, and seeing what isn't there? 

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

and other people besides me noticed it

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Were those others trying to "reframe your whole argument to incite confrontation"...?

Let's be clear here.  There is no "others" (plural).  @NoMan had commented on my post and essentially asked for a clarification.  I have no quarrel with @NoMan and find his post amusing given the context.  I'm assuming (and hoping) that he has no quarrel with me.

But that's it.  One other (singular) person reacting to my tone.  Don't try to frame this like there is a mob that disagrees with how I post my thoughts on this public forum.  That is just untrue, and only serves as an attempt to artificially inflate support for whatever it is you're trying to argue about with me this time.

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by masterlogan2000

[RockMyAmadeus]

31 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Now that I know that "That FACT is what should be respected" means that people should repeat that...if I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong..."CGC can do what they want" with every comment...

Wrong.  I'm at a loss of words for how your interpretation is to assume that I'm trying to impose posting rhetoric rules on everyone.    (However, thank you for allowing me to correct this misunderstanding.)

When I made my first post in this discussion, only one person had mentioned that it is within CGC's rights to refuse service and set their own policies.  I felt that this was not only important, but THE single most important point in the entire discussion.  This needed to be emphasized, or there's the risk that it gets lost in all the discussions of people's own opinions (of which there were many).  My strong tone (which you labelled as combative), does seem to have driven that point home.

Ahhh...gotcha. So there was a specific number of times that "CGC can do what they want!" had to be repeated before it became "driven home." I see. Thanks for clarifying! May I ask how many times that was...?

34 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

With this emphasis, and through every post I've made since, I've actually accomplished the EXACT OPPOSITE of your interpretation of my words.  The FACT that CGC can set their own policies has now been acknowledged... even accentuated by every post you make to attack my own rhetoric (thank you for that as well).

Nobody's attacking you or your rhetoric. 

36 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

  Any additional mention of this thought may now be considered redundant, thus making it unnecessary for people to repeat it in every post they make.

Great! That's a load off! Phew!

 

[masterlogan2000]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Ahhh...gotcha. So there was a specific number of times that "CGC can do what they want!" had to be repeated before it became "driven home." I see. Thanks for clarifying! May I ask how many times that was...?

Just one time.  My original post.

[RockMyAmadeus]

31 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's because it's granted, a given. It can go without stating. No one disputed that, because it's indisputable. There's no need to belabor the obvious. 

Wait, can I only make comments now that are disputable?  Are you really arguing because you agree with me TOO much?

You can make any comments you want, within the framework of the board rules, as with everyone. And no, I'm not agreeing with you, in this case, at all. Hope you don't mind!

36 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Again, this is a point that deserved to be emphasized.  I'm sorry you feel so strongly in the opposite direction and feel compelled to tell me about it.  More than one person has "Liked" the post, showing that there's support for my sentiments.

Eh. I wouldn't try to interpret the "likes" too deeply. People "like" comments for all sorts of reasons, some of which may not be the reasons we think. That said, when something is granted, a given, it need not be repeated over and over again. In this case, no one suggested...nor even implied...that CGC didn't have the right to do what they want, because everyone accepted it from the outset...repeating it would be like saying "you can post in this thread!!" over and over. People understand that; it doesn't need to be repeated, or, indeed, even mentioned. It's one of those "yes, everyone already knows and acknowledges that."

t's a rhetorical principle I'm discussing, here. But I'm glad you emphasized it, on the off-chance that there was some lurker out that who did NOT know that CGC had the right to do what they want. It's a good service you've provided.

44 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

Let's be clear here.  There is no "others" (plural). 

Well, now, I beg to differ, and I hope you don't mind me saying so. There was this comment by NoMan:

Quote

 

People are just having a conversation about this. Is that ok? Don't think anybody is advocating picking up guns and torches to storm the Holy Land in Florida. Or, conversely, to pick up guns and torches and find those that they disagree with.

People are just talking, while doing stuff around the house. Cool?

 

And then this comment by Get Marwood & I:

Quote

 

My opinion doesn't matter?  Nor does yours or anyone else's? 

Oh. 

Let's all pack up and go home then. Nothing to see here

 

That's others, plural. 

49 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

@NoMan had commented on my post and essentially asked for a clarification. 

Mmmmmm....no, I don't think that's the case. It reads like he's talking you off the ledge, not asking for clarification. 

50 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

  I have no quarrel with @NoMan and find his post amusing given the context.  I'm assuming (and hoping) that he has no quarrel with me.

I found his post amusing, too, though perhaps not for the same reason...?

51 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

But that's it.  One other (singular) person reacting to my tone.  Don't try to frame this like there is a mob that disagrees with how I post my thoughts on this public forum. 

Nope...just three people, myself, NoMan, and Get Marwood & I, and only with regard to your original post, not "how you post your thoughts on this public forum." I don't speak for them, but it seems pretty clear to me that they were (gently) disputing your contention, and the manner in which you said it. 

52 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

That is just untrue, and only serves to artificially inflate support for whatever it is you're trying to argue about with me this time.

Well, like I said before, you came into the conversation that was already taking place, guns blazing. Here's your post:

Quote

 

^^^ 100%

People may disagree with the stance that CGC has taken here.  But, the fact of the matter is that it is completely within their rights as a private entity to take whatever stance they want (or change or make exceptions to that stance).  This is the only argument that can be made here, and the only argument that actually matters.

There are a lot of opinions being shared in this thread.  There are a lot of people who are pushing their own personal beliefs as reasons for why CGC should/shouldn't grade these types of covers.  NONE of this matters.  Our opinions carry no weight with regards to shaping CGC policy.  We should stop acting like our enthusiasm and loyalty to CGC entitles us as part owners of the company with voting rights on all decisions they make.  Clearly this is not the case.

Everyone should respect the fact that, as a private company, CGC is free to grade (or not grade) whatever books they choose... even if you disagree with the position that they've taken.

 

And as I, and others, said...people don't agree with you that "our opinions carry no weight with regards to shaping CGC policy." That's where you're going to find the disagreement, here, because not only is that not true, it's actually happened, many times in the past, and will likely continue to do so in the future. CGC is a company that makes an effort to listen to customers, so saying that those customers' opinions carry no weight is not quite accurate.

In fact, as I said before...it is the people who express those opinions who help CGC, because without customer feedback, CGC doesn't know if it's on the right track or not. 

So, if someone takes exception with something you say, it's probably not because they are "trying to argue with you"...but rather, they simply disagree with what you've said, and are expressing themselves in that manner. Hopefully, I've clarified things in a way which you will find satisfactory.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

26 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

29 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Ahhh...gotcha. So there was a specific number of times that "CGC can do what they want!" had to be repeated before it became "driven home." I see. Thanks for clarifying! May I ask how many times that was...?

Just one time.  My original post.

Ah. And you don't believe it was already clear before your post...? Even though someone else mentioned it already, as you pointed out...?

Nevermind, I think you've already answered that.