Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[LearnedHand]

Comicdonna, this isn't in direct reply to your comments. Your post was simply the last one in this thread.

 

It’s true that the FAQ Section may seem to endorse Matt Nelson for “pressing, dry cleaning [and] similar treatments.” We all know, however, that Susan (self-admittedly) no longer performs “pressing only” services (and based on the rational behind it, I doubt she would perform pressing and dry-cleaning only services), Matt Wilson is experiencing problems, and PCS is no longer in business. So, with Tracey being the only other person that performs this type of service (as a primary business), would the issue be resolved if CGC decided to list both Nelson and Heft, or …?

 

Out of curiosity (and not to be interpreted as anything to do with Nelson or Heft, as I’ve known both for many years and think very highly of both), what if CGC hears nothing but positive comments about person A and many mixed or negative comments about person B. If CGC endorsed both A and B, wouldn’t people take issue with CGC, calling it irresponsible?

 

We all have preferences, but I believe CGC’s reputation of impartiality has to do with its actual services. To illustrate – CGC has a very public and clear opinion of Mr. Ewert (a strong bias if you will). If Ewert were allowed to submit books to CGC for grading, I believe CGC would perform its business in an impartial manner and sincerely doubt CGC would purposely downgrade Ewert’s submissions simply because he were the submitter.

 

While it may seem that CGC is expressing some form of bias by seemingly endorsing Matt in its FAQ section, I fail to see what CGC (a multi-million dollar business that makes money hand over fist for simply following its own business model of grading and doing resto checks) would gain by getting into bed with one relatively minor service-provider.

[Aman619]

its not about "featured partner" status. ARCH explained that that is the term they use for all advertisers. sheesh.

[Aman619]

I misspoke. I refreshed the window and see both "Featured Sponsor" and "Featured Partner." So there are tiers of advertisers.

[mica]

The presence or lack or presence of a concensus is NOT a perception.

Is that what you perceive it to be?

Reading through this thread, there is obviously NOT a concensus.

How about a consensus instead of whatever it is you’re looking for.

That's a REALITY, and I do care about the reality, as I said. I challenged you to make the argument that there is a concensus, and you chose not to, so I can only assume that you agree.

Yes Jasmine I agree that there is no consensus. Why in the sam hill would I wan't to argue that there was a consensus?

[esquirecomics]

I've asked several times where he has an ad. No one has responded. I've looked repeatedly through the site. I still see none. Where is it?

 

It's not on CGC's site, although maybe it will be as I think there's a placeholder for Featured Partners, it's right here at the top of the boards. Look at the banner ad at the top rotates between several "Featured Partners".

 

Yes, now I see it. Thank you!

 

I hadn't even paid any attention to ads on the message boards themselves. I was specifically referring to CGC's main website and all the pages therein. As far as I have seen, no ads from Matt. So, yes, he is an advertiser but not a major advertiser.

 

In any event, I've continually stated I have absolutely no problems with CGC accepting advertisements or for Matt, or anyone else, advertising through CGC.

[esquirecomics]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

Fact: You don't care about the perception....

But at some point you do care about certain perceptions otherwise the melody of your own keyboard wouldn't be such sweet music to your ears.

 

You say you don't care but your continuance says otherwise.

 

The presence or lack or presence of a concensus is NOT a perception. Reading through this thread, there is obviously NOT a concensus. That's a REALITY, and I do care about the reality, as I said. I challenged you to make the argument that there is a concensus, and you chose not to, so I can only assume that you agree.

 

No one can reasonably determine whether the comments in this thread indicate a consensus (not concensus ) of anything other than within this very thread. That is virtually wortheless given the small number of posters. And even if the posters in this thread would be indicative of anything it is that a sizable enough percentage take issue with CGC's position (certainly more than 1/3 as I note, perhaps up to half).

[esquirecomics]

While it may seem that CGC is expressing some form of bias by seemingly endorsing Matt in its FAQ section, I fail to see what CGC (a multi-million dollar business that makes money hand over fist for simply following its own business model of grading and doing resto checks) would gain by getting into bed with one relatively minor service-provider.

 

Peter, good to see you back on the boards. I, for one, have not raised an issue concerning impartiality. That is something completely different from bias as far as I am concerned. Interesting that you view CGC as making money hand over fist. Everytime I speak to them they give me a very different position on their profits, which is why I question why they would want to create a biased perception on an issue that causes negativity towards a, IMHO, significant percentage of their customer base.

[FFB]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

Fact: You don't care about the perception....

But at some point you do care about certain perceptions otherwise the melody of your own keyboard wouldn't be such sweet music to your ears.

 

You say you don't care but your continuance says otherwise.

 

The presence or lack or presence of a concensus is NOT a perception. Reading through this thread, there is obviously NOT a concensus. That's a REALITY, and I do care about the reality, as I said. I challenged you to make the argument that there is a concensus, and you chose not to, so I can only assume that you agree.

 

No one can reasonably determine whether the comments in this thread indicate a consensus (not concensus ) of anything other than within this very thread. That is virtually wortheless given the small number of posters. And even if the posters in this thread would be indicative of anything it is that a sizable enough percentage take issue with CGC's position (certainly more than 1/3 as I note, perhaps up to half).

 

If you're going to correct spelling with a you should proof your own stuff better.

[FFB]

While it may seem that CGC is expressing some form of bias by seemingly endorsing Matt in its FAQ section, I fail to see what CGC (a multi-million dollar business that makes money hand over fist for simply following its own business model of grading and doing resto checks) would gain by getting into bed with one relatively minor service-provider.

 

Peter, good to see you back on the boards. I, for one, have not raised an issue concerning impartiality. That is something completely different from bias as far as I am concerned.

 

Really? What's the difference?

[nearmint]

The presence or lack or presence of a concensus is NOT a perception.

Is that what you perceive it to be?

Reading through this thread, there is obviously NOT a concensus.

How about a consensus instead of whatever it is you’re looking for.

That's a REALITY, and I do care about the reality, as I said. I challenged you to make the argument that there is a concensus, and you chose not to, so I can only assume that you agree.

Yes Jasmine I agree that there is no consensus. Why in the sam hill would I wan't to argue that there was a consensus?

 

Your first post in response to me in this thread was a rather peculiar attack on my ability to recognize a concensus. Why even post that unless you feel I'm failing to recognize one? That's why I asked if you like the sound of your own keyboard. Sometimes it seems like you're just trying to be clever at the expense of making any sense whatsoever.

 

You have an odd habit of psychoanalyzing and greatly misinterpreting people's posts, without actually contributing anything to the actual subject at hand.

[mica]

Your first post in response to me in this thread was a rather peculiar attack on my ability to recognize a concensus.

Here's a clue since you need it... I was incredulous that you weren’t concerned with perception. Period. End of story.

 

You make numerous posts that I never analyze but once in a while you make a comment that I feel that you don’t really mean it the way you type it. By responding to you, it gives you an opportunity to clarify or expand. And seriously, it’s consensus

Why even post that unless you feel I'm failing to recognize one? That's why I asked if you like the sound of your own keyboard.

I realize you don’t like me, but I get by. I didn't jump at any conclusion regarding your consensus theory. Hope that clears it up.

You don't even.

I’m gonna need help with that one.

Sometimes it seems like you're just trying to be clever at the expense of making any sense whatsoever.

I would rather have clarity above all else. I leave the clever stuff up to Sal.

 

You have an odd habit of psychoanalyzing and greatly misinterpreting people's posts,

Please show me where this is the case with other people. (besides FFB)

without actually contributing anything to the actual subject at hand.

You’ve contributed the hypothesis that perception is no big deal. Sorry I disagree with that.

 

I suppose I could put you on ignore.

[esquirecomics]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

Fact: You don't care about the perception....

But at some point you do care about certain perceptions otherwise the melody of your own keyboard wouldn't be such sweet music to your ears.

 

You say you don't care but your continuance says otherwise.

 

The presence or lack or presence of a concensus is NOT a perception. Reading through this thread, there is obviously NOT a concensus. That's a REALITY, and I do care about the reality, as I said. I challenged you to make the argument that there is a concensus, and you chose not to, so I can only assume that you agree.

 

No one can reasonably determine whether the comments in this thread indicate a consensus (not concensus ) of anything other than within this very thread. That is virtually wortheless given the small number of posters. And even if the posters in this thread would be indicative of anything it is that a sizable enough percentage take issue with CGC's position (certainly more than 1/3 as I note, perhaps up to half).

 

If you're going to correct spelling with a you should proof your own stuff better.

 

Touche, though this was one typo error and I haven't repeated it after numerous people spelled it the correct way. I didn't say anything until multiple posts repeated the error. But we digress.

[esquirecomics]

While it may seem that CGC is expressing some form of bias by seemingly endorsing Matt in its FAQ section, I fail to see what CGC (a multi-million dollar business that makes money hand over fist for simply following its own business model of grading and doing resto checks) would gain by getting into bed with one relatively minor service-provider.

 

Peter, good to see you back on the boards. I, for one, have not raised an issue concerning impartiality. That is something completely different from bias as far as I am concerned.

 

Really? What's the difference?

 

I should clarify. I was referring to the fact that I don't believe this debate of bias towards an individual dealer/restorer reflects on CGC's ability to be impartial in its grading, etc. Meaning, as some people have insinuated, I do not believe that Matt is receiving favors from CGC in its business application because he advertises with them.

 

I do believe select CGC staff personally are biased towards Matt and his services and are exploiting CGC's corporate status to promote that bias, and I don't believe that should occur.

[FFB]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

Fact: You don't care about the perception....

But at some point you do care about certain perceptions otherwise the melody of your own keyboard wouldn't be such sweet music to your ears.

 

You say you don't care but your continuance says otherwise.

 

The presence or lack or presence of a concensus is NOT a perception. Reading through this thread, there is obviously NOT a concensus. That's a REALITY, and I do care about the reality, as I said. I challenged you to make the argument that there is a concensus, and you chose not to, so I can only assume that you agree.

 

No one can reasonably determine whether the comments in this thread indicate a consensus (not concensus ) of anything other than within this very thread. That is virtually wortheless given the small number of posters. And even if the posters in this thread would be indicative of anything it is that a sizable enough percentage take issue with CGC's position (certainly more than 1/3 as I note, perhaps up to half).

 

If you're going to correct spelling with a you should proof your own stuff better.

 

Touche, though this was one typo error and I haven't repeated it after numerous people spelled it the correct way. I didn't say anything until multiple posts repeated the error. But we digress.

 

You also misspelled "existence" a few posts back ("existance"). You see my point, I am sure, about correcting spelling on here. It doesn't really add anything to the debate and we're all guilty at one time or another so why single it out with a .

[FFB]

While it may seem that CGC is expressing some form of bias by seemingly endorsing Matt in its FAQ section, I fail to see what CGC (a multi-million dollar business that makes money hand over fist for simply following its own business model of grading and doing resto checks) would gain by getting into bed with one relatively minor service-provider.

 

Peter, good to see you back on the boards. I, for one, have not raised an issue concerning impartiality. That is something completely different from bias as far as I am concerned.

 

Really? What's the difference?

 

I should clarify. I was referring to the fact that I don't believe this debate of bias towards an individual dealer/restorer reflects on CGC's ability to be impartial in its grading, etc. Meaning, as some people have insinuated, I do not believe that Matt is receiving favors from CGC in its business application because he advertises with them.

 

I do believe select CGC staff personally are biased towards Matt and his services and are exploiting CGC's corporate status to promote that bias, and I don't believe that should occur.

 

Really? Which staffers? Steve Borock? He's the president of the company. He makes company policy. Virtually all of the company's policies are likely a product of his personal feelings about things, so why would this be any different? Or are you saying that other staffers went behind Steve's back and put Matt on the website because they like Matt more than anyone else in the game?

[MasterChief]

"Well, sir, it is a damned poor mind that cannot think of more than one way to spell a word!"

 

--Andrew Jackson

[Sal]

Jimminy Christmas, what a freaking brouhaha over what is essentially - ONCE AGAIN - a terrible judgement by CGC with respect to Public Relations.

 

there's nothing that affects impartiality on CGC's ability to grade books by giving out the name of an advertiser and telling people that want to press books to go there.

 

the problem is that CGC refuses to understand the ramifications of the appearance of such an action. and that there are a lot of collectors who will get their undies in a twist over it. no offense to anyone in twisted undies, it's just a saying.

 

reasonable people can agree that CGC will not give out higher than deserved grades to advertisers, corporate sponsors, guys who drop shipments off and have their own safe in CGC's building...whatever. i mean, good Lord, people.

 

that being said, what SHOULD have happened is that CGC's FAQ on pressing should have read, in its entierty;

 

CGC does not perform pressing, dry cleaning or any similar treatments for comic books. Please note that pressing and/or dry cleaning performed incorrectly or on a comic book exhibiting certain flaws — such as slightly brittle pages, weak spine, cover wear at staple, and/or other defects — can damage the comic book and lower its grade.

 

if they had to say anything at all. which they didn't.

 

 

but the bickering going on is just so unproductive and a waste of talent that could be spent writing posts that make me laugh or think or view a book i hadn't seen before. or it could be written by FFB

[FFB]

You are cruisin' for a bruisin', turkey!

[Sal]

You are cruisin' for a bruisin', turkey!

 

up your nose with a rubber hose, counselor!

[FFB]

You are cruisin' for a bruisin', turkey!

 

up your nose with a rubber hose, counselor!

 

Gotta love those Welcome Back Kotter insults!