Cerebus 1 a more valuable key than Hulk 181? Really Overstreet? Poll on Page 87

3 3

 

Wow. Way to try to create something from nothing.

 

 

Isn't that what you, jay, and BJ tried to do...?

 

I think we all had a hand in making a discussion worth 5 pages on a good day, into a 120 page discussion.

the cliques are so dumb

I agree, I hate your clique.

Cmon gang,my daily snark Quota is low.

Holy Vas Deferens Thursday

I <3 my cowper's gland.

I <3 my cowper's gland.

I <3 my cowper's gland.

TMI!

It is?

Don't you love yours?

I assume, since your user ID is steveinthecity that you're a guy.

I <3 my cowper's gland.

TMI!

 

It is?

 

Don't you love yours?

 

I assume, since your user ID is steveinthecity that you're a guy.

I <3 my cowper's gland.

TMI!

 

It is?

 

Don't you love yours?

 

I assume, since your user ID is steveinthecity that you're a guy.

I've always been...appreciative. Never really considered it as love. The frenulum, though, now that would be a different story entirely.

Touche.

Forgot to add:

 

I have no doubt IH 181 will be listed higher on the most valuable BA comics list that Cerebus 1 next year. It has gone up this year and I don't have any reason to believe that will change in the next 4-5 months.

 

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list?

 

Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181!

 

Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.)

 

The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG.

 

Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are.

 

Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight.

 

How are we even discussing this?

 

Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me?

 

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy in any way. You're once again reading into this the way you want to. Another ridiculous conclusion, as usual.

 

When you state that Overstreet...contrary to his own printed words...is purposely excluding books that belong in a "Top X Age Books" list, lists that are ordered according to their values, then yes, that is the very definition of a conspiracy.

 

How are we even HAVING this discussion??

 

Your conclusions are as always, an excellent example of reductio ad absurdum.

 

Ok.

 

Now, can you answer the questions, without being insulting?

 

And I understand that you believe that questioning you is also "insulting." Many people believe that, because they think with their emotions, rather than reason. In fact, you are likely insulted by what I just typed, though it is absolutely true.

 

In any event...my "conclusion" isn't a difficult one. Either the Top 10 lists are what they say they are, and the omission of OAAW #83 is an oversight, or they are not, and it's a conspiracy to "keep certain books in, and certain books out" (which would defeat the whole point of such lists, and render them utterly meaningless, even without their expressly stated purpose of simply being "the list of the most valuable books per age.")

 

Which sounds more reasonable? How is it possible to even challenge this?

 

 

Why do you present the conclusion by using a disjunctive either "oversight" or "conspiracy?" You know well what I said. What's wrong with a little editorial discretion?

 

I already explained this, but I will explain it again: because it would render the lists meaningless, by their own definitions.

 

Here is a list of the top 10 posters on this board, by post count:

 

* VintageComics User * 72241

* greggy User * 64253

* Comicopolis User * 63714

* G.A.tor User * 50918

* DrWatson User 42721

* Bosco685 User 41675

* DiceX User 40722

* goldust40 User * 40053

* RockMyAmadeus User 38601

* Jeffro User 38454

 

This is a list of the top 10 posters, using no criteria except post count.

 

But wait! There's a poster missing! MutantKeys has 43873 posts, placing him at #5 on this list, bumping Jeffro to #11.

 

So, by my definition, if I say this is a list of the top 10 posters, by post count...is it accurate?

 

Regardless of why I left out MK, by my definition, is it accurate?

 

No. Of course not. I'm missing something. If I said it WAS accurate, and purposely ignored calls by others to include MK in the list...would I simply be "using editorial discretion"? Or, would I put my own definition to the lie?

 

Clearly, the latter. My own definition would be a lie, because I excluded MK, purposely.

 

So, if the Top 10 Silver Age list in the OPG is missing something, is that list accurate by its own definition?

 

No.

 

Does Overstreet's own definition allow for "editorial discretion"?

 

No. He doesn't say "this is the Top 10 list, the way I think it should be."

 

He says "this is the Top 10 list, according to the values I list."

 

Therefore....

 

If there is an omission, it is either a mistake...or Overstreet is directly contradicting his own definition of the list.

 

There is no allowance for "editorial discretion", because that's not what the lists are, by definition.

 

So they may have left off FF 4 and OAAW 83 since the space allotted on the page for the list was insufficient? Why would this necessarily be one of the 2 OPTIONS THAT YOU, NOT ME, ARE CONCLUDING? Editorial discretion is used in publishing and it's not necessarily motivated by your omniscient conclusion. Again, your logical conclusion is a prime example of absurdity, ad infinitum.

 

Overstreet is not publishing his opinion in those lists. If he were, you would be completely correct.

 

But he is not. His own definition does not allow for editorial discretion.

 

Also when someone disagrees with you, it's either an insult or they're emotional.

 

Patent nonsense.

 

Many people have disagreed with me, many times, and in many ways.

 

The issue isn't disagreement. The issue is the way in which disagreement is handled.

 

As always.

 

And I can prove it by looking in this very thread, only a few posts back.

 

Chrisco disagreed with me (which you misread), about the lack of necessity of his post explaining "Team Cerebus."

 

I have known Chrisco for a long time. I have a good deal of respect for Chrisco. He and I have just disagreed, and he even said such a disagreement is silly.

 

I don't think, for a second, that he's insulting me, or that he's "arguing from emotion."

 

When I say you are arguing from emotion, it is because you are arguing from emotion (as evidenced by you resorting to unjustifiable hyperbole like "absurdity, ad infinitum", and statements like "you have the nerve", etc. These are not the words of a calm person. These are the words that angry, outraged people use.)

 

It is not because you "disagree with me."

 

And yes, I know most people DO have such a reaction. I like to think I'm not most people, at least in respect to reason.

 

Yet, you have the nerve to insinuate not once, but twice, that a well respected boardie has a phony signature line.

 

Well respected? The guy has been here less than a year. If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest putting up a poll. I suspect the vast majority of board members have never HEARD of "jaydogrules", much less "well respect" him.

 

I asked if the books in his sigline were his. That's it. There are, in fact, many siglines that contain pictures of items that DO NOT belong that poster.

 

Was it an "insinuation" that he had a "phony sigline"? Yes. It absolutely was, as all such questions are. It is a questionable sigline, containing scans that are all from clearly different sources. Generally, scans from multiple sources are a "red flag." And you may not be aware of this, but this board generally has a nose for detecting frauds. Investigating red flags are one of the means of doing that. People are insinuated every day on this board.

 

But you'll note that I asked...I didn't simply assume. And I posted no conclusion, insinuation or otherwise.

 

Once he said they were, that was the end of it. Question answered. Not brought up again until you did just now, trying to make hay out of it.

 

Are YOU going to apologize to me for misreading the "silly" statements between myself and Chrisco, and accusing (not just insinuating) me of insulting him?

 

You see the worst, because you wish to. That's a terrible way to live life.

 

 

This is the lowest example of class that I've ever witnessed on the boards. But wait, this thread isn't over, is it? Show some real class and apologize to Jay.

 

That you think me questioning someone's sigline is "the lowest example of class you have ever witnessed on the boards" only demonstrates how deeply you are divorced from reason. There has been far, far, FAR worse on this boards, and if you haven't witnessed it...you haven't been paying any attention at all.

 

You argue from emotion, not reason.

 

This is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility. Your emotion drives you, and one need not go further than this latest "outrage", which has absolutely zero bearing on anything in this thread. It's utterly irrelevant, and designed solely to make me look bad, and if you can succeed in making me look bad, my arguments, as the thinking doubtless goes, won't carry as much weight.

 

It is a classic ad hominem fallacy.

 

I hope...genuinely, for your sake, because it doesn't affect me much at all...that you eventually learn how to disagree with people without becoming emotionally involved.

Woooooow. I was just re-living and having a good chuckle at the general Tom foolery of this thread and just noticed this post by you.

RMA, you really are a class act guy, bud. (thumbs u

-J.

 

Woooooow. I was just re-living and having a good chuckle at the general Tom foolery of this thread and just noticed this post by you.

 

RMA, you really are a class act guy, bud. (thumbs u

 

-J.

Mmmmmmm....

Yummy, yummy bait.

Forgot to add:

 

I have no doubt IH 181 will be listed higher on the most valuable BA comics list that Cerebus 1 next year. It has gone up this year and I don't have any reason to believe that will change in the next 4-5 months.

 

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list?

 

Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181!

 

Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.)

 

The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG.

 

Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are.

 

Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight.

 

How are we even discussing this?

 

Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me?

 

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy in any way. You're once again reading into this the way you want to. Another ridiculous conclusion, as usual.

 

When you state that Overstreet...contrary to his own printed words...is purposely excluding books that belong in a "Top X Age Books" list, lists that are ordered according to their values, then yes, that is the very definition of a conspiracy.

 

How are we even HAVING this discussion??

 

Your conclusions are as always, an excellent example of reductio ad absurdum.

 

Ok.

 

Now, can you answer the questions, without being insulting?

 

And I understand that you believe that questioning you is also "insulting." Many people believe that, because they think with their emotions, rather than reason. In fact, you are likely insulted by what I just typed, though it is absolutely true.

 

In any event...my "conclusion" isn't a difficult one. Either the Top 10 lists are what they say they are, and the omission of OAAW #83 is an oversight, or they are not, and it's a conspiracy to "keep certain books in, and certain books out" (which would defeat the whole point of such lists, and render them utterly meaningless, even without their expressly stated purpose of simply being "the list of the most valuable books per age.")

 

Which sounds more reasonable? How is it possible to even challenge this?

 

 

Why do you present the conclusion by using a disjunctive either "oversight" or "conspiracy?" You know well what I said. What's wrong with a little editorial discretion?

 

I already explained this, but I will explain it again: because it would render the lists meaningless, by their own definitions.

 

Here is a list of the top 10 posters on this board, by post count:

 

* VintageComics User * 72241

* greggy User * 64253

* Comicopolis User * 63714

* G.A.tor User * 50918

* DrWatson User 42721

* Bosco685 User 41675

* DiceX User 40722

* goldust40 User * 40053

* RockMyAmadeus User 38601

* Jeffro User 38454

 

This is a list of the top 10 posters, using no criteria except post count.

 

But wait! There's a poster missing! MutantKeys has 43873 posts, placing him at #5 on this list, bumping Jeffro to #11.

 

So, by my definition, if I say this is a list of the top 10 posters, by post count...is it accurate?

 

Regardless of why I left out MK, by my definition, is it accurate?

 

No. Of course not. I'm missing something. If I said it WAS accurate, and purposely ignored calls by others to include MK in the list...would I simply be "using editorial discretion"? Or, would I put my own definition to the lie?

 

Clearly, the latter. My own definition would be a lie, because I excluded MK, purposely.

 

So, if the Top 10 Silver Age list in the OPG is missing something, is that list accurate by its own definition?

 

No.

 

Does Overstreet's own definition allow for "editorial discretion"?

 

No. He doesn't say "this is the Top 10 list, the way I think it should be."

 

He says "this is the Top 10 list, according to the values I list."

 

Therefore....

 

If there is an omission, it is either a mistake...or Overstreet is directly contradicting his own definition of the list.

 

There is no allowance for "editorial discretion", because that's not what the lists are, by definition.

 

So they may have left off FF 4 and OAAW 83 since the space allotted on the page for the list was insufficient? Why would this necessarily be one of the 2 OPTIONS THAT YOU, NOT ME, ARE CONCLUDING? Editorial discretion is used in publishing and it's not necessarily motivated by your omniscient conclusion. Again, your logical conclusion is a prime example of absurdity, ad infinitum.

 

Overstreet is not publishing his opinion in those lists. If he were, you would be completely correct.

 

But he is not. His own definition does not allow for editorial discretion.

 

Also when someone disagrees with you, it's either an insult or they're emotional.

 

Patent nonsense.

 

Many people have disagreed with me, many times, and in many ways.

 

The issue isn't disagreement. The issue is the way in which disagreement is handled.

 

As always.

 

And I can prove it by looking in this very thread, only a few posts back.

 

Chrisco disagreed with me (which you misread), about the lack of necessity of his post explaining "Team Cerebus."

 

I have known Chrisco for a long time. I have a good deal of respect for Chrisco. He and I have just disagreed, and he even said such a disagreement is silly.

 

I don't think, for a second, that he's insulting me, or that he's "arguing from emotion."

 

When I say you are arguing from emotion, it is because you are arguing from emotion (as evidenced by you resorting to unjustifiable hyperbole like "absurdity, ad infinitum", and statements like "you have the nerve", etc. These are not the words of a calm person. These are the words that angry, outraged people use.)

 

It is not because you "disagree with me."

 

And yes, I know most people DO have such a reaction. I like to think I'm not most people, at least in respect to reason.

 

Yet, you have the nerve to insinuate not once, but twice, that a well respected boardie has a phony signature line.

 

Well respected? The guy has been here less than a year. If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest putting up a poll. I suspect the vast majority of board members have never HEARD of "jaydogrules", much less "well respect" him.

 

I asked if the books in his sigline were his. That's it. There are, in fact, many siglines that contain pictures of items that DO NOT belong that poster.

 

Was it an "insinuation" that he had a "phony sigline"? Yes. It absolutely was, as all such questions are. It is a questionable sigline, containing scans that are all from clearly different sources. Generally, scans from multiple sources are a "red flag." And you may not be aware of this, but this board generally has a nose for detecting frauds. Investigating red flags are one of the means of doing that. People are insinuated every day on this board.

 

But you'll note that I asked...I didn't simply assume. And I posted no conclusion, insinuation or otherwise.

 

Once he said they were, that was the end of it. Question answered. Not brought up again until you did just now, trying to make hay out of it.

 

Are YOU going to apologize to me for misreading the "silly" statements between myself and Chrisco, and accusing (not just insinuating) me of insulting him?

 

You see the worst, because you wish to. That's a terrible way to live life.

 

 

This is the lowest example of class that I've ever witnessed on the boards. But wait, this thread isn't over, is it? Show some real class and apologize to Jay.

 

That you think me questioning someone's sigline is "the lowest example of class you have ever witnessed on the boards" only demonstrates how deeply you are divorced from reason. There has been far, far, FAR worse on this boards, and if you haven't witnessed it...you haven't been paying any attention at all.

 

You argue from emotion, not reason.

 

This is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility. Your emotion drives you, and one need not go further than this latest "outrage", which has absolutely zero bearing on anything in this thread. It's utterly irrelevant, and designed solely to make me look bad, and if you can succeed in making me look bad, my arguments, as the thinking doubtless goes, won't carry as much weight.

 

It is a classic ad hominem fallacy.

 

I hope...genuinely, for your sake, because it doesn't affect me much at all...that you eventually learn how to disagree with people without becoming emotionally involved.

 

Woooooow. I was just re-living and having a good chuckle at the general Tom foolery of this thread and just noticed this post by you.

 

RMA, you really are a class act guy, bud. (thumbs u

 

-J.

Agreed, he is a class act. (thumbs u

J is this a classic ad hominem attack?

Forgot to add:

 

I have no doubt IH 181 will be listed higher on the most valuable BA comics list that Cerebus 1 next year. It has gone up this year and I don't have any reason to believe that will change in the next 4-5 months.

 

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list?

 

Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181!

 

Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.)

 

The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG.

 

Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are.

 

Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight.

 

How are we even discussing this?

 

Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me?

 

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy in any way. You're once again reading into this the way you want to. Another ridiculous conclusion, as usual.

 

When you state that Overstreet...contrary to his own printed words...is purposely excluding books that belong in a "Top X Age Books" list, lists that are ordered according to their values, then yes, that is the very definition of a conspiracy.

 

How are we even HAVING this discussion??

 

Your conclusions are as always, an excellent example of reductio ad absurdum.

 

Ok.

 

Now, can you answer the questions, without being insulting?

 

And I understand that you believe that questioning you is also "insulting." Many people believe that, because they think with their emotions, rather than reason. In fact, you are likely insulted by what I just typed, though it is absolutely true.

 

In any event...my "conclusion" isn't a difficult one. Either the Top 10 lists are what they say they are, and the omission of OAAW #83 is an oversight, or they are not, and it's a conspiracy to "keep certain books in, and certain books out" (which would defeat the whole point of such lists, and render them utterly meaningless, even without their expressly stated purpose of simply being "the list of the most valuable books per age.")

 

Which sounds more reasonable? How is it possible to even challenge this?

 

 

Why do you present the conclusion by using a disjunctive either "oversight" or "conspiracy?" You know well what I said. What's wrong with a little editorial discretion?

 

I already explained this, but I will explain it again: because it would render the lists meaningless, by their own definitions.

 

Here is a list of the top 10 posters on this board, by post count:

 

* VintageComics User * 72241

* greggy User * 64253

* Comicopolis User * 63714

* G.A.tor User * 50918

* DrWatson User 42721

* Bosco685 User 41675

* DiceX User 40722

* goldust40 User * 40053

* RockMyAmadeus User 38601

* Jeffro User 38454

 

This is a list of the top 10 posters, using no criteria except post count.

 

But wait! There's a poster missing! MutantKeys has 43873 posts, placing him at #5 on this list, bumping Jeffro to #11.

 

So, by my definition, if I say this is a list of the top 10 posters, by post count...is it accurate?

 

Regardless of why I left out MK, by my definition, is it accurate?

 

No. Of course not. I'm missing something. If I said it WAS accurate, and purposely ignored calls by others to include MK in the list...would I simply be "using editorial discretion"? Or, would I put my own definition to the lie?

 

Clearly, the latter. My own definition would be a lie, because I excluded MK, purposely.

 

So, if the Top 10 Silver Age list in the OPG is missing something, is that list accurate by its own definition?

 

No.

 

Does Overstreet's own definition allow for "editorial discretion"?

 

No. He doesn't say "this is the Top 10 list, the way I think it should be."

 

He says "this is the Top 10 list, according to the values I list."

 

Therefore....

 

If there is an omission, it is either a mistake...or Overstreet is directly contradicting his own definition of the list.

 

There is no allowance for "editorial discretion", because that's not what the lists are, by definition.

 

So they may have left off FF 4 and OAAW 83 since the space allotted on the page for the list was insufficient? Why would this necessarily be one of the 2 OPTIONS THAT YOU, NOT ME, ARE CONCLUDING? Editorial discretion is used in publishing and it's not necessarily motivated by your omniscient conclusion. Again, your logical conclusion is a prime example of absurdity, ad infinitum.

 

Overstreet is not publishing his opinion in those lists. If he were, you would be completely correct.

 

But he is not. His own definition does not allow for editorial discretion.

 

Also when someone disagrees with you, it's either an insult or they're emotional.

 

Patent nonsense.

 

Many people have disagreed with me, many times, and in many ways.

 

The issue isn't disagreement. The issue is the way in which disagreement is handled.

 

As always.

 

And I can prove it by looking in this very thread, only a few posts back.

 

Chrisco disagreed with me (which you misread), about the lack of necessity of his post explaining "Team Cerebus."

 

I have known Chrisco for a long time. I have a good deal of respect for Chrisco. He and I have just disagreed, and he even said such a disagreement is silly.

 

I don't think, for a second, that he's insulting me, or that he's "arguing from emotion."

 

When I say you are arguing from emotion, it is because you are arguing from emotion (as evidenced by you resorting to unjustifiable hyperbole like "absurdity, ad infinitum", and statements like "you have the nerve", etc. These are not the words of a calm person. These are the words that angry, outraged people use.)

 

It is not because you "disagree with me."

 

And yes, I know most people DO have such a reaction. I like to think I'm not most people, at least in respect to reason.

 

Yet, you have the nerve to insinuate not once, but twice, that a well respected boardie has a phony signature line.

 

Well respected? The guy has been here less than a year. If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest putting up a poll. I suspect the vast majority of board members have never HEARD of "jaydogrules", much less "well respect" him.

 

I asked if the books in his sigline were his. That's it. There are, in fact, many siglines that contain pictures of items that DO NOT belong that poster.

 

Was it an "insinuation" that he had a "phony sigline"? Yes. It absolutely was, as all such questions are. It is a questionable sigline, containing scans that are all from clearly different sources. Generally, scans from multiple sources are a "red flag." And you may not be aware of this, but this board generally has a nose for detecting frauds. Investigating red flags are one of the means of doing that. People are insinuated every day on this board.

 

But you'll note that I asked...I didn't simply assume. And I posted no conclusion, insinuation or otherwise.

 

Once he said they were, that was the end of it. Question answered. Not brought up again until you did just now, trying to make hay out of it.

 

Are YOU going to apologize to me for misreading the "silly" statements between myself and Chrisco, and accusing (not just insinuating) me of insulting him?

 

You see the worst, because you wish to. That's a terrible way to live life.

 

 

This is the lowest example of class that I've ever witnessed on the boards. But wait, this thread isn't over, is it? Show some real class and apologize to Jay.

 

That you think me questioning someone's sigline is "the lowest example of class you have ever witnessed on the boards" only demonstrates how deeply you are divorced from reason. There has been far, far, FAR worse on this boards, and if you haven't witnessed it...you haven't been paying any attention at all.

 

You argue from emotion, not reason.

 

This is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility. Your emotion drives you, and one need not go further than this latest "outrage", which has absolutely zero bearing on anything in this thread. It's utterly irrelevant, and designed solely to make me look bad, and if you can succeed in making me look bad, my arguments, as the thinking doubtless goes, won't carry as much weight.

 

It is a classic ad hominem fallacy.

 

I hope...genuinely, for your sake, because it doesn't affect me much at all...that you eventually learn how to disagree with people without becoming emotionally involved.

 

Woooooow. I was just re-living and having a good chuckle at the general Tom foolery of this thread and just noticed this post by you.

 

RMA, you really are a class act guy, bud. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

Agreed, he is a class act. (thumbs u

 

J is this a classic ad hominem attack?

-J.

Agreed, he is a class act. (thumbs u

 

J is this a classic ad hominem attack?

1. Do you gentlemen miss the interaction...?

2. You've been here 5 years. Learn the quote nesting limits, noob.

Y'all are more childish than I am.

And that is sayin' something.

Let it go fellas. These are comic books.

Y'all are more childish than I am.

 

And that is sayin' something.

 

Let it go fellas. These are comic books.

Let what go?

Who are you talking to?

Holy epididymis wednesday. Am I a noob for posting in a thread over 10 days old?

Okay,there must be more to discuss here.....let's have it.

I only wish people would realize that making references to specific pages in a thread is a complete waste of time, since many people have different page counts, and said references are therefore rendered incorrect and irrelevant.

nobody ever has around here.