28 in 23 (?)!!!!
63 in '23!!!!!!!!!!
My Collection: https://www.thedarktower.org/palaver...ion-Merlin1958
The Houston Astros cheated Major League Baseball from 2017-18!!!! Is that how we teach our kids to play the game now?????
As do I but I'll put the idea forth that whereas most of us would agree that exploiting for a need based commodity and just something someone would like to have is vastly quantifiably different. I am sure Mr. Burnette would disagree, but no I don't see it as different degrees of the same thing. A want is simply that and not a neccessity such as food, or medicine. I see absolutely nothing wrong with profiting on things people merely desire and can comfortably do without. And if anyone does feel there is no difference they are equally entitled to pick up multiple copies of rare books and sell them at cost...or even at a loss....thus maximizing people's happiness.
28 in 23 (?)!!!!
63 in '23!!!!!!!!!!
My Collection: https://www.thedarktower.org/palaver...ion-Merlin1958
The Houston Astros cheated Major League Baseball from 2017-18!!!! Is that how we teach our kids to play the game now?????
Haven't we beat this fucking horse to death?
Holy shit....
I believe you're confused good sir. His name is Bill. I only point this out because if you're NOT confused you're implying something really not nice and since you've already come in here (not this thread, but the other)kinda' brashly ...just if you're gonna' call names have the balls to do so even if it does have negative consequences. I mean to tell people that they're not being nice by not conforming to your own ideals while slyly acting like a smartass, being passive agressive, and calling people names is kinda' dickish, ya' know?
Bravo, Brice, Bravo
We all float down here!
If a buyer speculated and bought multiple copies that is just part of a free market that supports private ownership. Your subjective and simplistic opinion that it is selfish behavior ignores many perfectly valid points to the contrary raised in this thread and the previous one.
If you would personally like to acquire a S/L edition at or near issue price after missing out on the original sale (and who's fault was that?) get off the soapbox and try making some acquaintances here. I purchased a S/L IT close to issue price and S/L Doctor Sleep at issue price from members here.
Finally, stating a need to consider 'other people's feelings' in relation to buying S/L books is a bit dramatic. Someone can chose to do you a favor (usually because they like you - hint, hint) and sell you a book at issue price or they can charge a premium for their time and effort in acquiring the book up to whatever price point the market will bear. The choice is theirs as the owner, not yours as a guy who thinks you deserve a cheaper S/L book.
This.
I get reasoning behind it. I really do. People like to make money. And if it takes selling something to someone so desperate to own that item that they'll pay whatever the asking price is, so be it.
It's like that old saying, "There's a sucker born every minute."
There are also plenty of people willing to take advantage of those "suckers".
Hearts are tough, she said, most times hearts don't break, and I'm sure that's right . . . but what about then? What about who we were then? What about hearts in Atlantis?
I know its "not fair" that everyone can't get a copy at retail price but if you don't like it don't buy it and don't collect. Life's not fair. Get over it
The very idea of fairness when speaking of limited editions is ludicrous. I mean if we want fair then EVERYBODY should have one....even if they can't afford it. We should have book welfare for those who can't. We could still call it limited as it would be strictly limited to the number of men, women,and children on the planet.
Hearts are tough, she said, most times hearts don't break, and I'm sure that's right . . . but what about then? What about who we were then? What about hearts in Atlantis?
Then it comes down to a want vs. a need. This is capitalistic society. Nobody HAS to own a Furbie or a Beanie Baby, or a Stephen King S/L. But if they want one, then it's a completely different story. Nobody is being forced to buy a S/L at a certain price. But if someone absolutely has to have one, they should be prepared to pay whatever the market dictates.
Well, I don't know. Assuming that some people are not worth the effort would seem to be the problem of saying that somebody "sounds retarded" in the first place. One can choose to be intractably ignorant, but I'd be careful jumping to conclusion that someone's deeply unrepentant. Maybe he just still doesn't see. I agree with Carlin, and as the information Jerome reported indicates, it may be harmless to refer to someone who is actually mentally challenged as "retarded" if the context is descriptive and not intending to disparage. I think it is important to be aware of what it implies about such people, however, if you warn someone whose opinion you don't like that they could be mistaken for one of them.
I don't think it is an inaccurate analysis of the arguments presented that none disprove the self-interest on that side of things. They mostly just point out that there is some degree of selfishness on the other side, too. Whether it's at all realistic for people in general to be more selfless, I don't know, honestly. But it is true that systemic wrongness doesn't absolutely justify a particular wrong, so it's fair to want people to at least say "I do understand your point." Nevertheless, unless you have a really practical method to help parties who might get a little screwed under the current system without more fundamentally screwing other parties, then it is NOT fair, really, to expect more than that.
James Whitcomb Riley's poem: My Philosofy
Path, I'll write a longer reply tomorrow night but more likely on Sunday. It comes down to this- using someone's sexual orientation, race or disability as a derogatry term directly states there is something wrong with any of those. They're words of hatred and discrimination. I saw what RF posted and took something else from it. Words are fluid and change meaning with time and enlightment. Can you imagine a society where dropping the N-bomb was still widely acceptable? When I take my daughter to see cartoons there are characters saying "moron." I wince every single time. How is that appropriate to teach our kids that their classmates' condition is a put-down? How is that in any way different from calling someone a fag?
As far as using "retarded" as a descriptive... dunno, I'm at work right now with two girls with disabilites. I could go ask them if they can think of any instance when using that word is not offensive to them. I'm sure what the answer would be though. I've seen some terrible things over the 12 years I've been doing this so I get a little emotional when an issue I care about comes up.
Lastly, anyone can use any words they wish. But there might be people who don't like it. You keep your right of speech but it pales next to a goddamn human rights issue and dignity. None of us are perfect and things slip out but a little empathy goes a long way. Imagine your daughter with a disability and ask yourself how you would react if some jackass used those terms.
FOR SALE OR TRADE
Dark Tower 7 Artist Edition n/a
The Waste Lands 1st Edition in Shrinkwrap $200
1984 Grant Gift Edition of The Talisman $400
Lisey's Story ARC $50
.
.
WANTED
Signed 1st Edition of Storm of The Century (Paperback)
FOR SALE OR TRADE
Dark Tower 7 Artist Edition n/a
The Waste Lands 1st Edition in Shrinkwrap $200
1984 Grant Gift Edition of The Talisman $400
Lisey's Story ARC $50
.
.
WANTED
Signed 1st Edition of Storm of The Century (Paperback)