PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Actually you can. Thats actually a valid legal defense. It doesnt mean they win but it shows its far from scam behavior. Experts can be hired to argue those points for both ways. People lose tons of money and time pursuing cases in which maybe in 10 years they could of been right. Tell them dont worry it will take time for there to be a new standard even though they have now lost everything.

Again, when you buy anything at an auction house, do you expect them to disclose if a card was soaked prior to submission? You will say no.

Do you expect an auction house to disclose if a card is micro wrinkled that you may not be able to see from a photo? You will say yes.

You also didnt comment that its common practice to do due dillgence on a 50k card. A 5 minute google search would of resolved that. I dont buy a used card at a dealership and rely on the dealer to tell me everything about the car. There is an industry standard.

As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame.

The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful at all times isn't always righteous. My guess is you are a lawyer, so I completely understand why you may be blind to that fact. I believe relevant facts about items should be disclosed. It is good for both the seller and buyer to eliminate confusion on items by providing clear communication about the items state. If their pictures are not clear enough to disclose what can be found out by holding an item in your hand.

We both know that "As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame." is a moronic statement and is an flawed analogy. If I am liable for your injuries I may argue that if you had worn your belt your injuries would have been a lot less severe. Wearing your seat belt is the law, much like not doing whatever caused the accident makes me liable.

You can stop playing word games. That only works in the court on stupid people.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful isn't always righteous. My guess is you are a lawyer, so I completely understand why you may be blind to that fact.

Im guessing you arent a lawyer when looking at your legal arguments and also think the law is about being fair. There is politics in the law. Politicians create law. Judges gets voted in and politicians pick judges as well. If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Im guessing you arent a lawyer when looking at your legal arguments and also think the law is about being fair. There is politics in the law. Politicians create law. Judges gets voted in and politicians pick judges as well. If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said.

Philip may not be a lawyer (or maybe he is) but as one who is, I must say I am impressed with the cogency and simple logic of his arguments here.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Im guessing you arent a lawyer when looking at your legal arguments and also think the law is about being fair. There is politics in the law. Politicians create law. Judges gets voted in and politicians pick judges as well. If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said.

Correct. You could not pay me to become a lawyer.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. You just said "If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said."

Did I say that any where? Did I infer that...anywhere? You just shit a bunch of stuff out your word hole into a post.

I also never said the word fair. Fair and righteous are different. There you go straying from what I said to make your point more valid and correct.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

Correct. You could not pay me to become a lawyer.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. You just said "If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said."

Did I say that any where? Did I infer that...anywhere? You just shit a bunch of stuff out your word hole into a post.

I also never said the word fair. Fair and righteous are different. There you go straying from what I said to make your point more valid and correct.

You said "The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful at all times isn't always righteous"


To many fair and righteous is not different and are easily confused with each other.

Actually on dictionary.com they say

Synonyms
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
3. good, honest, fair, right.


So you agree politicians are not righteous but the law will attempt to defend the righteous.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

To many fair and righteous is not different and are easily confused with each other.

Actually on dictionary.com they say

Synonyms
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
3. good, honest, fair, right.


So you agree politicians are not righteous. Politicians do create the law. Not sure what i missed.

Yes. As a lawyer I can understand why you are confused. As someone with average intelligence I understand the difference between them.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+synonym

"Nearly the same" means with slight differences. "Or" means it can't be both...well that is not true. At least in this context it is.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

Yes. As a lawyer I can understand why you are confused. As someone with average intelligence I understand the difference between them.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+synonym

"Nearly the same" means with slight differences. "Or" means it can't be both...well that is not true. At least in this context it is.

As being not a lawyer i can understand why you are confused. I try to respond to the message and not the person. Saying things like 'someone with average intelligence' (and implying i am lower) is not really on message or productive.

I dont think its righteous or fair to make comments like that if you are trying to make a point.

[Jantz]

Board Members,

In lieu of recent hobby events, I wish to assume the position as your hobby leader in ridding our wonderful hobby of diseases that currently plague it. Any questions or concerns you may have can be directed via PM to me by which, I will answer, if I choose to do so.










Typhoid Mary