Read.  
The thread.  

I was not the only person suggesting that incomplete does not qualify for good in a traditional sense.  

I don't even know that you disagree.  Your point seems to be about how grading is done on this site and it is clearly posted.  So be it.

Do your own research.  Every acronym I provided is for a professional organization that maintains a website you can peruse at your leisure.  They are generally consistent.  You may not be able to recognize patterns and corresponding ideas unless they are explicitly identical.  I am sorry for your problem in that area.

Browbeating is bad form, BC: last time, this time, next time.  It defines you as a bully.  Apparently, no one here can or will stop you from being rude to others.  Too bad.

D&D is a game, yes.  It is also distributed primarily in book form and can be grading using normal conventions.  Several of the examples I provided are also games and/or have game components.  I am sorry your life has not exposed you to more of them, as many are quite fascinating.  Again, go to a book and paper show and learn something.  Your issues with me make it unlikely you will learn anything from what I post... so perhaps you should ignore my posts.  

I am curious about why I, or anyone should care if one or more of the authors advocated tearing d&d material up, writing on it, etc.  This site is devoted primarily to collecting.  Condition matters.  I have actually never seen you sell anything that was not in extraordinary condition.  It appears that you understand that condition matters.

As to few... and many...  get a life.  Language and ideas can be both fluid and suggestive.  Are you willing to argue that a few people don't agree that modules missing parts should not be graded good?  Definitions of few online include "a small elite group"  and "more than one but definitely small in number."  Since two of us posted... even in short period of time during gen con....  AT LEAST a few agree with the concern.  Definitions of many include a "large but indefinate number".  Granted, it is irrelevant with a conditional OR.  Since I would have expected tighter grading, the logic of the sentence is sound whether MANY would agree with my expectation OR not.  

But, that is hardly the point B.C.  You just wanted an opportunity to call me names and try to run me off the site.

By your actions you remain a bully and a loudmouth.  So be it.

Gnat the Beggar wrote:Pipswich wrote:
 

Me too.
I am a few people....

That's 2.

Pipswich wrote:Read.  
The thread.

Pipswich wrote:I was not the only person suggesting that incomplete does not qualify for good in a traditional sense.

Right. There's two of you.   Not quite a "few" and also still yet another example of you overstating things to try and somehow make your position stronger.

Pipswich wrote:Do your own research.

No, that's not how this works.  You posted a claim that all these items were graded the exact same way.

Now it's up to you to prove it.

We don't even need to get into the fact that these items only meet a standard of one of the things that I listed(removable pages).

I'm still waiting.

Pipswich wrote:Every acronym I provided is for a professional organization that maintains a website you can peruse at your leisure.  They are generally consistent.  You may not be able to recognize patterns and corresponding ideas unless they are explicitly identical.  I am sorry for your problem in that area.

:lol:

I guess this means another one of your claims is going to go unsubstantiated.  What a surprise!

Pipswich wrote:Browbeating is bad form, BC: last time, this time, next time.  It defines you as a bully.  Apparently, no one here can or will stop you from being rude to others.  Too bad.

My heart is really bleeding for you right now.  It is.

Pipswich wrote:D&D is a game, yes.

Which makes it a vastly different thing than just a book, yes?

Pipswich wrote:Several of the examples I provided are also games and/or have game components.

Where was this again?

Was this the list you had above, none of which are games?  And again, that doesn't even cover that you've yet to provide any evidence that even supports your claim that they are all graded the exact same way as regular books.

Pipswich wrote:I am sorry your life has not exposed you to more of them, as many are quite fascinating.  Again, go to a book and paper show and learn something.

And this has exactly what to with the topic of this thread?  This wouldn't be you trying to change the subject would it?

Pipswich wrote: Your issues with me make it unlikely you will learn anything from what I post... so perhaps you should ignore my posts.

My issues with you are quite clearly stated. You're a lying sack of shit.  

Perhaps you should just stop posting like you threatened to do before.

Pipswich wrote:I am curious about why I, or anyone should care if one or more of the authors advocated tearing d&d material up, writing on it, etc.

Because that is the system that we have had in place for years. That you supposedly didn't even know that our grading standards existed says a lot.

Pipswich wrote: This site is devoted primarily to collecting.  Condition matters.  I have actually never seen you sell anything that was not in extraordinary condition.  It appears that you understand that condition matters.

I've never once said that condition didn't matter or even implied it, did I?

Pipswich wrote:As to few... and many...  get a life.  Language and ideas can be both fluid and suggestive.

You have a history already of overstating things to say the least.  

It always just some sort of misunderstanding.

Pipswich wrote:Are you willing to argue that a few people don't agree that modules missing parts should not be graded good?  Definitions of few online include "a small elite group"  and "more than one but definitely small in number."  Since two of us posted... even in short period of time during gen con....  AT LEAST a few agree with the concern.  Definitions of many include a "large but indefinate number".  Granted, it is irrelevant with a conditional OR.  Since I would have expected tighter grading, the logic of the sentence is sound whether MANY would agree with my expectation OR not.  

I have no idea what you're babbling about here.

Pipswich wrote:But, that is hardly the point B.C.  You just wanted an opportunity to call me names and try to run me off the site.

Not at all.  I'm not going to lie, I'd love to see you never return, but A) That's not my decision as I have stated before and B) That's not why I again called you out on your bullshit.  

You seem to struggle with the fact that your stream of bullshit is the common denominator here, not anything else.  Either that, you already know it and just flat out refuse to acknowledge it.

Whichever it is, it's not my issue, it's yours.

Pipswich wrote:By your actions you remain a bully and a loudmouth.  So be it.

ETA:




** expired/removed eBay auction **




I'm sure its an oversight, but this should be listed in poor since its only a part of the MERP Box Set.



This one too:




** expired/removed eBay auction **




Since, I mean it's three hole punched.



And surely with this being listed in Very Good condition, especially at this price, this one has all of its original PC sheets, right:




** expired/removed eBay auction **

dbartman wrote:I would volunteer that a "rule of thumb" for items that are incomplete would be a valuation of 50% of the going rate for a given grade.

Our adopted "rule of thumb" for SW is 150% so why not 50% for incomplete?

No statistics to back this up, just an educated guess...

A fair idea, that, as it removes the issue of grade from the equation entirely.

Hey, no problem, always enjoy the points & counterpoints.  Keeps things interesting!

deimos3428 wrote:A fair idea, that, as it removes the issue of grade from the equation entirely.

Good luck with those woodgrains, still.

faro wrote:Good luck with those woodgrains, still.

Yeah, there are a few exceptions...

Here is how you admit you're wrong and just not string out the lies like you prefer instead:

Pipswich wrote:The first one you note has a separate ISBN, and is all over the internet as a discreet item.  ISBN 0915795183.  It even has a picture of itself on the back with several other MERP modules that are shown as separately available adventure modules.  So, if you have proof it is from a box set, I am happy to change the listing.  The evidence I have found suggests otherwise.  You don't even have to take it as a challenge, as if it turns out you are right, I will simply correct the listing.

Yep, you're right. I was under the impression that it was not sold individually, but apparently it was.  


Wow, that was hard.

Pipswich wrote:I revised the second listing to note the hole punches.  Since they are illustrated, I doubt anyone would miss them....but if someone buys something like that and gets upset and lets me know... I just give it to them.... which seems to keep people happy.  We do have some help doing photos and listings, and yes, we miss things from time to time.  Anyone who notices someone that you have a question about is always welcome to let me know so I can correct it.

Of course you do. I mean you care about other people, well excpet the sellers who you screw their brains out that is.

Pipswich wrote:The third item has the sheets present.  All of them.  You used to be better at this.  Casting aspersions recklessly (since you have never seen the item you are questioning) seems beneath you B.C.  Or, at least, I thought so.

Reading is fundamental and apparently not exactly your strong suit.  I simply asked if it was complete. Based on your history of saying one thing and doing something else entirely, I just wanted to make sure that the item was in fact complete and you didn't list an incomplete item as something other than poor.

Pipswich wrote:Too bad you have such a mean spirited streak and choose to share it with the rest of us.

Here we go with the "us" bullshit again.  Like somehow pretty much every on here doesn't already know about who you are.

That said, you should like nail yourself to the cross too.  It might make your victim act a little more plausible this time.

Pipswich wrote:But, since you have tossed my ebay listings into the fray....  I should note that if anyone wants anything I list that I am more than happy to barter for d&d items I want.  Right now there is a very nice vintage toy racer, a rare deep skillet, an extremely rare McCoy Vase mixed in among a ton of rpg things.  Some of them make wonderful birthday or holiday presents for loved ones, etc.  I pretty much sell them to buy d&d so bartering works equally fine for me.

Let me guess, like the grading conditions posted on the site, you weren't aware of Classifieds section of the forum, right?  

Otherwise I am not entirely sure why you are posting this crap here.

BTW, are you planning on addressing anything else from my previous post such as your unsubstantiated claims again?  Or was you playing the victim again supposed to be your way of avoiding it?

offence intended, but once again it seems piptroll has stayed quiet for a few months making the odd comment before lining up another thread to spout endlessly.
dull, endless blocks of text avoiding questions raised are exactly that.
I kinda saw this coming after you deleted your 'men have times of the month too' thread earlier in the week. That suggested you bottled it or didn't get the reaction you wanted.
Now you are getting a kick out of being 'bullied' you sad man. Tiresome.
Have some cake...

piptroll, please do not PM me again in a vain attempt to make yourself seem important to yourself or to try and prove you are being victimised due to your buying habits, either publicly or privately.

I would be surprised if people take offence at you because you spend soooo much cash and buy soooo much stuff. Your buying techniques may be a different matter.
But do as you wish, I have no issue with that, just feel free not to try and make yourself sound like the big 'I am' just because you have a lot of cash to spend on the hobby.

That is more tiresome than your normal threads.

I also don't buy it, as you claim, that you didn't delete your 'man periods' thread. Maybe Foul can clear that up if he deleted it. I'd be surprised, but who knows.

Again, enjoy your cake and don't PM me again on such matters like this.