Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 17:32:41 GMT -8
Wagon, you've proven nothing other than your lack of capacity for logical thinking and expression. You lied and got caught months ago when you stated you didn't call TheCapra by his previous, CGC forum moniker. Why, I have no idea. No matter. After that it was all downhill. Trolling your own thread... The only thing more pathetic than your complete failure here is that those who have previously called you out for your epic flawed/broken thinking now encourage it because they're incapable of addressing their own similar flaws. But this is how echo chambers operate. You have Zod's pity. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 15, 2023 17:33:44 GMT -8
Cool story bro.
Dont bust yo hand pattin' yourself on the back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 17:37:37 GMT -8
You've failed to: 1) Prove your initial claim about Marvel cover overhang It's really easy. Since comics were all cut on 3 sides when published, the Marvel cover overhang is a product of paper shrinkage with the interior newspring pages shrinking at a different rate than the exterior cover. Many non-Marvel comics from several eras exhibit this overhang. Your speculation about cause is provided without supporting evidence. Again... You've failed to: 1) Prove your initial claim about Marvel cover overhang 2) Present evidence of comic book printing practices at all facilities from 1933 to 1973 3) Refrain from descending into irrelevant/raving personal attacks & bizarre deflections 4) Properly recall Zod's comments (as in your false claim about trimming as cited in Zod's prior posts) You've also failed to provide any of the following supporting evidence regarding DiceX and his claims: 1) His name 2) The facility/facilities he worked in 3) The years he worked in this facility or facilities 4) Whether he ever worked hands on in printing comics 5) What comic publishers he may have done hands on work for 6) What months, years and titles he did hands on work for But you DID refute a claim Zod never made about trimming - are congratulations in order...?  |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 15, 2023 17:39:15 GMT -8
axe elf 4 sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 17:45:16 GMT -8
OP failure: EPIC But Zod's offer stands as made if the OP can present at least one of the bodies of proof lacking.  |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 15, 2023 18:31:52 GMT -8
Def not gower-gower is not able to avoid blowing his top and just remain smug and condescending-he becomes like a rabid skunk when opposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 15, 2023 19:23:06 GMT -8
Def not gower-gower is not able to avoid blowing his top and just remain smug and condescending-he becomes like a rabid skunk when opposed. You'll have to show me some Axe Elf posts from the CGC forum that show this "zod-like" behavior because I read about 100 of his posts there and I couldn't find him to be unreasonable or speaking in the 3rd person in any of them. Again, I COULD be wrong but the logic zod is using is so full of holes and all over the place (meaning no connecting dots to making any linear connections) that it really sounds like CG to me. I just read through the first page of this thread to make sure I wasn't missing anything and it's easy to see how he quickly he derails the convo with mis-direction. It's a lot easier to not blow your top when you're anonymous and bent on making the other person bend out of shape. Anonymity removes a lot of the pressure on the ego.  |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 15, 2023 19:33:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 15, 2023 19:35:00 GMT -8
Axe consistently makes condescending replies and declares victory for himself all the time.
If you dont see it you dont see it. completely obvious to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 16, 2023 14:20:08 GMT -8
Interesting. I see whisps of it. Thanks!  |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 16, 2023 14:24:32 GMT -8
Remember:
Gower-rabid skunk.
Axe Elf-self-congratulating condescending nincompoop.
completely different.
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 16, 2023 14:26:30 GMT -8
It's really easy. Since comics were all cut on 3 sides when published, the Marvel cover overhang is a product of paper shrinkage with the interior newspring pages shrinking at a different rate than the exterior cover. Many non-Marvel comics from several eras exhibit this overhang. Your speculation about cause is provided without supporting evidence. Again... You've failed to: 1) Prove your initial claim about Marvel cover overhang 2) Present evidence of comic book printing practices at all facilities from 1933 to 1973 3) Refrain from descending into irrelevant/raving personal attacks & bizarre deflections 4) Properly recall Zod's comments (as in your false claim about trimming as cited in Zod's prior posts) You've also failed to provide any of the following supporting evidence regarding DiceX and his claims: 1) His name 2) The facility/facilities he worked in 3) The years he worked in this facility or facilities 4) Whether he ever worked hands on in printing comics 5) What comic publishers he may have done hands on work for 6) What months, years and titles he did hands on work for But you DID refute a claim Zod never made about trimming - are congratulations in order...? Again, the answers are easy for anyone objective. If you examine comics from the 1930's to about the 1980's, you'll notice they were AMLMOST all made the same way. Like 99% of them. I say almost, because if you find a comic that WASN'T made this way, it will be the very, VERY rare exception. Like 1% of them. And these variations come from the same printing process but production errors (as Dice explained) caused some books to come through the press more than once to repair something. I say 1980s because I'm not sure after that as I rarely deal with newer books...but if I had to bet, I'd say they still used the same production methods. Comics are not like dinosaurs. We don't have to struggle to find specimens to see if our theories are correct. There are millions of them from all eras in plain sight and just a little diligence and effort will prove Dice's theories correct. Especially the ones about production. If you disagree, do your diligence. Find me some books that were NOT produced this way. If the printing process varied so greatly you should have tons of examples to show me. I deal with 10,000s books a year and so far, I have yet to find a pattern to disagree with my points. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 16, 2023 14:35:28 GMT -8
When printing early comics, pages were folded to size then trimmed on three sides with a 3-knife cutter. The cover was printed on a coated or slick paper and then trimmed to size. The binding usually consisted of stitches or staples, similar to saddle stitch booklet printing, as most comics did not have enough pages to need a sturdier type of binding. www.printivity.com/insights/2019/08/08/the-history-of-comic-book-printing-dot-by-dot/To physically print a comic book with offset printing, the pages are laid out in the appropriate order and fed into the printer on rotating printing plates. Both sides are printed simultaneously, and this is repeated for each of the four colors in differing degrees and is called four-color printing. Printed pages of the comic book (or one long roll of paper, depending on the process) are folded, stacked, cut to the right size, and bound with staples, stitching, or glue. www.grekoprinting-comixwellspring.com/blog/history-comic-book-printing-dot-dot/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 16:33:33 GMT -8
Many non-Marvel comics from several eras exhibit this overhang. Your speculation about cause is provided without supporting evidence. Again... You've failed to: 1) Prove your initial claim about Marvel cover overhang 2) Present evidence of comic book printing practices at all facilities from 1933 to 1973 3) Refrain from descending into irrelevant/raving personal attacks & bizarre deflections 4) Properly recall Zod's comments (as in your false claim about trimming as cited in Zod's prior posts) You've also failed to provide any of the following supporting evidence regarding DiceX and his claims: 1) His name 2) The facility/facilities he worked in 3) The years he worked in this facility or facilities 4) Whether he ever worked hands on in printing comics 5) What comic publishers he may have done hands on work for 6) What months, years and titles he did hands on work for But you DID refute a claim Zod never made about trimming - are congratulations in order...? Again, the answers are easy for anyone objective. If you examine comics from the 1930's to about the 1980's, you'll notice they were AMLMOST all made the same way. Like 99% of them. I say almost, because if you find a comic that WASN'T made this way, it will be the very, VERY rare exception. Like 1% of them. And these variations come from the same printing process but production errors (as Dice explained) caused some books to come through the press more than once to repair something. I say 1980s because I'm not sure after that as I rarely deal with newer books...but if I had to bet, I'd say they still used the same production methods. Comics are not like dinosaurs. We don't have to struggle to find specimens to see if our theories are correct. There are millions of them from all eras in plain sight and just a little diligence and effort will prove Dice's theories correct. Especially the ones about production. If you disagree, do your diligence. Find me some books that were NOT produced this way. If the printing process varied so greatly you should have tons of examples to show me. I deal with 10,000s books a year and so far, I have yet to find a pattern to disagree with my points. An anonymous poster on a comic forum (DiceX) regurgitating what little is speculated about comic book printing in its first 40 years is proof of nothing, just as with your appeals to alleged objectivity. Likewise mistaking the unsourced speculations from a tiny handful of dubious interests presenting alleged information 50-90 years after the fact for evidence; it's meaningless without sourcing. You've once again failed to provide evidence to support any of your assertions, and are once again attempting to shift the burden of proof.So in addition to all of your prior failures, Zod must now include the failure to recognize your failures, and correct them. How pitiful that you are encouraged in this incompetence by those who despise you. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Feb 16, 2023 17:08:16 GMT -8
If someone's right, theyre right-regardless of whom I despise. Try it some time.
|
|
