(SIGH!)
OK then, here we go.
Over the last 24 hours, Chris Olds has managed to piss away about three buckets and a dram full of credibility. (For those of you not familiar with the British Imperial measurement system, three buckets and a dram works out to about two shitloads and a pint, or just under forty liters.) How you ask? It all started innocuously enough with this Tweet.
My Topps Archives base set is complete. Now just 23 SPs short.
— Chris Olds (@chrisolds2009) June 9, 2012
And it all degenerated from there.
I won't reprint the complete series between Olds and myself, The Cardboard Junkie, Those Back Pages, Long Fly Ball To Because..., and others, I'd be here all day if I did. If you want to see all the fallacious arguments, pretzel logic, red herrings and attempted changing of subjects, you're just going to have to look for them yourselves.
All I'll say is, if the Editor of Beckett Baseball and Beckett Sports Card Monthly honestly believes that a full 241-card base set of 2012 Topps Archives is "complete" at only 200 cards and doesn't include the Bryce Harper RC, then we're all fucked.
(OBTW, if you're not following me on The Twinkah, why not?)
Posts
3 comments:
Beckett had zero credibility with me long before that Tweet was sent.
JT, The Writer's Journey
It's days like this that make me glad he blocked me months ago.
Was going to comment on this last night, but I was exhausted by Olds moronic tweets.
Unintentional (or at least thought to be so) factory errors are NOT part of the base set.
Intentional gimmicky errors, variations, or short prints = PART OF THE BASE SET!!
If it's fucking numbered with the sequential order of the first 200 cards (example: 199, 200, 201) then it's PART OF THE BASE SET!
Just because someone (obviously) understands how difficult Topps is making it to complete a set but doesn't want to rattle the cage of one of their closest business partners, doesn't mean you can re-define what a base set is. We're not idiots, Olds.
Post a Comment