Internet-forum-centric language meaning you just owned the thread and no further reply could improve on what you've done. The slash before the word means (roughly) "end of the previous thought line."
No, it's a compelling argument, or proof if you will, that they are buying the plastic - and not the coin.
No they're paying for the coin. In every aspect of life things are are authenticated carry more value than if they were not. The "raw" product sells at a discount do to some uncertainty. Coins are no different no matter how much some people want it to be
One exception I can think of is with Registry sets. I happen to like putting together competitive registry War Nickel sets, and now that NGC no longer allows you to put PCGS coins in your sets, and PCGS has never allowed mixing NGCs with theirs, a mixed breed set of otherwise wonderful coins isn't allowed to play in either league. As a result, I have ditched most of my PCGS slabbed War Nickels and will be done with them soon. Also, cosmetically, a mix of the two TPG holders is kinda ugly. Even uglier if you mix in some ANACS and or ICG, or heaven forbid, RAW coins, even if BU and clearly worthy of slabbing but why spend the money just for the holder?
Why dump PCGS and not NGC? Do you have a preference for those (and if so, why) or do you simply have more of them in the set?
So.... it "removes the possibility", yet you turn around and provide an example of a possibility? Umm, no. This isn't remotely true.
and actually I do prefer the NGC slabs. To me they are just more visually appealing, though I realize that other people think exactly the opposite.
Regardless of look at this point, between their two newest generations the PCGS plastic is clearer and also scratch resistant. I have no clue why NGC keeps trying to charge for the scratch resistant holder and doesn't make it their standard one.