Alexnder the Great: Portraiture and Portrait
Mike Marotta
69 From: Reid Goldsborough -
Date: Tues, Dec 19 2006 12:49 pm
... The styling of the reverse is reminiscent of his styling as well --
flamboyant, a bit cartoonish (though the artistry of authentic
Alexanders can vary widely).
Subject: Ancient coins
51 From: Reid Goldsborough -
Date: Fri, May 28 2004 8:57 am
"...And it's similarly beyond ignorant to say that the stylistic
differences in Alexander lifetime coins are due to some die engravers
being less skilled than others, to some creating cartoonish portraits,
as you said."
Subject: Alexander's Portrait
57 From: Reid Goldsborough -
Date: Tues, Sep 24 2002 11:02 am
"... Were you referring to what you said in the previous paragraph
about how some lifetime Alexander coins are "cartoonish" in styling?
What the heck does THAT mean? The cartoonish (crude styling) issues
didn't appear until much later, particularly in the Black Sea area
during the late second and early first centuries BC. The Thracians or
Celts also struck coins imitating Alexander's coinage that could be
considered cartoonish in styling. What did you mean by cartoonish? Did
you really mean that some of his lifetime issues were cartoonish in
styling? Show me one.
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
It's really not difficult. Yes, some modern replicas are cartoonishly
styled. Yes, ancient coins of the same type varied in styling. Yes,
some ancient die engravers were more skilled than others.
No, this doesn't mean that Alexander the Great put his own portrait on
his own coins and that five dynasts from four previous generations of
Macedonians put their own portraits on their own coins and all these
portraits look the same as Alexander's because all these leaders look
similar and that other coins in other regions that supposedly depict
the same Herakles actually depict Alexander and that Alexander and not
Herakles was worshipped widely in the ancient world and those who
can't see all this are marching in lockstep behind the "so-called"
experts and the true experts on this aren't David Sear and Wayne
Sayles and T.V. Buttrey and Oliver Hoover and among those no longer
with us Martin Price and Otto Morkholm but instead are the inimitable
Michael E. Marotta and Ann M. Zakelj.
Thanks for bringing this up again. That was fun. I'd be happy to
continue this. But you don't happen to have any new evidence this
time? You know, solid stuff -- die study, hoard evidence, this kind of
thing. Otherwise it's just another rehashing, and to tell you the
truth, it appears to be a bit desperate. But maybe your helper can
help out here, though I suspect all that will be forthcoming will be
snide sarcasm or supercilious corrections of typos. Not that there's
anything wrong with this.
Hey, here's an idea. Let's discuss something new, and coin related!
First take a look, if you haven't already, at the following three
Alexanders:
Alexander tet:
http://rg.cointalk.org/misc/Tet_damaged.jpg
Alexander drachm:
http://rg.ancients.info/alexander/Drachm_beatup.jpg
Alexander bronze:
http://rg.cointalk.org/misc/Alex_bronze_poor.jpg
My position is that they're beautiful coins. Your assignment is to
argue otherwise (you're good with the contrarian stuff). I'll counter.
--
Email: reid...@removethisnetaxs.com (delete "remove this")
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Sibirskmoneta
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0b13p21grnudlpite...@4ax.com...
after they were issued it is perhaps immaterial as far as discussion of the
subject matter. Without Ira's time machine, and he only seems to go back to
the 1790's and back, it is vexingly impossible to determine whom the actual
subject matter of so many coins was. However I would convey that in my
opinion it is a stretch even with such a personality as Alexander's to
propound that he thought himself more worthy of portraiture on the coinage
than a deity namely Herakles.
Sorry Reid, if anyone is to go back in time to the 4th century BC, it will
be me, and not you. I would love to visit Syracuse, Athens, Chersonesos,
Miletos etc on a mystical numismatic journey of incomprehensible wonderment.
Since I have more places to go and see, and celators to converse with, and
you would stick to Athenian pursuits, I should thus be chosen:)
Reid Goldsborough
<sibirs...@mail.ru> wrote:
>I agree they are beautiful coins, and at this point in time, some 2400 yrs
>after they were issued it is perhaps immaterial as far as discussion of the
>subject matter. Without Ira's time machine, and he only seems to go back to
>the 1790's and back, it is vexingly impossible to determine whom the actual
>subject matter of so many coins was. However I would convey that in my
Actually, we know quite a bit about the past, the near past as well as
the distant past, and as far as I know, none of this information has
come about through time travel. You see, there are lots of ways to
learn about the past other than being there when the events in
question happened, and looking at this can be quite interesting (or
boring, depending on your predilection for such things). There's
contemporary or near-contemporary written evidence that has survived,
archeological evidence, hoard evidence, evidence in the form of
isolated finds, evidence from die studies, evidence from metrological
studies, evidence from experimental numismatics, and evidence that can
be extrapolated from historical knowledge about the people, places,
events, and times.
In many cases you have to build a conclusion from multiple sources of
evidence, particularly the further back you go. It's for this reason
that conclusions are frequently debatable. But often a high
percentage, sometimes a very high percentage, of historians,
numismatists, and so on who look at the totality of evidence and who
use their reason and common sense reach the very same conclusion.
This has been the case with the issue of numismatic portraiture on
ancient Greek coins. No numismatist over the past half century who has
looked at the totality of evidence has concluded that Alexander the
Great put his own portrait on his coins. I'm not including the two
people in question who post here, who didn't in fact look at the
totality of evidence, who ignored in their 5,000-word article much
relevant evidence, including all the Macedonian coins that predated
Alexanders (because there wasn't enough space!). Their "new paradigm,"
which was actually an old paradigm that was refuted long ago (they
didn't have enough space apparently to mention this either), was
consequently rejected by those who have looked at the totality of
evidence, including as I've some the most accomplished and
distinguished ancient numismatists living today such as David Sear,
Wayne Sayles, T.V. Buttrey, and Oliver Hoover.
Michael has said that his "new paradigm" was rejected because
numismatists march in lockstep behind one another, but this as with
much else he has written about this is contrary to the evidence and
the facts. Numismatists as do other scholars love to overturn the
existing order and become known as progenitor of new knowledge. Yes,
such knowledge isn't always immediately accepted by the scholarly or
academic community or the general public (sometimes it is). But if
it's true, it's eventually accepted. That won't happen here because
the new "knowledge" in question here isn't based on anything except
wild ("creative") extrapolations from incomplete research and then
wildly illogical defenses of such extrapolations when the evidence
they should have found themselves was later pointed out to them.
You're free of course to believe anything you want. Talking about
ancient coins, did you know that the reach of the mighty Roman legions
was so great that some ancient Roman bronzes were brought back by the
astronauts of Apollo 14?
Sibirskmoneta
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> You're free of course to believe anything you want. Talking about
> ancient coins, did you know that the reach of the mighty Roman legions
> was so great that some ancient Roman bronzes were brought back by the
> astronauts of Apollo 14?
>
> --
Reid, you are unfortunately erred in the above statement, in fact it was a
great coverup on the part of the NASA folks whom actually found Martian
electrum Xenos. It was much more convenient to claim the Romans were the
first to the Moon. :)
Phil DeMayo
wrote:
> In many cases you have to build a conclusion from multiple sources of
> evidence.......
Sorry....you lack that capability.
note.boy
"Sibirskmoneta" <sibirs...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:1Khkh.32$_g2...@newsfe05.lga...
I visited Athens etc. in 1979 and it's so long ago it seems like I was there
in ancient times.
I must go back some time as it's amazing to see buildings that have been
standing for so long. Billy
note.boy
"Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167194002.8...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 26, 7:29pm, Reid Goldsborough <reidgoldsboro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Sorry....you lack that capability.
Kettle pot. Billy
Reid Goldsborough
>> In many cases you have to build a conclusion from multiple sources of
>> evidence.......
>
>Sorry....you lack that capability.
You're getting ever more clever in your retorts. The above is
brilliantly witty. How do you do it?
Sorry. I'm being sarcastic. Somebody here must be influencing me. <g>
Or maybe it's the holiday season.
In truth, as you well know, I use as many sources of evidence as I can
in building my conclusions about numismatics in the enjoyment of my
own coins as well as in sharing that enjoyment with others, helping
them better enjoy their own coins, in the work I do online and in
print. Knowledge deepens the glom. It's all about the glom. Or the O.
No, the glom. The feeling of amazement, awe, and wonder you derive
from looking at a piece of monetary metal that's strikingly designed
or preserved or has some other interesting visual characteristic, made
long ago at a different time and place, a time and place that can
teach us more about the present and maybe the future too.
These sources include but probably aren't limited to articles in
scholarly and hobby magazines, books, Web sites, public posts in a
number of different online discussion groups, phone and email
interviews, discussions in person at coin shows and informal
gatherings with collectors and dealers, my own metrological studies,
my own stylistic analyses, my own testing of such things as coin
holders, and my own observations of the coin marketplace on eBay,
in-person auctions, Web sales, magazine ads, coin shops, and sales at
large national and small local coin shows. Apologies to any sources
that I've neglected to mention.
Talking about Alexander the Great coins, which is what this thread is
about, the following is a bibliography of sources that I've used
(actually, I haven't used one because it's scheduled to be published
as I mention next year):
http://rg.ancients.info/alexander/more.html
Since you, Phil, obviously have an interest in the subject matter (why
in the world would you otherwise be participating in this thread?), if
you notice that I've missed anything, do let me know. Or not.
Reid Goldsborough
<note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote:
>I visited Athens etc. in 1979 and it's so long ago it seems like I was there
>in ancient times.
Funny! I was in Athens last in 1977. I want to go back. I may
actually. Our next-door neighbor is originally from Greece, still has
family there, and wants to take us there to visit. Maybe...
When I was in Athens the first time, in 1974, I bought an owl, but not
an Owl. It was an owl figurine shaped just like the owl on the back of
Classical Owl tetradrachms. I didn't know this at the time. <g> It was
the first of my owl figurines. Eventually bought 140, mostly during
travels, though more recently through eBay. They're perched on a lone
glass shelf affixed to a wall in our living room. Snugly. <g> The
shelf was there before we moved in and makes a nice home for these.
Athena is a great city for the history and the food and the people and
much else, and the nearby islands are spectacular. The retsina though
takes some getting used to. <g>
Phil DeMayo
wrote:
<bunch of irrelevant stuff snipped>
> Talking about Alexander the Great coins, which is what this thread is
> about....
You must let me apologize then. I must have mistakenly interpreted the
OP's post to be all about your hypocrisy.
> Since you, Phil, obviously have an interest in the subject matter (why
> in the world would you otherwise be participating in this thread?), if
> you notice that I've missed anything, do let me know. Or not.
See above. adieu
note.boy
I know why Alexander did so much conquering, he was looking for drinkable
wine as Greek wine is horrible. I tired it once and never again. Billy
Reid Goldsborough
><bunch of irrelevant stuff snipped>
You said I don't have the ability to consult multiple sources of
evidence. I listed the multiple sources of evidence I consult. Tell me
how this is irrelevant. Actually, don't.
Sibirskmoneta
"note.boy" <note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message news:NQCkh.29111
> I know why Alexander did so much conquering, he was looking for drinkable
> wine as Greek wine is horrible. I tired it once and never again. Billy
>
He croaked before he made it to Paradise, the Napa Valley of California.:)
Sibirskmoneta
> On 27 Dec 2006 12:46:27 -0800, "Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>><bunch of irrelevant stuff snipped>
>
> You said I don't have the ability to consult multiple sources of
> evidence. I listed the multiple sources of evidence I consult. Tell me
> how this is irrelevant. Actually, don't.
>
> --
>
Reid, you are discussing coins, keep up the good work.
Phil, you are just a troll with nothing of contributable value to post here.
Phil DeMayo
> Phil, you are just a troll with nothing of contributable value to post here.
You obviously haven't been paying attention here for the past 8 years.
As for Reid....he claims to have the ability to draw obvious
conclusions from multiple sources. Yet when it's done by others with
respect to other topics, he chides them for trying to "connect the
dots". Those of us who have been here for any length of time are all
too familiar with his hypocrisy.
Jorg Lueke
Reid Goldsborough
>You obviously haven't been paying attention here for the past 8 years.
Eight years? Interesting.
>As for Reid....he claims to have the ability to draw obvious
>conclusions from multiple sources. Yet when it's done by others with
>respect to other topics, he chides them for trying to "connect the
>dots". Those of us who have been here for any length of time are all
>too familiar with his hypocrisy.
You're again failing to make distinctions, treating differently items
identically.
Item 1: In doing academic research, you (I) use multiple sources in
print, online, and in person to draw conclusions and appropriately
qualify them by indicating the degree of their tentativeness or
certitude based on the quality of the evidence.
Item 2: In doing "legal" research, you (you) search only online,
Googling around and finding statutes and court cases only tangentially
related, make connections between them, and state definitively what's
legal and what's not, without qualifying this in any way, and even
more important, without finding a single case that dealt with the
issue in question, the legality of owning counterfeits of collectable
coins. What's more, when presenting with an expert opinion different
from yours, an opinion of a lawyer, Coin World legal columnist, and
author of a book on the subject of collectibles and the law, instead
of reevaluating your conclusions, instead of admitting the possibility
that your methods may not quite meet the same standards of
professionals, you contend that the lawyer must not have read the law,
and you continue to make your legal pronouncements with the same
degree of certitude.
It's all about truth and the rigorousness, or lack of it, that goes
into finding and stating it.
Nick Knight
at 10:02 PM, Reid Goldsborough <reidgold...@yahoo.com> said:
Phil Said:
>>respect to other topics, he chides them for trying to "connect the
>>dots".
Phil still doesn't get it. You can't connect dots that aren't really there,
or (using a connect-the-dots book as part of the analogy), connect the dots
that ARE there but are on different pages, just to make your own
special-little picture.
BOGGS! Duh.
Nick
Reid Goldsborough
<bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote:
>Phil still doesn't get it. You can't connect dots that aren't really there,
>or (using a connect-the-dots book as part of the analogy), connect the dots
>that ARE there but are on different pages, just to make your own
>special-little picture.
To me the single most interesting thing about numismatics is truth vs.
falsity. It plays out with modern as well as ancient coins, in lots of
ways, but among the more bizarre ways it plays out is those who use
falsity to supposedly fight falsity.
Mike Marotta
> No, this doesn't mean that Alexander the Great put his own portrait on
Mr. Goldsborough, either you fail to see the obvious, or else you are
hoping that no one else will, or both. Read the original three posts
cited at the top of this thread. My point here is that Ann M. Zakelj
and I happened to use the identifiable adjective "cartoonish." You
derided. You denied and demanded. Then, a few years later... you use
the very same description. This is not the first time that you have
argued long and strong against a point that you later made your own
without attribution. The subject of polymer coin flips and the
chemistry of polyvinyl plastic was your swan song, only you could not
hear it for the noise you were making.
You are intellectually dishonest.
That, in point of fact, is consonant with your psycho-epistemology.
You think that to identify Ayn Rand as a proponent of egoism is to
condemn her ideas. At the same time, you wallow in fakes, forgeries,
frauds, and phonies as if they were numismatically important. Myself,
as a rational empiricist, I perceive a consistency in your
whim-worshipping social metaphysics that is in complete accord with
your touting counterfeits, as well as your inability to understand the
portraiture of Alexander the Great. On that subject, you continue to
cite authorities, while we identified facts.
Be all of that as it may, the immutable truth is that you absorbed our
ideas and now present them as your own. I don't know if I should be
flattered or insulted.
Phil DeMayo
> --Reid, you are discussing coins, keep up the good work.
>
> Phil, you are just a troll with nothing of contributable value to post here.
By the way....this thread was never about coins. It was all about
Goldsborough's consistent hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Read the original poster's latest message.
Sibirskmoneta
Uh, I don't know what planet you are from, but the thread is about coins,
you are trying to turn it into personal attacks. You strike me as some old
non-social curmudgeon that likes to hang out here and dredge up nonsense
from years ago. We all know Reid Goldsborough and what happened years ago.
That was then, this is now. Grow up damn it! We Americans are a forgiving
and forgetting bunch.
And by the way, I have been here longer than 8 yrs, more like 9 yrs. I have
been here long enough to see it all.
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>Mr. Goldsborough, either you fail to see the obvious, or else you are
>hoping that no one else will, or both. Read the original three posts
>cited at the top of this thread. My point here is that Ann M. Zakelj
>and I happened to use the identifiable adjective "cartoonish." You
>derided. You denied and demanded. Then, a few years later... you use
>the very same description. This is not the first time that you have
>argued long and strong against a point that you later made your own
>without attribution.
You're taking my use of this one word, "cartoonish," and doing what
you did with your Alexander article. You're making great leaps of
extrapolation from it to conclusions that bear no relationship at all
with the tangible facts in front of you.
Yes, again, some modern replicas and some ancient coins were
cartoonishly styled. No, again, this doesn't mean what you said it
means regarding Alexander the Great and his coins, and my use of this
word in an entirely different context doesn't mean I suddenly agree
with your position about Alexander portraiture. Incidentally, I
disagree that his official coins were cartoonishly styled during his
lifetime, even some of them, which is what you said. This is
subjective, of course, but even the less skillful die engraving during
his lifetime wasn't that badly styled, or cartoonish. Some of the very
late posthumous Black Sea Alexander were indeed cartoonishly styled,
with devices that could be termed caricatures, but these were likely
tribal issues, not official city issues. But this is really besides
the point.
>The subject of polymer coin flips and the
>chemistry of polyvinyl plastic was your swan song, only you could not
>hear it for the noise you were making.
What does this have to do with the price of bread, or anything? It
doesn't make any sense either. A "swan song" is a final appearance. I
wrote this article on coin holders for Coin World two years ago, and
I've made other appearance there since, three other articles actually,
and more articles in other magazines. How was what I wrote about coin
holders my swan song?
>That, in point of fact, is consonant with your psycho-epistemology.
>You think that to identify Ayn Rand as a proponent of egoism is to
>condemn her ideas.
What does this have to do with the price of bread, or anything? You're
bringing up one subject after another, none related. Are you OK?
>At the same time, you wallow in fakes, forgeries,
>frauds, and phonies as if they were numismatically important.
What does this have to do with the price of bread, or anything? No, I
don't "wallow" in fakes. I study them, to help avoid becoming victim
and to help others and because the issue of fakery, in ancient times
as well as in the present, is intrinsically interesting. Authentic
coins are more so, but the fake makes the authentic that much more
worthy of appreciation.
>Myself,
>as a rational empiricist, I perceive a consistency in your
>whim-worshipping social metaphysics that is in complete accord with
>your touting counterfeits, as well as your inability to understand the
>portraiture of Alexander the Great. On that subject, you continue to
>cite authorities, while we identified facts.
You "identified facts"? OK. Whatever you say.
>Be all of that as it may, the immutable truth is that you absorbed our
>ideas and now present them as your own. I don't know if I should be
>flattered or insulted.
Huh? What ideas of yours did I absorb and present as my own? Are you
talking about my use of the word "cartoonish"? Are you saying because
you used this word four years ago regarding Alexander tetradrachms and
because I used it recently regarding modern replicas that I was
absorbing ideas from you and presenting them as my own? I didn't
realize that this word was yours, that you had, um, coined it
yourself. I apologize for using your word without your permission. I'd
be happy to pay any appropriate royalties.
But this may put a damper on this new money making opportunity for
you. I just did a quick Google Groups search, which revealed that I
used the word "cartoonish" about modern coin replicas before you used
the word "cartoonish" about Alexander the Great coins. I used it on
April 7, 2002. You used it in your Celator article regarding
Alexanders published in July 2002. Oops. I see now that you also used
this word online, here in this newsgroup, about modern medals before
your Celator article. So I guess I owe you royalties after all.
Phil DeMayo
> Uh, I don't know what planet you are from, but the thread is about coins,
> you are trying to turn it into personal attacks.
The tone and subject of a thread is set by the original poster. You may
wish that this thread was all about coins, but it's not. You would
realize this if you re-read the original post and the original poster's
followup message. It's an old feud, one in which I wasn't involved.
> You strike me as some old non-social curmudgeon that likes to hang out here and dredge up nonsense
> from years ago.
a. I didn't start this thread.
b. My foray into this thread had to do with misinformation the
Goldsborough character spews about my research on a coin related topic
on a continuing basis....even when I'm not involved in the discussion.
It had nothing to do with "nonsense" from years ago.
> We all know Reid Goldsborough and what happened years ago.
Not everybody knows, but nobody brought it up.
> That was then, this is now.
Unfortunately he hasn't really changed.
> And by the way, I have been here longer than 8 yrs, more like 9 yrs. I have
> been here long enough to see it all.
Well we must have arrived about the same time....I'm actually at about
8-3/4 years. However, if you're going to continue to claim I don't make
any meaningful contributions to the group, you haven't been paying
attention.
Sibirskmoneta
> with you or anything you've done or said here. It had to do with the
> research regarding Alexander the Great's portrait on his coinage, with
> my talking about the importance of being thorough. Nowhere in that
> post did I refer to you or include by implication anything you've
> posted in this newsgroup. Until your disruption, this thread was about
> ancient numismatic scholarship, not about your so-called legal
> research about the legality of owning counterfeits of collectable U.S.
> coins.
>
That is what it is about, it is bluster from a curmudgeon whom probably does
not get along with people well outside of the internet either. If Phil has
nothing to offer regarding the portraiture of the Alexandrine coinage,
perhaps he should just stay away. He just pokes into the discussion here
and starts dredging up effluence from the past.
It is one thing to have informed debates, even if agreement cannot be found,
it is another to butt in and interrupt and just be a general nuisance to all
other participants.
I have sat on the fence for a long time on the Alexander portrait debate,
but viewing over the years this intermnable discussion I am convinced that
Herakles is whom is portrayed.
note.boy
I have only noticed one UK that describes the portrait as being of Alexander
and I suspect that's to make the coin more appealing to collectors, and
possibly charge more. Billy
Reid Goldsborough
<note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote:
>I have only noticed one UK that describes the portrait as being of Alexander
>and I suspect that's to make the coin more appealing to collectors, and
>possibly charge more. Billy
Bingo. This happens with some dealers in the U.S. as well. Seeing
dealers try to sell up their Alexander in this way may have been the
subconscious seed that prompted Michael and Anka to argue for this.
Interestingly, in the Fall 2006 issue of the ANA Journal, the new ANA
scholarly publication, Joaquin Montero deals with just this issue --
Alexander's image on coins. His interest is primarily with how the
Romans depicted him, but he deals with the issue of the Herakles image
on Alexander's own coins.
He repeats the most irrefutable argument I made against Alexander
putting him own image on all of his coins, which David Sear repeated
as well in a column he wrote afterward for the Numismatist, that being
that earlier Macedonian rulers used the very same Herakles image.
Montero also repeats Martin Price's argument, which I repeated, that
it would have been anathema for the Greeks at the time to deify a
living ruler by putting his image on coins, which was the domain of
the gods, at least in Greece, of which Macedonia was a part.
Though Montero exhibits solid scholarship and clear writing that
elucidates rather than obfuscates, I have some minor quibbles with his
article. Among other things he says the theory that Alexander put his
own image on all his coins is "very controversial" and "inconsistent."
I don't believe it deserves even this much credit and instead would
describe it as discredited, not discredited by me but discredited
years ago by others.
Michael and his helper didn't even present their position, that
Alexander put his image on all of his coins, as a theory but a fact
that was "obvious" and "all but certain." That, in a nutshell, is the
main issue that led to the debate, here and in print. And Michael is
still contending that he's dealing in facts.
Phil DeMayo
wrote:
> Michael and his helper.....
You just can't help being a dick, can you?
Phil DeMayo
> "note.boy" <note....@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message news:NQCkh.29111
> > I know why Alexander did so much conquering, he was looking for drinkable
> > wine as Greek wine is horrible. I tired it once and never again. Billy
> He croaked before he made it to Paradise, the Napa Valley of California.:)
I'm not sure if he was all that fond of wine, but I do know he was a
major drug dealer.
Alexander "the not so great" introduced opium to India and Persia and
made sure his troops had an ample supply so they could fight through
their pain.
I'll bet he even collected counterfeit coins :-)
Phil DeMayo
wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 21:06:20 -0800, "Phil DeMayo" <flip1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >You just can't help being a dick, can you?
> Your momma REALLY should have washed your mouth out more. Please don't
> now try again to entice me into your sadomasochism with another
> entreaty to bite you. I can't take this sordidness any more!
I'm getting pretty sick of your attempts to belittle people I consider
friends.
One of these days our paths will cross and I'm sure I'll discover what
a coward you are face-to-face.
Phil DeMayo
wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2006 01:26:06 -0800, "Phil DeMayo" <flip1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure if he was all that fond of wine, but I do know he was a
> >major drug dealer.
>
> >Alexander "the not so great" introduced opium to India and Persia and
> >made sure his troops had an ample supply so they could fight through
> >their pain.This is abject nonsense. There's no historical record of this, and
> it's patently absurd on its face. Opium is a strong central nervous
> system depressant. No soldier could fight well strung out on opium,
> just as no athlete could play well. On the other hand, opium and its
> derivatives through the years, including today, have been used after
> battles to ease suffering. But this is entirely different from what
> you said, which is yet another made-up "fact."
I got it from a History Channel documentary on Alexander. However, I
just did a quick Google search for "Alexander the great" +opium and it
returned over 65,000 hits. Add +soldiers to that search and it returns
over 32,000 hits. A spot check of a couple of these hits reveals that
it may have been common throughout history for soldiers to be given
opium to increase their courage.
> Or better yet go to another thread and talk about something you know about.
Oh, I'm just waiting for more of your useful information about
photography....my hobby for the past 35 years. That should be fun.
Nick Knight
at 05:10 PM, Reid Goldsborough <reidgold...@yahoo.com> said:
>On 30 Dec 2006 01:39:58 -0800, "Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.com> wrote:
>>One of these days our paths will cross and I'm sure I'll discover what
>>a coward you are face-to-face.
>You're really sounding like you're off your rocker
Watch it, Reid. He'll get out his old "steel-toed ass-kicking" boots and
threaten to meet you at the next ANA. All a bunch of hot air, which we've
smelled from him for YEARS now. Just an old dog - lots of bark, bark, bark,
but no teeth. Duh.
Nick
Nick Knight
at 09:00 PM, Reid Goldsborough <reidgold...@yahoo.com> said:
>But he's a bit special in the amazing degree of his hypocrisy,
I saw strong evidence of this in a previous reply (to him) of yours:
>On 29 Dec 2006 21:06:20 -0800, "Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.com> wrote:
>>You just can't help being a dick, can you?
If that isn't extreme irony, I don't know what is.
>he gets people like you and me to respond, and that's the
>reward he needs to continue doing what he does.
Well, sure. If you'd never reply to him, tho, I probably would never see
any of his stupidity. I don't see any others quoting him :). But I will
admit that, although he is and I assume will always be the star of my kill
filters, I do get SOME entertainment value out of seeing your quotes. Some.
I wouldn't really miss it, tho :)
Nick
Phil DeMayo
> i've seen 3 hc docs on alexander and not one claimed he used
> opium. they all said he was a boozer which is the
> documented, historical fact
Did I say he used opium?
What I said was he introduced opium to India and Persia. The Google
search I provided earlier returned over 65,000 hits verifying that.
The documentary also said he gave it to his soldiers so they could
fight through the pain of their injuries. Adding +soldiers to the
search I provided returned over 32,000 hits. Before going to my
brother's for dinner earlier I checked a couple of those hits and it
seems it may have been a somewhat common practice at different times
throughout the ages to increase the courage of soldiers.
Or are you calling me a liar as well?
Sibirskmoneta
>What I said was he introduced opium to India and Persia. The Google
>search I provided earlier returned over 65,000 hits verifying that.
>The documentary also said he gave it to his soldiers so they could
>fight through the pain of their injuries. Adding +soldiers to the
>search I provided returned over 32,000 hits. Before going to my
>brother's for dinner earlier I checked a couple of those hits and it
>seems it may have been a somewhat common practice at different times
>throughout the ages to increase the courage of soldiers.
>Or are you calling me a liar as well?
Anyone that takes information from a History Channel programme and says it
is fact needs to have their head checked. I watch HC and HC-I frequently
and find more than a few factual discrepancies. You have to understand they
are compiling a lot of information and trying to condense it down to a 44
minute programme(after commercials for Viagra and Summers Eve) and the
results are that outright errors can and do slip in.
If you got your historical knowledge from other sources and not just HC or
HC-I you would realise this.
Nick Knight
at 08:12 AM, "Sibirskmoneta" <sibirs...@mail.ru> said:
Sorry, nesting quotes again.
>"Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.com> wrote in message
>Did I say he used opium?
>>What I said was he introduced opium to India and Persia. The Google
>>search I provided earlier returned over 65,000 hits verifying that.
>> Adding +soldiers to the search I provided returned over 32,000 hits.
>>Or are you calling me a liar as well?
I did a google search on "Phil Liar" and got 1,180,000 bits. Using Phlogic,
it must be true. Extending Phlogic to the next level, I added "Demayo".
The results were cut to 28,200. Still pretty significant, eh? Yup. looks
like we have a big old google-based positive here!
Ah, but I decided to test further. So, I searched for "Alexander The Great
Potato Chips" and found 467,000 hits. Apparently, using Phlogic, he had a
great deal to do with the chip industry, too. Quoting "Alexader the Great"
so as to find the exact string, the modified results returned 25.200.
I read none of these hits. But I could claim to have, if it would help.
It used to be we'd have to listen to the old "fox" compare IP addresses in
article headers, deducing WAY TOO MUCH from similar numbers. Now we get to
read about google counts and what THESE now prove. Incredible.
I'm going to kill this thread after today. While it started out interesting
to read, it isn't any more. Too bad.
Nick
Sibirskmoneta
"e" <som...@some.domain> wrote in message news:zRQlh.123349
> we laugh through the aircraft shows.
They can be some of the most inaccurate, I love the confusion they have
between the BF-109 and the FW-190.
Sibirskmoneta
"e" <som...@some.domain> wrote in message news:BDTlh.209346
> there is so much stock footage there is no reason for them
> to show b24's when they are talking about b17's.
> or monty markham talking about the bf 163! i howled at that
> one.
I find it hilarious when they show footage of American aircrafts when the
programmes are on Soviet or German aircrafts, yesterday morning I was
watching one on the FW-190, and saw Liberators and B-17's and BF-109's,
IL-2's etc. If they had to show something else I wish it was the TA-152 -
one very awesome bird.
Phil DeMayo
On Dec 31, 8:12 am, "Sibirskmoneta" <sibirskmon...@mail.ru> wrote:
> "Phil DeMayo" <flip1...@aol.com> wrote in messageDid I say he used opium?
You're not paying attention....again.
I pointed out that there are thousands of articles on the web that also
state that Alexander and his armies introduced opium to India and
Persia. Do you think all of these people got their information from the
History Channel?
One document is a United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime bulletin
titled "The history of the poppy and of opium and their expansion in
antiquity in the eastern Mediterranean area". This builletin was issued
in 1967, long before the History Channel documentary was produced.
This document contains a section on the poppy appearing as a symbol on
Roman and Greek era coins.
Bruce Remick
I find it, well, not hilarious, but whenever the TV news runs a piece about
Iran or NK and a potential nuclear threat, it shows the same circa 1960 film
clips of long-obsolete Soviet antiaircraft missiles being fired as well as
1950's tech Soviet SA-2 and SA-3 AA missiles being paraded through the
streets. Weapons that have no relation to what is being discussed and
hardly the things that threaten us or the neighbors of IR or NK. I swear
the TV research people simply don't have a clue about military-related
hardware..........
Bruce
Reid Goldsborough
>I pointed out that there are thousands of articles on the web that also
>state that Alexander and his armies introduced opium to India and
>Persia.
There's a huge difference between the above and your moronic statement
that he was a "major drug dealer." Alexander opened channels of trade
between the East and the West, between India and the Mediterranean,
not only over land but over newly discovered sea routes. Lots of goods
were traded, including opium, reaching peoples that had never
previously had access, and lots of knowledge was exchanged as well.
This led to a great blossoming of worldliness and civilization during
Hellenistic times, with standards of living and quality of life rising
as a result.
You're basing your prissy condemnation of him on your mindless
attribution of mores and knowledge about opium today to conditions
that existed 2,300 years ago. You're also failing to understand that
opium is not just an addictive recreational drug but a painkiller, a
narcotic analgesic, used since ancient times as a part of the practice
of medicine. But above and beyond all this are your motives. I don't
even think you believe that Alexander was a "major drug dealer." I
think you just say nonsense like this to try to disrupt, just dirtball
trolling, as you've done time and time again.
Phil DeMayo
wrote:
> You're basing your prissy condemnation of him on your mindless
> attribution of mores and knowledge about opium today to conditions
> that existed 2,300 years ago.
I see you're getting a head start on setting the tone for the new year
and you've decided to be as big a dick as you've been in the past.
> You're also failing to understand that
> opium is not just an addictive recreational drug but a painkiller, a
> narcotic analgesic, used since ancient times as a part of the practice
> of medicine.
You're forgetting I said that he reportedly gave it to his troops so
they could fight through their pain. There's nothing I'm failing to
understand.
> But above and beyond all this are your motives. I don't
> even think you believe that Alexander was a "major drug dealer." I
> think you just say nonsense like this to try to disrupt, just dirtball
> trolling, as you've done time and time again.
Don't preach to me about motives.
What was the motive behind your "hey Anka" thread? What was your motive
in referring to Anka as Marotta's "helper"?
Who's the real troll?