[Fwd: Real Alexander versus Counterfeit Saint]
Alan & Erin Williams
Reid Goldsborough
<will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>However, it is all but certain
>>>that coins made within his realm during his lifetime accurately portray
>>>him.
>>Michael seems to have made the above up completely. What else is new.
Alan, you have no idea what you're forwarding but you're doing so
anyway. Let's break this down:
Michael said in his 4/1/2001 message: "It is all but certain that
coins made within his [Alexander the Great's] realm during his
lifetime accurately portray him."
In response, I said that he made that up. And I backed up my statement
by quoting a good number of the most respected and influential ancient
coins numismatists in the world, writers who directly contradicted
Michael's statement. Taking into account the views of these
numismatists (and my own and others' observations of the coins
themselves), it is very definitely not "all but certain" that
Alexander's coins minted during his lifetime portrayed him, as Michael
claimed.
I'll append to the end of this message the views of these
numismatists. But first let me say that in response to what I did,
Michael teamed with Anka and wrote an article for the Celator about
this subject. Very interesting, and potentially useful, depending...
It will be interesting to read their article and to continue the
debate.
It can only be HOPED that the debate can be carried out with at least
some measure of civility, and that the flammers will stay away.
Chances are good that some will in fact stay away because those who
are most incendiary know little about the subject matter of this
debate. But I'll bet an Alexander III drachm that at least a couple
will try to stir things up anyway with zero-substance barbs, just as
they have already.
Here was my support for my saying that Michael made up the statement
that it was "all but certain" that the coins of Alexander the Great's
minted in his lifetime portrayed him:
The issue of Alexander III's portrait on his coinage has long been a
subject of debate. The consensus among numismatic scholars is that he
did not place or allow others to place his portrait on his coins,
though with a small number of individual issues, some of the features
of Alexander's face appear in the face of Herakles, which may have
resulted from the individual actions of mint magistrates or die
engravers.
Martin Price, the single greatest Alexander the Great numismatic
scholar of the last half century, says on page 33 of his 1991 British
Museum catalog that the "only certain portraits of Alexander on
lifetime coins are those of the bronze issue of Memphis (3960) and the
figure on the five-shekel (dekadrachm)." [Note: These Memphis bronze
and five-shekel pieces are very, very rare and were not the coins that
we were discussing.] Price continues, "Attempts to show that the head
of Herakles was intended to disguise a portrait of the king are at
best conjectural." [Note: These were the coins that we were discussing
-- his common imperial silver]. Price continues, "There was no fashion
of using portraiture on regal [imperial] coinage in the time of
Alexander."
In his earlier 1974 book Coins of the Macedonians, Price says that the
reason Alexander's portrait did not occur on his coins "may have been
due in part to some religious taboo which made the coins the rightful
property of the gods."
In his 1990 book Ancient Greek Coins, Kenneth Jenkins offers similar
sentiments. "The possibility that [Alexander's] coins sometimes at
least feature Alexander in [the form of Herakles] has been much
discussed. However, it can only be said that there is no certainty
about this, and that a recognizable portrait can only be identified on
coins of another type minted after Alexander's death."
Same with Otto Morkholm in his 1991 book Early Hellenistic Coinage.
"It is unlikely that the well-known head of Herakles on Alexander's
silver was regarded as a portrait of the king during his lifetime."
In Wayne Sayles' 1997 book Ancient Coin Collecting II: Numismatic Art
of the Greek World, he says, "Prior to the death of Alexander it was
not considered fashionable among the Greeks for a living ruler to
place his or her own portrait on coins.... Alexander did not place his
portrait directly on his own coins. The portrayal of Herakles
certainly takes on the features of Alexander at times, but it is
difficult to say how much of that was intention and how much was
simply the byproduct of idealization."
Colin Kraay offers similar sentiments in his 1966 book Greek Coins.
"The head of Hercules has often been seen as a portrait of Alexander
himself, and later antiquity certainly so regarded it; that it was
originally intended is perhaps unlikely, though the god was no doubt
represented in his youthful rather than his more elderly form out of
conscious compliment to the young king."
Yet some numismatic writers, though a distinct minority, do make a
strong Herakles/Alexander portrait connection.
In his 1983 book Collecting Greek Coins, John Anthony says, "Hercules
was usually depicted as a bearded mature man... On Alexander's coins
he is young and beardless and is, in fact, Alexander himself."
Describing Alexander's lifetime tets in his 1959 book An Outline of
Ancient Greek Coins, Zander Klawans says, "The obverse is that of
Alexander as represented by Herakles."
And in her non-numismatic 1964 book Alexander the Great in Greek and
Roman Art, Margarete Bieber says, "[Alexander] probably did not
himself introduce his effigy on his coins, but allowed the head of
Herakles to be made in his likeness... particularly the coins of
Sicyon, Sidon, and Babylon."
Again, all this is to show that it is not "all but certain" that the
coins of Alexander minted in his lifetime portrayed him, as Michael
claimed.
More to come, I'm sure.
--
Draped Busts: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgold/draped_busts
The Saint: http://www.netaxs.com/~reidgold/saint
Deks, Fake and Real: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgold/deks
Three Fourees: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgold/fourees
Ankaaz
"Michael teamed with Anka and wrote an article for the Celator about this
subject. Very interesting, and potentially useful, depending... It will be
interesting to read their article and to continue the debate. It can only be
HOPED that the debate can be carried out with at least some measure of
civility, and that the flammers will stay away."
Dream on, Reid.
I don't intend to debate this topic with you here on RCC or anywhere else.
Instead, I suggest that you stop your incessant glomming and online
antagonizing, and spend the better part of a year (just as Michael and I did)
doing actual research on Alexander's coin portraiture. (A first for you, no
doubt, but give it a try, why don't you?) Quit quoting numismatic experts,
force yourself to come up with one original thought in direct opposition to
ours, and then expound on it. Publish your results.
I love a good debate. But I'm no fool.
Anka Z
Co-president of the once thriving, but now defunct, Tommy John Fan Club.
Reid Goldsborough
>I don't intend to debate this topic with you here on RCC or anywhere else.
Then why in the world are you posting a message about it! This is just
more insincere nonsense from you. I'd answer your points, but you said
you have no intention of debating this. Ha. (I have every intention of
answering them in print, as well as here.)
Ah, OK. I will answer a few of your points here, right now.
> spend the better part of a year (just as Michael and I did)
>doing actual research on Alexander's coin portraiture.
>(A first for you, no
>doubt, but give it a try, why don't you?)
Correction: I have done this, reading what nonnumismatic authors have
said and looking at images of quite a few of the still extant statues
and paintings portraying or thought to portray Alexander.
>Quit quoting numismatic experts
Quit quoting numismatic experts? Quit quoting numismatic experts???
Are you serious? Are you sane? Tell me please what's wrong with
quoting people who've spent their lives studying an issue? This is one
of the things that people do when they do research. Then they either
agree or disagree with what people have previously stated, and they
give their reasons, present their evidence or reasoning. This is how
scholarly books about coins are written!
Yours is just another nonsense post. And it's me who's antagonistic?
Ankaaz
just
more insincere nonsense from you. I'd answer your points, but you said you have
no intention of debating this. Ha. (I have every intention of answering them in
print, as well as here.)"
Perhaps you didn't notice, Reid, but I was away for over a week. While
catching up on my RCC threads, I discovered that you mistakenly assumed that
Michael and I were eager to debate you in this forum on the topic of
Alexander's portraiture. Speaking for myself, I'd rather be ripped apart by
harpies. I thought I'd set you straight by replying to you publicly. My
comments were totally sincere and far from nonsensical. As for your answer in
print... I wait with bated breath.
Reid: "Tell me what's wrong with quoting people who've spent their lives
studying an issue? This is one of the things that people do when they do
research. Then they either agree or disagree with what people have previously
stated, and they give their reasons, present their evidence or reasoning. This
is how scholarly books about coins are written!"
Don't be condescending. I know exactly what researchers do. And one thing
they don't do is cut-and-paste ad nauseam, something that you're extremely
adept at. The salient point in my "nonsense post" was your total lack of
imagination and originality. Why must I always underscore the obvious?
Reid Goldsborough
>Don't be condescending. I know exactly what researchers do. And one thing
>they don't do is cut-and-paste ad nauseam, something that you're extremely
>adept at. The salient point in my "nonsense post" was your total lack of
>imagination and originality. Why must I always underscore the obvious?
More nonsense. You're wrong with virtually everything you're saying,
and I await correcting the mistakes you've inevitably made in your
Celator article as well.
Above, you say I cut and paste. I did no such thing. None of the
sources I used were online.
The main point here is that I posted the statements of these
numismatists in response to a statement of Michael's. You remember
this? It instigated the little debate that motivated the two of you to
write your big article. Michael said, "It is all but certain that
coins made within his [Alexander the Great's] realm during his
lifetime accurately portray him."
Michael said this without justification or support. It is not "all but
certain" -- there's in fact a great deal of uncertainty about this.
What's more, those who have spent their lives studying this, unlike
the two of you, feel exactly the opposite as you. The vast majority of
numismatists who've written about this disagree with you. And the
evidence, from the coins themselves!, is in opposition to your
position. With only a relative small number of mints are some of the
features of Alexander's face detectible, though even here there's
great uncertainty as to whether this was deliberate. The vast majority
of Alexander's coins portray a Herakles that looks nothing like
Alexander.
Yes, indeedy. It will be fun to read your article.
It's fine and well to take an bubble-bursting, oppositional,
contrarian position. It can be thought-provoking, in fact -- inspiring
others to look again and possibly reevaluate their thinking. But you'd
better be able to back up your new paradigm, or else you wind up
looking quite foolish...
Ankaaz
"Above, you say I cut and paste. I did no such thing. None of the sources I
used were online."
Maybe not online... But you must have these little passages saved on a disk
somewhere, ready to cut-and-paste. Or perhaps you're able to quote them
verbatim, you've relied on them so often.
Reid: "Yes, indeedy. It will be fun to read your article."
Let us know if you have any problems with the big words.
This repatee of ours is looking more and more like a debate, so you won't be
hearing from me again. Isn't that gracious of me, giving you the last word?
Ta-ta.
Reid Goldsborough
>Isn't that gracious of me, giving you the last word?
You know as well as I do that neither one of us is quitting this. You
may disappear temporarily, slipping away inside your virtual bunker.
But you'll be back. You can't help yourself.
Ian
Can't you guys just either ignore each other or take this stuff off the NG?
give it a break...please (preferably at the neck)
Ian
Reid Goldsborough
>Can't you guys just either ignore each other or take this stuff off the NG?
This is just plain silly. These kinds of substantive debates are just
what this and all newsgroups excel at, providing of course that the
debatees show a modicum of civility, which at least in this particular
debate seems to be the case, so far anyway (no doubt because the
hardcore flamers know nothing about the subject).
If you have no interest in this debate, just ignore it! Nobody is
forcing you to read about Alexander the Great, ancient coins, or
anything else. See the word "Alexander" in the subject line of this
thread? That's a signal to you not to read any of the messages in the
thread.
Stujoe
spoke thusly...
>
>
> Can't you guys just either ignore each other or take this stuff off the NG?
Your kill-file and your kill-thread tools can be very useful in
reducing noise.
--
Stu Miller
ICQ:159336182 AIM:stujoe Yahoo:stujoe
The Stujoe Collection: http://www.TheStujoeCollection.com
RCC FAQ: http://www.telesphere.com/ts/coins/faq2.html
Ian
present. Just more `fog kicking'.
Reid, I AM interested in the whole subject of Alexander the Great
(although being turned off more than turned on with the `debates' on
this NG.....) All I see is constant bickering between you, Anka and Mr
Marotta about that (and indeed ANY) subject matter. You are even arguing
over the ass-u-med contents of an article before it is even in print.
That's not exactly my idea of a learned or informed approach. Actually,
it's more like a knife sharpening exercise. Why can't you just wait
until you read the article and *then* comment on it /give us the
benefits of your wisdom from a truly informed perspective? Surely that
would be a relatively sane approach? No? Hell, even I can see that you
are going to get nada out of either A or Mr M beforehand.
I'm not against debate but i'm sorry to say but I am concluding that
what you consider to be `debates', and what I consider to be a slanging
matches seem to be one and the same thing. Frankly, it is as
`stimulating' as watching two taps drip in synch (that's `fawcets' to
you guys). Debate is one thing. Stimulating discord for the hell of it
is quite another. You know you CAN do better, and I for one would
appreciate it if you did just that.
thank you in advance.
Ian
Ian
concluding that it might not be possible.
You are of course right.
Ian
Jim
> And one thing they don't do is cut-and-paste ad nauseam, something that
you're extremely adept at. The salient point in my "nonsense post" was your
total lack of imagination and originality.<
At some point you have to stop and understand there are levels of discussion he
will "never get", ever. Once you've hit that wall, you have to turn and walk
away. There is no regrouping and making another charge. Alan calls it eating
soup with a knife, I call it arguing with a drunk why he's not fit to drive
home. It's a no win situation that can't be reasoned and you must accept it as
such. Hence the repetitive tedium so often displayed and rechanted.
You try to reason and he pronounces it "being non-constructive". You walk him
through it step by step and he responds as if you've just spent 10 minutes
talking to yourself.
For those of us not enamored with ancients or Romans or Greeks, but now sucked
in by the suspense of the Celator article, at what point can you and/or MM
share the ending? Does anyone know what Alexander did look like? Was it Flavius
Maximus in the Coliseum with a candlestick? Or other? Non-Inquirer minds want
to know as well.
Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--
Phil DeMayo
>>>....The debate will degenerate, losing any connection to coins. And they'll
be happy. <<<
You've already insured that it will.
++++++++++
Phil DeMayo
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits
Ian
detracts from my basic interjection, which was :-
"Why can't you just wait until you read the article and *then* comment
on it /give us the benefits of your wisdom from a truly informed
perspective?"....I also re-iterate "Surely that would be a relatively
sane approach? No?"
If there is nothing more to be added by either side of this illusionary
`debate' other than `wait and see' or `we'll see', then we have just
another fog kicking exercise. What `debate' are you referring to? I
really can't see one in this thread.
Ian
Reid Goldsborough wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 02:44:16 GMT, Reid Goldsborough
> <reid...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Meanwhile, as I predicted, the flaming twits have already chimed in,
>>despite not knowing anything about the subject matter. Jim is
>>attracted to flames like maggot to dung. The others will be next. Just
>>wait. The debate will degenerate, losing any connection to coins. And
>>they'll be happy.
>
>
> This should have read ... like flies to dung. Or like maggots to dead
> flesh. Points is, the hardcore flamers are pulled to flames. Doesn't
> matter what the discussion is about. If there's disagreement, they
> join in, trying to fan the flames anyway they can. Jim was first.
> Phil's here now. So predictable.
>
> This is an interesting issue, with much substance to it. Michael and
> Anka have taken a very provocative position on it.
Donald F. Boudreau
<reid...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Then Jim and Phil jumped in with zero-substance remarks to try to fan
>the flames. If history repeats, Alan with jump in again with a lying
>accusation or two or three. And Mark in turn will jump in and say that
>I'm lying, that I've made up something, perhaps that I've made up the
>statements of these numismatists that I quoted.
And I'm jumping with "Why don't you take your _broken record_ and go
some other place".
Don
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept that I cannot change, the
courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies
of those I had to kill because they pissed me off. - Random
Phil DeMayo
>>>...Then Jim and Phil jumped in with zero-substance remarks to try to fan the
flames.....<<<
What Phil jumped in with was a short-but-sweet, on-the-nose response to your
zero substance whining.
Reid Goldsborough
<dfbou...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>And I'm jumping with "Why don't you take your _broken record_ and go
>some other place".
And I'm jumping back and saying, if you have no interest in this
debate, why don't you simply keep out of it? What you and Alan and Jim
and Phil are saying here does nothing to clarify any of the issues
involved. You present no evidence pro or con. You add no substance to
the question of whether or not it was Alexander himself on his
coinage. What's the point in telling me to go someplace else? Not
interested in the subject matter? See the word "Alexander" in the
subject line? You go some other place. Ignore the messages here. It's
easy, really, once you get the knack of it.
Phil DeMayo
>>>....What you and Alan and Jim and Phil are saying here does nothing to
clarify any of the issues involved....<<<
a. Your pre-emptive flaming has nothing to do with the "issue"
b. Alan has said nothing here and nothing since he announced a week ago that he
would be away for the holidays.
c. There is no real issue until you have read the article and are sure it's
subject deals with portraits of Alexander. All I know from many discussions
with one of the authors (before, during and after the article was submitted and
subsequently revised) is that it will be about the coins of
Alexander....nothing more.
d. Once you have read the article what kind of objectivity can we expect from
you considering you referred to the authors (right here in RCC) as "half-wits"
(among other things)???
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> Reid Goldsborough wrote:
>
> >>>....What you and Alan and Jim and Phil are saying here does nothing to
> clarify any of the issues involved....<<<
>
> a. Your pre-emptive flaming has nothing to do with the "issue"
Pre-emptive flaming is a fairly accurate turn of phrase for that tactic.
My only comments are these:
Reid has not yet read the article.
Reid orginally said that Michael and Ann's premise had no support in the
numismatic community and all authority was on his side.
Reid lately cited three sources that at least yield the possibility of
Michael and Ann's assertion, setting the stage for *another* 'Reverse
Reiding'. ;-)
>
> b. Alan has said nothing here and nothing since he announced a week ago that he
> would be away for the holidays.
It would appear that I occupy a large portion of the mind of Reid
Goldsborough.
Alan
'its cramped in here'
Ian
Reid Goldsborough wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 08:59:04 GMT, Ian <imb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>"Why can't you just wait until you read the article and *then* comment
>>on it /give us the benefits of your wisdom from a truly informed
>>perspective?"....I also re-iterate "Surely that would be a relatively
>>sane approach? No?"
>
>
> And I'll reiterate, since Michael began this debate and stated his
> position, prepublication, why do you object to my presenting the
> evidence for the prevailing wisdom, which also happens to be my
> position?
Because it hasn't changed one iota since the last time you said the
exact same thing. The only thing that has changed of late is Mr M's
announcement that an article is to be published in the Celator.
Now.....I will try one last time Reid. "Why can't you just wait until
you read the article and *then* comment on it /give us the benefits of
your wisdom from a truly informed perspective?"
>
> It's interesting, in a group dynamics kind of way, how this started.
> Michael, again, started it, and it was he who came up with the subject
> line, "Real Alexander versus Counterfeit Saint," which of course makes
> no sense. The debate died down, with us awaiting publication.
>
> Then Alan forwarded the message to another thread to start things up
> again, despite his not knowing anything about the issue. Then I
> decided to present the evidence I had dug up earlier for my position,
> which again is the position of most numismatists and virtually all
> Alexander specialists. Then Anka objected to my stating the positions
> of numismatists, criticizing me for not thinking for myself when in
> fact what I did is the way scholarly books and articles about
> numismatics are written -- you start with the foundation that others
> have lain then either build upon it or propose knocking down one or
> two levels because they're faulty.
>
We already know the position on this...what we don't know is whether or
not whatever Mr M and Ms A have produced will change everything....or
anything. Any positing before seeing what anyone actually has to say is
as meaningless and futile as farting into the wind (IMHO).
> Then Jim and Phil jumped in with zero-substance remarks to try to fan
> the flames. If history repeats, Alan with jump in again with a lying
> accusation or two or three. And Mark in turn will jump in and say that
> I'm lying, that I've made up something, perhaps that I've made up the
> statements of these numismatists that I quoted.
>
It's `Alexander the Great' that is at issue here. If you want to react
to `prodding' (stimulation) from any of the individuals you have
mentioned, that is really up to you. Unwise i would have thought, and I
think you do yourself an extreme injustice by continuing in the same vein.
> It's all such petty nonsense. I'll agree with you that much words are
> wasted, including my own, in these insufferable mind-numbing flamewars
> started by those with more time than sense.
>
As mentioned on a different thread, I have no fight with any of these
people, and have no intention to `take sides' in any `who can pee the
furthest' competition.....whether the battlefield be fakes, Alexander
the Great....or any other arena of debate. Regardless of who started
what, the continuance of the insufferably mind-numbing flames has been
evidenced by your all too willing active participation. In other words,
it takes two to tango. The continuation belittles all concerned in my
opinion.
> But to answer your last question -- "What debate am I referring to?"
> -- the debate is about whether the coins issued during Alexander the
> Great's lifetime, his imperial, regal coinage, portray him on the
> obverse. I thought that this was clear.
I thought that the `debate' had stopped and could not be realistically
progressed until evidence had been produced in support of arguements. I
was led to believe that this was to be forthcoming in the form of a
Celator article.......that being the case, what else is there to
realistically `debate' until `one' has knowledge of the arguements /
references supporting the contra position.
Perhaps the topic of the
> debate got lost,
...it sure has.
which wouldn't be too surprising given the actions of
> those wanting this discussion to explode again into another one of
> these zero-content flamefests.
>
It appears to me that one of your adversaries has already stated that
she will not be `debating' anything with you either in this or any other
forum. No more tangoing there.
All I ask is that you consider the consequences of your `style' and
methodology in `stimulating' discussion as you put it. I can assure you
that it is having a very negative effect on me at least, and probably
others in the NG.
Ian
Phil DeMayo
>> a. Your pre-emptive flaming has nothing to do with the "issue"
>
>Pre-emptive flaming is a fairly accurate turn of phrase for that tactic.
Yes, as might be "self-fulfilling prophecy" ;-)
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>b. Alan has said nothing here and nothing since he announced a week ago that he
>would be away for the holidays.
Wrong. Alan was the one who forwarded the message to rekindle the
debate. As I said. You're just arguing mindlessly.
>c. There is no real issue until you have read the article and are sure it's
>subject deals with portraits of Alexander.
Wrong. Michael said that this was what his article was about and what
his position was. As I said. You're just arguing mindlessly.
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> Phil DeMayo wrote:
> >
> > Reid Goldsborough wrote:
> >
> > >>>....What you and Alan and Jim and Phil are saying here does nothing to
> > clarify any of the issues involved....<<<
> >
> > a. Your pre-emptive flaming has nothing to do with the "issue"
>
> Pre-emptive flaming is a fairly accurate turn of phrase for that tactic.
> My only comments are these:
> Reid has not yet read the article.
> Reid orginally said that Michael and Ann's premise had no support in the
> numismatic community and all authority was on his side.
> Reid lately cited three sources that at least yield the possibility of
> Michael and Ann's assertion, setting the stage for *another* 'Reverse
> Reiding'. ;-)
>
>From: Reid Goldsborough (reid...@netaxs.com)
>Subject: Re: Alexander's Images (was Re: Native Americans and ...)
>Date: 2001-04-01 05:12:58 PST
>>However, it is all but certain
>>that coins made within his realm during his lifetime accurately portray
>>him.
>Michael seems to have made the above up completely. What else is new.
>No where else have I read this, and I've read now most the latest and
>most widely accepted sources on Alexander's coinage. Michael's
>assertion in fact is diametrically opposite of what everyone else
>believes. Again, what else is new.
>I'd like to see some support too.
Gregory Johnston
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> Alan & Erin Williams wrote:
> > Reid originally said that Michael and Ann's premise had no support in the
> > numismatic community and all authority was on his side.
> > Reid lately cited three sources that at least yield the possibility of
> > Michael and Ann's assertion, setting the stage for *another* 'Reverse
> > Reiding'. ;-)
> >
> Preface---------------------------------------------------
> >From: Reid Goldsborough (reid...@netaxs.com)
> >Subject: Re: Alexander's Images (was Re: Native Americans and ...)
> >Date: 2001-04-01 05:12:58 PST
>
> >>However, it is all but certain
> >>that coins made within his realm during his lifetime accurately portray
> >>him.
> >Michael seems to have made the above up completely. What else is new.
> >No where else have I read this, and I've read now most the latest and
> >most widely accepted sources on Alexander's coinage. Michael's
> >assertion in fact is diametrically opposite of what everyone else
> >believes. Again, what else is new.
>
I'm slightly curious as to how Reid reconciles his two publically stated positions.
The post quoted above from 4/1/2001 is very clear that he believes
Michael and Ann to be 'all alone' in their opinion, which he describes
in absolute terms as "diametrically opposite of what everyone else
believes".
Then, within the past month, he cites other sources that yield the
possibility of Alexandrian life portraiture and says that it's a
minority opinion, and not new.
I don;t see how he could ever 'lose a debate' with such a selective
memory. No matter what Ann and Michaels case is, Reid will be able to
say "that's exactly what I already said." I'm irritated by that.
Alan
'what's a subscription cost?'
Reid Goldsborough
Johnston) wrote:
>This is of substance........That boy ain't right.
You're right, of course. This *is* a debate of substance, for those
interested in the subject matter. Methinks that people just like to
argue. About anything and everything, and particularly online. And
that they argue even when they have no point, have no basis or logic
or evidence or support, have nothing. Evidence here suggests that some
are totally insincere in putting forth their arguments, that they just
want to suck you in. My weakness is in sometimes, not always, getting
sucked in.
Reid Goldsborough
>I don't intend to debate this topic with you here on RCC or anywhere else.
>Instead, I suggest that you stop your incessant glomming and online
>antagonizing, and spend the better part of a year (just as Michael and I did)
>doing actual research on Alexander's coin portraiture. (A first for you, no
>doubt, but give it a try, why don't you?) Quit quoting numismatic experts,
>force yourself to come up with one original thought in direct opposition to
>ours, and then expound on it. Publish your results.
>
>I love a good debate. But I'm no fool.
Interesting reading this "argument" from Anka again. It's not
surprising that she doesn't want to debate her position here with me
or anyone else. Her position is absolutely unsupportable, despite the
year that she says she spent researching the topic. I'd suggest, that
in the future, it always helps to look at coins when doing numismatic
research. General history books can help, but it's really about coins,
you know.
You may interpret the above as antagonizing. It's not intended as
such, just as a nudge to motivate you to defend how you can state with
such assurance that the Herakles on Alexander's lifetime silver
coinage is "obviously" Alexander when the same Herakles appears on
coins before Alexander's birth and when so many numismatic experts
(some of whom spent far more than a year studying all this) disagree
with you.
And you say you love a good debate...
Phil DeMayo
>>> Interesting reading this "argument" from Anka again. It's not surprising
that she doesn't want to debate her position here with me or anyone else. Her
position is absolutely unsupportable.....SNIP.....You may interpret the above
as antagonizing....SNIP.....<<<
Of course it's antagonizing. What the hell is your problem?
You weren't satisfied with tearing their article apart here so you tried to
stir things up in the Moneta-L group. Now that you have essentially been
ignored there you are once again trying here.
If you have such a problem with the article written by Ann and Michael why
don't you write a nice, long letter to the Celator?
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>What the hell is your problem?
The question should be, What's your problem, Phil? This debate doesn't
involve you, and you know nothing whatsoever about the subject matter.
And watch your language, please. You're supposed to be an Honorable
Person, remember?
Phil DeMayo
>>> The question should be, What's your problem, Phil? This debate doesn't
involve you, and you know nothing whatsoever about the subject matter.....<<<
There is no debate you mutt. You were told ahead of time there would be no
debate. If you want to debate you will apparently have to invent some more new
friends.
Phil DeMayo
"There is no debate you mutt."
By feigning indignation:
>>>....You're continuing to reinforce the image of yourself as an Honorable
Person.....<<<
Spare me Reid. In another thread, among other things, you just called me
stupid. Add that to the hundreds of other insulting terms you have hurled my
way in the last year or so and my occasional use of a less than flattering (but
accurate) term for you is a drop in the bucket.
>You're doing just what you always do, arguing dully, mindlessly.
Mindless? I'm not the one trying to conduct a one person debate.
Deven Atkinson
>On 15 Jul 2002 01:44:26 GMT, flip...@aol.compulsion (Phil DeMayo)
>wrote:
>
>>What the hell is your problem?
>
>The question should be, What's your problem, Phil? This debate doesn't
>involve you, and you know nothing whatsoever about the subject matter.
>And watch your language, please. You're supposed to be an Honorable
>Person, remember?
>
Deven Atkinson de...@bright.net
--
Penny Lane Numismatic - Categorized Web Links
http://www.bright.net/~deven/pennylane.htm
ANA Member #1197707
Phil DeMayo
>>> The debate, AS IS CLEAR, was started earlier and involves multiple
people.....<<<
Are their names Goldsborough, Fordler, Smith, Windsor and Berman? I don't see
anyone else here....same response you got when you tried to stir this up in
Moneta-L.