Breen tops the list
Mr. Jaggers
Society, and titled "The One Hundred Greatest Items of U.S. Numismatic
Literature," has been announced in E-Sylum, the email counterpart to the
association's quarterly print magazine The Asylum. The top vote-getter was
Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Coins.
Here is part of the commentary:
" Revered and reviled, Breen's magnum opus remains the first reference of
choice for American numismatists. Although justifiably maligned for
technical faults and lack of supporting documentation, Breen's breadth is
staggering. Nowhere else is so much information packed into a single volume.
Pre-federal, federal, territorial, commemorative, it is all here. Allowed
only one book in an American numismatic library, this would be the expected
choice. With copies on the secondary market selling for hundreds of dollars
and no competitors in sight, this reference will endure as the standard
comprehensive guide for the foreseeable future." [from E-Sylum, vol. 12,
no. 25, June 21, 2009]
James
Bob F.
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:h1ns9...@enews5.newsguy.com...
So there, Goldie, put that in your pipe and smoke it!
At any rate, I disagree with the statement "Breen's magnum opus remains
the first reference of choice for American numismatists".
I believe that honor should go to the Red Book.
Mr. Jaggers
In the most recent issue of Asylum, NBS announced only the bottom half of
the list of one hundred, with the promise to list the top half in the next
issue. Only the top two were reported in the issue of E-Sylum referenced
above, the number two spot going to Crosby. I fully expect that the Redbook
will occupy a berth within the top ten, and I will report back once I find
out for sure where it ranked.
James
PC
"Bob F." <ad...@hardyboys.invalid> wrote in message
news:h1nsod$j22$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> So there, Goldie, put that in your pipe and smoke it!
So predictable...
Jump for another dime, you monkey.
Bob F.
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
I'm an American numismatist and, for US coins, my go to book is the Red
Book, not Breen (which, due to its high price, I do not own).
I suspect that is the case for thousands of other American coin
collectors as well.
For Canadian coins, my go to book is "Coins Of Canada" by Haxby,
followed by the Charlton Catalogue.
Mr. Jaggers
No argument about your being an American numismatist, Bob. Likewise am I.
I was not included in the survey, and suspect that you were not, either.
But it is not arguable that, in the eyes of those American numismatists who
WERE surveyed, Breen was voted #1.
I also use the Redbook extensively, and there's a copy of it in less than my
right arm's reach from this keyboard. I keep a copy of Haxby just as close
by, in a bookcase to my left.
My copy of Breen was bought when the cover price was $75, and I got it at a
40% discount from that number, from a friend who was a book dealer. Because
of its price, I can understand why the Redbook is in the hands of far more
U.S. collectors than is Breen. The Redbook is far more portable, as well,
and contains remarkable depth and breadth for its size and price. I use
Breen as much for his taxonomy of colonial coins as anything else. And yes,
as far as that taxonomy is concerned, he made the whole damned thing up -
fabricated it, some would say. But until the recent attempt by QDB to
present colonial collectors with an alternate comprehensive taxonomy, Breen
was all there was. It remains to be seen whether Bowers' "Whitman"
numbering system will catch on. Something tells me it will not, just as
Breen's re-cataloguing of early large cents in his posthumously-issued work
still occupies a distant second place from Sheldon's.
James
Jud
Mr. Jaggers wrote:
> But until the recent attempt by QDB to
> present colonial collectors with an alternate comprehensive taxonomy, Breen
> was all there was. It remains to be seen whether Bowers' "Whitman"
> numbering system will catch on. Something tells me it will not, just as
> Breen's re-cataloguing of early large cents in his posthumously-issued work
> still occupies a distant second place from Sheldon's.
>
> James
A few years ago QDB wanted to renumber the Fuld attribution numbers
for Civil War Tokens. I am SOOOO glad that the idea fell flat.
Mr. Jaggers
Amen to that! There has to be a compelling reason to re-number any series,
and with Fuld, there just isn't one.
James the Steadfast
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think that while he is not an exceptionally original researcher (he
is more of a compiler or recycler), the coin hobby will someday look
back at QDB with gratitude for all the books he has authored or
shepherded (sic?) into existence. This is especially true in the last
several years. I can't be certain that "Whitman" is making money, but
I am amazed at all the new and reprinted titles in the last five
years. The Redbook is also a much greater reference resource today
than it was ten years ago and a lot of this improvement is based upon
QDB's works.
oly
Mr. Jaggers
As chance would have it, the April-June 2009 number of the Asylum was in my
mailbox today. It does indeed report the top part of the survey results.
The top five:
1. Breen's Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins
2. Crosby's Early Coins of America
3. The Numismatist (the ANA monthly organ)
4. Yeoman's Guidebook of U.S. Coins (the Redbook)
5. Sheldon's Penny Whimsey (co-authored by Dorothy Paschal and Walter
Breen)
Several other Breen titles are found in the list of 100 greatest:
20. Breen's Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Proof Coins
25. Breen's Encyclopedia of U.S. Half Cents
51. Breen's Encyclopedia of U.S. Cents (published posthumously under the
tutelage of mostly Mark Borckhart)
63. Breen's California and Fractional Gold (Ron Gillio, co-author)
James the Messenger
oly
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Numismatist??? Snorfell!!! Snork!!! Over the years there have
been some individual OUTSTANDING articles, but as a whole it is a very
very mixed bag. Over the last 30 years, I would say those top-notch
articles appear at an average rate of about one per year. The Celator
is probably a much better example of a strong monthly magazine.
oly
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps my bad; The Celator isn't U.S. Numismatics, although it is an
American publication. oly
Mr. Jaggers
Hey, I'm just telling ya what the Man said.
James the Noman
Mr. Jaggers
That's OK, we'll forgive you *this* time.
James the Just
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Placing The Numismatist at #3 is probably an example of loyalty to the
frat (or the ilk) over discerning, objective judgement.
oly
Mr. Jaggers
To the many of us are familiar with your anti-ANA posts of times past, it is
not surprising that you would react this way. That said, I'm not so sure
that I can disagree with your snorfelling and snorking over placement of the
Numismatist at such a high level. I think the mag has improved over what it
was in the more recent past, but perhaps not over what it was farther back.
There are a ton of reprints of scholarly Numismatist articles, especially
from the 1960s, and I doubt that all that many from these latter years would
warrant such effort. Its presence on the ballot may have served to lead the
witnesses, pour ainsi dire.
James the Archivist
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
First, I would respond that I was recently very anti-Cipoletti and
never a big fan of Robert Leuver either (and IF I am a fan, I am
naturally a big one). Also, I think that Barb Gregory is no
numismatist and I believe that the editor of The Numismatist should be
a prominent one. Indeed, while the campus of Colorado College is
pleasant enough, a prominent national voluntary membership assocation
is probably greatly hindered by being based outside a major city
(don't tell me about the U.S. Olympic Committee - they suck up vast
tax dollars and don't need "members").
Now, Messrs Cipoletti and Leuver were a major hindrance to building
and keeping a capable staff of numismatists and librarians... as for
the library, the ANA used to have a nice working library until they
started selling it piecemeal, for peanuts, during the ANA Summer
Seminar. Now, I got some nice books there over the years, but that
one book dealer on ebay was always beating the collectors to the best
stuff.
I also hate how the staff has messed up the membership numbers in an
attempt to wean the members from being aware of their seniority and
how long the sad but patient members have supported the ANA, hope
against hope.
Well, I was going to say that I wasn't virulently anti-ANA, just
against its recent poor choices of executive directors and several
other glaring deficiencies. As you can see, my discontent is greater
that just that. I hope that recent changes will be beneficial and I
do greatly support Messrs Krause & Mischler and hope that Mr. Shepherd
will consider the needs of all parties, not just the dealers.
oly
P.S. I have read practically every issue of The Numismatist since
1940 (back in the day, the University of Illinois Library in C-U used
to have them all in bound annual editions). A Golden era of articles
in The Numismatist??? I think that your fond memories of your youth
are clouding your judgement and memory here, mon vieux.
Mr. Jaggers
The issues of The Numismatist that were sent out during my "youth" did not
impress me (I subscribed, but because of my age was not allowed to be a
member). But I just now went to my numismatic library and pulled out a
whole bunch of the reprints to which I referred: two of articles on Sutler
tokens, and a whole series by Eklund on copper coins of various countries.
I know I have others mixed in here and there. These were all published
after I ceased being a youth.
I don't see how the location of ANA headquarters could have any effect on
the quality of the magazine, nor does the quality of the library or
librarians at HQ have anything to do with magazine content.
I don't recall that ANA staff has ever written any of the scholarly articles
that have appeared in the magazine. That's always theoretically been the
purview of the masses, but in reality, the magazine content depends on
submissions by a limited fraction of the membership. Ask any numismatic
editor, and he'll tell you exactly that.
James the Author
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Indeed, the location of the ANA and the contents of the libarary don't
directly relate to THE NUMISMATIST, but you seemed to refer to my
overall discontent with the ANA as being related to my surprise at how
high its journal came out in the poll. The sources of my discontent
are both numerous and IMHO, well-founded.
The present editor takes, on a wholesale basis, various press releases
from the RCM and tourist blurbs from each State's department of
tourism, changes them very minimally, and dresses them up with
numismatic-related photos. That is what passes as a "feature article"
in the most recent decade's worth of The Numismatist. I will stick
with my suggestion that there is no more than one fabulous original
numismatic article in The Numismatist in any given year.
The thing that has kept me "in" as an ANA member is my experiences at
the seven or eight ANA summer seminars which I attended between 1991
and 2002. When family demands on my finances let up a bit, I hope to
attend some more of them.
oly
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
And as for monographs, those published by Wayte Raymond, and also
Whitman's "Black" monograp
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Busted thought.... pls disregard...
Mr. Jaggers
[snip]
> The present editor takes, on a wholesale basis, various press releases
> from the RCM and tourist blurbs from each State's department of
> tourism, changes them very minimally, and dresses them up with
> numismatic-related photos. That is what passes as a "feature article"
> in the most recent decade's worth of The Numismatist. I will stick
> with my suggestion that there is no more than one fabulous original
> numismatic article in The Numismatist in any given year.
That might be said of most any publication these days. Magazine sales now
depend on how loudly the cover can be made to scream out at the potential
buyer, whether the content delivers the promised payload or not (normally it
does not). When I stand before a large newsstand I often have the feeling
I'm at either a carnival midway or at le march� aux primeurs, rue
Mouffetard.
James
Mr. Jaggers
[snip]
>> And as for monographs, those published by Wayte Raymond, and also
>> Whitman's "Black" monograp- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Busted thought.... pls disregard...
Some years ago I collected together quite a pile of those Wayte Raymond
monographs, as well as the Whitman "black books." Now, those were a big
deal in their day, and still quite useful, methinks.
James the Antiquarian
Bob F.
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
I must ask you to refrain from making any posts that do not relate to
Frank Provasek's repeated suspensions from eBay.
I believe the ANA should look into Frank Provasek's actions with a view
to drumming him out of the Association, if he is, indeed, a member.
Mr. Jaggers
I cannot do anything about the issue you have raised. I suggest you present
your views directly to ANA.
James
oly
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>
> news:h1oqo...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > oly wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> >> The present editor takes, on a wholesale basis, various press
> >> releases
> >> from the RCM and tourist blurbs from each State's department of
> >> tourism, changes them very minimally, and dresses them up with
> >> numismatic-related photos. That is what passes as a "feature
> >> article"
> >> in the most recent decade's worth of The Numismatist. I will stick
> >> with my suggestion that there is no more than one fabulous original
> >> numismatic article in The Numismatist in any given year.
>
> > That might be said of most any publication these days. Magazine sales
> > now depend on how loudly the cover can be made to scream out at the
> > potential buyer, whether the content delivers the promised payload or
> > not (normally it does not). When I stand before a large newsstand I
> > aux primeurs, rue Mouffetard.
>
> > James
>
> I must ask you to refrain from making any posts that do not relate to
> Frank Provasek's repeated suspensions from eBay.
> I believe the ANA should look into Frank Provasek's actions with a view
>
> - Show quoted text -
While I generally support drumming Frankie out of the ANA (if he is
indeed a member) you will have to indulge some of us as we go OT from
time to time.
To James: I have a very large quantity of Wayte Raymond monographs,
which somehow, damn near unexplicably, came from Mrs. Florence Shook
to myself. I was always polite to her, but never one of her
acolytes. But while the number of monographs is large, I think the
group only covers four or five topics.
oly
coinsusa
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>
> news:h1oqo...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > oly wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> >> The present editor takes, on a wholesale basis, various press
> >> releases
> >> from the RCM and tourist blurbs from each State's department of
> >> tourism, changes them very minimally, and dresses them up with
> >> numismatic-related photos. That is what passes as a "feature
> >> article"
> >> in the most recent decade's worth of The Numismatist. I will stick
> >> with my suggestion that there is no more than one fabulous original
> >> numismatic article in The Numismatist in any given year.
>
> > That might be said of most any publication these days. Magazine sales
> > now depend on how loudly the cover can be made to scream out at the
> > potential buyer, whether the content delivers the promised payload or
> > not (normally it does not). When I stand before a large newsstand I
> > aux primeurs, rue Mouffetard.
>
> > James
>
> I must ask you to refrain from making any posts that do not relate to
> Frank Provasek's repeated suspensions from eBay.
> I believe the ANA should look into Frank Provasek's actions with a view
>
> - Show quoted text -
ummm.. you don't moderate the group so I don't see where you are in
any position to ask for anything like that.
how about posting something of substance with supporting facts that
will be usefull to someone that doesn't care anything about a frank
provasek
coinsusa
> Bob F. wrote:
> > "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> >news:h1oqo...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >> oly wrote:
> >> [snip]
>
> >>> The present editor takes, on a wholesale basis, various press
> >>> releases
> >>> from the RCM and tourist blurbs from each State's department of
> >>> tourism, changes them very minimally, and dresses them up with
> >>> numismatic-related photos. That is what passes as a "feature
> >>> article"
> >>> in the most recent decade's worth of The Numismatist. I will stick
> >>> with my suggestion that there is no more than one fabulous original
> >>> numismatic article in The Numismatist in any given year.
>
> >> That might be said of most any publication these days. Magazine
> >> sales now depend on how loudly the cover can be made to scream out
> >> at the potential buyer, whether the content delivers the promised
> >> payload or not (normally it does not). When I stand before a large
> >> newsstand I often have the feeling I'm at either a carnival midway
>
> >> James
>
> > I must ask you to refrain from making any posts that do not relate to
> > Frank Provasek's repeated suspensions from eBay.
> > I believe the ANA should look into Frank Provasek's actions with a
> > view to drumming him out of the Association, if he is, indeed, a
> > member.
>
> I cannot do anything about the issue you have raised. I suggest you present
> your views directly to ANA.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think the ANA will entertain anything like that from anonymous
sources.
and I don't think he will any way since he will most likely have to
face a compentency hearing.
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the recent past, the ANA hasn't acted on complaints against dealers
from any sources, by either named or anonymous acusers. Makes me
think of Dwight Manley's very highly valid complaint against a former
ANA insider.
oly
Mr. Jaggers
> On Jun 22, 5:05 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>> Bob F. wrote:
>>> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>>> news:h1oqo...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>>> oly wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> The present editor takes, on a wholesale basis, various press
>>>>> releases
>>>>> from the RCM and tourist blurbs from each State's department of
>>>>> tourism, changes them very minimally, and dresses them up with
>>>>> numismatic-related photos. That is what passes as a "feature
>>>>> article"
>>>>> in the most recent decade's worth of The Numismatist. I will stick
>>>>> with my suggestion that there is no more than one fabulous
>>>>> original numismatic article in The Numismatist in any given year.
>>
>>>> That might be said of most any publication these days. Magazine
>>>> sales now depend on how loudly the cover can be made to scream out
>>>> at the potential buyer, whether the content delivers the promised
>>>> payload or not (normally it does not). When I stand before a large
>>>> newsstand I often have the feeling I'm at either a carnival midway
>>
>>>> James
>>
>>> I must ask you to refrain from making any posts that do not relate
>>> to Frank Provasek's repeated suspensions from eBay.
>>> I believe the ANA should look into Frank Provasek's actions with a
>>> view to drumming him out of the Association, if he is, indeed, a
>>> member.
>>
>> I cannot do anything about the issue you have raised. I suggest you
>> present your views directly to ANA.
>>
>> James- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't think the ANA will entertain anything like that from anonymous
> sources.
> and I don't think he will any way since he will most likely have to
> face a compentency hearing.
The assumption behind my suggestion was that he would present his views
directly to ANA, preferably on letterhead. As to anyone's competency, I'll
respectfully decline comment.
James
oly
> coinsusa wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 5:05 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
> >> Bob F. wrote:
> >>> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> >>>news:h1oqo...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >>>> oly wrote:
> >>>> [snip]
>
> >>>>> The present editor takes, on a wholesale basis, various press
> >>>>> releases
> >>>>> from the RCM and tourist blurbs from each State's department of
> >>>>> tourism, changes them very minimally, and dresses them up with
> >>>>> numismatic-related photos. That is what passes as a "feature
> >>>>> article"
> >>>>> in the most recent decade's worth of The Numismatist. I will stick
> >>>>> with my suggestion that there is no more than one fabulous
> >>>>> original numismatic article in The Numismatist in any given year.
>
> >>>> That might be said of most any publication these days. Magazine
> >>>> sales now depend on how loudly the cover can be made to scream out
> >>>> at the potential buyer, whether the content delivers the promised
> >>>> payload or not (normally it does not). When I stand before a large
> >>>> newsstand I often have the feeling I'm at either a carnival midway
>
> >>>> James
>
> >>> I must ask you to refrain from making any posts that do not relate
> >>> to Frank Provasek's repeated suspensions from eBay.
> >>> I believe the ANA should look into Frank Provasek's actions with a
> >>> view to drumming him out of the Association, if he is, indeed, a
> >>> member.
>
> >> I cannot do anything about the issue you have raised. I suggest you
> >> present your views directly to ANA.
>
> >> James- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't think the ANA will entertain anything like that from anonymous
> > sources.
> > and I don't think he will any way since he will most likely have to
> > face a compentency hearing.
>
> The assumption behind my suggestion was that he would present his views
> directly to ANA, preferably on letterhead. As to anyone's competency, I'll
> respectfully decline comment.
>
> James- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This might not be posted at the proper point in this thread, but
anyway---
If Dwight Manley doesn't get treated properly by the ANA, then what
makes you think that they will proceed against any dealer???
http://www.money.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=11008
oly
Mr. Jaggers
>>
>>>>>> James
>>
>>>>> I must ask you to refrain from making any posts that do not relate
>>>>> to Frank Provasek's repeated suspensions from eBay.
>>>>> I believe the ANA should look into Frank Provasek's actions with a
>>>>> view to drumming him out of the Association, if he is, indeed, a
>>>>> member.
>>
>>>> I cannot do anything about the issue you have raised. I suggest you
>>>> present your views directly to ANA.
>>
>>>> James- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> I don't think the ANA will entertain anything like that from
>>> anonymous sources.
>>> and I don't think he will any way since he will most likely have to
>>> face a compentency hearing.
>>
>> The assumption behind my suggestion was that he would present his
>> views directly to ANA, preferably on letterhead. As to anyone's
>> competency, I'll respectfully decline comment.
>>
>> James- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> This might not be posted at the proper point in this thread, but
> anyway---
>
> If Dwight Manley doesn't get treated properly by the ANA, then what
> makes you think that they will proceed against any dealer???
>
> http://www.money.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=11008
I'd have to side with the Board on this, especially after reading this
document and sensing the more or less he-said, she-said nature of the issue.
The burden of proof always falls upon the party making the affirmative
claim, and I'd always prefer seeing a hundred shysters go free (which, in
fact, we all see on a regular basis) to seeing one innocent man destroyed.
James the Juror
Bob F.
news:cf961016-7cf6-4108...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>To James: I have a very large quantity of Wayte Raymond monographs,
which somehow, damn near unexplicably, came from Mrs. Florence Shook
to myself. I was always polite to her, but never one of her
acolytes. But while the number of monographs is large, I think the
group only covers four or five topics.
Did Wayte Raymond (or Mrs. Shook for that matter) have anything to say
about Frank Provasek's shocking multiple suspensions and auction
cancellations by eBay?
And while I'm on the topic of Frank Provasek's multiple eBay
suspensions, I'd like to ask Frank Provasek to provide a valid
explanation as to why he's been suspended so many times by eBay.
And no Frank, claiming "vindictive individuals" are conspiring to
"destroy" your business doesn't qualify as a valid explanation.
What are you trying to hide, Mr. Frank Provasek (aka FRANKCOINS)?
Bruce Remick
"Bob F." <ad...@hardyboys.invalid> wrote in message
news:h1nsod$j22$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>> The results of a survey, recently conducted by the Numismatic Bibliomania
>> Society, and titled "The One Hundred Greatest Items of U.S. Numismatic
>> Literature," has been announced in E-Sylum, the email counterpart to the
>> association's quarterly print magazine The Asylum. The top vote-getter
>> was Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial
>> Coins. Here is part of the commentary:
>>
>> " Revered and reviled, Breen's magnum opus remains the first reference of
>> choice for American numismatists. Although justifiably maligned for
>> technical faults and lack of supporting documentation, Breen's breadth is
>> staggering. Nowhere else is so much information packed into a single
>> volume. Pre-federal, federal, territorial, commemorative, it is all here.
>> Allowed only one book in an American numismatic library, this would be
>> the expected choice. With copies on the secondary market selling for
>> hundreds of dollars and no competitors in sight, this reference will
>> endure as the standard comprehensive guide for the foreseeable future."
>> [from E-Sylum, vol. 12, no. 25, June 21, 2009]
>
> So there, Goldie, put that in your pipe and smoke it!
> At any rate, I disagree with the statement "Breen's magnum opus remains
> the first reference of choice for American numismatists".
> I believe that honor should go to the Red Book.
>
Maybe the Red Book doesn't make the reference of choice for the
"numismatist", but it probably does for most every other coin collector--
especially in the "bang for the buck" category.
Bruce Remick
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a846c220-b5d2-4501...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>> But until the recent attempt by QDB to
>> present colonial collectors with an alternate comprehensive taxonomy,
>> Breen
>> was all there was. It remains to be seen whether Bowers' "Whitman"
>> numbering system will catch on. Something tells me it will not, just as
>> Breen's re-cataloguing of early large cents in his posthumously-issued
>> work
>> still occupies a distant second place from Sheldon's.
>>
>> James
>
> A few years ago QDB wanted to renumber the Fuld attribution numbers
> for Civil War Tokens. I am SOOOO glad that the idea fell flat.
Amen. I still find it irritating having to cross-reference the renumbered
Hard Times Tokens.
Mr. Jaggers
Bruce, be watching your snailmail for a care package from me.
James
PC
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1dde5a15-f299-4e30...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
<<<
Here's another statistic: According to a 2008 Gallup poll nearly half
of Americans -- 44 percent -- believe in Young Earth Creationism, that
God created human beings in their present form within the past 10,000
years. Does this mean that there's a 44 percent chance that this is
true or that schools should teach this as a valid theory because so
many people believe in it? Some would say yes, which is my point point
exactly.
>>>
You just don't get it. You are comparing a factual misbelief (humans were
created within 10000 tears) with a difference of opinion (Breen is a
worthless book).
Here is a clue for you - despite the errors there are a lot of people who
find Breen useful even though you don't. Get over it. Just because you
think otherwise does not necessitate other's changing their viewpoint and
despising Breen. Get over it. Your analogy does not wash. Get over it.
People disagree with you. Get over it.
Mr. Jaggers
> On Jun 22, 8:10 am, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>> The results of a survey, recently conducted by the Numismatic
>> Bibliomania Society, and titled "The One Hundred Greatest Items of
>> U.S. Numismatic Literature," has been announced in E-Sylum, the
>> email counterpart to the association's quarterly print magazine The
>> Asylum. The top vote-getter was Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia
>> of United States and Colonial Coins.
>
> comment, with some new information and some of what I previously said.
Oh, for crying out loud, Reid, I brought up Breen again because I had new
information. As I posted back in May, and the various times since then, I
presented ideas that were not controversial: first, my pleasure at having
had my book rebound is unassailable. I actually did experience the
pleasurable emotion, and there's not a thing you can do to refute that
experience. This time I presented, without comment, the results of an
obviously and arguably non-scientific poll conducted by a bibliophilic
organization. What in the world is your problem with that? I have
repeatedly conceded the point that Breen is not perfect, yet you continue
herewith to pummel me with all this "truth vs. fiction" nonsense that has
absolutely nothing to do with either my experience or the NBS poll, and to
excess. Are you trying now for the pound of flesh? Lest you now again
accuse me of making stuff up, that was a question, not a claim, other than
my expression of the way I feel about your ministrations in these pages.
Back off, already.
James
Reid Goldsborough
> Oh, for crying out loud, Reid, I brought up Breen again because I had
new
> information. As I posted back in May, and the various times since
then, I
I understand that you feel personally about this. All I can repeat is
that this is not about you or about the pleasure you derived from having
your copy of Breen's encyclopedia rebound, that this was just what
started the conversation, not what the conversation is about. It's about
the encyclopedia itself, not your copy, but it in general as a
numismatic reference.
Apologies if I offend you by talking about Breen, but again it's not
meant as offense toward you. You say you post about Breen because you
have new information, so why can't others respond to that new
information. I responded directly to it, about the issue of popularity
and its relationship to truth, related to this poll and related in
general to what people regard as truth, using as another example -- new
information on my part -- Young Earth creationism, not that the two are
identical as issues but just another example of how falsity can be popular.
You say discussing truth vs. untruth here is nonsense. I in turn feel
it's the core issue and has been all along, what I've been trying to
address. That's our difference.
I know my addressing this won't be popular. The people such as those who
responded to this poll who feel Breen is the greatest work ever in U.S.
numismatics are going go attack me. That's not why I'm doing this. But
if new information is posted as you did, I'm not going to refrain from
speaking because people are invested in Breen and criticism of his work
makes them mad.
--
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Mr. Jaggers
You do not offend me by talking about Breen. I welcome any discussion of
numismatics-related topics, even some of those that wander considerably off
topic. That's what makes it worthwhile to come back to this newsgroup again
and again.
It's not your content, it's your demeanor that is objectionable. Your very
first post in response to me contained this gem: "Yep, this is a book to
treasure." Reid, you had no way to know how or why I treasure that book,
what I use it for, or what I think of its contents. Yet you chose to use
that rather snide way to put down the obvious pleasure that I took in having
my book rebound. That is what set off this entire sad series of exchanges
between us. You can expound upon your search for truth as long as you wish,
but until you figure out a way to deal with my feelings about that remark,
you and I cannot have any meaningful conversation.
James
Mike Marotta
wrote:
"The fact is that just as truth isn't necessarily something handed
down from on high ...
Bowers said ...
R. W. Julian said ...
Alan Herbert said ... "
Tell us, jeffe, how does one know the truth?
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
Bruce Remick
> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> It's not your content, it's your demeanor that is objectionable. Your
>> very first post in response to me contained this gem: "Yep, this is a
>> book to treasure."
>
> treasure?
>
> I simply believe that this is not a book to treasure because it's a book
> rife with errors. That's my view, and I'm sorry that expressing this the
> way I did was so disturbing to you.
>
> All this is *interesting.* The NBS poll, identifying it as the greatest
> book in U.S. numismatics, is interesting. Bowers saying that 90 percent or
> more of people who have read Breen aren't aware that it's so error prone
> is interesting. All the statements people have offered here in defense of
> Breen are interesting.
>
> All this to me is part of the larger truth vs. falsity dichotomy that's
> core to numismatics, which includes among other things counterfeiting,
> tooling, whizzing, artificial toning, overgrading, overselling with false
> or misleading statements about rarity or provenance or future appreciation
> potential, deceptive coin photography, inflated prices in price guides,
> auction tricks, and so on, not to mention the deceptive behaviors that
> some of those on the receiving end engage in.
All this profound pontification simply because there are errors in Breen's
book? I don't believe you're a pontiff at all.
>
> Some don't like talking about or even thinking about such things. Some
> obsess about or sensationalize such things. To me the truth vs. falsity
> dichotomy is just another interesting part of the hobby, same as coin
> aesthetics, minting techniques, coin metrology, historical background,
> mythological associations, and so on.
Woops. I see you're not through. It must be hard for you to stop once you
get going.
Mr. Jaggers
> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> It's not your content, it's your demeanor that is objectionable. Your
>> very first post in response to me contained this gem: "Yep,
>> this is a book to treasure."
>
> treasure?
Yes, I am.
> I simply believe that this is not a book to treasure because it's a
> book rife with errors. That's my view, and I'm sorry that expressing
> this the way I did was so disturbing to you.
So, in your view it's my fault that expressing it the way you did was so
disturbing to me. No admission of guilt on your part, as usual. It's all
about me after all.
> All this is *interesting.* The NBS poll, identifying it as the
> greatest book in U.S. numismatics, is interesting. Bowers saying that
> 90 percent or more of people who have read Breen aren't aware that
> it's so error prone is interesting. All the statements people have
> offered here in defense of Breen are interesting.
Of course they are. Even the review that I quoted in full, and which to
date you have ignored completely, which I will excerpt once again for your
edification: "Although justifiably maligned for
technical faults and lack of supporting documentation." What do you want,
Reid, your shoes licked? It apparently is not enough that I acknowledged
both sides of the issue - your side included. I took the time and effort to
include that on purpose. If you think for a yoctosecond that I am ever
going to capitulate to your limiting-case view and your approach to this
issue, when you persist with this lecturing from your High Horse of Truth,
you are so sadly mistaken.
> All this to me is part of the larger truth vs. falsity dichotomy
> that's core to numismatics, which includes among other things
> counterfeiting, tooling, whizzing, artificial toning, overgrading,
> overselling with false or misleading statements about rarity or
> provenance or future appreciation potential, deceptive coin
> photography, inflated prices in price guides, auction tricks, and so
> on, not to mention the deceptive behaviors that some of those on the
> receiving end engage in.
All of the above activities are performed consciously by the perpetrators in
order to deceive. Prove to me that Breen deliberately set out to deceive,
and I'll listen to what you have to say. No ad hominems, no statements
about my making things up, no labelling of me as schizophrenic, etc., as you
have done several times in the past.
> Some don't like talking about or even thinking about such things. Some
> obsess about or sensationalize such things. To me the truth vs.
> falsity dichotomy is just another interesting part of the hobby, same
> as coin aesthetics, minting techniques, coin metrology, historical
> background, mythological associations, and so on.
I love talking about such things. But we have another issue on the table
right now, and it needs to be dealt with before I will consider any of your
other points.
James
Reid Goldsborough
My name is not jeffe.
There are various ways to try to get to truth, and sometimes in in
trying to get there you realize the truth is only tentative or
approximate. You quoted experts I quoted, and talking to experts is one
way to try to get to truth, but only one way, and it's not foolproof.
But worse than relying solely on experts is ignoring them completely and
pretending to be an expert yourself, but we've already been through this.
Another way, with numismatics, is primary research -- examining Mint
records, reading contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles written
by those with first-hand experience, studying auction results, and with
ancient coins doing metrological studies, studying hoard evidence, and
doing die studies.
Mr. Jaggers
> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>> Prove to me that Breen deliberately set out to deceive,
>> and I'll listen to what you have to say. No ad hominems, no
>> statements about my making things up, no labelling of me as
>> schizophrenic, etc., as you have done several times in the past.
>
No, you did not, nor did I ever say that you did, but you did indeed put him
in the same category as some pretty foul, premeditating miscreants.
> I said his
> research was sloppy. I expressed various theories people have offered
> about why his work is so error prone. All this, because of Breen
> centrality, is interesting. People speculate, in this case based on
> what we do know, but it's speculation, and there's nothing wrong with
> speculating about a public figure like this provided you're clear that
> it's speculation. What's not speculation is that his work is so error
> prone. I have no idea what you mean that I labeled you as a
> schizophrenic and suspect this is just more exaggeration from you.
June 8: "Instead of this borderline schizoid fixation
with defending this "treasure," instead of this hysterical reaction to
seeing Breen challenged, see for yourself whether the information in it
is true."
James
Mr. Jaggers
> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>> Prove to me that Breen deliberately set out to deceive,
>> and I'll listen to what you have to say. No ad hominems, no
>> statements about my making things up, no labelling of me as
>> schizophrenic, etc., as you have done several times in the past.
>
> research was sloppy. I expressed various theories people have offered
> about why his work is so error prone. All this, because of Breen
> centrality, is interesting. People speculate, in this case based on
> what we do know, but it's speculation, and there's nothing wrong with
> speculating about a public figure like this provided you're clear that
> it's speculation. What's not speculation is that his work is so error
> prone. I have no idea what you mean that I labeled you as a
> schizophrenic and suspect this is just more exaggeration from you.
June 7: "and posting the same kind of
irrational, nearly hysterical comments you were before...sounds to me like
you
should call the Department of Children and Family Services. Maybe seek
out a shelter too, just in case."
James
Mr. Jaggers
> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>> Prove to me that Breen deliberately set out to deceive,
>> and I'll listen to what you have to say. No ad hominems, no
>> statements about my making things up, no labelling of me as
>> schizophrenic, etc., as you have done several times in the past.
>
> research was sloppy. I expressed various theories people have offered
> about why his work is so error prone. All this, because of Breen
> centrality, is interesting. People speculate, in this case based on
> what we do know, but it's speculation, and there's nothing wrong with
> speculating about a public figure like this provided you're clear that
> it's speculation. What's not speculation is that his work is so error
> prone. I have no idea what you mean that I labeled you as a
> schizophrenic and suspect this is just more exaggeration from you.
June 6: "You're again overreacting in an overheated, irrational way."
James
Thomas A.
> Reid Goldsborough wrote:
>> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>>> Prove to me that Breen deliberately set out to deceive,
>>> and I'll listen to what you have to say. No ad hominems, no
>>> statements about my making things up, no labelling of me as
>>> schizophrenic, etc., as you have done several times in the past.
>>
>> I never, not once, said Breen's errors were deliberate.
>
> No, you did not, nor did I ever say that you did, but you did indeed
> put him in the same category as some pretty foul, premeditating
> miscreants.
Excuse me James, but I think you are being too generous here. Reid accused
Breen repeatedly of "fabrication", which was my major objection to his
thesis. Fabrication is defined as "the invention of a lie or story to
deceive". There is no room here to deny that fabrication is a deliberate
act.
Mr. Jaggers
Lots of luck with that rational argument, Thomas.
James
Reid Goldsborough
> Excuse me James, but I think you are being too generous here. Reid accused
> Breen repeatedly of "fabrication", which was my major objection to his
> thesis. Fabrication is defined as "the invention of a lie or story to
> deceive". There is no room here to deny that fabrication is a deliberate
> act.
My dictionary doesn't make deliberate intent a requirement of
fabrication. More important, the charge that Breen fabricated was
leveled before me by Julian and Herbert, who both said he fabricated or
made up facts. And Bowers also said he made things up. Again, his intent
is of far less importance than his actions and the results of his
actions, that he made things up and that his work if rife with errors.
Reid Goldsborough
> is of far less importance than his actions and the results of his
> actions, that he made things up and that his work if rife with errors.
Should have read, "...is rife with errors." That was an error. And
ironic. But it wasn't rife.
Mr. Jaggers
> On Jun 29, 5:52 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>
>> June 6: "You're again overreacting in an overheated, irrational way."
>
> about what you're posting and, and the other hand, saying that that
> you are a schizophrenic. Many people act overheated or irrational or
> hysterical without being schizophrenic! There's also a big difference
> between having a borderline schizoid fixation and being a
> schizophrenic. It's OK. Everybody exaggerates on occasion.
So now you're a clinical psychologist, along with your many other
finely-honed talents? Please send me your rate card for treatment of each
of the pathologies that you have pointed out on my part, and I'll save up my
money and come see you, Good Doctor Goldsborough. But quite frankly, this
discussion has already become very boring, what with your persistent
attempts to deny, twist, and dodge every point that I have made. Go air
your grandeurs to the wind. That's likely to be your only audience.
James
Bruce Remick
> Mike Marotta wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 10:17 am, Reid Goldsborough <reidgolduse...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> "The fact is that just as truth isn't necessarily something handed
>> down from on high ...
>> Bowers said ...
>> R. W. Julian said ...
>> Alan Herbert said ... "
>>
>> Tell us, jeffe, how does one know the truth?
>>
>> Mike M.
>> Michael E. Marotta
>
> My name is not jeffe.
>
> There are various ways to try to get to truth, and sometimes in in trying
> to get there you realize the truth is only tentative or approximate. You
> quoted experts I quoted, and talking to experts is one way to try to get
> to truth, but only one way, and it's not foolproof. But worse than relying
> solely on experts is ignoring them completely and pretending to be an
> expert yourself, but we've already been through this.
>
> Another way, with numismatics, is primary research -- examining Mint
> records, reading contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles written
> by those with first-hand experience, studying auction results, and with
> ancient coins doing metrological studies, studying hoard evidence, and
> doing die studies.
>
Why do you craft so many of your posts in the form of parental lectures?
Do you actually talk like this to people in person?
Bob F.
ASSHOLE!
Thank you.news:2u87c1....@news.alt.net...
Bob F.
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jtc2m.1018$KM3...@newsfe02.iad...
Nobody will talk to Goldie in person, that's why he posts here.
Mike Marotta
wrote:
> ... you realize the truth is only tentative or
> approximate. ... talking to experts is one
> way to try to get to truth, but only one way, and it's not foolproof.
> records, reading contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles written
> by those with first-hand experience, studying auction results, and with
> ancient coins doing metrological studies, studying hoard evidence, and
> doing die studies.
It is obvious that you do not know how to prove something true, which
is the same as saying that you do not know how to identify the truth.
In addition, you do not know how to discover the truth, which is a
different statement than the first.
The truth is not tentative. A tentative assertion is called a
"hyopthesis." Other synonyms include theory, conjecture, assertion,
thesis and claim. A theory may be (objectively) true, but until its
truth is established, it remains a conjecture.
If "talking to experts" is not foolproof, then it is not a way to the
truth. The paths to the truth are, indeed, unfailing. That is why
they lead to truths. Moreover, you failed to identify what it is one
is supposed to "talk" about when talking with an expert.
Those "contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles" were seldom
written
people "with first-hand experience." They were written by reporters
who wrote what other people told them ... sometimes wrote what other
people told them to write.
As the holder of a master's degree in journalism, you must know
better than anyone else here that Joseph Pulitzer was as yellow a
journalist as his competitor William Randolph Hearst. Only with
Pulitzer's money as a grant did the Columbia School of Journalism
bring newspaper reporting to the level we expect today -- and rarely
get, which is why there is a prize for it. So, myself, I distrust
newspaper and magazine stories except as they reveal so-called "social
truths" i.e., the popular madnesses of crowds, like the Panic of 1857
or the Loch Ness Monster.
The empirical work you label as "metrological studies, studying hoard
evidence, and doing die studies" is worthless without a rational
explanation. The word "rational" has a technical meaning in
philosophy. Rational claims are internally consistent. They do not
violate the law of identity.
I will have more to say about this in a different thread. For now, it
is clear that you are a victim of post-modernist education.
>> Tell us, jeffe, how does one know the truth?
> My name is not jeffe.
¿Usted no habla español, Sr. Goldsborough?
Sorry to be obscure, but it was a play from THREE AMIGOS.
"There is a plethora of Amigos!"
"Tell me, jeffe, what is a plethora, because I would hate to think
that you would use the word plethora if you did not know what the word
plethora means."
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta, B. Sc.
Mr. Jaggers
> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> finely-honed talents? Please send me your rate card for treatment of
>> each
>
> you a schizophrenic. I just explained that I did no such thing.
> That's all. On the other hand, regarding your question about my
> rates, if you're sincere about wanting some counseling, I could
> probably arrange something informal. You just send me a nice coin and
> I'll fix you up, with the nicer the coin the closer I'll take you to
> self-actualization. Guaranteed!
I've already self-actualized long ago. It's this eyesight that is giving me
fits right now.
James the Presbyopic
Reid Goldsborough
> The truth is not tentative.
Please. In numismatics? Truths get rewritten all the time, with the
further back in time the coin, the less solid the evidence supporting
truth at any given time and the more often truths get rewritten.
Typically. I know, much of this is semantics, how people couch what they
write and say.
> A tentative assertion is called a
> "hyopthesis." Other synonyms include theory, conjecture, assertion,
> thesis and claim.
These are not synonyms, not by a long shot.
> Those "contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles" were seldom
> written
> people "with first-hand experience."
Not necessarily. But your point about yellow journalism is well taken.
Mr. Jaggers
> Mike Marotta wrote:
>
>> The truth is not tentative.
>
> Please. In numismatics? Truths get rewritten all the time, with the
> further back in time the coin, the less solid the evidence supporting
> truth at any given time and the more often truths get rewritten.
> Typically. I know, much of this is semantics, how people couch what
> they write and say.
>
>> A tentative assertion is called a
>> "hyopthesis." Other synonyms include theory, conjecture, assertion,
>> thesis and claim.
>
> These are not synonyms, not by a long shot.
I would not care to speculate on how long the "shot" might be, but � la
rigueur, a theory is not the same as a hypothesis, even though the word is
often (and incorrectly) used as such.
In science a theory is a hypothesis that has been elevated in status by dint
of having some evidence to support it, after which it gains a point on the
continuum of theories, where none are all the way to either end.
Other synonyms for a hypothesis might include a WAG, a hunch, or a feeling
in one's bones.
James the Thesaurus
PC
> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>> Prove to me that Breen deliberately set out to deceive, and I'll listen
>> to what you have to say. No ad hominems, no statements about my making
>> things up, no labelling of me as schizophrenic, etc., as you have done
>> several times in the past.
>
Someone has an opinion that differs from yours. Get over it.
PC
> Thomas A. wrote:
>
>> Excuse me James, but I think you are being too generous here. Reid
>> accused Breen repeatedly of "fabrication", which was my major objection
>> to his thesis. Fabrication is defined as "the invention of a lie or
>> story to deceive". There is no room here to deny that fabrication is a
>> deliberate act.
>
> My dictionary doesn't make deliberate intent a requirement of fabrication.
> More important, the charge that Breen fabricated was
Someone has an opinion that is different from yours. Get over it.
PC
On Jun 29, 5:52 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
> June 6: "You're again overreacting in an overheated, irrational way."
There's a huge difference between, on the one hand, these statements
about what you're posting and, and the other hand, saying that that
>>
Someone has a different opinion than you. Get over it.
PC
> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> So now you're a clinical psychologist, along with your many other
>> finely-honed talents? Please send me your rate card for treatment of each
>
> schizophrenic. I just explained that I did no such thing. That's all.
Someone has a different opinion than you. Get over it.
PC
> Mike Marotta wrote:
>
>> The truth is not tentative.
>
> Please. In numismatics? Truths get rewritten all the time, with the
> further back in time the coin, the less solid the evidence supporting
Someone has a different opinion than you. Get over it.
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
> I've already self-actualized long ago. It's this eyesight that is giving me
> fits right now.
This works if you're both myopic and presbyopic, obviating the need
for bifocals. When reading, move your eyeglasses slightly down your
nose so that the lenses are further from your eyes. Works when looking
at coins too.... Don't know if it works universally.
Mr. Jaggers
> On Jun 29, 10:48 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com>
> wrote:
>
>> I've already self-actualized long ago. It's this eyesight that is
>> giving me fits right now.
>
> This works if you're both myopic and presbyopic, obviating the need
> for bifocals. When reading, move your eyeglasses slightly down your
> nose so that the lenses are further from your eyes. Works when looking
> at coins too.... Don't know if it works universally.
You want me to match the stereotype of an old man, eh? All I'd need to
complete that picture is to have my mouth hanging open.
James the Slackjawed
Jud
Nothing like throwing gasoline on the fire.
Mr. Jaggers
> See the latest QDB article in Coin World? Seems he is a Breen fan too.
> Nothing like throwing gasoline on the fire.
How would your summing up a Coin World article in a factual manner be
throwing gasoline on a fire?
What would be interesting to know is whether Breen would be a fan of all of
Bowers' output over the past 15 years, and whether he would take issue with
any of it.
James the Bare-Fisted
Mike Marotta
wrote:
> Mike Marotta wrote:
> > The truth is not tentative.
Then, those claims are not truths. Do you know what a truth is,
jeffe? Can you define "truth"?
> > A tentative assertion is called a
> > "hyopthesis." Other synonyms include theory, conjecture, assertion,
> > thesis and claim.
> These are not synonyms, not by a long shot.
I stand corrected -- by James, who knows from experience -- and do so
on my misuse of "theory." I agree that a "theory" is not just an
hypothesis. The fact remains that as with a conjecture or hypothesis,
a theory is not a truth.
(My wife and I found the movie "Definitely Maybe" delightful enough to
buy on disk. Disheartened by the candidate he worked for, our hero
watches President Clinton on TV and later walks out on his friends at
a bar. "The man can't even define is. What happens if they give him
one of the hard words, like truth?")
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"If p then q."
Mr. Jaggers
> On Jun 29, 10:51 pm, Reid Goldsborough <reidgolduse...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Mike Marotta wrote:
>>> The truth is not tentative.
>> Please. In numismatics? Truths get rewritten all the time, ...
>
> Then, those claims are not truths. Do you know what a truth is,
> jeffe? Can you define "truth"?
>
>>> A tentative assertion is called a
>>> "hyopthesis." Other synonyms include theory, conjecture, assertion,
>>> thesis and claim.
>> These are not synonyms, not by a long shot.
>
> I stand corrected -- by James, who knows from experience -- and do so
> on my misuse of "theory." I agree that a "theory" is not just an
> hypothesis. The fact remains that as with a conjecture or hypothesis,
> a theory is not a truth.
"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an
ugly fact."
- Thomas Henry Huxley
"Scientific Fact is a theory that is so thoroughly confirmed it would be
perverse to withhold provisional assent."
- Stephen Jay Gould
Smart guys, they.
James the Semanticist
Jud
Mike Marotta wrote:
> (My wife and I found the movie "Definitely Maybe" delightful enough to
> buy on disk. Disheartened by the candidate he worked for, our hero
> watches President Clinton on TV and later walks out on his friends at
> a bar. "The man can't even define is. What happens if they give him
> one of the hard words, like truth?")
>
"The truth? You can't handle the truth!" <Jack Nicholson> 'A Few Good
Men'