rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
j-rod
Rare-coin broker Stephanie Brown swindled $1M from elderly East Sider
...
New York Daily News
BY Melissa Grace A rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider into
reinvesting her $1 million life savings in gold coins - and then stole
the victim's ...
JAM
oly
> Rare-coin broker Stephanie Brown swindled $1M from elderly East Sider
> ...
> New York Daily News
> BY Melissa Grace A rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider into
> reinvesting her $1 million life savings in gold coins - and then stole
> the victim's ...
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2ar2stb
>
> JAM
You would think that someone who scammed that much $$$ could afford a
few dollars for some facial makeup.
oly
Ken Barr
wrote:
She must be a reely, reely big time koin deeler ... she's
not even listed in the 2010 Numismatic Deeler Directory
(which is free if you have a subscription to the Greysheet).
And megakudos to the reporter for the first public disclosure
that "collectible coins are not as safe as gold because they
are gilt, not solid gold". She's probably going to win a
Pulitzer Prize for that stunning expose ... (a Roxanne Pulitzer
prize, though, not one of the regular ones ...).
--
Ken Barr Numismatics email: k...@kenbarr.com
P. O. Box 32541 website: http://www.kenbarr.com
San Jose, CA 95152 Coins, currency, exonumia, souvenir cards, etc.
408-272-3247 NEXT SHOW: Peninsula CC (Naperdak Hall, San Jose), Nov 11
oly
> In article <4CDB34CC.3A9D4...@nospam.net>, j-rod <j-...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Rare-coin broker Stephanie Brown swindled $1M from elderly East Sider
> > ...
> > New York Daily News
> > BY Melissa Grace A rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider into
> > reinvesting her $1 million life savings in gold coins - and then stole
> > the victim's ...
>
> > e_savings_safe_in_rare_gold_coins__and_now_you_dont_brokered.html
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2ar2stb
>
> She must be a reely, reely big time koin deeler ... she's
> not even listed in the 2010 Numismatic Deeler Directory
> (which is free if you have a subscription to the Greysheet).
>
> And megakudos to the reporter for the first public disclosure
> that "collectible coins are not as safe as gold because they
> are gilt, not solid gold". She's probably going to win a
> Pulitzer Prize for that stunning expose ... (a Roxanne Pulitzer
> prize, though, not one of the regular ones ...).
>
> --
> Ken Barr Numismatics email: k...@kenbarr.com
> P. O. Box 32541 website: http://www.kenbarr.com
> San Jose, CA 95152 Coins, currency, exonumia, souvenir cards, etc.
> 408-272-3247 NEXT SHOW: Peninsula CC (Naperdak Hall, San Jose), Nov 11
I noted that fine point of wisdumb on collectible coins too, but the
whole crop of journalism graduates are deeeee-ummmm -dumbbbb. They
would be after listening to four+ years of liberal mouth-craps from
their perrffessers...
oly
mazorj
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ec016665-a393-4093...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
So... if she had been taught only by instructors with conservative views,
she would't have made this error? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Her statement actually is correct if she was (erroneously) referring to the
gold-plated crap sold by hucksters. She probably got that (correct)
assessment while talking to one of her sources and just confused legitimate
gold coins with the plated crap. It's still a factual error but one that
could be made by anyone not familiar with numismatics.
I'm not defending journalistic errors, but reporters have to cover a wide
variety of topics. Some they are famliar with, some are totally foreign to
them at first. oly, if I sent you out to cover, say, a new discovery in
genetics or cosmology or rocket science, I'd give odds that the copy you
turned in would have errors of fact or context. That's why most reporters
at large news organizations eventually are assigned to a "beat" such as
science or medicine or crime - so they can accumulate enough knowledge not
to make such basic mistakes.
But other than industry publications, there is no beat assignment for
numismatics, so it was strictly luck of the draw as to whether the reporter
assigned to this story would know anything about gold coins and gold-plated
huckster crap. She is a crime reporter for a NY tabloid, covering
everything from high-profile celebrity scandals to ordinary street crime.
She probably doesn't know the difference between a half disme and a plugged
nickel, nor should she be expected to. It's the kind of error that you
would expect a veteran copy desk editor to catch, but this is a tabloid and
even at more staid news outlets, newsroom cuts have meant that stories get
run with little more than a cursory check by an overloaded editor.
Ken Barr
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:ec016665-a393-4093...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 11, 10:17 am, Ken Barr <k...@kenbarr.com> wrote:
> > In article <4CDB34CC.3A9D4...@nospam.net>, j-rod <j-...@nospam.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Rare-coin broker Stephanie Brown swindled $1M from elderly East Sider
> > > ...
> > > New York Daily News
> > > BY Melissa Grace A rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider into
> > > reinvesting her $1 million life savings in gold coins - and then stole
> > > the victim's ...
> >
> > >http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/11/10/2010-11-10_now_you_see...
> > > e_savings_safe_in_rare_gold_coins__and_now_you_dont_brokered.html
> >
> > >http://tinyurl.com/2ar2stb
> >
> > She must be a reely, reely big time koin deeler ... she's
> > not even listed in the 2010 Numismatic Deeler Directory
> > (which is free if you have a subscription to the Greysheet).
> >
> > And megakudos to the reporter for the first public disclosure
> > that "collectible coins are not as safe as gold because they
> > are gilt, not solid gold". She's probably going to win a
> > Pulitzer Prize for that stunning expose ... (a Roxanne Pulitzer
> > prize, though, not one of the regular ones ...).
[snip]>
> < I noted that fine point of wisdumb on collectible coins too, but the
> whole crop of journalism graduates are deeeee-ummmm -dumbbbb. They
> would be after listening to four+ years of liberal mouth-craps from
> their perrffessers...
>
> So... if she had been taught only by instructors with conservative views,
> she would't have made this error? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>
> Her statement actually is correct if she was (erroneously) referring to the
> gold-plated crap sold by hucksters. She probably got that (correct)
> assessment while talking to one of her sources and just confused legitimate
> gold coins with the plated crap. It's still a factual error but one that
> could be made by anyone not familiar with numismatics.
[snip]
Some of the "collector coins" referred to in the article are
illustrated in the accompanying photograph, to wit, several
PCGS and NGC slabbed dubble iggles ($20 Libs and $20 Saints).
I realize that this was just a throw-away piece in a general
circulation publication, not a scholarly article in a noomismatic
journal, but even still a modicum of jernalism fact-checking
should have been attempted, if only to browse the PCGS.COM
website for a little bit.
I also note that she quotes an ADA as saying "Gold coins are not
a great hedge in these economic times". I know that when I want
economic advise, I *always* consult my local District Attorney's
office ... just like I call the San Jose State University Department
of Economics whenever I need quality legal analysis ...
mazorj
"Ken Barr" <k...@kenbarr.com> wrote in message
news:ken-FA6B36.1...@nntp.aioe.org...
Which obviously is all Greek to her for the reasons I explained.
> I realize that this was just a throw-away piece in a general
> circulation publication, not a scholarly article in a noomismatic
> journal, but even still a modicum of jernalism fact-checking
> should have been attempted, if only to browse the PCGS.COM
> website for a little bit.
Why? She was focused on the crime aspects, not TPGs.
> I also note that she quotes an ADA as saying "Gold coins are not
> a great hedge in these economic times". I know that when I want
> economic advise, I *always* consult my local District Attorney's
> office ... just like I call the San Jose State University Department
> of Economics whenever I need quality legal analysis ...
She's a *crime* reporter doing a *crime* story. She deals with DAs and cops
and perps, not economists. If the story had been about economics and gold
coinage, or if the reporter's beat was the economy, then yeah, she would
have consulted more expert sources from those areas. But if you want that
level of expertise from every reporter in every story, read the Wall Street
Journal, not crime stories in the tabloids.
Your expectations here could only happen in an ideal, textbook perfect
world, Ken. A crime beat reporter like her probably worked on several other
stories that same day, and every other day on the job. Working a busy,
daily beat like that (crime in NYC, fer' Pete's sake) doesn't give you the
luxury of endless rounds of checking to confirm every last ancillary factoid
in your stories when you have no obvious reason to suspect their accuracy.
Again, I'm not excusing, just explaining how this happens, for people who
have unrealistic expectations of the media.
Ken Barr
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote:
[snip]
> She's a *crime* reporter doing a *crime* story. She deals with DAs and cops
> and perps, not economists. If the story had been about economics and gold
> coinage, or if the reporter's beat was the economy, then yeah, she would
> have consulted more expert sources from those areas. But if you want that
> level of expertise from every reporter in every story, read the Wall Street
> Journal, not crime stories in the tabloids.
>
> Your expectations here could only happen in an ideal, textbook perfect
> world, Ken. A crime beat reporter like her probably worked on several other
> stories that same day, and every other day on the job. Working a busy,
> daily beat like that (crime in NYC, fer' Pete's sake) doesn't give you the
> luxury of endless rounds of checking to confirm every last ancillary factoid
> in your stories when you have no obvious reason to suspect their accuracy.
>
> Again, I'm not excusing, just explaining how this happens, for people who
> have unrealistic expectations of the media.
I do admit to reading the New York Times much more often than the New
York Post ... my local liberry has the traditional subscription to the
NYT, but surprisingly does not have a subscription to the NYP.
I also admit to having very high (perhaps wildly extravagant)
expectations of people who choose to practice the profession of
journalism. Over the years, I've been a small-time author, columnist,
ghostwriter, editor and publisher. One of my good friends was a
professor of journalism at a local university, and we often discussed
the state of affairs of journalism over time. We agreed that facts were
facts, and that if a reporter could not prove a fact stated in an
article, it should be omitted from the story. We also agreed that
opinions, especially unqualified ones, should be explicitly identified
as such even if the writer is simply "quoting a source", and should only
be used if relevant to the article.
In the referenced noozpaper article, the "gilt" comment is both untrue
and irrelevant to the facts of the alleged crime. The ADA's economic
quote is an unqualified opinion, not a fact, and similarly irrelevant.
Perhaps in the Internet age of jernelism reporters are not given
"inches/words" quotas, but are instead encouraged to "fill space" even
if they have to go outside their supposed areas of expertise. Had I
been the writer's editor (even if numismatically ignorant), about half
of that article would have been red-penciled, or perhaps it would have
even been spiked.
I still think the article is an example of shoddy journalism. You imply
that it's the best we can expect out of today's reporters.
Unfortunately, we're probably both correct ...
oly
> In article <ibhr7l$8b...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
It was not "red-penciled" because it accurately conveyed the mantra of
the liberal class - that gold and silver are bad. Evil.
oly
mazorj
Minor quibble: "Proving" a fact can be a subjective standard. Technically,
second- and sometimes even third-sourcing a confirmation is the journalistic
standard. The difference is not always trivial because sometimes even your
second and third sources can get it wrong; but in that case you can't fault
the reporter who got a confirmation (erroneous though it be) from a credible
source.
You also have to draw a line somewhere, to allow some latitude for "common
knowledge" facts without confirmation. Otherwise, every reporter would be
going crazy double checking everything - "Sorry to bother you, senator, but
I need to confirm that Barrack Obama is the President before I can call him
that." As always, the problems lie in the gray-area judgment calls of
whether a fact needs confirmation or is accepted widely enough to let it
pass. (The error under discussion clearly is one of the former.)
> We also agreed that
> opinions, especially unqualified ones, should be explicitly identified
> as such even if the writer is simply "quoting a source", and should only
> be used if relevant to the article.
Yes, that comment should have been sourced if it was allowed to stand.
Sloppy.
> In the referenced noozpaper article, the "gilt" comment is both untrue
> and irrelevant to the facts of the alleged crime.
True. A good editor would have cut it. "Listen, Hon, stick to your crime
reporting, let the national desk cover the money stuff."
> The ADA's economic
> quote is an unqualified opinion, not a fact, and similarly irrelevant.
> Perhaps in the Internet age of jernelism reporters are not given
> "inches/words" quotas, but are instead encouraged to "fill space" even
> if they have to go outside their supposed areas of expertise. Had I
> been the writer's editor (even if numismatically ignorant), about half
> of that article would have been red-penciled, or perhaps it would have
> even been spiked.
Eh, what tabloid could ever resist a story as lurid as this? That's their
meat and potatoes. If they spiked anything, it would have been a lengthy
story (anything over ~700 words by tabloid standards) with a learned
analysis of the effect of QE on PM and other commodity prices.
> I still think the article is an example of shoddy journalism. You imply
> that it's the best we can expect out of today's reporters.
> Unfortunately, we're probably both correct ...
As I said, I'm not excusing the error, just putting expectations into a
reality context. Furthermore, as these things go, for a crime story it was
a minor error, the kind that reporters have been making ever since the birth
of daily newspapers. However, the same error in that learned analysis of
the effect of QE on PM prices would have been a major gaffe.
Based on your background and mine, I think we both can deplore the erosion
of journalism over the past 40 years, victim to cost cutting and investor
demands to maintain/increase profits plus the time pressures of feeding -
and competing with - the 24/7 Internet news beast. If an optimist is
someone who thinks that a situation is the best it can be, a pessimist is
somone who fears that he's right. I count myself as both in this instance.
:-[
mazorj
...
< It was not "red-penciled" because it accurately conveyed the mantra of the
liberal class - that gold and silver are bad. Evil.
<
< oly
If that's the case, they're real slackers at it. At a minimum they should:
1. Boycott the Olympics until they replace the gold and silver medals with
recyclable materials.
2. Ban gold and silver in dental fillings and require that only materials
from renewable resources be used.
3. Require that all gold and silver coins, bullion, and jewelry be turned
in, in exchange for brass or aluminum copies, respectively.
4. Close all gold and silver commodity exchanges.
5. Delete all references to gold and silver from economics textbooks.
6. Tie the dollar to the price of lead.
7. Teachers shall be forbidden to award gold and silver star tickers.
8. Change the bromide "Every cloud has a silver lining" to "Every cloud has
an aluminum foil lining."
9. Replace the term "the gold standard of" with "the Leftmost of" when
describing the highest standard of anything.
and last but not least,
10. "Republican cockroach" be declared the new name for the insect formerly
known as a silverfish.
Coin Forum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilt coins?
Gold not a great hedge? Yeah, invest in FRNs - they're sure to hold their value!
From the article:
"
While gold has traded at an all-time high, topping $1,400 an ounce in the past
few days, collectible coins are not as safe as gold because they are gilt, not
solid gold.
"Gold coins are not a great hedge in these economic times," Assistant District
Attorney Adam Kaufmann said after announcing Brown's arrest.Gi
oly
> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
Most of those things have already happened, like #1 (in recent years,
the IOC gave out actual damn rocks instead of metallic medals); #2
(partial); #4 (at least in the USA - any serious metals trading takes
place in London or the far East, to avoid the interference and
constant rules changing of/by large U.S. Banks), #5 (you must have
gone to college before 1960 and your textbooks must have been rather
old even at that time); #6 (if the dollar were tied to any commodity,
even lead, it would be a major improvement over the present state of
affairs); #7 (teachers don't give out stickers for achievement anymore
because it's unfair to the 'tards - everybody gets a damn sticker or
nobody gets a damn sticker); #9 (I'm sure that it's already been
done); and finally #10 (I'm certain that you've quoted directly from
the Olberman dictionary).
oly
Reid Goldsborough
informed, and spot on. But has anyone else here seen the irony here?
Complaints are made about the ignorance and mistakes about numismatics
in the journalism world, yet such complaints show a clear lack of
knowledge about journalism, how it works.
It's not the error hunting itself that's wrong. I enjoy this myself, and
clearly there are benefits to pointing out factual mistakes when they're
disseminated publicly. It's just that, if you want to be correct
yourself, you should view mistake making in context. Experts will always
find mistakes when non-experts are writing about their field, and even
sometimes when experts are, regardless of the media. Good fact checking,
on the part of writers as well as editors, can go a long way to
minimizing it, but another reality is that thorough fact checking is
becoming a victim of both the hard times in the traditional media and
the boom times of Internet media.
But I got a chuckle too out of the statement in this article that
collectable gold coins are gilt, not solid gold. Maybe I should send
more of my coins out for spectroscopy, to make sure they're not plated.
Seriously, though, this can be an interesting exercise, for older as
well as newer coins, finding out exactly what their alloy is through
non-destructive metallurgical testing. Here too, however, there are
limitations.
--
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
oly
wrote:
Just like EVERYTHING ELSE, El Ream-o know ALL ABOUT JOURNALISM.
Why are we NOT surprised???
oly
Jerry Dennis
> You would think that someone who scammed that much $$$ could afford a
> few dollars for some facial makeup.
Possibly some Botox, too? Nah. She's a Pelosi wannabe.
Jerry
Excuse me while I blow chunks.
oly
Ms. Pelosi is a second generation political operative. Knows how to
mis-whatever OPM in ways that are MOL "legal". One suspects that
Madame Speaker uses facial make-up too, if not really well.
oly
Jeff R.
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message news:5f4d9a2d-c718-40ac-abe9->>... Experts will always
>> find mistakes when non-experts are writing about their field, and even
>> sometimes when experts are, regardless of the media. Good fact checking,
>> on the part of writers as well as editors, can go a long way to
>> minimizing it,
> Just like EVERYTHING ELSE, El Ream-o know ALL ABOUT JOURNALISM.
> Why are we NOT surprised???
> oly
Oh, now, hangonaminnit, Oly.
You really should cut Reid a little slack here.
It's only fair to assume that he knows at least *a little* about journalism,
since he is part of the problem himself - having been published in the past.
(I've no idea what he's doing now - having seen anything original published
for ages - not that I'm looking...)
He's had a great deal of personal experience of journalists getting basic
facts wrong. He's well-qualified to opine about it. Even if only to offer
a group apology.
--
Jeff R.
oly
> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message news:5f4d9a2d-c718-40ac-abe9-
Sending a numismatic article off to a publication for an up or down
decision isn't at all the same as going to journalism school and then
working for several years in a newsroom.
Of course, popular opinion suggested that Reef was well known for
imitating Uncle Walter Breen - if he couldn't make the facts fit the
hypothesis of his articles, he twisted the facts or made them up
wholesale.
However, I must admit something is bugging me. Didn't Reeamo work for
Coin World for about three weeks until they let him go for cause
(incredibly poor personal hygene and other asinine habits)??? Or am I
thinking of someone else???
I know somebody out there, well-known to numismatic circles as a
visible collector, recently worked for Coin World for a very short
period of time. Very short.
oly
oly
wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 8:27 PM, oly wrote:
>
> > Didn't Reeamo work for
> > Coin World for about three weeks until they let him go for cause
> > (incredibly poor personal hygene and other asinine habits)???
>
> reporting about errors in reporting. Jeff R. says I had something
> "published in the past" but that he hasn't seen anything recently though
> he hasn't been looking. That's fine reporting -- very thorough and
> responsible. You in turn have everything factually wrong about
> everything you said in the above post. Maybe they'll let you split the
> prize.
>
> Even if not, it was really fun reading what you both wrote, both
> stumbling badly in the very way I was commenting on, the irony of people
> doing error hunting while being transparently wrong themselves and
> without showing one iota's worth of diligence in trying to get the facts
> correct. But this is entirely expected, with you two at any rate, in
> that neither of you have shown any concern about getting the facts
> straight, only about the flame, only about shouting louder than others,
> you more than him, your personal agenda.
>
> Vent on -- you obviously need it, day after day, week after week, year
> after year, and what better place than this, where you can heap your
> feeble, error-laden attempts at abuse on others, anonymously, not taking
> any responsibility for your actions. Can't do that in a department,
> school board, or any other meeting where you have to show you face and
> own up to what you say.
>
> --
>
> Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide
> Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom
> Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Apparently we have the fellow in question...
oly
Jeff R.
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47k7v2....@news.alt.net...
> On 11/13/2010 8:27 PM, oly wrote:
>> Coin World for about three weeks until they let him go for cause
>> (incredibly poor personal hygene and other asinine habits)???
>
> reporting about errors in reporting. Jeff R. says I had something
> "published in the past" but that he hasn't seen anything recently though
> he hasn't been looking. That's fine reporting -- very thorough and
> responsible.
Ummm... excuse me.
Please to point out the "Erroneous online reporting about errors in
reporting" in what I said.
I even qualified my comment with a "haven't been looking."
IOW - point out *one* single error in what I wrote.
...but you can't, can you.
>... both stumbling badly in the very way I was commenting on, the irony of
>people doing error hunting while being transparently wrong themselves and
>without showing one iota's worth of diligence in trying to get the facts
>correct.
Please point out a single "stumble" of mine.
...but you can't, can you.
> But this is entirely expected, with you two at any rate, in that neither
> of you have shown any concern about getting the facts straight,
OK then, if you insist, let's move onto the dog I *do* have in this fight.
Would you care to apologise, Reid, for all the insulting innuendo and
flaming you directed my way when I insisted that whizzing with a brush
doesn't melt the metal?
Remember that?
Remember how you steadfastly refused to acknowledge my experience in this
field - over and over again - and then finally took it as fact when *someone
else* pointed it out to you?
Great journalistic integrity there, Reid.
I had the "facts straight" from the very first to the last comment - it was
you who believed the malarkey and would not accept the science.
Yet it was you who flamed and maligned me. Repeatedly. Unapologetically.
DAGS if you don't believe me - or you've "forgotten".
I'm satisfied with the public record.
>...Can't do that in a department, school board, or any other meeting where
>you have to show you face and own up to what you say.
Uh huh.
...and how do you think I earn my money?
BTW, Reid? What are *you* doing now? Publishing? Any columns? Any paid
writing? Anything to show off and browbeat us with?
<crickets>
Thought so.
--
Jeff R.
oly
wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 1:39 AM, Jeff R. wrote:
>
> > IOW - point out*one* single error in what I wrote.
> > ...but you can't, can you.
>
> errors that people make in pointing out errors of others, in particular
> reporters. Your error was that you reported on something while saying
> that you haven't actually been looking for it. Yes, that's a
> qualification, but it's a stupid qualification. Either look for
> something and then report on it, or don't report on something you
> haven't been looking for and haven't taken the *30 seconds* it would
> take to report on it. And now you're up in arms. This couldn't be any
> more delicious.
>
> --
>
> Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide
> Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom
> Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Actualy, Jeff HAS devoted TOO much time responding to a well-known
'tard.
oly
Jud
Reid won't admit his mistake regarding 'whizzing' and an apology isn't
forthcoming. He revels in finding errors in others writings but won't
own up to his own. Typically, he has circumvented the subject upon
numerous occasions, and is doing so now. That he finds it amusing
amuses me. His defense of shoddy journalism is an entirely different
matter. If a doctor makes a mistake, someone dies; if a lawyer makes a
mistake, someone is incarcerated; if an architect makes a mistake, the
structure falls down; but if a journalist makes a mistake, there are
minimal to no repercussions. If it isn't right, then it's wrong.
Period.
Jeff R.
> On 11/14/2010 1:39 AM, Jeff R. wrote:
>> ...but you can't, can you.
>
> that people make in pointing out errors of others, in particular
> reporters.
What I can't work out is whether you are being deliberately, cunningly,
malevolently obtuse, or whether you actually are stupendously dense.
I have a leaning towards the latter, however.
> Your error was that you reported on something while saying that you
> haven't actually been looking for it. Yes, that's a qualification, but
> it's a stupid qualification. Either look for something and then report on
> it, or don't report on something you haven't been looking for and haven't
> taken the *30 seconds* it would take to report on it. And now you're up in
> arms. This couldn't be any more delicious.
OK.
I've looked.
I can't find any recent "Goldsborough" publications online.
So answer my question, unless you are too ashamed to do so:
Are you currently involved in any "professional journalistic" endeavours?
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
> On 11/14/2010 4:31 PM, Jud wrote:
>> Jeff...I think it's time that you resign yourself to the fact that
>> Reid won't admit his mistake regarding 'whizzing' and an apology isn't
>
> subject of whizzing. This was from something like six years ago. Talking
> about whacko-obsessive. I have zero problem admitting I'm wrong,
Bull.
I have extensive evidence (as does Google Groups archive) to the contrary.
Yes, we "whacko-obsessives" are quite concerned with the truth.
I know, and I understand, that even "so-called" or "part-time" or "has-been"
journalists like yourself cannot afford the luxury of respecting the truth.
Gets in the way of a good story, as they say.
I was right all along.
You were wrong all along. From post number 1 on the topic.
You abused me, harangued me, insulted me (you continue to today!) simply
because I was right and you were obviously, seriously, completely wrong.
If you were even half a decent person you would have apologised long ago. I
know you won't because you cannot even meet that poor standard.
> and have done so online and off on numerous occasions, making mistakes
> like everyone else despite taking care in trying to get things right, and
> I've done so here with whizzing, admitting that the surface metal in the
> fields doesn't actually melt to a liquid state.
>
> But I'll still maintain I was correct on the core issue, that whizzing for
> the most part doesn't remove metal but moves it, through plastic
> deformation,
Oh for the love of....
Reid, do some homework. Talk to someone who knows what "plastic
deformation" *means* before you attempt to bandy about a phrase about which
you *obviously* know nothing.
A first-year student of metallurgy could point out your gross
misinterpretations.
I couldn't be bothered trying to teach you anymore. You're a very poor
student, and an incredibly slow learner to boot.
Go ahead and peddle your nonsensical "understanding" of metallurgy and
metalworking. I don't care anymore - but I will chime in occasionally to
point out - when I feel like it - how completely and utterly wrong you are.
--
Jeff R.
(shaking my head in disbelief)
Jeff R.
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fce2c3c9-0f76-41af...@o2g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
He continues to prove, with every post that he makes, what a contemptible
and unpleasant little character he is.
My comment on his demeanour, from seven years ago:
http://mendosus.com/glomthis.html
remains just as relevant today.
Sometimes an ad hom attack can be not only accurate, but justified as well.
Attacking Reid is one such case.
So why do I bother?
Because it takes very litle effort, here on USENET, to express such a point
of view, and it helps to balance the smug, supercilious, ignorant dross he
perpetuates.
As I said - with very little effort.
Now I'm off to do something really important - sort out my mismatched sock
drawer.
--
Jeff R.
(in wet, muggy, tropical Sydney)
Frank Provasek
> I couldn't be bothered trying to teach you anymore. You're a very poor
> student, and an incredibly slow learner to boot.
>
> Go ahead and peddle your nonsensical "understanding" of metallurgy and
> metalworking. I don't care anymore - but I will chime in occasionally to
> point out - when I feel like it - how completely and utterly wrong you are.
>
> --
> Jeff R.
> (shaking my head in disbelief)
Aren't you the one who experimented on coins using a CONICAL wire
brush, when coin doctors
use a DISC brush, giving a completly different look as a result.
The disc brush cuts a bicycle wheel
spoke pattern in the coin, simulating radial mint luster lines. Your
experiment just swirled the metal
around like a mixmaster.
Attributing some of the surface changes to "melting" is not wildly
incorrect.
A. Selwooda and J. Mølgaarda
Research Department, British Nylon Spinners Limited, Ponty,pool,
Mon.Great Britain
Available online 20 February 2003.
Abstract
The brushing of aluminium by rotary nickel silver wire brushes gives
surface changes due to low temperature welding, and not surface
melting. This is shown by examination of the surface produced at
different speeds of brushing, with and without lubrication, and by
experimental and theoretical estimation of surface temperature.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To
view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
Reid Goldsborough
> Attributing some of the surface changes to "melting" is not wildly
> incorrect.
Long post ...
I was incorrect with this point, but you're right -- not wildly
incorrect -- and I was right in the whole, as pointed out, that this
outdated coin doctoring technique of whizzing for the most part moved or
pushed metal rather than removing it. But Jeff R. will never admit this.
Here's why, which I believe ties a lot of things together.
Error hunting can be fun. I do this, and this is one theme in this
thread. It can also be fun trying to knock a know-it-all off his block.
I know full well that I come across this way at times, in areas I
specialize in, for the very reason that I specialize in them. With coins
I go not wide but deep, as deep as I can in a relatively small number of
areas, enjoying the process of acquiring knowledge as much as acquiring
coins. I also enjoy sharing what I learn. Sharing knowledge in
numismatics for me involves online discussion groups, my Web site, and
articles and book reviews I write for numismatic publications. Have
another article coming out in the Celator in a couple of months. Jeff R.
says I was "published in the past," that I'm a "has been," and all the
rest. I always thought I made my living as a writer, but he knows best
about this too, I guess.
Jeff R. isn't the first to try with all his might to prove me wrong
about something. Michael Marotta, who Jeff R. ironically and in all his
astuteness thought was me with his Coin World association, did the same
in almost exactly the same way with his his Alexander the Great effort.
There are interesting parallels -- this will involve some of the
detailed analysis I enjoy. Read no further, anybody, if you don't also
find this enjoyable.
Both individuals observed me enjoying the process of commenting in
detail here about two areas I've looked into in detail: coin doctoring
techniques and Alexander the Great's portraiture on coinage. My comments
here, on the Web, and in articles I've written for the seven coin
publications I've written articles for are based on extensive reading,
observations of coinage, some experimentation, informal discussions and
formal interviews with others who have more experience and expertise
than me on these and other subjects, and thinking. Though I enjoyed
sharing my conclusions, they didn't enjoy this, and they set out to
prove me wrong.
Both engaged in what they regarded as original research. Michael with
his partner Anka read what ancient literature they could find related to
the subject, implying no one else had. Jeff R. tried whizzing a coin
himself without having seen one.
Both didn't do the necessarily contextual research. Neither read in
anywhere close to the detail they should have about what others had
concluded from doing far more extensive research than them. Michael
hadn't read the relevant recent literature, over the past half century,
about the issue of Alexander's portrait on coinage, didn't refer to it
in his article, didn't address the core evidence leading scholar after
scholar to conclude that the Herakles/Hercules image on Alexander's
coins was Herakles and not Alexander himself, and didn't know that this
was once widely believed in prior centuries before the historical and
numismatic evidence against it was uncovered more recently. Along with
not having seen a whizzed coin before trying to create one in his metal
shop, Jeff R. didn't talk to a single coin doctor who did this kind of
highly controversial work to find out exactly what they did to create
the effects they produced and wasn't familiar with what others had
concluded through looking in detail at numerous whizzed coins, from PCGS
to the ANA.
But they both "proved" me wrong. Debate ensued. Neither budged one iota
in his initial conclusion, despite the evidence presented against these
conclusions. Both insisted I was just copying the opinions of others and
that the so-called experts in turn were just aping one another. It's
true that experts aren't always right. But due diligence in any kind of
research requires that you look at the same things that experts look at
if you want to prove them wrong. You need a firm grounding in the
evidence that's out there if you want to refute that evidence. You can't
show that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes without having first
done your homework.
Jeff R. takes it to the next level in absurdity with his obsessiveness
and by insisting time after time that I not only issue him an apology
but also this entire group. He does this despite his putting up and
repeatedly referring to the Web site he created devoted entirely to me,
a clownishly sophomoric attempt at mockery and further evidence of
weirdo obsessiveness. But it's all amusing, and informative, offering
more insight into this ever curious, ever fascinating business of online
communication. Grist for the mill...
Jeff R.
"Frank Provasek" <fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:6011ff75-673d-453f...@h21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 14, 11:28 pm, "Jeff R." <cont...@this.ng> wrote:
>> I couldn't be bothered trying to teach you anymore. You're a very poor
>> student, and an incredibly slow learner to boot.
>>
>>Go ahead and peddle your nonsensical "understanding" of metallurgy and
>> metalworking. I don't care anymore - but I will chime in occasionally to
>> point out - when I feel like it - how completely and utterly wrong you
>> are.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff R.
>
>Aren't you the one who experimented on coins using a CONICAL wire
>brush, when coin doctors
>use a DISC brush, giving a completly different look as a result.
>The disc brush cuts a bicycle wheel
>spoke pattern in the coin, simulating radial mint luster lines.
Rubbish.
This has nothing to do with the type of brush employed, and everything to do
with the "wrist-action" or "technique" of the whizzer. (And movement of the
brush over the surface.)
Honestly Frank - how do you think this whizzing is accomplished? Your
description above is embarrassing.
>...Your
>experiment just swirled the metal
>around like a mixmaster.
...and this simile is just absurd. Do you think metal can be transformed
into putty by the brush? This is every bit as silly as Reid's (and Rick
Montgomery's) insistence that the metal was "melted" by the brush.
Have you ever actually worked any metal with your own hands?
Of course I have used disc-shaped brushes. One of the reasons I didn't
include them in the webpage I put up to *try* to explain the process (
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html ) was that I dismissed them out
of hand because of their ferocity - their savage treatment of the metal.
You'll note that I likewise dismissed the steel cup-shaped brush. One would
require an extremely delicate touch to avoid simply destroying all of the
detail on the coin.
>Attributing some of the surface changes to "melting" is not wildly
>incorrect.
It is actually. "Wildly" is a thoroughly appropriate adverb. The
connection is tenuous at best and just plain wrong when viewed
dispassionately.
>A. Selwooda and J. Mølgaarda
>Research Department, British Nylon Spinners Limited, Ponty,pool,
>Mon.Great Britain
>Available online 20 February 2003.
>Abstract
>The brushing of aluminium by rotary nickel silver wire brushes gives
>surface changes due to low temperature welding, and not surface
>melting.
"Surface welding" Frank. A common phenomenon in all abrasive situations,
and far removed from actual welding (or melting). It's the reason your car
need oil.
>...This is shown by examination of the surface produced at
>different speeds of brushing, with and without lubrication, and by
>experimental and theoretical estimation of surface temperature.
>References and further reading may be available for this article. To
>view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
LOL! And this betrays the full depth and breadth of your experience, I'm
afraid.
Shell out the five bucks (or whatever) and purchase the article, Frank. You
may learn something.
Alternatively, read this "executive" summary:
------------------------------------------
Whizzing is an abrasive process.
Metal is not "moved", so much as it is "re"-moved by the abrasive (or
"grinding", if you like) process of the wire-brushing.
-----------------------------------------
It doesn't matter how many so-called "coin doctors" or so-called
"journalists" claim otherwise, these are the facts as they stand.
Since you share Reid's inability to take what I say at face value, may I
suggest you talk to another qualified metallurgist.
Ask them: "Is it possible to melt the surface of a silver (or cupro-nickel,
or bronze, or aluminium-bronze, or whatever coin alloy you like) coin, or
even to 'move around' the metal with a high speed steel wire brush - or is
this just an abrasive/polishing process."
Don't bother Googling. Find a real-life person. With qualifications.
Please report back with your results. I'd be fascinated.
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
> On 11/15/2010 3:04 PM, Frank Provasek wrote:
>> Attributing some of the surface changes to "melting" is not wildly
>> incorrect.
>
> Long post ...
>
> I was incorrect with this point, but you're right -- not wildly
> incorrect --
Yes - "wildly" is an accurate adverb. The difference between "melting" and
"abrading" *is* significant.
>....and I was right in the whole, as pointed out, that this outdated coin
>doctoring technique of whizzing for the most part moved or pushed metal
>rather than removing it.
Wrong. Metal is not putty.
You can't "soften" and "move" metal with a wire brush any more than you can
melt it.
Mr Fact-Checker has it all wrong again - I mean "still".
> But Jeff R. will never admit this.
Of course not.
I should concede something that is wrong? Just because *you* don't
understand how metal behaves?
> Here's why, which I believe ties a lot of things together.
>
> Error hunting can be fun. I do this, and this is one theme in this thread.
> It can also be fun trying to knock a know-it-all off his block.
Yes it is - but it is getting tiresome.
> I know full well that I come across this way at times, in areas I
> specialize in, for the very reason that I specialize in them.
Uh huh.
Look up "metallurgy" in the dictionary. It's a long way from "coin
collecting".
> ...With coins I go not wide but deep,
Wa-a-a-a-ay of your depth, obviously.
>...as deep as I can in a relatively small number of areas, enjoying the
>process of acquiring knowledge as much as acquiring coins. I also enjoy
>sharing what I learn. Sharing knowledge in numismatics for me involves
>online discussion groups, my Web site, and articles and book reviews I
>write for numismatic publications.
Spreading the misinformation around for all to see.
Very noble.
>...Have another article coming out in the Celator in a couple of months.
Wow!
(Is that it? The full extent? How do you pay the rent?)
>...Jeff R. says I was "published in the past," that I'm a "has been," and
>all the rest. I always thought I made my living as a writer, but he knows
>best about this too, I guess.
Fine.
Point to a few sites where we can read your work.
Less than three years old, preferably.
Paid ones.
Embarrassed? Ashamed?
(You *won't* answer this, will you.)
>
> Jeff R. isn't the first to try with all his might to prove me wrong about
> something. Michael Marotta, who Jeff R. ironically and in all his
> astuteness thought was me with his Coin World association,
What?
Cites please.
>...did the same in almost exactly the same way with his his Alexander the
>Great effort. There are interesting parallels -- this will involve some of
>the detailed analysis I enjoy. Read no further, anybody, if you don't also
>find this enjoyable.
Not my dog.
Not my fight.
Stop trying to change the subject.
>
> Both individuals observed me enjoying the process of commenting in detail
> here about two areas I've looked into in detail: coin doctoring techniques
> and Alexander the Great's portraiture on coinage. My comments here, on the
> Web, and in articles I've written for the seven coin publications I've
> written articles for are based on extensive reading,
...of Rick "Proven-Wrong" Montgomery, for example...
> observations of coinage, some experimentation, informal discussions and
> formal interviews with others who have more experience and expertise than
> me on these and other subjects,
Well, *that* wouldn't be hard.
>...and thinking.
(*That* would)
>....Though I enjoyed sharing my conclusions, they didn't enjoy this, and
>they set out to prove me wrong.
Which is not difficult, when you are wrong.
> Both engaged in what they regarded as original research. Michael with his
> partner Anka read what ancient literature they could find related to the
> subject, implying no one else had. Jeff R. tried whizzing a coin himself
> without having seen one.
LOL!
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html is the piece to which he refers.
> Both didn't do the necessarily contextual research.
I suppose a degree with engineering and metallurgy in it doesn't count for
"contextual research"?
...and your Master's in English does?
How much metalwork did you do there?
>...Neither read in anywhere close to the detail they should have about what
>others had concluded from doing far more extensive research than them.
Rubbish!
30 years of experience in exactly the field surely counts for something?
>Michael hadn't read the relevant recent literature, over the past half
>century, about the issue of Alexander's portrait on coinage, didn't refer
>to it in his article, didn't address the core evidence leading scholar
>after scholar to conclude that the Herakles/Hercules image on Alexander's
>coins was Herakles and not Alexander himself, and didn't know that this was
>once widely believed in prior centuries before the historical and
>numismatic evidence against it was uncovered more recently. Along with not
>having seen a whizzed coin before trying to create one in his metal shop,
>Jeff R. didn't talk to a single coin doctor who did this kind of highly
>controversial work to find out exactly what they did to create the effects
>they produced and wasn't familiar with what others had concluded through
>looking in detail at numerous whizzed coins, from PCGS to the ANA.
LOL again!
(1) "Coin doctors" will willingly volunteer information about their
deceptive practices? How naive are you?
What sort of witnesses would such shysters make? What makes you think that
some grubby back-room coin-polisher understands the mechanics of what he
does?
(2) It's an issue of metallurgy, not numismatics.
(3) One doesn't have to talk to a crook, to know that what you claimed is a
physical impossibility.
>
> But they both "proved" me wrong. Debate ensued. Neither budged one iota in
> his initial conclusion,
Yes - being right does that to you, I find.
> despite the evidence presented against these conclusions.
All of which was uninformed, misunderstood, out of context and/or just plain
stupid.
> Both insisted I was just copying the opinions of others and that the
> so-called experts in turn were just aping one another. It's true that
> experts aren't always right. But due diligence in any kind of research
> requires that you look at the same things that experts look at if you want
> to prove them wrong. You need a firm grounding in the evidence that's out
> there if you want to refute that evidence. You can't show that the emperor
> isn't wearing any clothes without having first done your homework.
This is a *scream* - coming from *you*!
>
> Jeff R. takes it to the next level in absurdity with his obsessiveness and
> by insisting time after time that I not only issue him an apology but also
> this entire group. He does this despite his putting up and repeatedly
> referring to the Web site he created devoted entirely to me,
Excuse me, Reid. You do suffer delusions of adequacy. The Reid-bashing
occupies less than about 2% of said website (and is -what- seven years old
now?)
> a clownishly sophomoric attempt at mockery
You mean this one: http://mendosus.com/reidisms.html
or this one: http://mendosus.com/glomthis.html (my personal favourite).
Thanks for the segue. :-)
>...and further evidence of weirdo obsessiveness.
Something which *you*, in your wholly-professional-journalistic-integrity
could *never* be accused of.
Right.
>...But it's all amusing, and informative, offering more insight into this
>ever curious, ever fascinating business of online communication. Grist for
>the mill...
The mill that melts the grain? Or grinds it?
Just asking....
--
Jeff R.
(given up on the apology, would settle for just acknowledgement of physics)
Frank Provasek
you) in the dirt. The dirt is moved, not removed.
Scratch a coin with a sewing needle. See any "removed" metal?
Jeff R.
> Whizzing cuts grooves in the coin like furrows from a plow (plough to
> you) in the dirt. The dirt is moved, not removed.
Hardly a reasonable analogy, Frank, considering the wildly different natures
of soil vs solid metal
>
> Scratch a coin with a sewing needle. See any "removed" metal?
Yes.
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz-concl.html
See the "filings"?
Also, look at the illustrations at the bottom of the page.
HTH
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
> same as a coin being slashed with a chisel,
A flexible wire brush strand is hardly a "chisel" Reid.
Would you like me to outline the differences in their properties?
>...as in ancient times to authenticate it, causing a deep gash in it. Yet
>when you weigh such coins, the weight is exactly the same as unslashed
>coins.
What does "exactly" mean?
>...Just as with with whizzing or scratching a coin with a needle, the metal
>has been pushed to the side. That's the reason as well that whizzed coins
>have the same weight as those not adulterated this way, that weight is not
>a diagnostic of whizzing.
Certainly not at the level of accuracy that weight is measured, no.
How many "filings" would it take to make up 0.01g?
(a lot)
Who diagnoses older coins to a greater order of accuracy than 0.005g?
Well?
> But you're arguing with another one of those Who Can Never Be Wrong, and
> he like others of his ilk attempts to deflect this by making this
> accusation of others, by throwing out jargon,
Jargon?
What jargon?
Cites, please.
(And I am so sorry if you cannot understand the simple explanations I
provide.)
>...and by referring to his "experience." In what? Coin doctoring? Feast
>your mind on the hubris of
It's not "hubris" when you're right.
> experimenting to create something that you had never actually seen in
> person, in this case a whizzed coin,
This doesn't matter. Irrelevant point. (It's wrong now, too, BTW. I have a
number of coins that are marked "whizzed" by the graders. They proved or
demonstrated absolutely nothing.)
I am commenting on laws of physics, which are independent of the opinions of
"coin doctors" or "graders".
>... then making conclusions from this to prove all the so-called experts
>wrong.
So you now acknowledge their "so-called" status? Have you informed Rick
Montgomery of your change of heart?
>... Online expertism, another fascinating aspect of this curious world of
>online communication.
Reid, find *one* - just ONE - individual with genuine experience and/or
qualifications in metal working and/or metallurgy who agrees with your
hypothesis.
I cannot "prove" my experience online, and you refuse to acknowledge the
facts of physics as I present them to you.
(1) Whizzing is an abrasive process
(2) You cannot plastically deform metal with a flexible wire brush.
Prove me wrong.
--
Jeff R.
(preferably with science, not just more name-calling)
Coin Forum
"Jeff R." <con...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:4ce36dc8$0$3033$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
You boys ought to step back and ask yourselves "Does anybody (besides
yourselves) give a fuck about this subject?"
OK OK I'll give you the answer: NO.
Jud
> You boys ought to step back and ask yourselves "Does anybody (besides
> yourselves) give a f**k about this subject?"
> OK OK I'll give you the answer: NO.
Profanity removed by me.
I feel that someone who wants people to access your site should
refrain from such language on newsgroups. IMHO, it doesn't reflect
well upon you.
Coin Forum
On Nov 17, 3:23 pm, "Coin Forum" <CoinFo...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> You boys ought to step back and ask yourselves "Does anybody (besides
> yourselves) give a fuck about this subject?"
> OK OK I'll give you the answer: NO.
Profanity removed by me.
I feel that someone who wants people to access your site should
refrain from such language on newsgroups. IMHO, it doesn't reflect
well upon you.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Profanity restored by me.
And I feel people as prissy as you should not access the Usenet.
Nick Knight
>Profanity restored by me.
>And I feel people as prissy as you should not access the Usenet.
Ironic, isn't it? Should we now take a poll and see if anyone gives a FF or
RA about how YOU "feel"?? Yes, it's the same age-old answer. Funny that.
<plonk>
Pin-headed moron removed by me.
Nick
Jeff R.
"Coin Forum" <Coin...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:YQWEo.34359$NM2....@newsfe22.iad...
>
> You boys ought to step back and ask yourselves "Does anybody (besides
> yourselves) give a fuck about this subject?"
> OK OK I'll give you the answer: NO.
Oh dear.
You poor fellow.
You must have installed the version of OE which doesn't allow you to skip
threads.
Or ignore posts.
It must be hell in there.
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
> On 11/17/2010 1:08 AM, Jeff R. wrote:
>> Reid, find*one* - just ONE - individual with genuine experience and/or
>> qualifications in metal working and/or metallurgy who agrees with your
>> hypothesis.
>
> process though which the surface metal of a coin is softened
...and I still do.
>...and moved through whizzing, saying the physics of this is impossible.
>But this is the same term used to describe whizzing by Tony Clayton, a
>former physics teacher who maintains a Web site on coin metals.
Now just a minute, Reid.
How come you can cite Tony's status as "former physics teacher" as a
sufficient guarantee of accuracy, yet you automatically dismiss my status
as current engineering teacher as irrelevant?
>..As he said: "What does occur is plastic deformation of the surface
>layers. This will result in surface metal being moved, in just the same way
>as drawing a knife across the surface will result in a scratch with the
>moved material forming a narrow raised area on each side."
Sigh.
You don't bother reading do you?
Look again at the diagrams at the base of the "conclusions" page I wrote
seven years ago, where this effect is demonstrated and explained.
*HINT*: its a *micro* effect, yet you are claiming *macro* consequences.
>
> Allen Stockton, a coin doctor, someone who unlike you actually worked on
> coins BEFORE you made your grand conclusions about what happens when
> they're worked on, also says metal is moved.
So he is also wrong. So what?
> So has PCGS
Written by Rick Montgomery? LOL!
>...in its book Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, Brian Silliman of
>NCS (Numismatistic Conservation Services) in his Numismatist column and the
>ANA in its book A.N.A. Grading Standards for United States Coins. Yes.
You forgot to mention Rick Montgomery. Again.
Why is that?
Look Reid - coin graders and salesmen are not metallurgists. I don't know
squat about grading US coins on the 70 point scale, and they plainly know
just about the same about the mechanics of shaping metals (if they agree
with you, that is).
> You're correct. This is all just my "hypothesis." Or was it what you said
> before, that all these people are just copying one another, and unlike you
> none of them has a metal shop? Ad infinitioticdum. Like talking to a brick
> wall and with the same intelligence. Bye.
What?
You're giving up again?
Lacking endurance as the years creep by, eh Reid?
Its such a shame that you cannot advance one single credible argument to
suggest that whizzing is anything other than an abrasive process.
I no longer expect an apology for your rudeness, (you're too rude for that),
but I gladly accept your admission of defeat.
Au revoir indeed.
--
Jeff R.
Jo FLECK
will make many people hesitant to join your forum, thinking that such
language is permitted there as well.
"Coin Forum" <Coin...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:YQWEo.34359$NM2....@newsfe22.iad...
> You boys ought to step back and ask yourselves "Does anybody (besides
Jud
> Profanity restored by me.
>
> And I feel people as prissy as you should not access the Usenet.
Prissy? I think not! I too often drop the "F" bomb myself in daily
usage. However, I am not trying to get people to join with me in any
business enterprise. Go ahead and use as much profanity as you like,
it doesn't bother me a bit. Its just a poor business practice. Best of
luck to you. BTW, how is your forum doing? Think you have gained or
lost interest there by your comments?
Jud -the profane-
Coin Forum
--------------------------------------------------------------
#1: It's not a "business enterprise"
#2: You use the word but object when others do. Hypocrite!
#3: Irrespective of how the group is doing, at least it doesn't degenerate into
a hell hole of frustrated losers insulting each other for years on end, jumping
on others for the slightest mistake and generally spewing their hatred of their
fellow collectors.
#4: In looking this group over in Google Groups, I see that the chance of any
meaningful numismatic dialog is nil.
#5: I'm out of here.
Have fun with your hatred.
Phil DeMayo
> "Reid Goldsborough" <reidgolduse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >...in its book Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, Brian Silliman of
> >NCS (Numismatistic Conservation Services) in his Numismatist column and the
> >ANA in its book A.N.A. Grading Standards for United States Coins. Yes.
>
> You forgot to mention Rick Montgomery. Again.
> Why is that?
I love when the Goldsborough character cites an "expert" only when
that "expert" agrees with him.
Brian Silliman co-authors a column in the ANA's monthly magazine "The
Numismatist". One of the columns mentioned that counterfeit coins
were illegal to possess. I bet you can't guess who wrote a "Letter to
the Editor" saying Silliman and his co-author were wrong.
Derry B
> yourselves) give a fuck about this subject?"
> OK OK I'll give you the answer: NO.
>
as a resource in the BSA merit badge program for Coin Collecting 1998
revision
Nick Knight
at 08:23 PM, Reid Goldsborough <reidgol...@yahoo.com> said:
>The latter are more interesting, I think.
>Jeff R. is the latest in a long line here who refuse to budge at all,
Interesting. You see, Jeff R has been completely irrelevant to me for quite
some time. For all I knew, he no longer existed. I killfiled him eons ago,
and I hadn't seen an original post from him OR anybody quoting him since ...
until 2 days ago.
Thanks Reid. :|
Hopefully it will be another long time before I see more. I really don't
have the time, more the desire, to waste on him. You know, Reid, it IS
totally your option to read his posts and even more to reply to him. I'd
tell you it works much better to ignore him, but I know you won't listen :)
Nick
Nick Knight
at 08:42 PM, Reid Goldsborough <reidgol...@yahoo.com> said:
>legality of owning counterfeits has been discussed here in the
>past in great detail,
Ughg. And now Phil. Man, this is ending up as a bad week :).
Reid! You're killing me.
Nick - Owner of many bust-era contemporary counterfeits
Reid Goldsborough
> I'd tell you it works much better to ignore him, but I know you won't listen :)
Hey! What are you trying to do here, initiate a flame war? <g> Then you
go and chastise me for responding to Phil. Man, you're tough.
Seriously, I hear you. We all have our ways of dealing with nonsense.
I'm in no way suggesting that my way is any better than any other. I
tend more toward responding, my free speech leanings and all, but I
won't respond to every provocation. I can definitely see the wisdom of
blocking people that have a probability that's higher than you're
comfortable with of putting out what you regard as nonsense.
Jud
> #1: It's not a "business enterprise"
Call it what you will. Not a business? My bad! Slight
mistake...reference your item #3.
> #2: You use the word but object when others do. Hypocrite!
I use it when speaking - and none too proud of it, but I challenge you
to find me using it online. No hypocrisy there. If we were to meet
face to face, I would be happy to teach you some words that you have
never heard.
> #3: Irrespective of how the group is doing, at least it doesn't degenerate into
> a hell hole of frustrated losers insulting each other for years on end, jumping
> on others for the slightest mistake and generally spewing their hatred of their
> fellow collectors.
Can't help but notice that you didn't say how your group is doing. And
this place (RCC) is only a hell hole when the likes of you come in,
insulting everyone here by calling us frustrated losers, spewing
hatred of fellow collectors.
> #4: In looking this group over in Google Groups, I see that the chance of any
> meaningful numismatic dialog is nil.
You get out of it what you bring into it.
> #5: I'm out of here.
> Have fun with your hatred.
Pretty thin skin you have there! Funny coming from someone who says
that I shouldn't be on the internet if I can't handle profanity.
Believe it or not, I was actually trying to be helpful by suggesting
that you refrain from using profanity if you wanted people to join
your group. But if you are really "out of here", you won't see what I
am saying. Have fun in your own little world with both members of your
group. Go back to Yahoo groups.
Jeff R.
> #5: I'm out of here.
Two down...
:-)
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
"Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3e638563-1c09-4843...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 12:19 am, "Jeff R." <cont...@this.ng> wrote:
> "Reid Goldsborough" <reidgolduse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >...in its book Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, Brian Silliman of
> >NCS (Numismatistic Conservation Services) in his Numismatist column and
> >the
> >ANA in its book A.N.A. Grading Standards for United States Coins. Yes.
>
> You forgot to mention Rick Montgomery. Again.
> Why is that?
>I love when the Goldsborough character cites an "expert" only when
>that "expert" agrees with him.
Actually, this example is even funnier than that.
The Rick person not only agrees with Reid, but was one of his primary
sources (apparently). The joyous twist is that he (RM) was proven
fatuously, completely and utterly wrong in a number of his assertions, and
now RG doesn't seem quite so keem to quote him, despite his "experthood".
Hehehe
This just keeps getting better and better.
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
> But like the issue of whizzing moving metal, the issue of the legality of
> owning counterfeits has been discussed here in the past in great detail,
> and like Jeff R. you bring this up without adding a shred of new
> information.
Actually, Reid, you don't need *new* arguments (or even evidence) when
you're correct in the first place.
----------------------------------
(1) Whizzing is an abrasive process.
(2) Metal does not "move" around the surface of a whizzed coin
---------------------------------
Facts don't change.
>...Same tired old arguments, long refuted. Like him, you've dug in and
>haven't budged one iota from your original views, and like him it's clear
>you never will, no matter what. Also like him you bring this up in
>discussions about completely unrelated subjects, some kind of fixation or
>compulsion.
"Fixation" or "compulsion" = reverence for the truth.
Funny view of the world, Reid.
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
"Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
news:4ce5e2dc$2$avpx$mr2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Reid! You're killing me.
We all live in hope.
--
Jeff R.
(can it be mutual?)
Jeff R.
> In <48194j....@news.alt.net>, on 11/18/2010
> at 08:23 PM, Reid Goldsborough <reidgol...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>>The latter are more interesting, I think.
>>Jeff R. is the latest in a long line here who refuse to budge at all,
>
> Interesting. You see, Jeff R has been completely irrelevant to me for
> quite
> some time.
Yet here you go, crapping (I'm sorry: "carping") on and on and on.
>...For all I knew, he no longer existed. I killfiled him eons ago,
> and I hadn't seen an original post from him OR anybody quoting him since
> ...
> until 2 days ago.
>
> Thanks Reid. :|
>
> Hopefully it will be another long time before I see more. I really don't
> have the time, more the desire, to waste on him. You know, Reid, it IS
> totally your option to read his posts and even more to reply to him. I'd
> tell you it works much better to ignore him, but I know you won't listen
> :)
>
> Nick
Pull your head back in Nick.
At least be honest in your cowardice.
--
Jeff R.
(not afraid of engagement)
Gary
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> #1: It's not a "business enterprise"
> #2: You use the word but object when others do. Hypocrite!
> #3: Irrespective of how the group is doing, at least it doesn't degenerate into
> a hell hole of frustrated losers insulting each other for years on end, jumping
> on others for the slightest mistake and generally spewing their hatred of their
> fellow collectors.
> #4: In looking this group over in Google Groups, I see that the chance of any
> meaningful numismatic dialog is nil.
> #5: I'm out of here.
> Have fun with your hatred.
Should have known: Bob Finnan, king of hate
Welcome
Welcome to the CoinForum, an online site for the discussion of
collecting of US and World coin.
Creator: fwdixon
<fwd...@yahoo.com>
Frantisek Baltiska
>
>>
>> --
>
> You boys ought to step back and ask yourselves "Does anybody (besides
> yourselves) give a fuck about this subject?"
> OK OK I'll give you the answer: NO.
>
oly
RF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hate is a thoroughly satisfying emotion, 100% complete in a way that
love or friendship never can be.
Those you love or like have their faults, their foibles, their
shortcomings.
When you hate somebody, really hate 'em, you can hate every single G-D
thing about them.
oly