Ancient acquisition
Reid Goldsborough
http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg
There's more to it than meets the eye, in hand as well. If anyone comes
up with the right answer, they win my eternal admiration.
--
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Jeff R.
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3lnb7o....@news.alt.net...
> Here's my latest:
>
> http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg
>
> There's more to it than meets the eye, in hand as well. If anyone comes up
> with the right answer, they win my eternal admiration.
>
1) The coin has obviously been whizzed. You can see where the molten metal
has built up near the ridges.
2) It has plainly suffered PVC damage from being kept in a rigid,
non-flexible, PVC flip.
3) Being Greek, it was probably owned by an abuser-of-little-boys, so it
doesn't actually deserve any attention at all - let alone credibility -
owing to the association, however vague or tenuous.
4) It's not even Con., anyway. It's probably Julian.
5) Of course, the most egregious anachronism is the traffic lights on the
reverse. I mean: *four* lights? What colour was the fourth one, anyway?
Not bad huh? All this from a noisy, out-of-focus, motion-blurred (probably
mobile-phone-camera) snap.
You may withhold the admiration.
In some cases, I am more comfortable with contempt.
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
> On 4/10/2010 8:46 PM, Jeff R. wrote:
>
>> Not bad huh?
>
> Not bad? Bad, actually. Not even close, including the point you were
> serious about. But feel free to do your thing and argue this. More later.
"serious about"?
What?
Which one was that?
--
Jeff R.
Scurvy Dog
"Jeff R." <con...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:4bc13386$0$25305$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Reid is our resident dimbulb.
Phil DeMayo
> 1) The coin has obviously been whizzed. You can see where the molten metal
> has built up near the ridges.
>
> 2) It has plainly suffered PVC damage from being kept in a rigid,
> non-flexible, PVC flip.
>
> 3) Being Greek, it was probably owned by an abuser-of-little-boys, so it
> doesn't actually deserve any attention at all - let alone credibility -
> owing to the association, however vague or tenuous.
>
> 4) It's not even Con., anyway. It's probably Julian.
>
> 5) Of course, the most egregious anachronism is the traffic lights on the
> reverse. I mean: *four* lights? What colour was the fourth one, anyway?
>
> Not bad huh? All this from a noisy, out-of-focus, motion-blurred (probably
> mobile-phone-camera) snap.
>
> You may withhold the admiration.
> In some cases, I am more comfortable with contempt.
>
> --
> Jeff R.
Not bad at all.....I yield to your superior sarcasm.
Almost forgot....<g>
Reid Goldsborough
> 4) It's not even Con., anyway. It's probably Julian.
Julian? Care to be more specific? Feel free to be serious or not, though
it would be more interesting if you were serious. Which Julian? Have a
Sear, RIC, or other attribution? And, most relevant to my post, can you
offer an view on how this coin might not be how it appears? Or maybe it
is how it appears?
Jeff R.
> On 4/10/2010 8:46 PM, Jeff R. wrote:
>
>> 4) It's not even Con., anyway. It's probably Julian.
>
> Julian? Care to be more specific? Feel free to be serious or not, though
> it would be more interesting if you were serious. Which Julian? Have a
> Sear, RIC, or other attribution? And, most relevant to my post, can you
> offer an view on how this coin might not be how it appears? Or maybe it is
> how it appears?
I was - obliquely - referring to his cousin - the Apostate.
Actually, as Phil correctly identified, I was just being sarcastic.
You know:
- trashing the thread
- adding no actual coin-related infomation
- posting from the gutter
You know the gist.
So sorry if you thought I was being serious this time.
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
> On 4/11/2010 8:23 PM, Jeff R. wrote:
>
>> So sorry if you thought I was being serious this time.
>
> jumped in, so let me ask if you see anything about the coin I linked to
> that's not as it should be. Or maybe you don't go back that far, to
> ancient Rome.
I know nothing about the coin you linked to, although the traffic lights do
have me worried.
--
Jeff R.
Mr. Jaggers
Those aren't stoplights, those are very sophisticated early speaker arrays.
James the Audiophile
Jeff R.
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hpugc...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Or a condominium for birds...
Scurvy Dog
> On 4/12/2010 12:55 AM, Jeff R. wrote:
>
>> I know nothing about the coin you linked to
>
> same. You'll get no more responses from me in this thread.
See Pattern #7 at http://www.rightmansyndrome.com/
Phil DeMayo
wrote:
> On 4/12/2010 12:55 AM, Jeff R. wrote:
>
> > I know nothing about the coin you linked to
>
> This is nothing new. Just more ignorance. Feel free to continue more of
> the same. You'll get no more responses from me in this thread.
Kiss our collective asses you self-important mutt.
Bruce Remick
"Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9de5a8d9-dce6-4266...@u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
========
Hey. No chit-chatting.
<g>
Jeff R.
> On 4/12/2010 12:55 AM, Jeff R. wrote:
>
>> I know nothing about the coin you linked to
>
> This is nothing new. Just more ignorance. Feel free to continue more of
> the same. You'll get no more responses from me in this thread.
Good.
Now you can spend your spare time more profitably - say - improving your
abominable coin "photography skills".
--
Jeff R.
Reid Goldsborough
> http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg
Nobody here has yet offered a guess as to whether there's more than
meets the eye with the above coin, but I'll give this a couple of more
days. Since it has been pointed out, I'll add that this photo is the
seller's. The piece just arrived and I haven't yet photographed it
myself. It in fact isn't the best photo, but it's also not as it has
been described here and is good enough to identify the piece and
anything unusual about it. Nothing more about it of relevance is
revealed in looking at the piece in hand.
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/12/2010 3:09 PM, Phil DeMayo wrote:
>
>> Kiss our collective asses you self-important mutt.
>
> anyway. You rarely offer any numismatic content. No wonder you seem to
> have just appointed yourself. But no, I will not kiss your posterior
> or anyone else's. Further, I will not bite you or any part of you
> either, no matter how many times you ask me. You've repeatedly asked
> others here as well to bite you. I don't know if anyone has ever
> consented. What I cannot fathom is how you cannot see how depraved it
> is to so publicly solicit these kinds of acts. I try to maintain an
> open mind, but I doubt I'm the only one who feels that
> sado-masochism, at the very least, should be kept private.
"Bite me" is hardly an invitation to sado-masochism. Check a good slang
dictionary for an explanation of the term. By the way, it's been around at
least as far back as my own high school days, back in nineteen mumbly-four.
James de Lexicographer
Scurvy Dog
> On 4/12/2010 3:09 PM, Phil DeMayo wrote:
>
>
> rarely offer any numismatic content. No wonder you seem to have just appointed
> yourself. But no, I will not kiss your posterior or anyone else's. Further, I
> will not bite you or any part of you either, no matter how many times you ask
> me. You've repeatedly asked others here as well to bite you. I don't know if
> anyone has ever consented. What I cannot fathom is how you cannot see how
> depraved it is to so publicly solicit these kinds of acts. I try to maintain
> an open mind, but I doubt I'm the only one who feels that sado-masochism, at
> the very least, should be kept private.
You are such a pompous, humorless twit. <g>
I don't killfile you because it is just too damn funny watching you get your
comeuppence by every poster.
Scurvy Dog
>... Further, his online masochism is evident in making the same mistakes over
>and over, in bringing on the same criticism...
POT - KETTLE - BLACK
Bruce Remick
> On 4/10/2010 4:05 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote:
>>
>> http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg
>>
>> There's more to it than meets the eye, in hand as well. If anyone comes
>> up with the right answer, they win my eternal admiration.
>
> Not surprised but a bit disappointed. Mr. Jaggers was right of course
> about the challenges in generating positive on-topic discussion in this
> group, though he seems much more likely now to post interesting coin
> content than previously, content that does generate positive on-topic
> discussion. I'll probably do a little analysis of the responses to this
> thread later, but in short, part of this lack of content here no doubt is
> that relatively few of the relatively few people still here collect and
> know about ancients compared with U.S. and other modern coins, though some
> do. Part of it may be that I posed this as a challenge. And part of it is
> that it is indeed difficult if not impossible to see anything unusual
> about the above coin, either from the above photo, not spectacular but
> typical of online photos/scans of similar coins, or from looking at the
> coin in hand.
>
> It's modern. A counterfeit. A very good fake of a very inexpensive coin.
> By "good" here I mean not in the sense of moral of course but in the sense
> of high-quality, and by high-quality I mean deceptive --
> successful in what it attempts to do. This doesn't mean either that people
> should avoid collecting ancients. It's just that as with the Chinese and
> their faking of American collector coins, including relatively low-value
> ones, the Bulgarians are getting better and better at faking ancient
> coins. All this, in my view, makes coin collecting more interesting, not
> less, if you choose to delve into the area of authenticity. Lots more
> detail about the above piece, purportedly a Constantine II bronze.
I think that if you came right out and described it as counterfeit in your
first post, you might have received more responses. Tell us how and why you
identified it as such. Those of us who don't collect ancients probably had
no idea of what might be unusual or "more than meets the eye" about it,
never having seen one before. As a non-collector, so many of the ancient
coins look crudely made to me that I have no basis to question one's
authenticity, especially from a photo.
Scurvy Dog
news:bb2xn.154206$0N3....@newsfe09.iad...
>As a non-collector, so many of the ancient coins look crudely made to me that I
>have no basis to question one's authenticity, especially from a photo.
But Reid isn't here for discussion, he's here to pontificate and blow his own
horn, as usual.
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/12/2010 8:46 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> "Bite me" is hardly an invitation to sado-masochism. Check a good
>> slang dictionary for an explanation of the term. By the way, it's
>> been around at least as far back as my own high school days, back in
>> nineteen mumbly-four.
>
> also his actions. Sure, with most people, saying "Bite me!" over and
> over and referring to body parts where the sun don't shine would just
> be blown off as the actions of an eccentric curmudgeon. What's more, I
> don't have any evidence if he engages in sadomasochistic solicitations
> in person. But from what I've seen online anyway, he's without
> question sadistic in his messaging, or tries to be anyway. More so in
> the past than recently, and has been pointed out previously, he seems
> to relish the gutter fighting, jumping in whenever he can. Further,
> his online masochism is evident in making the same mistakes over and
> wanting to kill an almost dead horse. I mention this now because he
> again is engaging in the same kinds of behavior, jumping into brawls
> without any previous engagement in the conversation and without any
> knowledge or interest in the subject matter of the thread.
Good grief, all this time I was under the impression that you two disagreed
over the mechanism of whizzing, not S&M.
James de Mistaken
mazorj
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3luoqf....@news.alt.net...
> On 4/10/2010 4:05 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote:
>> Here's my latest:
>>
>> http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg
>>
>> There's more to it than meets the eye, in hand as well. If anyone comes
>> up with the right answer, they win my eternal admiration.
>
> I'll reveal now. Posted this three days ago. Zero coin-related responses.
> Not surprised but a bit disappointed. Mr. Jaggers was right of course
> about the challenges in generating positive on-topic discussion in this
> group, though he seems much more likely now to post interesting coin
> content than previously, content that does generate positive on-topic
> discussion. I'll probably do a little analysis of the responses to this
> thread later, but in short, part of this lack of content here no doubt is
> that relatively few of the relatively few people still here collect and
> know about ancients compared with U.S. and other modern coins, though some
> do. Part of it may be that I posed this as a challenge. And part of it is
> that it is indeed difficult if not impossible to see anything unusual
> about the above coin, either from the above photo, not spectacular but
> typical of online photos/scans of similar coins, or from looking at the
> coin in hand.
Cutting through your blathering, babbling chit-chat, we discover that: You
admit that you posted a crap image of what is an ugly crap coin (and a
counterfeit one at that) from a specialized area of collecting that is far
less familiar to most collectors than, say, old U.S. coppers. And then you
whine because you got very little in the way of substantive responses.
> It's modern. A counterfeit. A very good fake of a very inexpensive coin.
> By "good" here I mean not in the sense of moral of course but in the sense
> of high-quality, and by high-quality I mean deceptive --
> successful in what it attempts to do. This doesn't mean either that people
> should avoid collecting ancients. It's just that as with the Chinese and
> their faking of American collector coins, including relatively low-value
> ones, the Bulgarians are getting better and better at faking ancient
> coins. All this, in my view, makes coin collecting more interesting, not
> less, if you choose to delve into the area of authenticity. Lots more
> detail about the above piece, purportedly a Constantine II bronze.
Cutting through your blathering, babbling chit-chat, we discover that: You
are fascinated with coins that are not real coins, but counterfeits of
foreign coins that most collectors will never see even in image form, let
alone possess. Nothing wrong with that... except that you dissed James for
his equally detailed knowledge - down to die marriages! - of real, actual
19th century U.S. copper coins that every collector can readily see and buy
at coin shows and local shops. Even if they're not in the market for one,
they at least know of them from the pages of the Red Book.
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then you really ought to see a
doctor about your chronic binocular conjunctivitis.
To keep my post on topic, and since you like numismatic challenges, I have
one for you, Reid. Here is an image of a coin in my possession:
O
Here is the reverse side...
Q
and the edge view,
[||||||]
I know the image quality isn't the best, but I'm hoping that a collector
with your vast detailed knowledge
can ascertain its type, spot the anomalies on it, and tell me whether it's a
counterfeit or a unique find or just a common variety. If you can't provide
a substantive response, well, then we'll know that you're just a poseur
who's here for the chit-chat.
- mazorj, Numismatic Quiz Master
Scurvy Dog
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hq2kgn$912$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
You forget, you must add <g> to your response.
Jud
> To keep my post on topic, and since you like numismatic challenges, I have
> one for you, Reid. Here is an image of a coin in my possession:
>
> O
>
> Here is the reverse side...
>
> Q
>
> and the edge view,
>
> [||||||]
>
> I know the image quality isn't the best, but I'm hoping that a collector
> with your vast detailed knowledge
> can ascertain its type, spot the anomalies on it, and tell me whether it's a
> counterfeit or a unique find or just a common variety. If you can't provide
> a substantive response, well, then we'll know that you're just a poseur
> who's here for the chit-chat.
>
> - mazorj, Numismatic Quiz Master
I hope someone can identify this coin, because I have one just like
it! 8-)
Jeff R.
> one for you, Reid. Here is an image of a coin in my possession:
>
> O
>
> Here is the reverse side...
>
> Q
>
> and the edge view,
>
> [||||||]
>
> I know the image quality isn't the best, but I'm hoping that a collector
> with your vast detailed knowledge
> can ascertain its type, spot the anomalies on it, and tell me whether it's
> a counterfeit or a unique find or just a common variety. If you can't
> provide a substantive response, well, then we'll know that you're just a
> poseur who's here for the chit-chat.
>
> - mazorj, Numismatic Quiz Master
I'll take a shot...
Obverse seems nice and clean, although detail is a bit low.
That's a nasty cud on the reverse. Die clash? Broken die?
Reeding is clear and well defined.
Probably an AU50 Trade dollar - genuine
Close?
--
Jeff R.
Eric Babula
> On 4/10/2010 4:05 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote:
>>Zero coin-related
> responses. Not surprised but a bit disappointed.
> It's modern. A counterfeit. A very good fake of a very inexpensive
> coin.
Sorry, Reid. You and I are just not in the same collecting camp. I have
exactly one ancient coin in my entire collection, and I barely know
anything about that one. And, AFAIK, I have no counterfeits. If I had
an interest in ancients and thought I could, I would certainly have
tried to meet your challenge. But, I've only really collected US coins.
Sorry.
Eric - the clueless
Reid Goldsborough
> I think that if you came right out and described it as counterfeit in your
> first post, you might have received more responses. Tell us how and why you
> identified it as such. Those of us who don't collect ancients probably had
> no idea of what might be unusual or "more than meets the eye" about it,
> never having seen one before. As a non-collector, so many of the ancient
> coins look crudely made to me that I have no basis to question one's
> authenticity, especially from a photo.
I'll just address one issue you bring up, for now. Ancient dies were all
engraved by hand. Planchets were created by hand. Coins were struck by
hand. There were no reducing machines, electric-powered presses, all the
rest. Hand tools were used, but it was very much a manual process, and a
craft. What you see as "crude" appears to be the variability that
necessarily resulted from the hand-crafted nature of ancient coin
production.
As with modern coins, some ancient coin types were designed more
beautifully than others, and some were struck more carefully than
others. Late Roman bronze coins -- the piece I linked to is a copy of a
late Roman bronze coin -- aren't generally considered among the most
aesthetic ancient coins. But many numismatists familiar with the entire
span of coin production, from the beginning 2,600 years ago until today,
regard ancient Greek coins minted in Magna Graecia as history's most
beautiful. Naturally, some disagree, so no need to point this out.
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/13/2010 3:29 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> Good grief, all this time I was under the impression that you two
>> disagreed over the mechanism of whizzing, not S&M.
>
> to bite him or referred to people's private parts online.
Got it, my bad.
James de Contrite
Reid Goldsborough
> Sorry, Reid. You and I are just not in the same collecting camp. I have
> exactly one ancient coin in my entire collection, and I barely know
> anything about that one. And, AFAIK, I have no counterfeits. If I had
> an interest in ancients and thought I could, I would certainly have
> tried to meet your challenge. But, I've only really collected US coins.
Fair enough. Well, one ancient coin is better than none. <g> A lot of
collectors of U.S. coins choose not to go back further in time.
Bruce Remick
My point in citing the crude, hand-crafted, appearance of most ancient coins
to non ancient collectors was referring to how hard it would be for one of
us to recognize a counterfeit, in person or not. As a modern copper fan, I
do like the looks of many copper and bronze ancients mainly because of their
hand-rendered details, compared to modern engraved coins.
Jeff R.
> On 4/13/2010 3:29 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> disagreed
>> over the mechanism of whizzing, not S&M.
>
> bite him or referred to people's private parts online.
Not yet, but in your case I'd be prepared to make an exception.
--
Jeff R.
(as long as we understand it is metaphorical)
Mr. Jaggers
> "Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3lvo4o....@news.alt.net...
>> On 4/13/2010 3:29 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>>
>>> Good grief, all this time I was under the impression that you two
>>> disagreed
>>> over the mechanism of whizzing, not S&M.
>>
>> Different people. I don't know if the whizzing wizard ever told
>> anyone to bite him or referred to people's private parts online.
>
> Not yet, but in your case I'd be prepared to make an exception.
Jeff, I dragged you into this by mistake. Sorry.
James, Again Contrite
Jeff R.
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hq34p...@enews2.newsguy.com...
No apology necessary. No dragging needed.
I find all this endlessly amusing.
Particularly the simple fact that Reid just "doesn't get it".
And probably never will.
--
Jeff R.
Reid Goldsborough
> My point in citing the crude, hand-crafted, appearance of most ancient coins
> to non ancient collectors was referring to how hard it would be for one of
> us to recognize a counterfeit, in person or not.
Point well taken. Ancient coin authentication is similar in some
respects to modern coin authentication, but different in other respects.
With ancients, the considerably more extensive variability in planchet
shape, design details, strike, and so on can make things more
challenging. But the basics are the same: Knowing the characteristics of
authentic coins in general and authentic coins of the particular type
you're looking at and knowing the characteristics of counterfeit coins
in general and the counterfeits commonly seen of the type you're looking at.
In the case of the counterfeit of the Constantine II bronze I
illustrated in the opening post of this thread, the only way to know
it's fake is seeing it in context. I take no credit for discovering it
or other modern fakes of the same type. I gleaned the following
information from multiple Web sites, including Counterfeit Coin
Newsletter, No. 13, January 2010, published by Robert Matthews.
This is one of the so-called "Smederevo Hoard" (sometimes written as
"Smederovo Hoard") fakes. This wasn't a genuine hoard of unearthed coins
but a group of similar coins that no doubt came from the same forgery
workshop. That workshop was probably Bulgarian, but Smederevo refers to
a city in Serbia, which is where the (fake) hoard reportedly was
unearthed. The fakes are believed to have been originally dispersed in
Germany last summer. One person though indicated that a Serb sold a
large number to a legitimate dealer in Austria, before they were
exposed, so there's a possibility they originated not from Bulgaria but
from Serbia.
Along with coins of Constantine II, these fakes also copied the coins of
Constantine the Great, Constans, and Delmatius. Twelve different coin
types were part of this group, with each fake made from the same die.
These are die-transfer fakes. Genuine coins were used to create cast
dies, then the copies were made from those dies, likely with a hydraulic
press.
Coin dealer Zach Beasley indicated the fields are too flat and the edges
are too sharp, but in hand, at least to my eyes, this isn't terribly
apparent, same as in the photo I linked to. Another person who examined
a group of these in detail said that all of them have the same type of
attractive artificial patina, with some bright new copper showing
through at some of the higher points. He also pointed out that there's
nothing about these pieces that screams fake.
So, with this particular counterfeit, the only way to know it's fake is
to know the type of counterfeit it is and to have seen counterfeits made
from this particular die.
mazorj
"Jeff R." <con...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:4bc50ab7$0$2162$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Shhh! I want to see if Reid gets it.
mazorj
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:52ac0aea-3096-4d89...@c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Damn, so much for it being a unique find!
Scurvy Dog
> On 4/14/2010 6:23 AM, mazorj wrote:
>
>> Shhh! I want to see if Reid gets it.
>
> love to hear more. You previously said how "UseNet" hasn't "changed to any
> significant degree" in more than 25 years. That's an astonishing statement.
> Note that unlike you, I don't put words in others' mouths. These are your
> words exactly.
>
> For the amusement value, and getting back to this thread, how about telling as
> also about how fourth century Roman bronzes are "crap" coins. Again, your word
> exactly, though in this case you indicated that I had said this when it
> appeared that this was your sentiment. But it's difficult to know sometimes
> with somebody like you exactly what it is that you're saying. Do you feel this
> way about late Roman bronzes? Do you know ancient coins at all? Maybe you know
> them as well as UseNet.
Ahhhh shaddup! <g>
Reid Goldsborough
> So, with this particular counterfeit, the only way to know it's fake is
> to know the type of counterfeit it is and to have seen counterfeits made
> from this particular die.
Here's something related to what I said above that I forgot to mention,
another complicating factor. This relates again to the following modern
counterfeit of an ancient Roman bronze coin of Constantine II:
http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg
Any time you're dealing with a fake made from an authentic coin, whether
a cast copy or as in this case a struck/pressed copy made from cast
dies, there are going to be authentic coins out there made from the same
dies. This applies to fakes of U.S., world, medieval, and other coins
coins no less than fakes of ancient coins. So seeing coins made from
these dies doesn't necessarily mean that they're fake. This is yet
another reason for needing to factor in context.
Die-transfer fakes like these can be some of the most convincing. The
Big Tree Coin Factory, exposed by Susan Headley in Coin World and at
About.com, uses a similar die-transfer technique. There are diagnostics
you can use through even with die-transfer fakes, depending on the
particular fake. Some crispness is lost in the transfer process, so
sometimes the fake can be diagnosed by a slight mushiness, though the
mushiness typically isn't as much as with most cast fakes. Another
diagnostic is if a different minting process was used than with the
original coins, leading to different characteristics involving the
edges, rims, fields, weight, size, or alloy.
Scurvy Dog
Didn't I tell you to shaddup? <g>
Jud
wrote:
>
> You post anonymously. You're like countless other anonymous flamers who
> have been in this newsgroup and others. But you now appear to be the
> most frequent and flagrant flamer here in RCC.
>
Reid, if you don't know who Scurvy Dog is, you really are out of touch!
Scurvy Dog
>. As just one example, you repeatedly and dully accuse me of never admitting
>I'm wrong, pointing to the same Right Man Syndrome page over and over, when the
>reality is that I've admitted mistakes in fact and in behavior any number of
>times here. I do this offline as well. Try as I do to avoid them, I make
>mistakes like everyone else. The approach I take with mistakes is trying to use
>them as a learning experience rather than denying them or denying I make them.
You have obviously not read the entire Right Man Syndrome page or you are in
denial or else you are just an obstinate idiot.
The general opinion of those who post to this group is that you are a pompous,
fatuous ass and a bloviating windbag.
But you are, at least, good for a laugh.
Jason Burke
> On 4/14/2010 8:54 PM, Jud wrote:
>
>> Reid, if you don't know who Scurvy Dog is, you really are out of touch!
>
.
.
.
Please tell me you're joking with this statement.
Jud
wrote:
Care to
> disclose who he is ... again?
>
>
Far be it for me to actually disclose the name of our vitamin-C
deficient canine, however I believe that you may be able to figure it
out with just a few clues. He nym shifts a lot because he is on so
many killfiles; he rarely says anything related to coins; he rarely
has anything good to say, under any of his online personas; his screen
names are often clever plays on words (I admit grudgingly); unlike
your verbose diatribes, his responses are usually one-liners; and if
you haven't yet figured out who I am talking about, one of his
collecting interests is Hardy Boys books.
Jud -RFI doesn't necessarily mean Radio Frequency Interference-
Scurvy Dog
> On 4/15/2010 7:49 AM, Jud wrote:
>
>> Far be it for me to actually disclose the name of our vitamin-C
>> deficient canine, however I believe that you may be able to figure it
>> out with just a few clues. He nym shifts a lot because he is on so
>> many killfiles; he rarely says anything related to coins; he rarely
>> has anything good to say, under any of his online personas; his screen
>> names are often clever plays on words (I admit grudgingly); unlike
>> your verbose diatribes, his responses are usually one-liners; and if
>> you haven't yet figured out who I am talking about, one of his
>> collecting interests is Hardy Boys books.
>>
>> Jud -RFI doesn't necessarily mean Radio Frequency Interference-
>
> past, so I've no doubt missed the previous discussion of this. I have a vague
> recollection of who RFI might be.
>
> The whole business of what he does, the continuously creating new handles to
> avoid the killfiles of others so his sad and angry vents can be heard, is so
> lame. Better ideas: When feeling all this frustration, run around the block a
> few times, lift some weights, meditate, do progressive relaxation. Better yet,
> he should get himself in therapy. Though I doubt he could understand this as
> he is now, my saying this isn't a flame at all but an attempt at a beneficial
> suggestion.
Reid, old top, if anyone needs therapy, it's you.
Just a beneficial suggestion.
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/15/2010 7:49 AM, Jud wrote:
>
>> deficient canine, however I believe that you may be able to figure it
>> out with just a few clues. He nym shifts a lot because he is on so
>> many killfiles; he rarely says anything related to coins; he rarely
>
> Why not name him? What you say about him above indicates he's a huge
> disruptive force in this newsgroup. In doing a quick check, I see
> someone who used the handle "RF" posted a lot like "Scurvy Dog." If
> they're one in the same, besides RF, what other handles did he use? I
> can't find it right now, but I believe someone outed him a while back.
> Why not name him each time he nymshifts in order to avoid killfiles so
> he can continue trying to disrupt conversations? I can't imagine
> anything lamer in terms of Usenet behavior. He seems to post some
> on-topic messages, but they seem to be dwarfed by the number of purely
> disruptive content-free flame posts.
I recommend you review the posts in the thread "It's been a long, long
time."
James
Nick Knight
04/15/2010
>He nym shifts a lot because he is on so many killfiles;
Which is sort of moronically ironic, eh? I mean, it didn't take but one
post before he was back in mine. And I didn't even really have to read the
post (IIRC).
A jerk is a jerk and easily identifiable, whatever name he uses. But let
him think that alternating names does something for him ... it fits with the
base mentality.
Nick
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/15/2010 5:24 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> I recommend you review the posts in the thread "It's been a long,
>> long time."
>
> "Scurvy Dog"? I don't have time to read through the 55 posts archived
> there at Google Groups, but a quick look revealed two names that came
> up in posts near those of "Scurvy Dog," Dave Hinz and Eric Tillery,
> though nothing definitive. I don't remember anything about the former
> but do the latter.
The smartest people I know always make time to seek the information that
they need. You always seem to have time to regale us with lengthy treatises
on subjects of interest to you, so I am puzzled at this reluctance now. But
suit yourself. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.
James
Mr. Jaggers
There exist other motivations than to avoid killfiles.
James
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/15/2010 10:50 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> The smartest people I know always make time to seek the information
>> that they need. You always seem to have time to regale us with
>> lengthy treatises on subjects of interest to you, so I am puzzled at
>> this reluctance now. But suit yourself. I'm not going to spoon
>> feed it to you.
>
Nice try, but my refusal occurred two posts ago, not just now. Get your
facts straight.
> As I said I don't
> follow things here as closely as I used to, but I guess you have good
> cause to be afraid of him.
"Afraid"? Now you're just making stuff up.
> Further, I don't "need" this information,
> about who he is.
Um, you're the one who asked, twice in the same recent post, "Why not name
him?"
> I just suggested that if people knew who he really is
> and if they refer to him by his real name, he just might act more
> responsibly.
On Usenet? Are you kidding?
> I see he just left one of his rare non-flame posts, but
> I'm guessing that this rarity will continue.
Damnation by faint praise seems to be your long suit this evening.
James
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/16/2010 12:34 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> "Afraid"? Now you're just making stuff up.
>
> Out of respect? The way he acts here? LOL.
OK, ya got me, Reid, I'll come clean.
The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do not know
his real name.*
At no time did I say that I know his real name.
You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.
But don't take my word for it, review the archive for yourself.
And knock off the fabrication already.
James
Scurvy Dog
> On 4/16/2010 5:47 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> OK, ya got me, Reid, I'll come clean.
>>
>> The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do not know
>> his real name.*
>>
>> At no time did I say that I know his real name.
>>
>> You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.
>
> indicates he knows. You also *indicate you know* and tell me to check a
> particular thread. I say I'm not going to read through all of the posts there
> but there's nothing in the posts surrounding those of Scurvy Dog that
> definitively indicates who he is. You chastise me for not taking the time to
> find the information I "need." I ask why you're afraid to name him. You say
> that your refusal to name him occurred two posts before the one I responded
> to, not in the one I responded to. And now you say you don't know who is he
> after all and that I conjured up that you knew who he was.
>
> Very weird behavior. I'm led to believe you do know who is is but are truly
> afraid here. Why else would you tell lies like this? I conjured up nothing but
> was taking you for your word.
Ah shaddup, ya weirdo!
Cato
> On 4/16/2010 5:47 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>>
>> The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do not know
>> his real name.*
>>
>> At no time did I say that I know his real name.
>>
>> You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.
>
> indicates he knows. You also *indicate you know* and tell me to check a
> particular thread. I say I'm not going to read through all of the posts there
> but there's nothing in the posts surrounding those of Scurvy Dog that
> definitively indicates who he is. You chastise me for not taking the time to
> find the information I "need." I ask why you're afraid to name him. You say
> that your refusal to name him occurred two posts before the one I responded
> to, not in the one I responded to. And now you say you don't know who is he
> after all and that I conjured up that you knew who he was.
>
> Very weird behavior. I'm led to believe you do know who is is but are truly
> afraid here. Why else would you tell lies like this? I conjured up nothing but
> was taking you for your word.
Your post is filled with the "chit chat" which you have railed against.
Furthermore, it contains nothing numismatic.
So we must conclude, that in addition to being a bloviating windbag, you are a
hypocrite.
Reid Goldsborough
> Your post is filled with the "chit chat" which you have railed against.
Discussion of the weather and what you ate for breakfast is chitchat.
Discussing the internal dynamics of the online group you're
participating in isn't chitchat. Isn't that obvious? It's not talking
coins but it is talking about how to promote a well-functioning group.
Such discussions take place in every online discussion group, moderated
as well as unmoderated.
Look, you have one poster here who more than any other, by far, flames
other participants in this newsgroup. The flames are purely disruptive,
with no content behind them, just anonymous and fairly mindless venom
spewed out all over the place. This kind of behavior is one of the chief
reasons that people leave groups like this, along with excessive chitchat.
This is an unmoderated group, but moderated groups avoid these problems
by requiring that people post using their real names. Apparently some
people here know who "Scurvy Dog" is. All I'm suggesting is that when he
does leave one of his transparent attempts at disruption, people just
refer to him by his real name. I'm not saying that's guaranteed to work,
but it couldn't hurt.
mazorj
> On 4/16/2010 5:47 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>>
>> The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do not
>> know
>> his real name.*
>>
>> At no time did I say that I know his real name.
>>
>> You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.
>
> but indicates he knows. You also *indicate you know* and tell me to check
> a particular thread. I say I'm not going to read through all of the posts
> there but there's nothing in the posts surrounding those of Scurvy Dog
> that definitively indicates who he is. You chastise me for not taking the
> time to find the information I "need." I ask why you're afraid to name
> him. You say that your refusal to name him occurred two posts before the
> one I responded to, not in the one I responded to. And now you say you
> don't know who is he after all and that I conjured up that you knew who he
> was.
>
> Very weird behavior. I'm led to believe you do know who is is but are
> truly afraid here. Why else would you tell lies like this? I conjured up
> nothing but was taking you for your word.
Bwha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha!
Afraid? Of what?
You're starting to sound a wee bit desperate here, Reid. Resorting to a
silly schoolyard taunt of 'Fraidy Cat! to try to trick someone into giving
up something that almost everyone except you knows the answer to? That's a
pathetic, transparent ploy even for you.
The only one afraid here is you... afraid of demonstrating that a crack is
showing in your imagined status of alpha poster.
<g>
mazorj
Sure it would hurt. Not only would it not work, but then we would no longer
have the entertainment value of watching you obsess over a poster's identity
where everyone except you is in on the joke.
Nice try. At least it was more subtle than the 'Fraidy Cat ploy. <g>
Scurvy Dog
> On 4/16/2010 1:10 PM, mazorj wrote:
>
>> The only one afraid here is you... afraid of demonstrating that a crack
>> is showing in your imagined status of alpha poster.
>> <g>
>
> changing over the years. I'm not even a regular here anymore. How in the world
> can I be trying to be an alpha poster? I know. You just type out whatever it
> is that flits into your little head. Groups like this do develop informal
> leaders based on the quantity and quality of their posts. It cracked me up a
> few days ago when one person who seldom posts adopted the posture of such a
> leader, posing as the spokesperson for this group. I make no such claims,
> obviously, just posting about an interesting dynamic I've noticed here.
I am the informal Führer of you.
Tsk, tsk, Goldie, you made another non-numismatic post...
Cato
> On 4/16/2010 11:51 AM, Cato wrote:
>
>> Your post is filled with the "chit chat" which you have railed against.
>
> Discussion of the weather and what you ate for breakfast is chitchat.
> Discussing the internal dynamics of the online group you're participating in
> isn't chitchat. Isn't that obvious? It's not talking coins but it is talking
> about how to promote a well-functioning group. Such discussions take place in
> every online discussion group, moderated as well as unmoderated.
So, there we have it, chit chat as defined by Reid.
A bit self-serving, don't you think?
> Look, you have one poster here who more than any other, by far, flames other
> participants in this newsgroup. The flames are purely disruptive, with no
> content behind them, just anonymous and fairly mindless venom spewed out all
> over the place. This kind of behavior is one of the chief reasons that people
> leave groups like this, along with excessive chitchat.
You flame more than any poster here, Reid.
Every thread in which you participate always winds up with you attacking anyone
and everyone who does not agree with you.
Have you any proof that excessive chitchat is a "chief" reason why people leave
groups or are you just bloviating once more?
> This is an unmoderated group, but moderated groups avoid these problems by
> requiring that people post using their real names. Apparently some people here
> know who "Scurvy Dog" is. All I'm suggesting is that when he does leave one of
> his transparent attempts at disruption, people just refer to him by his real
> name. I'm not saying that's guaranteed to work, but it couldn't hurt.
What's in a name?
You presumably post under your true name yet you are one of the most disruptive
posters in the group.
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/16/2010 5:47 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>>
>> The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do
>> not know his real name.*
>>
>> At no time did I say that I know his real name.
>>
>> You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.
>
> reveal but indicates he knows. You also *indicate you know* and tell
> me to check a particular thread. I say I'm not going to read through
> all of the posts there but there's nothing in the posts surrounding
> those of Scurvy Dog that definitively indicates who he is. You
> chastise me for not taking the time to find the information I "need."
> I ask why you're afraid to name him. You say that your refusal to
> name him occurred two posts before the one I responded to, not in the
> one I responded to. And now you say you don't know who is he after
> all and that I conjured up that you knew who he was.
>
> Very weird behavior. I'm led to believe you do know who is is but are
> truly afraid here. Why else would you tell lies like this? I conjured
> up nothing but was taking you for your word.
Multiple and pathological ego-preserving contradictions, dodges, and
fabrications noted.
James
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/16/2010 5:33 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> Multiple and pathological ego-preserving contradictions, dodges, and
>> fabrications noted.
>
> fine to try a little practical joke on me, if that's what you did. It
> didn't work. No biggie. You pretended you knew something you didn't in
> order to get me to read through dozens of old posts. I didn't fall for
> it. You admitted "ya got me." But then don't go and say it was me
> who's fabricating things! That's what Scurvy Dog does, taking
> something he does and accusing the person he's talking to of the very
> same thing.
> You either tried a little practical joke, pretending to know something
> you didn't. Or you do know this but are afraid to disclose it. One or
> the other. Let's see you dodge this.
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty here. You take the time to find the post
wherein I stated that I know the real name of the person posting as Scurvy
Dog, cut/paste your proof below, and I will then reveal, if you haven't
already discovered same in your search for said evidence, what I was really
suggesting you would find by opening and reading all the posts in the "long
time" thread. Since you will be looking for something that I said, that
will significantly reduce your effort (I made approximately 16 posts to that
thread, no need for you too look at anyone else's posts there). Prediction:
you will search in vain for wording that contains "I know" or "real name" or
"Scurvy Dog."
Your move.
James
mazorj
> On 4/16/2010 1:17 PM, mazorj wrote:
>
>> Sure it would hurt. Not only would it not work, but then we would no
>> longer have the entertainment value of watching you obsess over a
>> poster's identity where everyone except you is in on the joke.
>
> previously that "UseNet" hasn't changed appreciably in the more than 25
> years that you've been participating.
My comment about Usenet makes perfect sense *in the context of* it being a
reply to your claim that Usenet traffic has fallen off in recent years.
Which, BTW, you found wasn't true when you got Wikipedia data showing that
it has grown enormously, so my characterization was a lot closer to the
truth than yours. To the extent that it has "changed appreciably," it has
*grown,* not shrunk. So to the extent that I was in error, you were even
more so.
Given all the posters who have indicated over time that they know Scurvy
Dog's identity under this and/or other nyms, you're in the distinct minority
if you don't already know his identity.
> You obviously are very discerning when it comes to Usenet.
>
> About the "joke," it's obviously a very funny one. Yep, I can see how
> Scurvy Dog spitting out his content-free venom all over the place and my
> asking who he is would make you laugh.
And you whine because I "put words in your mouth"?
It's the latter, not the former, that makes me laugh.
> I'm not "obsessed" with this, not the slightest.
The volume and content of your recent posting history, trying to wheedle and
trick several posters into revealing SD's identity, strongly suggests
otherwise. Keep this up for another week or two and we'll be able to add
"compulsive" to the "obsessive" characterization.
> That's also very discerning on your part. I am curious why people like you
> do what you do, the reason for the spineless acquiescence.
There's a fundamental difference between refraining from an action because
of "spineless acquiescence," and realizing that insanity is repeatedly doing
the same thing and expecting a different outcome. SD has been pilloried
here for years under this and all his previous nyms. His reaction to
scolding and demands that he reveal his identity has always been the same,
i.e., zilch. Only you have the hubris to think that suddenly he will
crumple under the pressure of your inquiries and scolding, or that he will
suddenly play nice just because someone reveals his identity to satisfy your
curiosity.
> I have a pretty good idea about why Scurvy Dog acts how he does, seeing as
> I said many others do virtually exactly the same thing over the years.
Pray enlighten us, oh wise one, on why Scurvy Dog "acts how he does".
This ought to be good.
mazorj
> On 4/16/2010 1:10 PM, mazorj wrote:
>
>> is showing in your imagined status of alpha poster.
>> <g>
>
> changing over the years. I'm not even a regular here anymore. How in the
> world can I be trying to be an alpha poster?
Simple. By the ego and arrogance you inject into your rcc postings. See
below.
>I know. You just type out whatever it is that flits into your little head.
If the shoe fits, I just like to see you wear it, at least while you're in
the rcc showroom.
> Groups like this do develop informal leaders based on the quantity and
> quality of their posts. It cracked me up a few days ago when one person
> who seldom posts adopted the posture of such a leader, posing as the
> spokesperson for this group. I make no such claims,
That didn't stop you from acting as the "spokesperson" for departed members
who are not here to verify that status, and claiming that their opinions
agreed with yours.
> obviously, just posting about an interesting dynamic I've noticed here.
Horse manure. Anyone with the hubris to drop a 5,000-word ego bomb on a
newsgroup surely fancies himself an alpha poster, even if he doesn't want to
admit it even to himself. Anyone whose sig is three links to his own web
pages clearly fancies himself as some sort of an alpha poster. Anyone who
repeatedly decrees to a newsgroup his definitions of what is on- and
off-topic, what kinds of coins are interesting or not interesting, whose
contributions are "trash," even down to declaring what other posters are
"afraid of" while he is not - and all this done while dismissing others'
notions thereof - is walking and quacking like a would-be alpha poster.
The fact that in all his blind hubris, Richard Nixon denied and even didn't
believe that he was a crook didn't make him innocent. Reid doth protest too
much in his false modesty.
Jason Burke
> On 4/16/2010 8:00 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> Let's get down to the nitty-gritty here.
>
> that in order for somebody to say they know something, they have to use
> the words "I know." You challenged me to find you saying those words.
> But you know as well as I know as well as anyone knows that this isn't
> the only way to indicate you know something. There are lots of other
> words you can use, as you know, because this is what you did.
>
> Why not just own up to your attempted practical joke? Or own up that you
> know who he is?
>
> Or you can dodge some more by taking the tactic of "Cato" by totally
> downplaying what Scurvy Dog does here, saying, disingenuously, "What's
> in a name?" LOL. It's not about his name, primarily, it's about his
> behavior.
>
> Or you can dodge some more by again not answering my question but
> instead going on the offensive, taking the tactic of "mazorj" and
> accusing me of being obsessed.
>
> All I'm doing here is following this to wherever it might go. If history
> repeats it will go nowhere positive, but the process can still be,
> somewhat, interesting. And I'll repeat that what I genuinely find
> interesting is observing and trying to understand the group dynamics
> here, why things happen as they do.
>
Now this is getting REALLY scary.
Cato
> On 4/16/2010 3:55 PM, Cato wrote:
>
>>> Discussion of the weather and what you ate for breakfast is chitchat.
>>> Discussing the internal dynamics of the online group you're participating in
>>> isn't chitchat. Isn't that obvious? It's not talking coins but it is talking
>>> about how to promote a well-functioning group. Such discussions take place
>>> in
>>> every online discussion group, moderated as well as unmoderated.
>>
>> So, there we have it, chit chat as defined by Reid.
>> A bit self-serving, don't you think?
>
> either. If I'm in any group, discussing the group's dynamics wouldn't
> typically be considered chitchat in the same way discussing the weather or
> what you had for breakfast would ... provided those groups weren't about
> meteorology or nutrition!
As usual, you refuse to admit both the error of your ways and your blatant
hypocrisy.
You, sir, are a meathead.
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/16/2010 8:00 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>
> that in order for somebody to say they know something, they have to
> use the words "I know." You challenged me to find you saying those
> words. But you know as well as I know as well as anyone knows that
> this isn't the only way to indicate you know something. There are
> lots of other words you can use, as you know, because this is what
> you did.
What were those words? Quote me, that's all I've been asking. Then I'll
have something to go on.
> Why not just own up to your attempted practical joke? Or own up that
> you know who he is?
I fail to see what I said that could possibly be construed as a practical
joke. Quote me, then I'll have something to go on.
I do not know who Scurvy Dog is.
I never said that I did.
If you inferred it from something I said, tell me what it was. Quote me,
then I'll have something to go on.
I can't read your mind.
> Or you can dodge some more by taking the tactic of "Cato" by totally
> downplaying what Scurvy Dog does here, saying, disingenuously, "What's
> in a name?" LOL. It's not about his name, primarily, it's about his
> behavior.
What relevancy do Cato's posts have to the issue between you and me?
> Or you can dodge some more by again not answering my question but
> instead going on the offensive, taking the tactic of "mazorj" and
> accusing me of being obsessed.
What relevancy do mazorj's posts have to the issue between you and me?
> All I'm doing here is following this to wherever it might go. If
> history repeats it will go nowhere positive, but the process can
> still be, somewhat, interesting. And I'll repeat that what I
> genuinely find interesting is observing and trying to understand the
> group dynamics here, why things happen as they do.
I do not understand what you want from me.
James
mazorj
> On 4/16/2010 8:00 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>
Whoo-hah! Insert pot-kettle, let ye without sin, people living in glass
houses, and any other appropriate Usenet cliches. You're good enough at
this game to be Captain of a world-class dodge ball team.
> You're saying that in order for somebody to say they know something, they
> have to use the words "I know." You challenged me to find you saying those
> words. But you know as well as I know as well as anyone knows that this
> isn't the only way to indicate you know something. There are lots of other
> words you can use, as you know, because this is what you did.
Kind of like your declaration that you "know" that certain posters' agenda
here is to be disruptive and worthless even though you never used the words
"I know". Pot-kettle, let ye without sin, people living in glass houses,
etc.
> Why not just own up to your attempted practical joke? Or own up that you
> know who he is?
Because it's more fun to watch you dance herky-jerky whenever somebody
punches your hot buttons or yanks on your strings.
> Or you can dodge some more by taking the tactic of "Cato" by totally
> downplaying what Scurvy Dog does here, saying, disingenuously, "What's in
> a name?" LOL. It's not about his name, primarily, it's about his behavior.
The fact that Cato's comment went "Whoosh!" right over your head speaks
volumes about your monomania.
> Or you can dodge some more by again not answering my question but instead
> going on the offensive, taking the tactic of "mazorj" and accusing me of
> being obsessed.
Whoosh! Pot-kettle, let ye without sin, people living in glass houses, etc.
You've already dodged enough of just my critiques and opinions to qualify
you as a candidate for Usenet Dodger of the Year. Add your dismissive
dodging of other rcc partiipants and you're on the short list to be a
shoo-in winner.
> All I'm doing here is following this to wherever it might go. If history
> repeats it will go nowhere positive,
Whoosh! You and Scurvy Dog have much in common there.
> but the process can still be, somewhat, interesting.
Whoosh! You, along with SD, being a primary case in point.
> And I'll repeat that what I genuinely find interesting is observing and
> trying to understand the group dynamics here, why things happen as they
> do.
So what is your personal explantion of why you have eagerly assumed the
mantle of rcc's sado-masochistic chew toy, vying for and arguably displacing
Scurvy Dog for that honor? Inquiring minds are trying to understand the
dynamics of your intriguing behavior.
- mazorj
By your own declarations, not chit-chatting here.
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hqb6l...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Reid Goldsborough wrote:
...
>> All I'm doing here is following this to wherever it might go. If
>> history repeats it will go nowhere positive, but the process can
>> still be, somewhat, interesting. And I'll repeat that what I
>> genuinely find interesting is observing and trying to understand the
>> group dynamics here, why things happen as they do.
>
> I do not understand what you want from me.
I think you're supposed to start with an abject blanket confession that
everything you have ever posted in rcc is wrong, typed with your knees and
forehead touching the ground he walks on. This must be followed by an
explicit admission that "you know" that everything that Reid has written on-
or off-topic is the gospel truth. All of which must be declared in a solemn
oath sworn by you on a copy of Breen's "Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and
Colonial Coins".
That's just for openers, to get his attention so he can mull over your
remaining penances in the slim hope of getting in his good graces. If you
do these thoroughly enough, his clique of claques might even un-plonk you.
Good luck.
Jason Burke
Nice to see that old Bob-o-rino has nymshifted again!
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/16/2010 10:33 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> I do not know who Scurvy Dog is.
>
> matter. Too many tangents here, too many wildly stupid accusations,
> and too much time on this. My last post about this:
>
> As mostly an outsider here these days, I observe that "Scurvy Dog" is
> by far the most frequent and flagrant flamer here, attempting to
> disrupt thread after thread with content-free flames. More than one
> person here reveals that Scurvy Dog continuously changes handles to
> avoid people's killfiles. Several people intimate or say explicitly
> that it's known who Scurvy Dog is. I suggest that if people know who
> he is, then simply call him by his real name, each time he flames,
> and he just might and probably would flame less.
>
> Other people using handles are objecting the most vociferously to
> this, so apparently this is what's behind the hostility to my
> suggestion. It's maybe too easy to say that "mazorj," "Cato," and the
> others deserve "Scurvy Dog," but they do. Well, carry on with all of
> your handles, and enjoy the anonymous flames, the excessive chitchat,
> and the ever shrinking number of people who put up with it. This
> group, sadly, is a dim shadow to what it once was -- this will be
> argued too, but I'm very far from the only person who has observed
> this. Usenet weirdness never ceases to amuse me, and this strange
> acquiescence to anonymous flaming for me anyway is a new angle to it.
There are a few rcc people whose real names I have verified by meeting them
in person at shows - Ira, oly, Nick, Jorg, Jud - and a few more that I have
verified through personal email interchange - Amistad, Bruce, Peter, bgg -
but the vast majority I have not verified - nor does it really matter to me,
I'm just describing a phenomenon that I presume many others have
experienced. Scurvy does not fit into either of those two categories, nor
do you. I have not met either of you at coin shows, nor have I ever had
private email exchange with either of you. Thus I no more know the real
name of the person posting as Scurvy Dog than I know the real name of the
person posting as Reid Goldsborough. Linguistic odds favor yours as more
likely to be a real deal, but not sufficiently for me, at least, to bet
money on. There have been posts by people who claim to know his real name,
even to the extent of calling him by what they claim to be his real name,
but so far they have produced not one shred of reliable evidence. My
worldview is based on reliable evidence. That is why I can state
unequivocally that I do not know the real name of the person posting as
Scurvy Dog.
People use pseudonymous handles for all sorts of reasons. Avoidance of
killfiles is likely to be one of them, but certainly far from being the only
one. Some use more than one over a period of time, some use more than one
in a single thread, and some change their screen names regularly. Some of
us enjoy catching them doing it. Others may be incapable of catching them
or simply uninterested in catching them. Either way, it's not a crime. As
you have observed on more than one occasion, content is what matters.
Your repetitious bluff is a clear indication that you've been out of aces
for some time. An old rule among gamblers in the Old West was to never pull
out of a poker game and leave a guy busted. But you're pulling out on your
own, so I need not feel guilt by likewise pulling out. See ya next time
you're in Dodge.
James
Scurvy Dog
> On 4/13/2010 8:23 PM, Eric Babula wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Reid. You and I are just not in the same collecting camp. I have
>> exactly one ancient coin in my entire collection, and I barely know
>> anything about that one. And, AFAIK, I have no counterfeits. If I had
>> an interest in ancients and thought I could, I would certainly have
>> tried to meet your challenge. But, I've only really collected US coins.
>
> Fair enough. Well, one ancient coin is better than none. <g> A lot of
> collectors of U.S. coins choose not to go back further in time.
If I could go back in time I'd make your mother get an abortion!
Eric Babula
> There are a few rcc people whose real names I have verified by
> meeting them in person at shows - Ira, oly, Nick, Jorg, Jud - and
> a few more that I have verified through personal email interchange
> - Amistad, Bruce, Peter, bgg - but the vast majority I have not
> verified - nor does it really matter to me, I'm just describing a
> phenomenon that I presume many others have experienced.
Just for the record - my name is Eric Babula.
Eric Babula
Coin Show Junkie
Perhaps we can have a face-to-face at the upcoming numismatic extravaganza
in Your Fair City?
James
mazorj
> On 4/16/2010 10:33 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> I do not know who Scurvy Dog is.
>
> Too many tangents here, too many wildly stupid accusations, and too much
> time on this. My last post about this:
Okay, everyone, let's all hold our breath, hope that he's good to his word,
and thank the Usenet gods for small favors.
BTW, the line for the betting pool forms on the right.
> As mostly an outsider here these days, I observe that "Scurvy Dog" is by
> far the most frequent and flagrant flamer here, attempting to disrupt
> thread after thread with content-free flames. More than one person here
> reveals that Scurvy Dog continuously changes handles to avoid people's
> killfiles. Several people intimate or say explicitly that it's known who
> Scurvy Dog is. I suggest that if people know who he is, then simply call
> him by his real name, each time he flames, and he just might and probably
> would flame less.
I must fit Einstein's definition of insanity: Telling you that years of
applying the "cure" that you keep suggesting has utterly failed in reforming
the person behind the Scurvy Dog personna - and then expecting a different
outcome, i.e., that you would come to the logical conclusion and stop making
the foolish, feckless suggestion that yet another posting of his identity
will affect his behavior for the better. Silly me.
> Other people using handles are objecting the most vociferously to this, so
> apparently this is what's behind the hostility to my suggestion. It's
> maybe too easy to say that "mazorj," "Cato," and the others deserve
> "Scurvy Dog," but they do.
Parsing whether anyone "deserves" anything is a matter of opinion that can
wander into the metaphysical if you try too hard to pin it down. Hell, by
your standards, we "deserve" you too, and I for one do not accept that
claim. <g>
The only meaningful operative term here is whether we "accept" SD's behavior
*as part of the price we pay* to participate in rcc without killfiling him.
As I like to tell Usenet pests, "Freedom of speech is enshrined in the very
First Amendment because we hold it so dear. It must be important to us
because listening to you is part of the price we pay for it."
Anyway, anyone who responds to, or even reads his posts for any length of
time obviously has come to terms with his behavior and is not significantly
bothered by it. You, OTOH, have allowed him to become a burr in your
saddle. Which means that in terms of his game-playing, most of us beat him
at his own game, but you ended up in his victory column. If you're such an
expert on Usenet, why is the simple solution of "Do not feed the trolls"
beyond your ken?
So knock off the sanctimonious implied declarations of superiority when you
say that we are the losers because we don't follow your inane calls to out
the Scurvy Dog. In rcc, you are the Weakest Link, not the rest of us
.
> Well, carry on with all of your handles,
Here's another clue for you, Goldie, from the early days of Usenet.
mazorj is more than a "handle," it's a username. It was the very first
permanent username I ever was assigned. It goes back to DOS days when
filenames were limited to the 8.3 format. In networks, two of those 8
characters were reserved for system uses that I never understood, but it
meant that a username could not exceed 6 characters. For purposes of
alphabetical sorting, the common practice in business networks was to use
the first five letters of a person's last name followed by his first
initial. That limitation no longer exists but I made it my e-mail and
CompuServe addie and I've used it continuously for 27 years. Unlike some
"handles" its purpose is not to conceal. Quite the opposite, actually.
I've never posted using a nym, so even though publicly I neither confirm nor
deny guesses at the details of my identity, you'll always know when it is or
is not me because I never post under any other names. And if you haven't
yet figured it out yet through Google, it stands for John Mazor.
> and enjoy the anonymous flames, the excessive chitchat, and the ever
> shrinking number of people who put up with it. This group, sadly, is a dim
> shadow to what it once was -- this will be argued too, but I'm very far
> from the only person who has observed this. Usenet weirdness never ceases
> to amuse me, and this strange acquiescence to anonymous flaming for me
> anyway is a new angle to it.
Okay, let's do it by the numbers. Which part of the following won't fit in
your head?
1. General Usenet Rule: In unmoderated groups, no amount of admonishment
and complaints by the group can rein in a determined poster who doesn't
care.
2. Specific RCC Rule: Scurvy Dog belongs to the category of annoying
posters described in the General Rule.
3. Factual Finding: Persistent attempts by rcc over many years to reform
SD's behavior by admonishments, complaints, and references to his identity
have failed.
4. Unavoidable Conclusion: What you call "acquiescence" is merely the
rational collective conclusion that further attempts to "jawbone" SD into
good behavior are a waste of time, energy, and bandwidth.
5. Gratuitous Observation: Your behavior and exhortations WRT Scurvy Dog
are indistinguishable from the actions of a clueless git who doesn't get
#1-4.
6. Closing Question: Are you really that much of a clueless git or are you
just playing one on Usenet?
Jason Burke
This from a man whose only contribution to society has been a failed
suicide attempt that left him a vegetable!
Anka
wrote:
> On 4/16/2010 10:33 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
> > I do not know who Scurvy Dog is.
>
> Too many tangents here, too many wildly stupid accusations, and too much
> time on this. My last post about this:
>
> far the most frequent and flagrant flamer here, attempting to disrupt
> thread after thread with content-free flames. More than one person here
> reveals that Scurvy Dog continuously changes handles to avoid people's
> Scurvy Dog is. I suggest that if people know who he is, then simply call
> him by his real name, each time he flames, and he just might and
> probably would flame less.
>
> so apparently this is what's behind the hostility to my suggestion. It's
> maybe too easy to say that "mazorj," "Cato," and the others deserve
> enjoy the anonymous flames, the excessive chitchat, and the ever
> shrinking number of people who put up with it. This group, sadly, is a
> dim shadow to what it once was -- this will be argued too, but I'm very
> far from the only person who has observed this. Usenet weirdness never
> ceases to amuse me, and this strange acquiescence to anonymous flaming
> for me anyway is a new angle to it.
>
>
> Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide
> Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom
> Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Oh, man... I missed out on all the fun! I should check rcc more
often!
While I'm here, Reid, I just have to tell you that I've booked a
Mediterranean cruise. Ports of call include Syracuse, ancient
Carthage and Ostia Antica. Jealous?
~ Anka the World Traveler
mazorj
> On 4/17/2010 9:36 PM, Anka wrote:
>
>> While I'm here, Reid, I just have to tell you that I've booked a
>> Mediterranean cruise. Ports of call include Syracuse, ancient
>> Carthage and Ostia Antica. Jealous?
>
> I'd love to chitchat with you about all of your upcoming adventures, but
> I'm not allowed to here by the Usenet police.
What a crock!
To paraphrase Pogo, we have met the Usenet Police... and he is you. You're
the only one who has been complaining loud and long about "chit-chat" in
rcc, Mr. Net Kop.
Barring a certain nemesis of yours who shall go un-nymed here, I can't think
of anybody who would truly be bothered by Anka's friendly post or any
responses to it. But you couldn't resist one more hypocritical jab at the
group, could you?
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/17/2010 9:36 PM, Anka wrote:
>
>> Mediterranean cruise. Ports of call include Syracuse, ancient
>> Carthage and Ostia Antica. Jealous?
>
> this. I'd love to chitchat with you about all of your upcoming
> adventures, but I'm not allowed to here by the Usenet police.
Oh, go ahead, we don't mind chitchat. Well, most of us. I presume Nick
would take a most dim view, but he can zipzap! plonk you with a couple of
left-clicks and be done with it, so no real harm done! You'll be amongst
excellent company in his killfile, I assure you, as I've already met a lot
of them. Pretty nice bunch of guys, actually. Of course, he won't see this
post, so unless you respond, this'll just be our little secret.
James