On 15 Nov 2003 19:23:49 GMT, rosit (Jim) wrote:

BRAVO

Reid Goldsborough wants to make it clear for the
last time and set the record staright, especially for all those impressionable
newbies as well as for his alter ego sweetie Nancy.....

Reid Goldsborough isn't a journalist but plays one on the Internet, combining
various unrelated postings and non-sensical drivel and pronouncing
definitively, over and over, what's collectible and what's not, who's a "real
numismatist" and who's not, when there's anything but market clarity about the
subject of ownership of collectible coins.

He has said that Nancy Knight, the
most visible yet irritating numismatic nutjob closest to his heart, has
recently written a peculiar website showcasing the fruits of her vile and
paranoic thoughts, referred to sarcastically as 'text collecting' when done by
others, but somehow proper in her skillful hands. BTW, the word 'hypocrite' is
never used therein, except when referring to others.

Nancy has said that you don't need to interpret or read posts, just skew them.
From her reading of the posts, sans interpretation and context, she has warned
people repeatedly about the dire social and legal consequences they face if
they text-collect her off line e-mailings and regurgitate them publicly. That's
not 'fun' text-collecting, she says.

She is moralistic in the extreme, impugning the ethics of those who collect
text about her, yet whose own ethics online leave a great deal to be desired, a
gauge of her own maturity, exemplified by among other things her posting of
pictures of her high school reunion on her Web site, but yet not having the
common courtesy to identify herself, thereby depriving the world of a focused
scorn. Oh, and she can't spell worth a ****.

Whether she or Reid, their sole or at least primary source of "research" is
Google and/or postings and lame OS/2 threads. They believe whatever they find,
particularly if it comes from an "official" source such as the darkside of the
moon or the murmurings of their own psyches.

Reids purpose in putting out information isn't to disseminate truth but to
support his
own entrenched ideas, to promote his agenda. He has said flat-out that mistakes
on Usenet don't count, because he's not getting paid for "those" writings, yet
fails to see how those myriad repeated mistakes, gaffes and steps in kaka (my
homage to animagifs) could affect his credibility!

When it becomes clear that he's wrong about a point, Reid retreats to the
Websters Dictionary where he culls fringe vocabulary and foists it upon the
unwitting public in a machine gun manner, reminiscent of an ADD afflicted child
continually blurting "glom a (add a noun)" or other. Ever hear the word
"connoisseurship" in your own poor miserable life?

When confronted with corrective advice, you'll never hear Reid say "I hadn't
considered that," or "That's something I didn't know," or "I need to check more
into this," or "You may be right." No, not Reid. Breen couldn't write a
truthful sentence, Bowers might have a future in publishing and all who disgree
with Reid, are Usenet scum, full of ****y junk and flame tards, a variation
BTW, on the word o Jims, Reid-Tard.

Reids own criticisms of others primarily reflect not important mistakes in
fact, but reinforce and support the notion that he is a moron, incapable of
independent and inspired thought. Reid exemplifies, perhaps better than other
individual in this newsgroup, the unreliability of information on the Internet
and the sad "electronic shut-in" mentality of a small but disproportionately
loud segment of the Usenet population.

Wow Reid, that must have been both tough and cathartic. I'm sure I speak for
many on RCC when I say, Bravo. It's about time you came clean and faced up to
what a witless maroon you really are.

Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--

Don

If you ask enough people for advice, you're bound to find someone
to advise you to do what you wanted to do anyway.