What follows is a brew of my opinions and
observations, specifically directed towards R.G.'s cockalorum.


"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:34:36 -0500, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

What follows is a distillation of many people's opinions and
observations, including my own. Additions and corrections are

This is in response to further nonsense from Phil DeMayo about this
subject, gleaned from Google Groups.


To thine own self be true, Reid.
When you kf someone, at least have the decency to refrain from answering
their posts.


Phil has said that you don't need to interpret laws, just read them.

Which is a pretty good start....


He is legalistic in the extreme, contending that all laws and all
rules should be followed to the letter, ...

There's a problem with that?
I'd rather have a neighbour who was as such, instead of one who (like you,
rg?) views the law as an inconvenient fiction.


He is moralistic in the extreme,

There's a problem with that?


... impugning the ethics of those who
collect or study or write about counterfeits yet whose ethics online
leave a great deal to be desired, not to mention his maturity,
exemplified by among other things his taking a picture of me from my
Web site, defacing it, then putting it on his Web site.

Classic projection again, RG.

You're getting confused again. *YOU* did this. Look:
http://www.netaxs.com/~reidgold/column/IndexFrame.html ("normal" photo)
and
http://www.netaxs.com/~reidgold/column/reid_pinch.html (defaced photo).

Again, s-l-o-w-l-y : YOU did this Reid.
On YOUR (lower case 'w') web site.



He doesn't understand the difference between jurisprudence and ethics,

Don't you consider that jurisprudence is at least *intended* to reflect the
ethics of the society which formulates it?
Are you glorifying those who deliberately corrupt the intent of the law to
serve their own ends?


simplemindedly equating the two, and between counterfeits and
replicas, simplemindedly equating the two.

Can a replica be passed off as genuine, in the fashion of a counterfeit?
If so, then the similarity is not simpleminded.



His sole or at least primary source of "research" is Google, and he
appears to believe whatever he finds,

How do you know this?
Has he said as such?



...particularly if it comes from an
"official" source such as a government Web site.

Uh huh.
Hands up all those who'd trust the info on RG's site(s) in preference to
that from a US government site.

.....

I thought so.


His purpose in putting out information isn't to disseminate truth but
to support his own entrenched ideas, to promote his agenda. He is
rabidly anti-counterfeit, yet he repeatedly puts out counterfeit
information -- phony and fake -- about this subject.

Poor analogy. A counterfeit is a facsimile, a copy of something genuine.
When done well, it is indistinguishable from the original.

Are you accusing Phil of making very good copies (indistiguishable) copies
of the truth?


He has said flat-out that he doesn't make mistakes,

....and this wasn't ironic or sarcastic? You took it literally, I presume?


...and his online
debating style reflects this -- sheer stuck-in-the-mud,
never-budge-an-inch intransigence.

Whereas when *you* are presented with determined, logical and persistent
opposition to your self-aggrandising posts and fatuous, childish arguing
style, what do you do? Killfile the antagonist. Very level-headed and
mature.


... When it becomes clear that he's
wrong about a point, he has repeatedly blurted out "Bite me!"

....and you have *never* blurted out an intemperate comment?


...rather
than saying, level-headedly, "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."


You don't do that very often either, Reid, despite an enormous number of
opportunities to do so.


=================
The above is posted as a public service to those not yet familiar with RG's
debationg style.

Reid: Kindly don't answer.
I treasure my spot in the killfile.