Electrum

"A.Gent" wrote
Actually, as I read it, he offered many differing definitions of electrum,
without claiming any as his own.
There wouldn't be a personal aspect to this criticism, would there Reid?

and I were completing our manuscript on Alexander as
Herakles when Mr. Reid Goldsborough posted to Rec.Collecting.Coins a
"helpful reply" to an open query about the coins of Croesus.
Collaborating over the telephone, Ankaaz and I quipped to each other
that we could make pretty good careers addressing Mr. Goldsborough's
areas of ignorance.

So, I wrote an article about electrum as a coinage metal. I acquired
some standard references, and from them built an interesting and
informative work. It is supported by a bibliography of seventeen
citations, among them, the works of Jenkins, Robinson, Melville Jones,
Figureia, and Taxay.

All of the statements Mr. Reid Goldsborough has made in this thread
titled Electrum on the Usenet Newsgroup Rec.Collecting.Coins about my
article, "Electrum" for THE CELATOR, so thoroughly mischaracterize,
misrepresent, misquote, and misattribute my work that, for me, no
discussion is possible. Anyone who cares about the history of
electrum as a coinage metal can buy the August 2003 issue of THE
CELATOR from the publisher.

On 16 Oct 2003 11:19:41 -0700, (Michael E.
Marotta) wrote:

and I were completing our manuscript on Alexander as
Herakles when Mr. Reid Goldsborough posted to Rec.Collecting.Coins a
"helpful reply" to an open query about the coins of Croesus.
Collaborating over the telephone, Ankaaz and I quipped to each other
that we could make pretty good careers addressing Mr. Goldsborough's
areas of ignorance.

It couldn't be obvious that this is what you're trying to do. Many of
your articles are continuations of debates we've had here. With each,
you do your contrarian thing, taking a position in diametric
opposition to current numismatic knowledge and arguing the opposite. I
have a problem with this only when you ignore key evidence, as in the
Alexander piece, or engage in disingenuous reasoning, as in this
electrum piece.

All of the statements Mr. Reid Goldsborough has made in this thread
titled Electrum on the Usenet Newsgroup Rec.Collecting.Coins about my
article, "Electrum" for THE CELATOR, so thoroughly mischaracterize,
misrepresent, misquote, and misattribute my work that, for me, no
discussion is possible. Anyone who cares about the history of
electrum as a coinage metal can buy the August 2003 issue of THE
CELATOR from the publisher.

I appreciate your calling me Mr. Next time, if you really want to be
polite, you can throw in a "sir" or two, but don't make it too formal
because I haven't yet been knighted.

Please show me one instance of where I misrepresented your work. I
won't be responding further to Anka here. You'll need to speak for
yourself. Or you can remain silent, as you did with your Alexander
piece, sweeping away the established wisdom and putting forth your
"new paradigms." That's the easy part. Responding to those who object
to the misinformation is tougher.

--

Coin Collecting: Consumer Guide: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Glomming: Coin Connoisseurship: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Bogos: Counterfeit Coins: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos