How old is counterfeiting of coins?

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
...

Enjoy your killfile. Feel free again to look stupid by guessing at
something that I just answered, as you did in this thread. Feel free
to continue posting under your Reid Trollsborough sockpuppet. Feel
free to post dozens of more zero-content messages. It's a free world.
Just don't pretend you're honorable and high-minded. You're the exact
opposite.
...

ROTFLMAO!

Not so nice when someone else does it to *you*, huh, Reid?

Your paragraph (quoted above) describes accurately *your* behaviour not so
long ago in this NG.
Over and over again.

Bloody annoying, isn't it!

--
Jeff R.
(but of course, you won't see that)

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 01:12:03 +1100, "Jeff R"
wrote:

ROTFLMAO!

Not so nice when someone else does it to *you*, huh, Reid?

Your paragraph (quoted above) describes accurately *your* behaviour not so
long ago in this NG.
Over and over again.

Bloody annoying, isn't it!

You don't get it, do you? As I said, let's see if Jorg Lueke owns up
to his behavior, admits it was wrong, and apologizes. I did. You left
that part out. Why? Also, your saying I did this "not so long ago" is
quite a stretch, don't you think? This happened about four years ago,
an undergraduate college career, and the last time I did this.

I did this not as Jorg Lueke did it, to disrupt conversation, but to
defend myself from a five-month-long insane rampage of lying
accusations from Alan Williams, and I did this for less than a week,
maybe six posts in all. As I've said, many times, what I did,
countering deception with deception, was wrong, and I apologized for
it.

Michael Marotta also had a prolonged a sockpuppet episode, same way as
Lueke did, making up a sockpuppet name based on my name and spitting
out posts just to disrupt. He unintentionally gave himself up by
revealing information that he had left years ago in another post,
information that only he would have remembered and that Google Groups
revealed. He stopped after that, but he never owned up to his behavior
or apologized either.

You've also never owned up to your behavior. For a while there
virtually every post of yours to mine was an attempt to disrupt,
typically with a link to these juvenile graffiti flame pages you
created about me, laden with graphics and animations, one with a
picture of me that you took from one of my Web sites and doodled on.
No doubt you'll think it's clever to link to these pages again, right
now. LOL. Go ahead. You know you want to.

Phil DeMayo, the sleaziest flamer in this newsgroup, is also the most
sanctimonious and the most hypocritical. He's an Internet shut-in
loser with a huge chip on his shoulder, and he's pathologically
obsessed with trying to disrupt threads. Find one conversation I've
been involving in debating a numismatic topic that he didn't try to
sabotage with flamebaiting junk. It doesn't matter if he has interest
in or knowledge of the topic, he's there with his no-content,
no-substance badgering. You may find one he didn't try to sabotage,
but you won't find many. Sabotaging conversation is the worst Usenet
sin. You know that, right?

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Jeff R wrote:
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
...

Enjoy your killfile. Feel free again to look stupid by guessing at
something that I just answered, as you did in this thread. Feel free
to continue posting under your Reid Trollsborough sockpuppet. Feel
free to post dozens of more zero-content messages. It's a free world.
Just don't pretend you're honorable and high-minded. You're the exact
opposite.
...

ROTFLMAO!

Not so nice when someone else does it to *you*, huh, Reid?

Your paragraph (quoted above) describes accurately *your* behaviour not so
long ago in this NG.
Over and over again.

Bloody annoying, isn't it!

--
Jeff R.
(but of course, you won't see that)

It's almost ennervating, it's almost laughable, but I'm just starting
to feel sorry for him. He's going to have to go through life like this
since it's probably too late for therapy. That he STILL doesn't get
the Reid Trollsborough posts is mostly baffling. Ah well, let him call
names I have more zero content posts to make :-P

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 01:12:03 +1100, "Jeff R"
wrote:

ROTFLMAO!

Not so nice when someone else does it to *you*, huh, Reid?

Your paragraph (quoted above) describes accurately *your* behaviour not so
long ago in this NG.
Over and over again.

Bloody annoying, isn't it!

You don't get it, do you? As I said, let's see if Jorg Lueke owns up
to his behavior, admits it was wrong, and apologizes. I did. You left
that part out. Why? Also, your saying I did this "not so long ago" is
quite a stretch, don't you think? This happened about four years ago,
an undergraduate college career, and the last time I did this.

I did this not as Jorg Lueke did it, to disrupt conversation, but to
defend myself from a five-month-long insane rampage of lying
accusations from Alan Williams, and I did this for less than a week,
maybe six posts in all. As I've said, many times, what I did,
countering deception with deception, was wrong, and I apologized for
it.

How long are you going to keep lying about this Goldsborough?

It has been proven that you also used pseudonyms to make potentially
libelous statements when you were too afraid to use your own name. You
have never "owned up" to those.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 01:12:03 +1100, "Jeff R"
wrote:

ROTFLMAO!

Not so nice when someone else does it to *you*, huh, Reid?

Your paragraph (quoted above) describes accurately *your* behaviour not
so
long ago in this NG.
Over and over again.

Bloody annoying, isn't it!

You don't get it, do you? As I said, let's see if Jorg Lueke owns up
to his behavior, admits it was wrong, and apologizes.

I "get it" just fine, thanks.
Look in the mirror.
Are *you* going to apologise for your childish, potty-mouthed ad hom
attacks?
You know - the ones you *always* make when someone disagrees with you.



You've also never owned up to your behavior.

What do mean - "owned up"?
Nothing to "own up" to. I write what i write. Its all there in Google,
unlike your posts.


For a while there
virtually every post of yours to mine

....in which you had already been gratuitously insulting, without
provocation...

...was an attempt to disrupt,
typically with a link to these juvenile graffiti flame pages you
created about me, laden with graphics and animations, one with a
picture of me that you took from one of my Web sites and doodled on.
No doubt you'll think it's clever to link to these pages again, right
now. LOL. Go ahead. You know you want to.

If you insist.
Reid's cowardice: http://mendosus.com/reid-acg.html
Why Reid posts in RCC: http://mendosus.com/glomthis.html

There's more, but I'll wait until you ask again.

Hey Reid! Do you still think that
"...Whizzing involves the use of a mechanical buffing device with a wire
attachment to push metal around."

Are you going to apologise for that Class-A blooper?

--
Jeff R.
(...waiting)

On 6 Nov 2005 09:39:44 -0800, "Jorg Lueke"
wrote:

That he STILL doesn't get
the Reid Trollsborough posts is mostly baffling.

Baffling. You faked my name and disrupted threads here for nearly a
month. Nick caught you. First you pretended it wasn't you. And now you
idiotically say that I don't get it, that you're baffled that I don't
get it. How the mind works, or doesn't work.

You're a sleazebag caught in your sleaze. If you were a decent person,
if you acted like a man, you would now own up to what you did. You
would say that it wasn't right for you to use a sockpuppet like this
to flame, to disrupt, to junk post, and you would apologize for it.
But instead you continue to act like some drunken miscreant,
contending that I don't get it, that what you did was above my head.
LOL. Talk about baffling.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On 6 Nov 2005 12:30:09 -0800, "Phil DeMayo" wrote:

It has been proven that you also used pseudonyms to make potentially
libelous statements when you were too afraid to use your own name. You
have never "owned up" to those.

Wrong, as you typically are with you obsessed, snipping idiocy. I
owned up to those, many times. I've said many times that using a
handle for discussing sensitive topics has a long history on Usenet
and is the one accepted use for this, and I've said many times that
I've done this a few times, once to disagree with a California lawyer
here, a couple of other times as well, but in each case I decided that
conversing this way wasn't the best approach for me to take with that
particular conversation and quickly ended it.

I did carry out two prolonged sockpuppet episodes online, but this was
on a local BBS in the late 1980s/early 1990s before the Internet
explosion days, and both times I did it openly. Once I pretended I was
a pet dog and gave out doggy advice and comments, trying to put myself
in my own dog's shoes, or paws, conversing as she might have conversed
could she talk. It was fun, and people liked it, asking me questions
to get my doggy perspective. Another time was pretending to be an
obese, love-starved African immigrant in love with the online persona
of a BBS buddy and good offline friend of mine. I kept on hitting on
him, and it was hysterical watching him trying to be as polite as he
could in responding. It was obvious to all, or to most anyway, that
this wasn't a real person, as I intended it with the exaggerated
things I had her say, and when he caught on that it was me, the game
was over and I stopped. We laughed about it when we saw each other in
person the first time after it was over.

Some idiot here -- was this also you? -- said that I should be ashamed
for having hounded him and that I was guilty of racism, but this
couldn't have been further from the truth, and nobody who actually
witnessed this episode would ever have said these things. But some
people say the most idiotic of things online, you more than anybody in
your pathological obsession to disrupt threads I'm in. You, more than
anybody I've ever encountered online, deserves the directive, Get A
Life, Loser.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 6 Nov 2005 12:30:09 -0800, "Phil DeMayo" wrote:

It has been proven that you also used pseudonyms to make potentially
libelous statements when you were too afraid to use your own name. You
have never "owned up" to those.

Wrong, as you typically are with you obsessed, snipping idiocy. I
owned up to those, many times. I've said many times that using a
handle for discussing sensitive topics has a long history on Usenet
and is the one accepted use for this, ...

LOL again!

Goldsborough Morality:

===========================
"
* Lots of folk do it;
* _I_ deem it to be "acceptable" under the circumstances;
* It doesn't matter if it is dishonourable or dishonest (see first point);
* It suits me.

Therefore I do it."
============================

Lots of people do dishonest or cowardly things.
That doesn't make them "right".

--
Jeff R.
(unless you're Goldsborough)

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:48:27 -0500, Reid Goldsborough
trolled us with:

On 6 Nov 2005 09:39:44 -0800, "Jorg Lueke"
wrote:

That he STILL doesn't get
the Reid Trollsborough posts is mostly baffling.

Baffling. You faked my name

Hahaha. Your name is Trollsborough. Awesome! I can dig it, finally
you tell the truth.

and disrupted threads here for nearly a
month. Nick caught you. First you pretended it wasn't you. And now you
idiotically say that I don't get it, that you're baffled that I don't
get it. How the mind works, or doesn't work.

Yeah, I pretented it wasn't me. Umm show me that message. Unlike you
my intent is never deception.


You're a sleazebag caught in your sleaze. If you were a decent person,
if you acted like a man, you would now own up to what you did. You
would say that it wasn't right for you to use a sockpuppet like this
to flame, to disrupt, to junk post, and you would apologize for it.
But instead you continue to act like some drunken miscreant,
contending that I don't get it, that what you did was above my head.
LOL. Talk about baffling.

Finally the projecting. You are as predictable as you are stupid. You
still don't get it do ya Reid? Boo Hoo for you. If you weren't such
a sleazy liar I'd feel sorry for you but you are past pity.

Jeff R wrote:

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 6 Nov 2005 12:30:09 -0800, "Phil DeMayo" wrote:

It has been proven that you also used pseudonyms to make potentially
libelous statements when you were too afraid to use your own name. You
have never "owned up" to those.

Wrong, as you typically are with you obsessed, snipping idiocy. I
owned up to those, many times. I've said many times that using a
handle for discussing sensitive topics has a long history on Usenet
and is the one accepted use for this, ...

LOL again!

Goldsborough Morality:

===========================
"
* Lots of folk do it;
* _I_ deem it to be "acceptable" under the circumstances;
* It doesn't matter if it is dishonourable or dishonest (see first point);
* It suits me.

Therefore I do it."
============================

Lots of people do dishonest or cowardly things.
That doesn't make them "right".

--
Jeff R.
(unless you're Goldsborough)

He's been talking out of both sides of his mouth for so long, he has a
wooden puppet on each knee. ;-/

Alan
'McCarthy Hearings'