PING: MIchael Marotta

I fully believe that all ANA issues should be discussed out in the open and not
behind closed doors before the meeting.

Now, go ahead and show me what is wrong with that statement, because iI firmly
believe that a free discussion that explores all possiblities is necessary to
prevent making mistakes. If you make a persuasive enough argument against this,
I will not be able to answer, and I will leave the ANA alone for a full year:
logo issue, the whole potato. A whole year.. no me bothering the ANA. That is
my promise. If not, you have nothing to lose. I will not even ask you to stop
trolling me. So there you go. Please try to keep it under 5000 words though,
but length is up to you. And to everyone else, please let him do it without a
lot of flack. Good luck.
--

-Sam

One other thing, the offer expires Monday, Nov 10, 2003, at 7 PM EDT. So you
have almost 24 hours.
--

-Sam

Reid Goldsborough wrote:

I doubt you'll get an answer to your multiple posts asking your
straightforward questions, if history repeats. And I doubt even more
you'll get a straightforward answer. Michael's good at putting out the
contrarian and iconoclastic but not so good at backing it up.

Isn't the above an example of what you call "****y flamejunk", something you
claim not to engage in?

Oh wait, I forgot you're an enormous hypocrite....never mind.



++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 10 Nov 2003 00:12:03 GMT, (MorganCoin1) wrote:

I fully believe that all ANA issues should be discussed out in the open
and not
behind closed doors before the meeting.

I doubt you'll get an answer to your multiple posts asking your
straightforward questions, if history repeats. And I doubt even more
you'll get a straightforward answer. Michael's good at putting out the
contrarian and iconoclastic but not so good at backing it up.

Don't forget to check out http://mendosus.com/glomthis.html for a
straightforward explanation of Reid's motives in this reply (and most
others.)

Phil quoted Reid:

" 'I doubt you'll get an answer to your multiple posts asking your
straightforward questions, if history repeats. And I doubt even more
you'll get a straightforward answer. Michael's good at putting out the
contrarian and iconoclastic but not so good at backing it up.'

Isn't the above an example of what you call '****y flamejunk',
something you
claim not to engage in?

Oh wait, I forgot you're an enormous hypocrite....never mind."



Okay. This is the umpteenth time that I've "missed" Reid's post on
Google and only seen it referred to, as in your reply above. What's
going on? Is this an example of Reid's "no archive" option?


Anka ---- AWOL at work

"Anka Z" wrote in message
om...

Okay. This is the umpteenth time that I've "missed" Reid's post on
Google and only seen it referred to, as in your reply above. What's
going on? Is this an example of Reid's "no archive" option?


Anka ---- AWOL at work

Yes.
Easy to circumvent, however.

Anka Z wrote:

Phil quoted Reid:

" 'I doubt you'll get an answer to your multiple posts asking your
straightforward questions, if history repeats. And I doubt even more
you'll get a straightforward answer. Michael's good at putting out the
contrarian and iconoclastic but not so good at backing it up.'

Isn't the above an example of what you call '****y flamejunk',
something you
claim not to engage in?

Oh wait, I forgot you're an enormous hypocrite....never mind."

Okay. This is the umpteenth time that I've "missed" Reid's post on
Google and only seen it referred to, as in your reply above. What's
going on? Is this an example of Reid's "no archive" option?


Okay, I'm slow, so let me see if I can 'Spot The Hypocrisy'. Reid says
that a poster is "...not so good at backing it up.", but the post in
which he says that he set to leave no archived message on Google. Is
that correct?

What do I win?

Alan
'beeps when he backs up'

Reid botched it up again by assigning to me this statement:

"Isn't the above an example of what you call '****y flamejunk', something you
claim not to engage in?"


I did not post this. Try again.


Anka ---- would have used the term "micturating flamejunk" ahem

Reid spewed forth:

"****y flamejunk has no bearing in reality. Michael's repeatedly refusing to
respond to objections about his 'new paradigms' is very real. The most obvious
example, of many, was something I've talked about before, maybe once..., his
incredulous run-around with the Alexander article, his first saying that if
people wanting to know his views about the objection that Alexander's image
couldn't have appeared on coins before he was born they could borrow some video
or dig up some little coin club journal, his refusal to respond either here or
to letters to the Celator, and his finally saying here that all he did was miss
one 'data point.' The one little date point invalidated his entire argument,
and yours. You, like him, would never admit this. Like I said, it's a lot
easier to put out the new paradigms, creating bold new numismatic knowledge,
overturning the
established wisdom, writing in opposition to what everyone else has written
(evidence be damned!) than it is to defend your iconoclasm when it's challenged
with more a 'Oh, please!' or all the other
non-cerebral responses you make here."


It's painfully obvious that you still can't get over the fact that Kerry gave
us the cover story with the Alexander article. He thought that highly of it.
The piece wasn't written in a vacuum, Reid. Kerry was apprised of its status
and content for nearly a year before its publication. To paraphrase (yet
again!) his comment to me, theories such as ours cannot be proven, but neither
can those of the traditionalists who adhere to the "established wisdom."

This said...I am suddenly overcome with ennui...


Anka ---- I vant to be alone... (hoping he'll get the hint)

Ankaaz wrote:

Reid botched it up again by assigning to me this statement:

"Isn't the above an example of what you call '****y flamejunk', something you
claim not to engage in?"

I did not post this. Try again.

No, you did not. The correct attribution would credit those words to
Phil DeMayo, a real stand-up guy who leaves his archive-yes firmly
welded into place.

Alan
'for the record'