If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 11/13/2010 8:27 PM, oly wrote: Didn't Reeamo work for Coin World for about three weeks until they let him go for cause (incredibly poor personal hygene and other asinine habits)??? You and Jeff R. could win a Pulizer in a new category: Erroneous online reporting about errors in reporting. Jeff R. says I had something "published in the past" but that he hasn't seen anything recently though he hasn't been looking. That's fine reporting -- very thorough and responsible. Ummm... excuse me. Please to point out the "Erroneous online reporting about errors in reporting" in what I said. I even qualified my comment with a "haven't been looking." IOW - point out *one* single error in what I wrote. ....but you can't, can you. ... both stumbling badly in the very way I was commenting on, the irony of people doing error hunting while being transparently wrong themselves and without showing one iota's worth of diligence in trying to get the facts correct. Please point out a single "stumble" of mine. ....but you can't, can you. But this is entirely expected, with you two at any rate, in that neither of you have shown any concern about getting the facts straight, OK then, if you insist, let's move onto the dog I *do* have in this fight. Would you care to apologise, Reid, for all the insulting innuendo and flaming you directed my way when I insisted that whizzing with a brush doesn't melt the metal? Remember that? Remember how you steadfastly refused to acknowledge my experience in this field - over and over again - and then finally took it as fact when *someone else* pointed it out to you? Great journalistic integrity there, Reid. I had the "facts straight" from the very first to the last comment - it was you who believed the malarkey and would not accept the science. Yet it was you who flamed and maligned me. Repeatedly. Unapologetically. DAGS if you don't believe me - or you've "forgotten". I'm satisfied with the public record. ...Can't do that in a department, school board, or any other meeting where you have to show you face and own up to what you say. Uh huh. ....and how do you think I earn my money? BTW, Reid? What are *you* doing now? Publishing? Any columns? Any paid writing? Anything to show off and browbeat us with? crickets Thought so. -- Jeff R. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
On 11/14/2010 1:39 AM, Jeff R. wrote:
IOW - point out*one* single error in what I wrote. ...but you can't, can you. You still don't get it. This discussion, this part of it, is about errors that people make in pointing out errors of others, in particular reporters. Your error was that you reported on something while saying that you haven't actually been looking for it. Yes, that's a qualification, but it's a stupid qualification. Either look for something and then report on it, or don't report on something you haven't been looking for and haven't taken the *30 seconds* it would take to report on it. And now you're up in arms. This couldn't be any more delicious. -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
On Nov 14, 9:33*am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote: On 11/14/2010 1:39 AM, Jeff R. wrote: IOW - point out*one* *single error in what I wrote. ...but you can't, can you. You still don't get it. This discussion, this part of it, is about errors that people make in pointing out errors of others, in particular reporters. Your error was that you reported on something while saying that you haven't actually been looking for it. Yes, that's a qualification, but it's a stupid qualification. Either look for something and then report on it, or don't report on something you haven't been looking for and haven't taken the *30 seconds* it would take to report on it. And now you're up in arms. This couldn't be any more delicious. -- Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos Actualy, Jeff HAS devoted TOO much time responding to a well-known 'tard. oly |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
Jeff...I think it's time that you resign yourself to the fact that
Reid won't admit his mistake regarding 'whizzing' and an apology isn't forthcoming. He revels in finding errors in others writings but won't own up to his own. Typically, he has circumvented the subject upon numerous occasions, and is doing so now. That he finds it amusing amuses me. His defense of shoddy journalism is an entirely different matter. If a doctor makes a mistake, someone dies; if a lawyer makes a mistake, someone is incarcerated; if an architect makes a mistake, the structure falls down; but if a journalist makes a mistake, there are minimal to no repercussions. If it isn't right, then it's wrong. Period. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
On 11/14/2010 4:31 PM, Jud wrote:
Jeff...I think it's time that you resign yourself to the fact that Reid won't admit his mistake regarding 'whizzing' and an apology isn't Every time Jeff R. responds to one of my posts, it seems he brings up the subject of whizzing. This was from something like six years ago. Talking about whacko-obsessive. I have zero problem admitting I'm wrong, and have done so online and off on numerous occasions, making mistakes like everyone else despite taking care in trying to get things right, and I've done so here with whizzing, admitting that the surface metal in the fields doesn't actually melt to a liquid state. But I'll still maintain I was correct on the core issue, that whizzing for the most part doesn't remove metal but moves it, through plastic deformation, as the evidence demonstrates, clear indications under magnification that with whizzed coins metal has been pushed against devices and legends and the fact that whizzed coins don't lose any measurable weight compared to the official weight of coins that haven't been doctored in this way. This was discussed to death six years ago, and I have zero interest in going over the same material every single time Jeff R., because of some personal demons he must be haunted by, brings it up in discussions about completely unrelated issues. I have no interest among other reasons because whizzing is such a small issue in the numismatic marketplace today, as discussed six years ago and several times afterward, since it's a relative crude technique, easily detected, and hasn't been used by coin doctors for the most part in some time. What started this was this Jeff R., without having seen a whizzed coin, attempting whizzing a coin in his metal shop to prove what whizzing does, then making his grand pronouncements about his conclusions, and only afterward asking here if anyone could send him a whizzed coin so he could see one in person. You have Allen Stockton, the most visible coin doctor in the U.S., you have some of the most respected organizations and people in the U.S. coin authentication business (PCGS, Brian Silliman, etc.), and you have Tony Clayton, a metallurgical expert in the UK, all saying that whizzing moves metal. And you have this guy with a metal shop, Tony R., saying it doesn't because of his oh-so expert metal shop experimentation, insisting that all these people are just aping one another, then demanding over and over and over an apology from me. And now you have "Jud" saying I won't admit my mistake and offer an apology about this central and weighty issue of crucial importance to everybody in numismatics. Idiocy. Knock yourselves out. -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 11/14/2010 1:39 AM, Jeff R. wrote: IOW - point out*one* single error in what I wrote. ...but you can't, can you. You still don't get it. This discussion, this part of it, is about errors that people make in pointing out errors of others, in particular reporters. What I can't work out is whether you are being deliberately, cunningly, malevolently obtuse, or whether you actually are stupendously dense. I have a leaning towards the latter, however. Your error was that you reported on something while saying that you haven't actually been looking for it. Yes, that's a qualification, but it's a stupid qualification. Either look for something and then report on it, or don't report on something you haven't been looking for and haven't taken the *30 seconds* it would take to report on it. And now you're up in arms. This couldn't be any more delicious. OK. I've looked. I can't find any recent "Goldsborough" publications online. So answer my question, unless you are too ashamed to do so: Are you currently involved in any "professional journalistic" endeavours? -- Jeff R. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 11/14/2010 4:31 PM, Jud wrote: Jeff...I think it's time that you resign yourself to the fact that Reid won't admit his mistake regarding 'whizzing' and an apology isn't Every time Jeff R. responds to one of my posts, it seems he brings up the subject of whizzing. This was from something like six years ago. Talking about whacko-obsessive. I have zero problem admitting I'm wrong, Bull. I have extensive evidence (as does Google Groups archive) to the contrary. Yes, we "whacko-obsessives" are quite concerned with the truth. I know, and I understand, that even "so-called" or "part-time" or "has-been" journalists like yourself cannot afford the luxury of respecting the truth. Gets in the way of a good story, as they say. I was right all along. You were wrong all along. From post number 1 on the topic. You abused me, harangued me, insulted me (you continue to today!) simply because I was right and you were obviously, seriously, completely wrong. If you were even half a decent person you would have apologised long ago. I know you won't because you cannot even meet that poor standard. and have done so online and off on numerous occasions, making mistakes like everyone else despite taking care in trying to get things right, and I've done so here with whizzing, admitting that the surface metal in the fields doesn't actually melt to a liquid state. But I'll still maintain I was correct on the core issue, that whizzing for the most part doesn't remove metal but moves it, through plastic deformation, Oh for the love of.... Reid, do some homework. Talk to someone who knows what "plastic deformation" *means* before you attempt to bandy about a phrase about which you *obviously* know nothing. A first-year student of metallurgy could point out your gross misinterpretations. I couldn't be bothered trying to teach you anymore. You're a very poor student, and an incredibly slow learner to boot. Go ahead and peddle your nonsensical "understanding" of metallurgy and metalworking. I don't care anymore - but I will chime in occasionally to point out - when I feel like it - how completely and utterly wrong you are. -- Jeff R. (shaking my head in disbelief) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
"Jud" wrote in message ... Jeff...I think it's time that you resign yourself to the fact that Reid won't admit his mistake regarding 'whizzing' and an apology isn't forthcoming. He revels in finding errors in others writings but won't own up to his own. Typically, he has circumvented the subject upon numerous occasions, and is doing so now. That he finds it amusing amuses me. His defense of shoddy journalism is an entirely different matter. If a doctor makes a mistake, someone dies; if a lawyer makes a mistake, someone is incarcerated; if an architect makes a mistake, the structure falls down; but if a journalist makes a mistake, there are minimal to no repercussions. If it isn't right, then it's wrong. Period. He continues to prove, with every post that he makes, what a contemptible and unpleasant little character he is. My comment on his demeanour, from seven years ago: http://mendosus.com/glomthis.html remains just as relevant today. Sometimes an ad hom attack can be not only accurate, but justified as well. Attacking Reid is one such case. So why do I bother? Because it takes very litle effort, here on USENET, to express such a point of view, and it helps to balance the smug, supercilious, ignorant dross he perpetuates. As I said - with very little effort. Now I'm off to do something really important - sort out my mismatched sock drawer. -- Jeff R. (in wet, muggy, tropical Sydney) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
On Nov 14, 11:28*pm, "Jeff R." wrote:
I couldn't be bothered trying to teach you anymore. *You're a very poor student, and an incredibly slow learner to boot. Go ahead and peddle your nonsensical "understanding" of metallurgy and metalworking. *I don't care anymore - but I will chime in occasionally to point out - when I feel like it - how completely and utterly wrong you are. -- Jeff R. (shaking my head in disbelief) Aren't you the one who experimented on coins using a CONICAL wire brush, when coin doctors use a DISC brush, giving a completly different look as a result. The disc brush cuts a bicycle wheel spoke pattern in the coin, simulating radial mint luster lines. Your experiment just swirled the metal around like a mixmaster. Attributing some of the surface changes to "melting" is not wildly incorrect. A. Selwooda and J. Mølgaarda Research Department, British Nylon Spinners Limited, Ponty,pool, Mon.Great Britain Available online 20 February 2003. Abstract The brushing of aluminium by rotary nickel silver wire brushes gives surface changes due to low temperature welding, and not surface melting. This is shown by examination of the surface produced at different speeds of brushing, with and without lubrication, and by experimental and theoretical estimation of surface temperature. References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
On 11/15/2010 3:04 PM, Frank Provasek wrote:
Attributing some of the surface changes to "melting" is not wildly incorrect. Long post ... I was incorrect with this point, but you're right -- not wildly incorrect -- and I was right in the whole, as pointed out, that this outdated coin doctoring technique of whizzing for the most part moved or pushed metal rather than removing it. But Jeff R. will never admit this. Here's why, which I believe ties a lot of things together. Error hunting can be fun. I do this, and this is one theme in this thread. It can also be fun trying to knock a know-it-all off his block. I know full well that I come across this way at times, in areas I specialize in, for the very reason that I specialize in them. With coins I go not wide but deep, as deep as I can in a relatively small number of areas, enjoying the process of acquiring knowledge as much as acquiring coins. I also enjoy sharing what I learn. Sharing knowledge in numismatics for me involves online discussion groups, my Web site, and articles and book reviews I write for numismatic publications. Have another article coming out in the Celator in a couple of months. Jeff R. says I was "published in the past," that I'm a "has been," and all the rest. I always thought I made my living as a writer, but he knows best about this too, I guess. Jeff R. isn't the first to try with all his might to prove me wrong about something. Michael Marotta, who Jeff R. ironically and in all his astuteness thought was me with his Coin World association, did the same in almost exactly the same way with his his Alexander the Great effort. There are interesting parallels -- this will involve some of the detailed analysis I enjoy. Read no further, anybody, if you don't also find this enjoyable. Both individuals observed me enjoying the process of commenting in detail here about two areas I've looked into in detail: coin doctoring techniques and Alexander the Great's portraiture on coinage. My comments here, on the Web, and in articles I've written for the seven coin publications I've written articles for are based on extensive reading, observations of coinage, some experimentation, informal discussions and formal interviews with others who have more experience and expertise than me on these and other subjects, and thinking. Though I enjoyed sharing my conclusions, they didn't enjoy this, and they set out to prove me wrong. Both engaged in what they regarded as original research. Michael with his partner Anka read what ancient literature they could find related to the subject, implying no one else had. Jeff R. tried whizzing a coin himself without having seen one. Both didn't do the necessarily contextual research. Neither read in anywhere close to the detail they should have about what others had concluded from doing far more extensive research than them. Michael hadn't read the relevant recent literature, over the past half century, about the issue of Alexander's portrait on coinage, didn't refer to it in his article, didn't address the core evidence leading scholar after scholar to conclude that the Herakles/Hercules image on Alexander's coins was Herakles and not Alexander himself, and didn't know that this was once widely believed in prior centuries before the historical and numismatic evidence against it was uncovered more recently. Along with not having seen a whizzed coin before trying to create one in his metal shop, Jeff R. didn't talk to a single coin doctor who did this kind of highly controversial work to find out exactly what they did to create the effects they produced and wasn't familiar with what others had concluded through looking in detail at numerous whizzed coins, from PCGS to the ANA. But they both "proved" me wrong. Debate ensued. Neither budged one iota in his initial conclusion, despite the evidence presented against these conclusions. Both insisted I was just copying the opinions of others and that the so-called experts in turn were just aping one another. It's true that experts aren't always right. But due diligence in any kind of research requires that you look at the same things that experts look at if you want to prove them wrong. You need a firm grounding in the evidence that's out there if you want to refute that evidence. You can't show that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes without having first done your homework. Jeff R. takes it to the next level in absurdity with his obsessiveness and by insisting time after time that I not only issue him an apology but also this entire group. He does this despite his putting up and repeatedly referring to the Web site he created devoted entirely to me, a clownishly sophomoric attempt at mockery and further evidence of weirdo obsessiveness. But it's all amusing, and informative, offering more insight into this ever curious, ever fascinating business of online communication. Grist for the mill... -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
9 to be arraigned in rare coin scheme --- Millions stolen from duped elderly victims, authorities say | Arizona Coin Collector | Coins | 5 | November 25th 08 01:36 PM |
Coin broker suspected of swindling nearly $1 million | stonej | Coins | 0 | May 15th 06 06:21 PM |
Mass. coin dealer used in scheme to defraud elderly Florida woman | stonej | Coins | 2 | May 30th 05 04:02 PM |
Man charged with defrauding elderly woman in $1 million gold coin scam | stonej | Coins | 0 | April 25th 05 06:58 PM |
Young girl used in ruse to steal elderly mans coin collection | stonej | Coins | 1 | January 16th 05 06:34 PM |