PR: Numismatic Online Writers forum announced

On 11 Oct 2005 03:19:02 -0700, "Mike Marotta"
wrote:

A newbie comes to someplace like this and asks "What is this coin?" and
they get an answer. Usually, it is pretty straightforward, common
things being common. Less often, but perhaps more important, the
answers generate more questions and people go back and forth a bit
exchanging information to prove a point. The online world can do this.
Print cannot, usually.

I'm going to take issue with this as well, yet another statement
you've made in this thread that has absolutely no bearing in reality.
You say that people cannot "usually" go back and forth exchanging
information and opinions in print. The truth is that people have been
doing this since the invention of the printing press. The U.S.
Constitution was debated this way in newspapers before it was
ratified, with ordinary citizens exchanging opinions back and forth,
often heatedly, in letters to the editor. People of course still use
letters to the editor this way. There are many, many other examples --
circulars, newsletters, even books written for these purposes, the
exchanging of information, the generation of new questions, one book
as a response to another and then another book in response to that
one. The online world is different as we all know but only in terms of
speed, not capability. The speed difference is greater compared with
books, less so with daily newspapers, though still there of course.
But print has always been interactive.

This is in line with your other goofy PR statements, that no one else
but your forum can people discuss the mechanics of online numismatic
writing and no one else besides you honors online numismatic writing,
and so on. You're entitled to leave this PR puffery, but others are
entitled to respond, the online equivalent of a letter to the editor,
offering corrections and comments. I'll throw out the hypothesis,
perhaps inaccurate, that you throw out your inaccuracies just to stir
things up, to provoke responses. You got me to respond, which I do,
and which I reserve the right to do, as I've said, even when trying to
quit a thread that had gone bad. This, after all, is one of the core
benefits of online writing, how inaccuracies can be quickly, almost
instantaneously, corrected. I actually don't believe that you intend
your inaccuracies, but I'm not convinced of this.

I think you should give awards for online accuracy. It's important,
don't you think? Maybe give awards to flaming too. Watch how the flame
people will again take this thread to the gutter by talking about
anything but substance. This is another defining characteristic of
online writing. Some of course are more pernicious in this than
others. Often the ones who put on airs of moral superiority. It's that
way in the larger world as well. Not always.

The issue he Accuracy in online writing. The opposite: online
lying, making or repeating inaccuracies with full knowledge of what
you're doing or with reckless disregard for truth and falsity. And
there's a continuum, from truth to mistake of style to mistake of
substance to reckless untruth or self-aware lie.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

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

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:14:57 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
trolled us with:

On 11 Oct 2005 03:19:02 -0700, "Mike Marotta"
wrote:

A newbie comes to someplace like this and asks "What is this coin?" and
they get an answer. Usually, it is pretty straightforward, common
things being common. Less often, but perhaps more important, the
answers generate more questions and people go back and forth a bit
exchanging information to prove a point. The online world can do this.
Print cannot, usually.

I'm going to take issue with this as well, yet another statement
you've made in this thread that has absolutely no bearing in reality.
You say that people cannot "usually" go back and forth exchanging
information and opinions in print. The truth is that people have been
doing this since the invention of the printing press. The U.S.
Constitution was debated this way in newspapers before it was
ratified, with ordinary citizens exchanging opinions back and forth,
often heatedly, in letters to the editor. People of course still use
letters to the editor this way. There are many, many other examples --
circulars, newsletters, even books written for these purposes, the
exchanging of information, the generation of new questions, one book
as a response to another and then another book in response to that
one. The online world is different as we all know but only in terms of
speed, not capability. The speed difference is greater compared with
books, less so with daily newspapers, though still there of course.
But print has always been interactive.

This is in line with your other goofy PR statements, that no one else
but your forum can people discuss the mechanics of online numismatic
writing and no one else besides you honors online numismatic writing,
and so on. You're entitled to leave this PR puffery, but others are
entitled to respond, the online equivalent of a letter to the editor,
offering corrections and comments. I'll throw out the hypothesis,
perhaps inaccurate, that you throw out your inaccuracies just to stir
things up, to provoke responses. You got me to respond, which I do,
and which I reserve the right to do, as I've said, even when trying to
quit a thread that had gone bad. This, after all, is one of the core
benefits of online writing, how inaccuracies can be quickly, almost
instantaneously, corrected. I actually don't believe that you intend
your inaccuracies, but I'm not convinced of this.

I think you should give awards for online accuracy. It's important,
don't you think? Maybe give awards to flaming too. Watch how the flame
people will again take this thread to the gutter by talking about
anything but substance. This is another defining characteristic of
online writing. Some of course are more pernicious in this than
others. Often the ones who put on airs of moral superiority. It's that
way in the larger world as well. Not always.

The issue he Accuracy in online writing. The opposite: online
lying, making or repeating inaccuracies with full knowledge of what
you're doing or with reckless disregard for truth and falsity. And
there's a continuum, from truth to mistake of style to mistake of
substance to reckless untruth or self-aware lie.

And your jumping into this has only the most noble intentions. Fine,
upstanding messaging. Flame away.

You start unprovoked attack threads just to start unprovoked attack
threads. Nah, only a handful of idiots here do this, sad people who
like to fight without even having anything to fight about, who prefer
to fling mud than to talk coins. Or were you trying to talk coins?

Reid Trollsborough wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:14:57 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
trolled us with:

typical venom laden Goldsborough post snipped

And your jumping into this has only the most noble intentions. Fine,
upstanding messaging. Flame away.

You start unprovoked attack threads just to start unprovoked attack
threads. Nah, only a handful of idiots here do this, sad people who
like to fight without even having anything to fight about, who prefer
to fling mud than to talk coins. Or were you trying to talk coins?

If his "noble intention" was simply to get a message across to Marotta,
his response here should have been enough, but it wasn't.

He also chose to make a similar response to Michael's post in the Yahoo
ancient coin discussion group Moneta-L. Of course, since that is a
moderated group and he often finds himself of thin ice there, he had to
remove most of the venom and sarcasm.

No, this was strictly typical Goldsborough, no noble intentions or
substance in sight.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 11 Oct 2005 03:19:02 -0700, "Mike Marotta"
wrote:

A newbie comes to someplace like this and asks "What is this coin?" and
they get an answer. Usually, it is pretty straightforward, common
things being common. Less often, but perhaps more important, the
answers generate more questions and people go back and forth a bit
exchanging information to prove a point. The online world can do this.
Print cannot, usually.

I'm going to take issue with this as well, yet another statement
you've made in this thread that has absolutely no bearing in reality.

Wow.
What an extraordinarily ungracious and totally inaccurate comment.

"...absolutely no bearing in reality."
This really goes to your credibility, Reid.


You say that people cannot "usually" go back and forth exchanging
information and opinions in print. The truth is that people have been
doing this since the invention of the printing press. The U.S.
Constitution was debated this way in newspapers before it was
ratified, with ordinary citizens exchanging opinions back and forth,
often heatedly, in letters to the editor. People of course still use
letters to the editor this way. There are many, many other examples --

What a silly, silly argument.

Mike states, quite correctly, how a typical interchange on this NG works.
The print medium simply cannot do this. In no way, shape or form.

If I, for example, pose a question in the numismatic press in Australia,
then (if I'm lucky and it is printed) the very earliest I could *possibly*
expect an answer is about three months later.

Do you understand how publishing dealines and leadtimes work, Reid? Would
you like a primer?

There is no numismatic newspaper in this country.
Are there any mass circulation daily numismatic newspaper in the US?

The daily newspapers aren't going to be flocking to answer questions like:
"What is this coin - What's it worth? - How should I clean it?"

An online resource, and ONLY an online resource, can supply these answers in
a timely fashion, AND generate the lively debate(s) which Mike refers to.


circulars, newsletters, even books written for these purposes, the
exchanging of information, the generation of new questions, one book
as a response to another and then another book in response to that
one. The online world is different as we all know but only in terms of
speed, not capability. The speed difference is greater compared with
books, less so with daily newspapers, though still there of course.
But print has always been interactive.

No, no and no.
The delays of publishing (three months at least for magazines, years for
books) stifle *completely* the spontaneity we find and enjoy online.

Its not just about speed, although that is the prime cause.
The delays of print *kill* debates.

Another example.
I just received my July issue of the "Numismatist". Deadlines for that
issue would probably have been around late April - early May. If I had
sucessfully mailed a letter to the editor, and *if* it were published, then
I would only get to read in print now. The question, that is, not the
answer.
Replies?
Who knows - and six months later, who cares?

Debates cannot proceed when each party is forced to wait 5-6 months to
respond.
(Say, 2 months if you live in the US.)


This is in line with your other goofy PR statements,

Well, that's an intelligent debating point, I must say.


that no one else
but your forum can people discuss the mechanics of online numismatic
writing and no one else besides you honors online numismatic writing,
and so on.


Huh?
Where did he say that?
Cites, please.
(Or did you just -shock horror- make it up?)


You're entitled to leave this PR puffery,

That's very big of you, Reid.

...but others are
entitled to respond, the online equivalent of a letter to the editor,
offering corrections and comments.

Good.
Isn't that the idea?


I'll throw out the hypothesis,
perhaps inaccurate, that you throw out your inaccuracies just to stir
things up, to provoke responses.

....and just what are *you* doing in this post I'm quoting?

You got me to respond, which I do,
and which I reserve the right to do, as I've said, even when trying to
quit a thread that had gone bad. This, after all, is one of the core
benefits of online writing, how inaccuracies can be quickly, almost
instantaneously, corrected. I actually don't believe that you intend
your inaccuracies, but I'm not convinced of this.

I think you should give awards for online accuracy. It's important,
don't you think? Maybe give awards to flaming too. Watch how the flame
people will again take this thread to the gutter by talking about
anything but substance.

OK, Reid.
I have raised *at least* one point of substance above.

Refute it.


...This is another defining characteristic of
online writing. Some of course are more pernicious in this than
others. Often the ones who put on airs of moral superiority.

Others just refer to bozos and flametards and puffery and goofy and other
choice invective.

Search *my* post for insults or invective.


...It's that
way in the larger world as well. Not always.

The issue he Accuracy in online writing. The opposite: online
lying, making or repeating inaccuracies with full knowledge of what
you're doing or with reckless disregard for truth and falsity. And
there's a continuum, from truth to mistake of style to mistake of
substance to reckless untruth or self-aware lie.

OK.
Acknowledge the mistake you made in your post that I'm quoting.
The one where you say that Mike's post has "...absolutely no bearing in
reality."

No?
You can't?
Doesn't the issue of accuracy apply to *you*?
Only when you're writing *online* or all the time?

Is your print writing more accurate than your online writing?
Why?
Will you flag your online writing errors in future - to save the new reader
time?

--
Jeff R.
(just the facts, ma'am)

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message, in part:
I'll throw out the hypothesis,
perhaps inaccurate, that you throw out your inaccuracies just to stir
things up, to provoke responses. You got me to respond, which I do,
and which I reserve the right to do, as I've said, even when trying to
quit a thread that had gone bad.

You know, Reid, for the longest time, I have wondered why various
participants in RCC seem to hold you in such disdain and find you to be so
repugnant.A few times along the way, I have tossed out a thought that has
questioned the types of responses that were made to you. Actually, I guess I
was defending you to some degree. But this thread has become a watershed
experience for me, the light has broken through, and my understanding of why
others treat you as they do has become clear. Sir, in my humble but accurate
opinion, it is *YOU* who continues "to stir things up, to provoke
responses."

Larry

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:55:21 GMT, "Larry Louks"
trolled us with:

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message, in part:
I'll throw out the hypothesis,
perhaps inaccurate, that you throw out your inaccuracies just to stir
things up, to provoke responses. You got me to respond, which I do,
and which I reserve the right to do, as I've said, even when trying to
quit a thread that had gone bad.

You know, Reid, for the longest time, I have wondered why various
participants in RCC seem to hold you in such disdain and find you to be so
repugnant.A few times along the way, I have tossed out a thought that has
questioned the types of responses that were made to you. Actually, I guess I
was defending you to some degree. But this thread has become a watershed
experience for me, the light has broken through, and my understanding of why
others treat you as they do has become clear. Sir, in my humble but accurate
opinion, it is *YOU* who continues "to stir things up, to provoke
responses."

Larry

Psst... I'm whispering here so you don't think I'm trying to lecture
you in front of others... The best way to get people to behave
properly is to act properly yourself. If you want them to act civilly,
act civilly. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work, not with kids,
not with anybody.

"Reid Trollsborough" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:55:21 GMT, "Larry Louks"
trolled us with:
Larry

Psst... I'm whispering here so you don't think I'm trying to lecture
you in front of others... The best way to get people to behave
properly is to act properly yourself. If you want them to act civilly,
act civilly. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work, not with kids,
not with anybody.

I'm not sure who you are or what you are attempting to convey in the above.
In any case, I vehemently disagree that my comments are intended to be seen
as an effort to troll. To each his own...

Larry

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:27:51 GMT, "Larry Louks"
trolled us with:

"Reid Trollsborough" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:55:21 GMT, "Larry Louks"
trolled us with:
Larry

Psst... I'm whispering here so you don't think I'm trying to lecture
you in front of others... The best way to get people to behave
properly is to act properly yourself. If you want them to act civilly,
act civilly. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work, not with kids,
not with anybody.

I'm not sure who you are or what you are attempting to convey in the above.
In any case, I vehemently disagree that my comments are intended to be seen
as an effort to troll. To each his own...

Larry

The Troll of Goldsborough spews forth the venom of the Reid of
Goldsborough. The Troll of Goldsborough has many years of Reid of
Goldsborough venom on disk.

The Troll of Goldsborough is sad that the Reid of Goldsborough is a
bigger troll than the Troll. Now the Troll of Goldsborough will bash
the Reid of Goldsborough.

Now the Troll of Goldsborough must practice polymorph like the Reid of
Goldsborough. Maybe try to change to Jay "The Troll" Berman.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:27:51 GMT, "Larry Louks"
wrote:

I'm not sure who you are or what you are attempting to convey in the above.
In any case, I vehemently disagree that my comments are intended to be seen
as an effort to troll. To each his own...

You're contributing to the efforts of "Reid Trollsborough." Gee, I
wonder who this could be? You're contributing to his troll efforts by
validating him with your posts here. Just as I'm validating you. You
deserve to be validated. I disagree with you, but you're not being
blatantly and transparently disruptive.

I'll respond to the substance of your comments now. You say I'm
deliberately trying to provoke. I recognize that as a valid opinion
but disagree with it. I responded to how Michael has advertised his
new forum in several of his posts here. I corrected what I regarded as
his exaggerations and inaccuracies. This is an interactive forum. If
someone tries to sell as coin by repeatedly exaggerating it, by saying
for instance that it's unique when in fact it's only rare, that
deserves a response and a correction. Michael has claimed that his
forum is unique by saying that it's the only place where online
numismatic writers can talk about online numismatic writing. In truth,
it may be the only place whose sole focus is this, but that's not what
he said. He also claimed that no one else but him honors online
numismatic writing. This is very much untrue, as I've pointed out. He
also has made exaggerated comments and inaccuracies about online
writing in general, here and elsewhere, in trying to promote his
forum.

He's entitled to promote himself and anything he does. That's part of
the online culture, and I have absolutely no problem with that. I do
have a problem with inaccuracies. That's what this is about, nothing
more, nothing less. There's nothing personal about this. There's a
great deal about what Michael has posted and written over the years
that I like, and I've pointed this out many times. I'm also not
claiming infallibility myself. I make mistakes ... and own up to them.
If Michael wants to talk about his new forum, a forum that I feel is a
good idea, as I've said, he should tell it like it is. If he doesn't,
others can correct him if they want. That's all.

Despite the inaccuracies and the flame idiots, there are interesting
issues here, about online vs. print and about accuracy in general.
Interesting questions too. How much inaccuracy is OK? How much
exaggeration is OK? You could make an argument that advertisers have
long been allowed their exaggerations and puffery. "Buy Rancide
Cornflakes. It's the best food on Earth." It's not the best, or at
least there's no evidence or proof that it's the best, and if it's
high in sugar and without fiber, you could make a credible case for it
being a not-so-good food. Advertisers of course make statements like
this all the time. But how far can you go? In advertising a coin, can
you say that it's unique when it's not? Most I suspect would say no.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

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