Numismatist on owning counterfeits

Stujoe wrote:
It is nice to see that, in an ever-changing world, some things remain
the same. Forever repeating themselves, yes, but never changing.

If you had been paying attention, you would have seen that a good deal
of new information has incrementally been added to this debate as time
has progressed.

--

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

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Stujoe wrote:
It is nice to see that, in an ever-changing world, some things remain
the same. Forever repeating themselves, yes, but never changing.

If you had been paying attention, you would have seen that a good deal
of new information has incrementally been added to this debate as time
has progressed.


Maybe in the counterfeiting thread.

If you'd been paying attention, you would have seen that nothing new has
been added to the whizzing debate for over five years.


Welcome, Stu!
Good to "hear" from you.

--
Jeff R.

Jeff R. wrote:

If you'd been paying attention, you would have seen that nothing new has
been added to the whizzing debate for over five years.

This is also untrue. Among other things, Frank pointed out that in your
famous whizzing experiment, done without your having previously seen any
whizzed coins or having talked to anyone who whizzes coins, you used the
wrong type of brush, that you used a cone brush while those who whiz
coins use disk brushes. That you are saying this is "nothing new" just
follows along the line of everything else you've said about this. You'll
no doubt argue this, as you've argued everything. This kind of behavior
is common enough online, this abject inability to alter a position,
charge a view, admit a mistake. Maybe the oddest thing about this is how
someone can be so afraid to lose face when we don't see each others' faces.

--

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

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Jeff R. wrote:

If you'd been paying attention, you would have seen that nothing new
has been added to the whizzing debate for over five years.

This is also untrue. Among other things, Frank pointed out that in
your famous whizzing experiment, done without your having previously
seen any whizzed coins or having talked to anyone who whizzes coins,
you used the wrong type of brush, that you used a cone brush while
those who whiz coins use disk brushes. That you are saying this is
"nothing new" just
follows along the line of everything else you've said about this.
You'll no doubt argue this, as you've argued everything. This kind of
behavior is common enough online, this abject inability to alter a
position,
charge a view, admit a mistake. Maybe the oddest thing about this is
how someone can be so afraid to lose face when we don't see each
others' faces.


Reid, do you *really* believe the nonsense you spout, or are you just
trolling?

Really!
Its a serious question.

--
Jeff R.

Jeff R. wrote:

Reid, do you *really* believe the nonsense you spout, or are you just
trolling?

You didn't answer my post. You said nothing new has come up about
whizzing. I pointed to something new that has come up about whizzing,
that Frank recently pointed out how you used the wrong kind of brush in
your experiment, and that this further compromised the results. And
you're now responding by saying I'm trolling. That also is very much in
line with your previous behavior.

You're like the guy in the allegorical story who's having an affair, in
the act, when the wife walks in, and you deny that you're doing anything
wrong, and you and your mistress dress quickly, and you shoo her out of
the house, and then you deny to your wife that anyone was was ever in
the house and say how dare she suspect you.

Your whizzing experiment was doomed from the start, wasn't a true
experiment in the first place, for all the reasons previously pointed
out. So now you deny, deflect, and denounce. Anything to avoid saying, I
was wrong about that.

--

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

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Jeff R. wrote:

Reid, do you *really* believe the nonsense you spout, or are you just
trolling?

You didn't answer my post.

But Reid - be reasonable. You *never* answer the points in my posts.
(Well - *hardly* ever.)
I raise points, post data, ask questions, even suggest hypotheses and it's
not until *someone else* says exactly the same as I have been saying for
five years that you finally roll over.

You haven't acknowledged sintering as a possible means of "build-up". You
refused to acknowledge the impossibility of temperature build-up through
friction. You refuse to acknowledge the mechanical differences between a
flexible wire brush and a rigid die - etc. etc.

I had a quick look through the archives, and all the relevant points were
made years ago - and have been made many times - yet you choose to
acknowledge them or dismiss them on a whim - based presumably on your
assessment of personalities, not on the facts.

..You said nothing new has come up about
whizzing. I pointed to something new that has come up about whizzing,
that Frank recently pointed out how you used the wrong kind of brush
in your experiment, and that this further compromised the results.

Rubbish.
The brush type is almost irrelevant. Besides - *of course* I've used all
kinds of brushes. It just so happens I restricted the sample in the
experiment to the ones shown.

If you're interested - the only functional difference between the two types
of brush is that the disk-style can run up to much higher revs without
disintegrating. Therefore it is potentially much more savage than the
cup-style brush, and will dig deep gouges into the surface of any coin.

Technique is infinitely more significant than the shape of the brush.

(BTW - this difference must be irrelevant since your primary source, Rick
Montgomery, tells us that the brushes are used on an "electric screwdriver".
These devices rev at typically a few hundred RPM maximum. You would need to
use a Dremel to gain the advantage (?) of the disk-style brush - and if
you did, you'd be left with a featureless disk of scrap metal in a matter of
seconds. Remember? I ground the face off the 'roo with the *cup*-style
brush running much, much slower. A disk-style at top revs
(its only distinguishing feature) would demolish the coin.)

.. And
you're now responding by saying I'm trolling.

Well, explain why you believed Tony in an instant, yet ignored me when I
provided exactly the same explanation - five years earlier.
Try to keep personalities out of your explanation. Explain why my *facts*
were wrong, yet Tony's are right - even though they're the same.

Oh! Almost forgot!
Will you chide Tony - as you chided and belittled me - for using "technical
mumbo-jumbo terms" (such as "plastic deformation") ?
Or is it (again) one rule for me and another rule for others?

Explain also why you post nonsensical "funny" posts in the same thread.
Your humour is so strained it hurts, and it only highlights your desperation
to dodge and deflect.

Will you acknowledge Rick Montgomery was wrong?
Will you accept the consequences that carry on from that observation
(i.e. he is not an infallible source - as you have claimed previously).


..That also is very much
in line with your previous behavior.

Which behaviour is that, Reid?
Claiming that I'm right when I am?
So sorry about that.


Your whizzing experiment was doomed from the start,

How is that?
Does abrasion work differently in the southern hemisphere?

...wasn't a true
experiment in the first place, for all the reasons previously pointed
out.

What reasons?
That I didn't own a whizzed coin?
Are you serious?

...So now you deny, deflect, and denounce.

I have denied nothing that I have been maintaining since 2004.
Provides cites to demonstrate otherwise, or retract.
I continue to deny suppositions based on ignorance or bad science.

I have not sought to deflect the argument.

My summary has always been:

"Whizzing does not liquefy metal, it is an abrasive process.
The only 'moving' of metal is abrasive or microscopic."

Provide cites to prove otherwise, or retract.

Yes I have denounced. Mea Culpa.
....as I will continue to do - until I finally tire of attempting to educate
you.

...Anything to avoid
saying, I was wrong about that.

Well, why would I say that, when everything I've said in this "debate" has
been correct?

Now, Reid.
Will you address all of answers above, or will you "deny, deflect, and
denounce" - to use a handy expression I just picked up?
I should add "ignore", of course, since that is your favoured tactic.

--
Jeff R.

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Jeff R. wrote:

Reid, do you *really* believe the nonsense you spout, or are you just
trolling?

You didn't answer my post. You said nothing new has come up about
whizzing. I pointed to something new that has come up about whizzing,
that Frank recently pointed out how you used the wrong kind of brush
in your experiment, and that this further compromised the results. And
you're now responding by saying I'm trolling. That also is very much
in line with your previous behavior.

You're like the guy in the allegorical story who's having an affair,
in the act, when the wife walks in, and you deny that you're doing
anything wrong, and you and your mistress dress quickly, and you shoo
her out of the house, and then you deny to your wife that anyone was
was ever in the house and say how dare she suspect you.

I'm confused. First, the wife catches you in flagrante and you deny it is
happening (I assume directly to her face), then you and the naked lady have
time to get dressed and she to leave while the sainted wife fetches the
rolling pin or the Smith & Wesson, and yet you survive to repeat the denial.
I know some guys who would pay big for details about how to pull that one
off. Patent that process, and you'll never have to work again!

James the Faithful

Jeff R. wrote:

(BTW - this difference must be irrelevant since your primary source, Rick
Montgomery

Just as you did things with this "experiment" that had no bearing on the
reality of whizzing, you continue to say things that have no bearing on
reality. I had no primary reference but relied on multiple ones, as I've
pointed out numerous times. But the one reference I spent the most time
with was a coin doctor who unlike you actually created a whizzed coin,
many, a guy I spoke with on the phone, as I've also pointed out many times.

--

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

On Dec 22, 10:59*am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
But the one reference I spent the most time
with was a coin doctor who unlike you actually created a whizzed coin,
many, a guy I spoke with on the phone, as I've also pointed out many times.

Hearsay evidence. Speak with Jeff and you will get an entirely
different opinion.

Jud -Who watches too much Judge Judy

Jud wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:59 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
But the one reference I spent the most time
with was a coin doctor who unlike you actually created a whizzed
coin, many, a guy I spoke with on the phone, as I've also pointed
out many times.

Hearsay evidence. Speak with Jeff and you will get an entirely
different opinion.

Just about all of the "evidence" offered these days easily fits into the
"hearsay" category, no matter what the venue, no matter what the topic.

James the Lie Detector