Ancient acquisition

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On 4/15/2010 5:24 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

I recommend you review the posts in the thread "It's been a long,
long time."

Why tell me to do that instead of just naming the person behind
"Scurvy Dog"? I don't have time to read through the 55 posts archived
there at Google Groups, but a quick look revealed two names that came
up in posts near those of "Scurvy Dog," Dave Hinz and Eric Tillery,
though nothing definitive. I don't remember anything about the former
but do the latter.

The smartest people I know always make time to seek the information that
they need. You always seem to have time to regale us with lengthy treatises
on subjects of interest to you, so I am puzzled at this reluctance now. But
suit yourself. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

James

Nick Knight wrote:
In
,
on 04/15/2010 at 04:49 AM, Jud said:

He nym shifts a lot because he is on so many killfiles;

Which is sort of moronically ironic, eh? I mean, it didn't take but
one post before he was back in mine. And I didn't even really have
to read the post (IIRC).

A jerk is a jerk and easily identifiable, whatever name he uses. But
let him think that alternating names does something for him ... it
fits with the base mentality.

There exist other motivations than to avoid killfiles.

James

On 4/15/2010 10:50 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

The smartest people I know always make time to seek the information that
they need. You always seem to have time to regale us with lengthy treatises
on subjects of interest to you, so I am puzzled at this reluctance now. But
suit yourself. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

Now you and Jud both refuse to name "Scurvy Dog." As I said I don't
follow things here as closely as I used to, but I guess you have good
cause to be afraid of him. Further, I don't "need" this information,
about who he is. I just suggested that if people knew who he really is
and if they refer to him by his real name, he just might act more
responsibly. I see he just left one of his rare non-flame posts, but I'm
guessing that this rarity will continue.

--

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

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On 4/15/2010 10:50 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

The smartest people I know always make time to seek the information
that they need. You always seem to have time to regale us with
lengthy treatises on subjects of interest to you, so I am puzzled at
this reluctance now. But suit yourself. I'm not going to spoon
feed it to you.

Now you and Jud both refuse to name "Scurvy Dog."

Nice try, but my refusal occurred two posts ago, not just now. Get your
facts straight.

As I said I don't
follow things here as closely as I used to, but I guess you have good
cause to be afraid of him.

"Afraid"? Now you're just making stuff up.

Further, I don't "need" this information,
about who he is.

Um, you're the one who asked, twice in the same recent post, "Why not name
him?"

I just suggested that if people knew who he really is
and if they refer to him by his real name, he just might act more
responsibly.

On Usenet? Are you kidding?

I see he just left one of his rare non-flame posts, but
I'm guessing that this rarity will continue.

Damnation by faint praise seems to be your long suit this evening.

James

On 4/16/2010 12:34 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

"Afraid"? Now you're just making stuff up.

If you're not afraid, then why don't you call him by his real name? Out
of respect? The way he acts here? LOL.

--

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

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On 4/16/2010 12:34 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

"Afraid"? Now you're just making stuff up.

If you're not afraid, then why don't you call him by his real name?
Out of respect? The way he acts here? LOL.

OK, ya got me, Reid, I'll come clean.

The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do not know
his real name.*

At no time did I say that I know his real name.

You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.

But don't take my word for it, review the archive for yourself.

And knock off the fabrication already.

James

On 4/16/2010 5:47 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

OK, ya got me, Reid, I'll come clean.

The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do not know
his real name.*

At no time did I say that I know his real name.

You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.

I ask who is "Scurvy Dog," what his real name is. Jud says he won't
reveal but indicates he knows. You also *indicate you know* and tell me
to check a particular thread. I say I'm not going to read through all of
the posts there but there's nothing in the posts surrounding those of
Scurvy Dog that definitively indicates who he is. You chastise me for
not taking the time to find the information I "need." I ask why you're
afraid to name him. You say that your refusal to name him occurred two
posts before the one I responded to, not in the one I responded to. And
now you say you don't know who is he after all and that I conjured up
that you knew who he was.

Very weird behavior. I'm led to believe you do know who is is but are
truly afraid here. Why else would you tell lies like this? I conjured up
nothing but was taking you for your word.

--

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

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/16/2010 5:47 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

OK, ya got me, Reid, I'll come clean.

The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do not know
his real name.*

At no time did I say that I know his real name.

You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.

I ask who is "Scurvy Dog," what his real name is. Jud says he won't reveal but
indicates he knows. You also *indicate you know* and tell me to check a
particular thread. I say I'm not going to read through all of the posts there
but there's nothing in the posts surrounding those of Scurvy Dog that
definitively indicates who he is. You chastise me for not taking the time to
find the information I "need." I ask why you're afraid to name him. You say
that your refusal to name him occurred two posts before the one I responded
to, not in the one I responded to. And now you say you don't know who is he
after all and that I conjured up that you knew who he was.

Very weird behavior. I'm led to believe you do know who is is but are truly
afraid here. Why else would you tell lies like this? I conjured up nothing but
was taking you for your word.

Ah shaddup, ya weirdo!

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/16/2010 5:47 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

OK, ya got me, Reid, I'll come clean.

The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do not know
his real name.*

At no time did I say that I know his real name.

You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.

I ask who is "Scurvy Dog," what his real name is. Jud says he won't reveal but
indicates he knows. You also *indicate you know* and tell me to check a
particular thread. I say I'm not going to read through all of the posts there
but there's nothing in the posts surrounding those of Scurvy Dog that
definitively indicates who he is. You chastise me for not taking the time to
find the information I "need." I ask why you're afraid to name him. You say
that your refusal to name him occurred two posts before the one I responded
to, not in the one I responded to. And now you say you don't know who is he
after all and that I conjured up that you knew who he was.

Very weird behavior. I'm led to believe you do know who is is but are truly
afraid here. Why else would you tell lies like this? I conjured up nothing but
was taking you for your word.

Your post is filled with the "chit chat" which you have railed against.
Furthermore, it contains nothing numismatic.
So we must conclude, that in addition to being a bloviating windbag, you are a
hypocrite.

On 4/16/2010 11:51 AM, Cato wrote:

Your post is filled with the "chit chat" which you have railed against.

Discussion of the weather and what you ate for breakfast is chitchat.
Discussing the internal dynamics of the online group you're
participating in isn't chitchat. Isn't that obvious? It's not talking
coins but it is talking about how to promote a well-functioning group.
Such discussions take place in every online discussion group, moderated
as well as unmoderated.

Look, you have one poster here who more than any other, by far, flames
other participants in this newsgroup. The flames are purely disruptive,
with no content behind them, just anonymous and fairly mindless venom
spewed out all over the place. This kind of behavior is one of the chief
reasons that people leave groups like this, along with excessive chitchat.

This is an unmoderated group, but moderated groups avoid these problems
by requiring that people post using their real names. Apparently some
people here know who "Scurvy Dog" is. All I'm suggesting is that when he
does leave one of his transparent attempts at disruption, people just
refer to him by his real name. I'm not saying that's guaranteed to work,
but it couldn't hurt.

--

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