RCC Gets Bad Review in ANA Magazine

I received the February edition of the ANA's monthly magazine
"Numismatist" yesterday and couldn't help noticing a less-than-
favorable (but probably accurate) description of RCC in the letters to
the editor section.

There was a letter with the caption "Online Collector Forum Not For
The Faint-Hearted".

The author points out that Mike Marrotta, in the December edition of
his monthly column "Internet Connections" points readers to RCC saying
"someone there will be able to answer your question".

The author's opinion:

"Between the ANA-bashers and the racially and sexually offensive
comments of cross-posting "trolls", readers should be warned that this
unmoderated forum is not for the faint of heart."

He continues:

"While it does contain some information, it tends to be dominated by
those who shout the loudest. Often times interesting threads
degenerate into insult trading. This is a pity, as the idea of an
online dialogue among collectors is a good one. In practice however, I
find it of marginal value."

Sadly, there's a lot of truth in what he wrote.

A pretty fair assesment all in all. RCC has more ex-members than the
ANA :P


Phil DeMayo wrote:
I received the February edition of the ANA's monthly magazine
"Numismatist" yesterday and couldn't help noticing a less-than-
favorable (but probably accurate) description of RCC in the letters to
the editor section.

There was a letter with the caption "Online Collector Forum Not For
The Faint-Hearted".

The author points out that Mike Marrotta, in the December edition of
his monthly column "Internet Connections" points readers to RCC saying
"someone there will be able to answer your question".

The author's opinion:

"Between the ANA-bashers and the racially and sexually offensive
comments of cross-posting "trolls", readers should be warned that this
unmoderated forum is not for the faint of heart."

He continues:

"While it does contain some information, it tends to be dominated by
those who shout the loudest. Often times interesting threads
degenerate into insult trading. This is a pity, as the idea of an
online dialogue among collectors is a good one. In practice however, I
find it of marginal value."

Sadly, there's a lot of truth in what he wrote.

On Jan 31, 10:02 pm, "Phil DeMayo" wrote:
I received the February edition of the ANA's monthly magazine
"Numismatist" yesterday and couldn't help noticing a less-than-
favorable (but probably accurate) description of RCC in the letters...
The author points out that Mike Marrotta, in the December edition of
his monthly column "Internet Connections" points readers to RCC ...

RCC has always been a problem and I have usually recommended it only
with clear reservations and warnings. That time, I simply mentioned
it without the caveats. This difficulty is going to come up again in
the near future in the same column.

As a "free for all" RCC has strengths and weaknesses, of course. One
aspect that I have not addressed is the use of filters and killfiles.
Many of the regular readers and posters who are true numismatists
avoid the annoying idiocy by using software to their advantage. I
realize, of course, that this includes those who filter _me_, but more
power to them, I say. You need to control your inputs. I recently
downgraded my AOL access and lost that ability and RCC is more hassle
than it was before.

I do not even have an intrinsic problem with the ANA-bashers. I do
lack patience for those who ONLY criticize the ANA without being (or
having been) members, but I nonetheless take their complaints to heart
when considering how to craft my columns. Normally, that would not be
the case. If I wrote the Ancients column, for instance, the gripers
could pound salt for all I care, but writing the Internet column is a
different matter. So, I pay attention, even as I disagree.

The real problems with RCC are structural: there is no easy way to
identify in advance for the novice how to tell a true expert who
shares knowledge -- and that expertise includes the empassioned peer
who is sharing discoveries of known facts -- from the blithering idiot
who cuts and pastes other people's opinions into his own website of
authorative-sounding blather. Ultimately, the newbies have to find
out for themselves whom to trust.

For all of those reasons and more, I generally soft-pedal RCC, even as
I consider it personally to be an important online resource. Phil
Demayo is one of the reasons why I do.

"Jorg Lueke" wrote in message
oups.com...

The author's opinion:

"Between the ANA-bashers and the racially and sexually offensive
comments of cross-posting "trolls", readers should be warned that this
unmoderated forum is not for the faint of heart."


*rolls eyes*

And make sure your tablecloth is long enough to reach the floor so as not to
accidentally embarrass someone. The legs might suggest a woman's legs and
therefore be too much for the faint of heart.

B.F.D. Grow some thicker skin. Learn how to use a killfile. Sheesh.

He continues:

"While it does contain some information, it tends to be dominated by
those who shout the loudest.
Often times interesting threads
degenerate into insult trading. This is a pity, as the idea of an
online dialogue among collectors is a good one. In practice however, I
find it of marginal value."


Don't let the door hit your *** on the way out.

Sadly, there's a lot of truth in what he wrote.

"Mike Marotta" wrote in message
ups.com...

For all of those reasons and more, I generally soft-pedal RCC, even as
I consider it personally to be an important online resource. Phil
Demayo is one of the reasons why I do.


I warn people about Phil too.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:54:34 -0600, "PC"
wrote:

I warn people about Phil too.

I warn them about Mike and Phil. They both make things up. Hey, Mike.
Who here "cuts and pastes other people's opinions into his own website
of authorative-sounding blather"? Or were you, you know, just playing
fast and loose with the facts again, taking some "creative" license in
your wording. But maybe I'm wrong. I have no problem admitting it if I
am. Can you show me one instance of this cutting and pasting that you
talk of? Just one. I'm sure it has happened. I've seen it happen in
other contexts. But I'd like to see what you specifically were
referring to. In other words, what I'm suggesting is that you back up
what you say with evidence.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

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

"Phil DeMayo" wrote in message
oups.com...
I received the February edition of the ANA's monthly magazine
"Numismatist" yesterday and couldn't help noticing a less-than-
favorable (but probably accurate) description of RCC in the letters to
the editor section.

There was a letter with the caption "Online Collector Forum Not For
The Faint-Hearted".

The author points out that Mike Marrotta, in the December edition of
his monthly column "Internet Connections" points readers to RCC saying
"someone there will be able to answer your question".

The author's opinion:

"Between the ANA-bashers and the racially and sexually offensive
comments of cross-posting "trolls", readers should be warned that this
unmoderated forum is not for the faint of heart."

He continues:

"While it does contain some information, it tends to be dominated by
those who shout the loudest. Often times interesting threads
degenerate into insult trading. This is a pity, as the idea of an
online dialogue among collectors is a good one. In practice however, I
find it of marginal value."

Sadly, there's a lot of truth in what he wrote.

Anybody who thinks RCC is bad ought to spend some time on the saxophone
groups.

James

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:04:38 -0600, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

Anybody who thinks RCC is bad ought to spend some time on the saxophone
groups.

Exactly. As with every other unmoderated online discussion group. Ever
since the beginning of online communication.

Anybody who warns people that RCC has flamewars and trolls and so on
*without* providing context that this happens everywhere else and
always has is either naive or duplicitous.

Moderated online discussion have their own problems or challenges as
well, their own strengths and weaknesses. Many are controlled too
tightly, and views that differ from those of the person running the
group are either outright censored or more subtly discouraged.

And in both, as in the offline world, you see these silly political
gestures, someone siding with some else because that person sided with
him, truth be damned.

The ideal is lost in all this. And that is a marketplace of ideas
that's as free and open as it is civil and respectful, where truth is
the goal and research, logic, and compromise the means.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

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

On 31 Jan 2007 19:42:42 -0800, "Mike Marotta"
wrote:

On Jan 31, 10:02 pm, "Phil DeMayo" wrote:
I received the February edition of the ANA's monthly magazine
"Numismatist" yesterday and couldn't help noticing a less-than-
favorable (but probably accurate) description of RCC in the letters...
The author points out that Mike Marrotta, in the December edition of
his monthly column "Internet Connections" points readers to RCC ...

RCC has always been a problem and I have usually recommended it only
with clear reservations and warnings. That time, I simply mentioned
it without the caveats. This difficulty is going to come up again in
the near future in the same column.

Mike, I noticed that you have occasionally posted on the CoinPeople
forum, is that right? That is a web-based forum which is:

(a) highly structured,
(b) moderated (i.e. junk/troll posts are deleted by the admin),
(c) visited by all levels of collectors from beginners up through a
few recognized experts who are always glad to share their knowledge,
(d) you can post pictures and/or links to them directly in your
message, and
(e) it's free!

Check it out, if you haven't already done so:
http://www.coinpeople.com

There's also this forum, although it doesn't seem to be as popular as
CoinPeople:
http://www.coinforum.org

It would be nice to mention these as well as RCC, especially for
people with limited UseNet access.

--
Bob Hairgrove

In , on 02/01/2007
at 02:01 AM, Reid Goldsborough said:

I warn people about Phil too.

I warn them about Mike and Phil.

Ditto.

Nick