Mr.Mcknowitall

Sad to see you go, HT I will miss your posts. I think leaving based on the actions of one administrator (right or wrong) is a little extreme but, that is your choice.

 

It is not just the administrator. The environment of these boards is growing increasingly toxic, and a couple of posters in particular are driving this place into the ground (for example, any time "MrMcKnowitall" shows up in a thread, you can guarantee it is going to be a miserable and unfortunate experience). The recent decisions by NGC won't help, of course, but the NGC forums have been doing their best Hindenburg impression for a while now.

 

I can understand your perspective.

 

I was always curious that there is an ignore function that can be used by members that are not pleased by the posts of others, yet when a member publicly states they have initiated the function for a certain member, darn if the person that initiated the function can still opine about the posts of the member they have initiated the ignore function for.

 

As an example, and not that it is important at all, but just an observation, I recall that many many months ago, you publicly stated you had initiated the function as a preference toward my posts. I did a little checking, and I had not remembered that you publicly stated this action 4 times, and 2 times in the last 2 months. You state in the post I am responding to, and I am only quoting for the purpose of illustration of my thoughts:

 

"....(for example, any time "MrMcKnowitall" shows up in a thread, you can guarantee it is going to be a miserable and unfortunate experience)..."

 

It appears that you are not really ignoring me, because if you were, then you would not know that which you stated, if you were in fact ignoring my posts. There is the issue, because as we all know, it is not really ignoring, because the ignore function does not "hide" the post when a member is off line, and when the member is on line, the member can reverse the ignore function and read in real time. Your posts over the last few months prove this, as indeed the post I am responding to does, when you refer to me or my posts. I think it would be very helpful to members like you, if when the ignore function is used, it can not be cancelled once initiated. This would prevent the human nature response of peeking, and lack of self restraint to truly ignore the member that caused you to initiate an ignore function. It is sort of a lack of self dignity and self discipline to peek, similar to cheating yourself. We all do it, though, and then profess loudly and repeatedly and publicly about the member we original had on ignore. This in turn usually causes the cheating member (as it applies to peeking even though the ignore function is on) to not be able to control themselves and to continue to foment a strange hatred and disgust and anger, and it soon starts effecting the same type of attitude toward many other aspects and people and situations. That is no way to live. There are many other important aspects of life a person can enjoy, rather than be obsessed with another member, or the host or the business choices of the host, or a person that disagrees with you, to the point that you feel the only tool at your disposal that helps to relieve your obsession is to attempt to belittle and be discourteous.

 

So, I agree with you that the host could help improve the boards a little for the members lacking in self restraint and self dignity and courtesy, by making the ignore function permanent in all situations and eliminate peeking, once the member initiates the action. I would not want to be the cause of any member being irate because they can not control their self harming human tendencies.

 

You just proved Jason's point perfectly. Chalk this thread up in the miserable and unfortunate column.

I also understand your perspective, and your right to have an opinion. As such, it is logical that that my suggestion concerning the ignore function would be to your benefit, also, based on your post.

Also mcknowitall, I'd like to point out you violated your own rant about ignoring posters. We had an agreement we would ignore each other here

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=2&Number=9555479&Searchpage=1&Main=414458&Words=&topic=0&Search=true#Post9555479

 

But yet you went contrary to that declaration and commented on my first post in this thread. Go away already!!

 

I understand your confusion. I will, whenever I notice it, comment on childish discourtesy and name calling of another member. I did so in your case specifically because it was unnecessary and demeaning and belittling for only one reason....because you could. It is certainly your right to be childish and immature, and it is certainly my right to voice an opinion of such behavior. You may continue to post in that vein all you want, as you did in the post I am responding to. We all break self imposed rules from time to time, and hopefully when I do so, I will do so with a clear conscience and not cross my own line. I try not to, but I am human and fail miserably on occasion.

Sad to see you go, HT I will miss your posts. I think leaving based on the actions of one administrator (right or wrong) is a little extreme but, that is your choice.

 

It is not just the administrator. The environment of these boards is growing increasingly toxic, and a couple of posters in particular are driving this place into the ground (for example, any time "MrMcKnowitall" shows up in a thread, you can guarantee it is going to be a miserable and unfortunate experience). The recent decisions by NGC won't help, of course, but the NGC forums have been doing their best Hindenburg impression for a while now.

 

I can understand your perspective.

 

I was always curious that there is an ignore function that can be used by members that are not pleased by the posts of others, yet when a member publicly states they have initiated the function for a certain member, darn if the person that initiated the function can still opine about the posts of the member they have initiated the ignore function for.

 

As an example, and not that it is important at all, but just an observation, I recall that many many months ago, you publicly stated you had initiated the function as a preference toward my posts. I did a little checking, and I had not remembered that you publicly stated this action 4 times, and 2 times in the last 2 months. You state in the post I am responding to, and I am only quoting for the purpose of illustration of my thoughts:

 

"....(for example, any time "MrMcKnowitall" shows up in a thread, you can guarantee it is going to be a miserable and unfortunate experience)..."

 

It appears that you are not really ignoring me, because if you were, then you would not know that which you stated, if you were in fact ignoring my posts. There is the issue, because as we all know, it is not really ignoring, because the ignore function does not "hide" the post when a member is off line, and when the member is on line, the member can reverse the ignore function and read in real time. Your posts over the last few months prove this, as indeed the post I am responding to does, when you refer to me or my posts. I think it would be very helpful to members like you, if when the ignore function is used, it can not be cancelled once initiated. This would prevent the human nature response of peeking, and lack of self restraint to truly ignore the member that caused you to initiate an ignore function. It is sort of a lack of self dignity and self discipline to peek, similar to cheating yourself. We all do it, though, and then profess loudly and repeatedly and publicly about the member we original had on ignore. This in turn usually causes the cheating member (as it applies to peeking even though the ignore function is on) to not be able to control themselves and to continue to foment a strange hatred and disgust and anger, and it soon starts effecting the same type of attitude toward many other aspects and people and situations. That is no way to live. There are many other important aspects of life a person can enjoy, rather than be obsessed with another member, or the host or the business choices of the host, or a person that disagrees with you, to the point that you feel the only tool at your disposal that helps to relieve your obsession is to attempt to belittle and be discourteous.

 

So, I agree with you that the host could help improve the boards a little for the members lacking in self restraint and self dignity and courtesy, by making the ignore function permanent in all situations and eliminate peeking, once the member initiates the action. I would not want to be the cause of any member being irate because they can not control their self harming human tendencies.

Were you posting in the HT thread that went poof?

Since you respond in the thread, I am sure you are aware I did so. I am also sure you are aware that I publicly stated I was notifying the Moderators that in my opinion the thread was political and would lead to no good. I always state openly when I use the notify function and always state why I did so.

"The tone and topic of the post were not in keeping with the friendly atmosphere that we try to foster on the boards."

 

 

 

What is friendly about insinuating or outright calling DCarr a fraudster or counterfeiter? What is appropriate about members taking it upon themselves to determine what is or is not illegal and then attempting to enforce the law themselves via repeated intimidation and harassment?

 

Discussing politics is not appropriate, but repeated intimidation and harassment is?

I have not responded to your posts in some time, and I wouldn't on this occasion, except I thought you may be asking the question of me. It may also be that you are simply posting after my post, and that is why your post references mine.

I did not post the words you have quoted.

But, just in the off chance you were responding to my post for some reason, I have never called Mr. Carr a fraudster or a counterfeiter and have not been discourteous toward Mr. Carr in my posts or attempted to belittle him. He has resorted on occasion to posting in that manner, but I assume it is due to frustration. I freely admit I have been repetitive in my commentary and opinion of his use of the word LEGAL, and only because Mr. Carr has a tendency to obfuscate and misdirect the conversation concerning same. As an example, his opinions of the subject of using the word LEGAL on his websites without a statement that the endeavors have not been adjudicated is "that is all you are going to get".

My opinion of the endeavors of Mr. Carr is and has been very clear. His pieces have not been adjudicated as legal, and it is my opinion that any language that describes the pieces as legal in any manner on his websites can be misleading, and he has never opined why he won't pursue adjudication, which may very well be a very good approach for his business.

I did not declare the pieces legal or not legal or determine same. That is the function of the government to do so. It is not out of bounds to publicly declare such an opinion, nor is it a political discussion. Reading the thread of what is or is not political clarifies how the host views the subject.

I do agree that there has been discourteous posts and name calling toward Mr. Carr, which are in my opinion not necessary to make a point.

I of course can not answer for other members or their choice of words. Nor is it my place to determine an intent of intimidation or harassment via the posts of other members, but I know it when I see it, and to that degree I concur it has happened in my opinion.

My opinions are my own, and as such are not important at all. It is just chat board opinions.

Sad to see you go, HT I will miss your posts. I think leaving based on the actions of one administrator (right or wrong) is a little extreme but, that is your choice.

 

It is not just the administrator. The environment of these boards is growing increasingly toxic, and a couple of posters in particular are driving this place into the ground (for example, any time "MrMcKnowitall" shows up in a thread, you can guarantee it is going to be a miserable and unfortunate experience). The recent decisions by NGC won't help, of course, but the NGC forums have been doing their best Hindenburg impression for a while now.

I can understand your perspective.

I was always curious that there is an ignore function that can be used by members that are not pleased by the posts of others, yet when a member publicly states they have initiated the function for a certain member, darn if the person that initiated the function can still opine about the posts of the member they have initiated the ignore function for.

As an example, and not that it is important at all, but just an observation, I recall that many many months ago, you publicly stated you had initiated the function as a preference toward my posts. I did a little checking, and I had not remembered that you publicly stated this action 4 times, and 2 times in the last 2 months. You state in the post I am responding to, and I am only quoting for the purpose of illustration of my thoughts:

"....(for example, any time "MrMcKnowitall" shows up in a thread, you can guarantee it is going to be a miserable and unfortunate experience)..."

It appears that you are not really ignoring me, because if you were, then you would not know that which you stated, if you were in fact ignoring my posts. There is the issue, because as we all know, it is not really ignoring, because the ignore function does not "hide" the post when a member is off line, and when the member is on line, the member can reverse the ignore function and read in real time. Your posts over the last few months prove this, as indeed the post I am responding to does, when you refer to me or my posts. I think it would be very helpful to members like you, if when the ignore function is used, it can not be cancelled once initiated. This would prevent the human nature response of peeking, and lack of self restraint to truly ignore the member that caused you to initiate an ignore function. It is sort of a lack of self dignity and self discipline to peek, similar to cheating yourself. We all do it, though, and then profess loudly and repeatedly and publicly about the member we original had on ignore. This in turn usually causes the cheating member (as it applies to peeking even though the ignore function is on) to not be able to control themselves and to continue to foment a strange hatred and disgust and anger, and it soon starts effecting the same type of attitude toward many other aspects and people and situations. That is no way to live. There are many other important aspects of life a person can enjoy, rather than be obsessed with another member, or the host or the business choices of the host, or a person that disagrees with you, to the point that you feel the only tool at your disposal that helps to relieve your obsession is to attempt to belittle and be discourteous.

So, I agree with you that the host could help improve the boards a little for the members lacking in self restraint and self dignity and courtesy, by making the ignore function permanent in all situations and eliminate peeking, once the member initiates the action. I would not want to be the cause of any member being irate because they can not control their self harming human tendencies.

So what you're saying is you need a safe place. Bye Felicia!

That was not very helpful and was uncalled for and discourteous, in my opinion.

From Wikipedia:

"Hard-times tokens are large cent-sized copper tokens, struck from about 1833 through 1843, serving as unofficial currency. These privately made pieces, comprising merchant, political and satirical pieces, were used during a time of political and financial crisis in the United States."

 

It is unavoidable to separate political satire with the idea of a Hard Times token. Currently one minter makes Hard Times tokens, Clark and Gruber Company. In a previous thread, I suggested an idea for a current HTT publicly, with all sincere intent of presenting in the spirit of political satire. Yet, some of you decided to make it political, even when I invited anyone to take any other political figure of these Hard Times and suggest motifs and sayings for an HTT. Because you made it political (and you know who you are), the thread was poofed. It is too bad, and apparently there is alot of pent up anger going around, because if everyone would have just taken the thread as it was intended, we could have had some fun with it. I was looking forward to others ideas for HTTs for the other political figures - there is certainly alot of materials out there these days and I presented just one and what that person has said. Folks that is how political satire works. Some you apparently can't distinguish political from political satire. I never once stated my views on the current politics and none of you know how I voted, nor did I state my view on that politician or anyone, it was not a political post in any way. I just picked the most obvious figure, what that person had said, and used it for an idea for POLITICAL SATIRE.

 

Hard Times tokens are one of my passions. Of course I am going to think about new political satire HTT's just after an election and of course I am going to present to what I believed to be open minded colleagues. I was apparently wrong.

 

What gets me about the poof is all of the hypocrisy by doing so. For example the Carr threads have been totally political and posters have been very nasty towards each other, but NGC thinks these are okay to stand. Emotions and accusations on each side have been high, but NGC lets them stand. Same with Langbord threads, yet poofs mine with no political intent, and then sends me a warning for politcal threads. One word NGC - Yikes.

 

As long as there are some that hijack every thread and twist it here, and seem to have nothing better to do with their time, and you know who you are, then, a rational discussion of any lively subject is not going to happen. Hence, I am gone, you can PM me ATS if you want.

 

I hope someone keeps my long running HTT and Conder token threads going because I believe they are important records for historically significant series and having a collective of images is something worth doing, even if NGC won't make the effort to keep them at the top as they do some other, less viewed threads.

 

OUT, HT

 

An explanation of the reason for removal of the thread by the moderators can be found by going to the "Moderation Action Discussion" and scrolling down to the thread "What Qualifies As A Political Post...?".

Good intentions are not the issue.

A review of "Strike Records and Name Changes", especially the more recent actions, is enough to exercise caution by members.

This is a long time coming. See Mark Salzberg's message from this morning here.

 

A quote from his letter:

 

To be clear, all coins currently in NGC Registry sets, including those graded by other services, will be allowed to stay in those sets. There will be no NGC Registry point deductions or rank changes for these coins or sets. Starting in January 2017, however, if you would like to add a new coin to an NGC Registry set, it will need to be an NGC-certified coin.

 

Discuss...

I don't participate in the Registry, but that makes perfect business sense. I think up to now the host has been very accommodating. I have heard this from other collectors many times especially world coin collectors. Has the courtesy been reciprocated?

No they haven't. But the Langbord's have.

 

And I think it's fantastic that Mr. Roy Langbord is posting to the linked thread!

For dubble aegels?

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

 

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

 

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

 

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

 

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

 

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

 

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

 

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

 

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

 

 

 

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

 

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

 

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

 

 

 

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

 

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

 

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

 

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

 

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

 

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

 

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

 

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

 

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

 

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

 

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

 

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

 

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

 

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

 

 

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

 

 

 

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this.

 

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

 

 

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

 

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

TTT

As previously mentioned, a friendly reminder concerning the questions that weren't.

Good morning Mr. Carr.

 

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

 

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

 

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

 

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

 

If you can logically compose and reiterate your questions, I will reiterate my answers. Otherwise, I don't know what you are talking about.

I have been told I am not a very logical fellow by persons that are not very logical fellows, so I don't think I could be more logical than I have been. Of course you profess you don't know what I am talking about. I am starting to think you are one of the non-answer answer soldiers.

The freedom is exercised, as a courtesy to assist you in considering improving your response method to other members. I will always extend courtesy and consideration to any reasonable suggestion from another member, and reply via action accordingly if the suggestion is not an infringement on my position of what constitutes free speech. I do not want to continue to encourage your particular bent of spiteful posts. It does nothing to support you in a meaningful manner. For the stated reasons, the freedom you are granting me is accepted.

Note that if a post you make is embedded in the post of another, I may comment via a response to that other person or by reference to the post. It is not personal, it is simply an exercise of free speech and the exchange of ideas and a lifelong belief that censorship in any form is wrong.

I think it may help you to understand the purpose of the "tutorial". It was specifically designed to address the post of Mr. Carr, who had stated an inability to detect the questions (even though he had re-posted the post that asked the questions) and declared a mystery existed. Of course he was being slightly snarky, in what I choose to interpret as a humorous reply and not personal. I chose to follow in that vein in my reply, and I am sure he is quite cognizant that was the intention. It is a little like a chess encounter, and his verbal challenges are worthy of respect, by moving the chess pieces in equal level of response.

Your posts, as a comparative, are spiteful and designed to be demeaning and personal and attempting to belittle without cause, as you do so now, and frankly as you have done as recently as your reply to Capt. Henway. For that reason, I do not take your choice of replies as only reserved for me. It is just your nature.

Are you now initiating a game of "I know I am but what are you", or possibly "My daddy is bigger than your daddy"?

I do thank you though, for defining my post as "eloquent". I didn't particularly think so, and I suspect your labeling it as such is because the chosen use of the English language and the logic posits confused you and prevented you from exercising the ability to comprehend.

I will refer to my earlier suggestion as to how to assuage your ire, and that is to ignore my posts.

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

 

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

 

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

 

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

 

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

 

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

 

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

 

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

 

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

 

 

 

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

 

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

 

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

 

 

 

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

 

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

 

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

 

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

 

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

 

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

 

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

 

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

 

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

 

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

 

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

 

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

 

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

 

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

 

 

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

 

 

 

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this.

 

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

 

 

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

 

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

 

Good morning Mr. Carr.

 

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

 

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

 

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

 

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

 

 

You sir are a complete j.a.c.k.a.s.s. Dan goes out of his way to answer almost every question he's asked in these threads and he misses a couple of yours and you throw a tantrum. You are without a doubt the exact definition of pretentious.

Your choice of physical description and definition of my psyche, while most likely correct in the opinion of many, does not move to a conclusion of the quest to have the questions answered.

I appreciate that you feel the need to resort to childish school yard behavior and name calling in an attempt to belittle the person you have allowed to disturb your day when you disagree with the opinions of others on a public chat board, in order to vent your frustrations. I sometimes have the passing thought to do the same, but maturity takes control, Thank God, and I am able to function without the need of an adult version of nanananana.

There is an alternative. Simply ignore my posts. It is that easy.

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

 

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

 

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

 

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

 

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

 

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

 

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

 

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

 

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

 

 

 

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

 

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

 

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

 

 

 

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

 

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

 

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

 

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

 

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

 

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

 

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

 

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

 

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

 

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

 

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

 

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

 

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

 

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

 

 

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

 

 

 

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this.

 

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

 

 

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

 

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

 

Good morning Mr. Carr.

 

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

 

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

 

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

 

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

 

 

You sir are a complete j.a.c.k.a.s.s. Dan goes out of his way to answer almost every question he's asked in these threads and he misses a couple of yours and you throw a tantrum. You are without a doubt the exact definition of pretentious.

 

I'm at 73% now after his last couple of posts.

 

mark

Keep practicing

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

 

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

 

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

 

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

 

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

 

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

 

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

 

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

 

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

 

 

 

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

 

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

 

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

 

 

 

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

 

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

 

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

 

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

 

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

 

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

 

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

 

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

 

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

 

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

 

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

 

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

 

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

 

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

 

 

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

 

 

 

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this.

 

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

 

 

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

 

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

Good morning Mr. Carr.

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

 

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

 

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

 

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

 

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

 

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

 

If you are referring to your post #9551211 and my reply #9551271, then I did answer your questions as I understood them.

 

If that is not good enough for you then you will have to rephrase your unanswered questions and try asking again.

 

It appears I am correct as to how you would answer.

The questions will not be rephrased. The questions are clear and have not been answered. I will not aid you in your obfuscation talent. The questions and the lack of answers by you speak for themselves.

 

I too read Pliny the Elder and Adams.

 

I will mention that answering the very clear questions would be excellent mock trial practice for you.

 

Accordingly, I will re-post the post containing the original questions from time to time as a reminder to you that you have not answered yet, for your re-consideration, once you figure out whether answering the questions place you in an uncomfortable position that compromises your claim of absolute correctness of your stated position of legality of your endeavors, or, in the alternative, emphasizes the illogical logic posit of your correctness, which I suspect is the quagmire that you continue to avoid. I also would not willingly walk into quicksand.

 

 

 

So let me get this straight.

You claim to have asked some mystery questions and complain that I won't answer them. But you refuse to reiterate them. So they remain a mystery. And I'm supposed to answer mystery questions ? Ok, I'll give it a shot:

 

17

 

Is that right ?

 

Continued avoidance and feigned confusion are normal human responses when we are confronted with uncomfortable situations that we comprehend can be detrimental to our stated position. Only the person confronted can arrive at a conclusion of what is supposed to be the response that applies to the person as an individual. One simply makes choices. the choices are not always logical and do not always exhibit a correct choice, but as humans it is normal to do something. Fright or flight manifests itself whenever a choice is made.

As to the 17, that is an example. I read that book also.

Multiple choice questions are helpful when a person is uncomfortable. so as an example, what is the correct answer:

A) 17

B) 42

C) 43

Bonus hint: the answer is not 17.

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

 

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

 

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

 

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

 

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

 

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

 

If you are referring to your post #9551211 and my reply #9551271, then I did answer your questions as I understood them.

 

If that is not good enough for you then you will have to rephrase your unanswered questions and try asking again.

 

It appears I am correct as to how you would answer.

The questions will not be rephrased. The questions are clear and have not been answered. I will not aid you in your obfuscation talent. The questions and the lack of answers by you speak for themselves.

 

I too read Pliny the Elder and Adams.

 

I will mention that answering the very clear questions would be excellent mock trial practice for you.

 

Accordingly, I will re-post the post containing the original questions from time to time as a reminder to you that you have not answered yet, for your re-consideration, once you figure out whether answering the questions place you in an uncomfortable position that compromises your claim of absolute correctness of your stated position of legality of your endeavors, or, in the alternative, emphasizes the illogical logic posit of your correctness, which I suspect is the quagmire that you continue to avoid. I also would not willingly walk into quicksand.

 

 

 

So let me get this straight.

You claim to have asked some mystery questions and complain that I won't answer them. But you refuse to reiterate them. So they remain a mystery. And I'm supposed to answer mystery questions ? Ok, I'll give it a shot:

 

17

 

Is that right ?

 

 

If it makes you feel any better I don't understand 71% of his posts

 

mark

Comprehension is an acquired skill. Anybody can achieve a level of normalcy by applying yourself and studying and practicing and setting daily goals. I can not promise you that you personally will ever be superlative, but based on what I have observed in the past when reading your statements, there is hope for being able to improve.

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

 

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

 

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

 

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

 

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

 

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

 

If you are referring to your post #9551211 and my reply #9551271, then I did answer your questions as I understood them.

 

If that is not good enough for you then you will have to rephrase your unanswered questions and try asking again.

It appears I am correct as to how you would answer.

The questions will not be rephrased. The questions are clear and have not been answered. I will not aid you in your obfuscation talent. The questions and the lack of answers by you speak for themselves.

I too read Pliny the Elder and Adams.

I will mention that answering the very clear questions would be excellent mock trial practice for you.

Accordingly, I will re-post the post containing the original questions from time to time as a reminder to you that you have not answered yet, for your re-consideration, once you figure out whether answering the questions place you in an uncomfortable position that compromises your claim of absolute correctness of your stated position of legality of your endeavors, or, in the alternative, emphasizes the illogical logic posit of your correctness, which I suspect is the quagmire that you continue to avoid. I also would not willingly walk into quicksand.

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

 

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

 

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

 

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

 

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

It's funny. I think it's the naysayers that have the tunnel vision and total lack of imagination. I think it's occupational hazard for most. I find lack of imagination common amongst coin collectors.

 

 

mark

Interesting. What is a coin collecting naysayer, and how does one collect coins without vision? Is that done by having another person describing their opinion to another person without vision? Is that why some collectors get fooled about what they are really buying?

I think you need to read the disclaimer of the member. The small letters, not just the big letters.

Full disclosure: edited to change "mall" to "small".

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

That was the plan all along....to make your head hurt.

I think with the latest response to Mr. coinman, you may be faltering, Mr. Carr.

I would also be interested, whenever you get the opportunity, to consider the questions I asked in my last post and if you care to, respond.