Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 3156278, member: 15309&quot;]You seriously need to stop.&nbsp; When you start make up fantasies about people whizzing coins with lasers, you have lost the argument.&nbsp; When you start feigning ignorance of common numismatic terms like &quot;original&quot; you have lost the argument.</p><p><br /></p><p>Kurt made his argument very clear, his interpretation is that whizzing is any process using a high speed brush to simulate luster by creating artificial flow lines on the coin and that metal build up at the devices is a common indicator of whizzing but it&#039;s absence is not disqualifying.</p><p><br /></p><p>Last night, I read a post in a different thread that I think you need to read.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You&#039;ve staked out a position that you agree with Doug&#039;s interpretation of the term whizzing, which is fine.&nbsp; But when you start arguing hypothetical scenarios about whizzing coins with lasers simply to defend an idea that you adopted, you are obviously out of your depth.</p><p><br /></p><p>PS, after proof reading this post, I can see how you might think I&#039;m calling you stupid, I am not.&nbsp; I really don&#039;t agree with that gentleman&#039;s first sentence at all, but I do agree with his overall point that people will continue to defend a viewpoint that far exceeds their knowledge on the subject.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in