Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gregg, post: 3156336, member: 90419&quot;]I think the distinction between &#039;whizzed&#039; as a description of damage and &#039;whizzed&#039; as a method is valid distinction that illuminates how Doug and Kurt were talking past each other.&nbsp; I&#039;m not sure if I&#039;m right about that as Doug hasn&#039;t weighed in on the matter.</p><p><br /></p><p>I understand Kurt&#039;s definition completely and repeated it back to him (in my own words) to verify that I had it right.</p><p><br /></p><p>If the definition that Kurt is using is the community consensus I will adopt it as my own; however, I do still wonder if that definition is as useful to the buyer as the definition which uses &#039;whizzed&#039; as a description of damage.</p><p><br /></p><p>The hypothetical laser example was meant to illustrate the difference between &#039;description of damage&#039; and &#039;method of damage&#039;.&nbsp;&nbsp; A better example would have been &#039;toned&#039;, which is used to describe the damage without attempting to identify the method of damage (natural, artificial, chemical A, chemical B, torch, etc.).&nbsp; When you say a coin is &#039;toned&#039; everyone knows what you mean (description of damage) without knowing the method of damage.&nbsp; I think that would be a good example to follow for whizzed.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m pretty up front about being new to the hobby.</p><p>When I&#039;m new to something I pester experts in the field with questions.</p><p>I&#039;ve yet to run into an expert that is incapable of defending himself.[/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