Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 404584, member: 112&quot;]But Bone it is not about what should be or shouldn&#039;t be, my question was about <b>is</b> or <b>isn&#039;t</b>.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now you can discuss all you want about what you think technical grading should be - anyone can. But I am talking about facts, not opinions or interpetations. Technical grading existed, and its standards were well known, and were in fact written down for all to see and use. And trying to say that is not so, or that is not technical grading as I know it, is doing nothing but avoiding the facts because they do not support your ideas.</p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps what really bothers people in these discussions is for them to learn that the grading practices they follow, are actually very, very close to what they rant and rave about - market grading. They just don&#039;t know it because they have misconceived ideas about what market grading consist of and what technical grading does not consist of.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, if you would be so kind Bone, instead of just stating how your opinion of how your idea of technical grading differs from mine - how about facts to support your idea of it ? I think you&#039;ll have a hard time finding any.[/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