Books, my post you quoted was #57, The more than one posts referred to were removed and no longer there. Some posts were edited for language, and some posts were moderated by an individual other than myself. My post was a general warning in case someone was typing a response to change it before it caused difficulties for them. If you indeed think this is the case, report my post just as others may do yours, It will stand for the administrators to make a decision. If I didn't believe the ones I removed or edited were sexist, religion or politics related or against the other rules, I would not have removed or edited them, and if the administration disagrees, they would be reinstated. Respectfully Jim
It was not so much the article about Tubman but primarily the political campaign page, or rather full size layer asking for donations, that one automatically gets to see first when clicking the link you posted ... Christian
Correct. I am the one who edited your post mas, and the why is because this is what you get when you click on that link you posted -
All currency meant for circulation should be allegorical, coins and paper alike. Anything else should be a classified as a commemorative or a special purchase.
And so... did you even read the thread? Do you even know why I pointed out Hamilton and Franklin? If you read the post immediately prior to mine, it might help. Hint: it wasn't because they shouldn't be on our money.
I just posted my own proposal over in general discussion. Totally PG so it better not get deleted. In all honesty Harriet was probably a wonderful human being but wouldn't have been my first choice to adorn currency which typically doesn't see an update for half a century or longer. (ugh) The current decision is the biggest flop of our lifetimes. The old Jacksons looking really collectible about now, eh? I think the two consecutive star notes I got out of the ATM last year and stashed have become a little more precious to me. lol
Yes you replied to post #17. As there now are 118+ posts sorry I missed it. ;-) To be taken to task with your tone seems very typical of the aloof attitude of some folks around here. Sad.
I really think the courtesy deference should be yours, considering all things. "And so?" seems exactly the kind of attitude you are complaining about, and when the error is yours, your post should have ended at "sorry I missed it." If it had, we'd just be moving on...
Getting back on topic ... I was surprised to learn the reason the new $20s are to be released in 2020 was to commemorate the centennial of women receiving the right to vote. And yet, no suffragette was chosen for the central portrait. If the Treasury had just had a little backbone they could simply have chosen a woman appropriate to the occasion, instead of putting it out for this chaotic mess of a selection process.
