Babe Ruth?

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by shelly

Just 400 more to go, Then I will start the old one back up.

There was another thread that branched off from this one that had numerous posts as well, but was still discussing this Ruth ticket...be careful or I'll merge them.

[7nohitter]

The future does not hold much without Jim Stinson. Congratulations to the few, meandering rubes who couldn't get heir heads out of their behinds and ran off one of the greatest contributors to this hobby.

And.R.ew Mi.ll.e&r

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

The future does not hold much without Jim Stinson. Congratulations to the few, meandering rubes who couldn't get heir heads out of their behinds and ran off one of the greatest contributors to this hobby.

And.R.ew Mi.ll.e&r

Couldn't agree more. This forum suddenly got far less important.

Ken

[shelly]

opening up new thread. Your fault Dan

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Couldn't agree more. This forum suddenly got far less important.

Ken

Ken, it's just as important or unimportant as it always was. There are always going to be people who would like to see a forum laid out like a publishable book, with themselves and those they respect, as the authors, and the contributors (lesser people such as myself) following rules written in stone.

That's not what a discussion forum is. You have to take the good (expert participation, fun discussions, passionate hobbyists) along with the bad (petty feuds, people on pedestals, violent disagreements).

Or you go write a book and invite Jim and anyone else you respect, to co-author. In any case, Jim will be fine and I'm sure we'll see him around soon enough.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Ken, it's just as important or unimportant as it always was. There are always going to be people who would like to see a forum laid out like a publishable book, with themselves and those they respect, as the authors, and the contributors (lesser people such as myself) following rules written in stone.

That's not what a discussion forum is. You have to take the good (expert participation, fun discussions, passionate hobbyists) along with the bad (petty feuds, people on pedestals, violent disagreements).

Or you go write a book and invite Jim and anyone else you respect, to co-author. In any case, Jim will be fine and I'm sure we'll see him around soon enough.

Well, Scott, since you seem to know everything, I guess it's a good thing you're still here.

[ss]

Here's the a comparison of the 700 ticket next to a similar looking signature that comes from an extremely reliable source -- one of the few that I trust. I don't know if the open "a" and the hooked "h" really matter, but they are in both signatures. Also, can someone explain the "backwards a" to me. I don't see that at all. To my eye, the "a" starts exactly as you would expect.

[slidekellyslide]

I don't see the "a" as being written backwards either...looks like the pen was running low on ink when the signature was written.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by ss

Here's the a comparison of the 700 ticket next to a similar looking signature that comes from an extremely reliable source -- one of the few that I trust. I don't know if the open "a" and the hooked "h" really matter, but they are in both signatures. Also, can someone explain the "backwards a" to me. I don't see that at all. To my eye, the "a" starts exactly as you would expect.

Not even close.

[sago]

Originally Posted by ss

Here's the a comparison of the 700 ticket next to a similar looking signature that comes from an extremely reliable source -- one of the few that I trust. I don't know if the open "a" and the hooked "h" really matter, but they are in both signatures. Also, can someone explain the "backwards a" to me. I don't see that at all. To my eye, the "a" starts exactly as you would expect.

I'm no expert, but all of the letters look different in both signatures.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Well, Scott, since you seem to know everything, I guess it's a good thing you're still here.

This post is a perfect example of what I was trying to say - I didn't respond the way you wanted me to, so my reward is a snide remark.

Good luck with your book.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Runscott

This post is a perfect example of what I was trying to say - I didn't respond the way you wanted me to, so my reward is a snide remark.

Good luck with your book.

Perhaps I should re-read all your posts. I'm sure there's never a snide remark to be found. Or are you the only one allowed to be an ass?

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Ken, it's just as important or unimportant as it always was. There are always going to be people who would like to see a forum laid out like a publishable book, with themselves and those they respect, as the authors, and the contributors (lesser people such as myself) following rules written in stone.

That's not what a discussion forum is. You have to take the good (expert participation, fun discussions, passionate hobbyists) along with the bad (petty feuds, people on pedestals, violent disagreements).

Or you go write a book and invite Jim and anyone else you respect, to co-author. In any case, Jim will be fine and I'm sure we'll see him around soon enough.

I don't think Jim will be back, we spoke yesterday.
Many years ago, he swore off going to shows. I will give someone $100 if they have a photo of Jim at a show in the last 10 years.
But if you buy him a few beers, you never know what might happen .

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I don't think Jim will be back, we spoke yesterday.
Many years ago, he swore off going to shows. I will give someone $100 if they have a photo of Jim at a show in the last 10 years.
But if you buy him a few beers, you never know what might happen .

That sucks... I'm very sorry to hear this.

Everyone loses in this deal.