Quote:
Originally Posted by David Atkatz
Just to put the record straight, Bernie, nothing I said--absolutely nothing--was "personal." I simply--and sarcastically, because that's just me--questioned your autograph expertise, based on what you yourself previously posted.
And I still do. My PhD in physics has absolutely no bearing upon my autograph expertise--or lack thereof. Neither does your PhD. My considerable mathematical training and experience has no bearing--none whatever--upon my autograph expertise--or lack thereof. Neither does yours. And to imply that it does is wrong--at best.
if I do possess any special knowledge in this area--and I will let my colleagues be the judges--it has to do with the fact that I have been collecting historical autographs, and vintage Yankee autographs, since 1961. I have had scores of Ruths and Gehrigs pass through my hands, as the only way an academic physicist can afford this hobby is by dealing autographs as well. This is not to say that I haven't made mistakes--serious mistakes. I certainly have. But when I have, I believe I have learned from them.
And finally, I don't know where "my place" is, nor where it should be. But I do know that you haven't "put me back in it."
Best of luck with your collecting.
|
Not sure you get it. I was comparing 2 autographs, one of which there is a preponderance of evidence it is legitimate. I identified similarities and differences. You challenged (and still do) my expertise. I am not an "expert" but I am capable of reaching my own conclusions. You felt the need to "attack" when reading a statement which was factual, not subjective, and, I took the action I thought was appropriate. I do not need to know your CV to respect your opinions, just want to be exposed to them. If you disagree with mine, challenge the point, not the person.