So, you're saying that I can't comment on fentanyl unless I have a subscription?
Or unless you have used it on more than 25,000 patients, including at least 1,500 coronary bypasses -- then you should know a lot more about it than 99.999% of Americans.
I would only add: don't chew on fentanyl patches unless you have some naloxone handy, and only terminal cancer patients should be given fentanyl tablets to take home.
@errormaven said:
I've contacted Rick Amos. I haven't received a satisfactory answer. And I've heard nothing in the last month.
It sounds like CW is having financial difficulties.
Yes, CW is having financial difficulties. Because, in the age of the internet, people, like @habaraca right here, want everything for free, while CW cannot produce a quality publication on advertising revenue alone.
Maybe an unpopular thing for me to say here, on this free internet forum, but I don't think anyone who isn't a paid CW subscriber should be weighing in here, because they are part of CW's problem, not @errormaven's solution.
I subscribed for 50+ years, except for the five years that I worked there and got it for free, so I feel qualified to comment even though I let my subscription lapse when they crashed and burned a couple of years ago.
I have a good friend who worked there when I did. He has been a columnist for decades, but they stopped paying him a while back, and eventually started re-running old columns of his without the courtesy of asking permission or even informing him that they were doing so. They never paid him for the last several new columns that they used.
I happen to be a subscriber, and I am absolutely not condoning anyone stiffing anyone for work satisfactorily completed. All I'm saying is that anyone, including you, with all due respect, who does not financially contribute to CW, is part of the reason why they cannot pay their columnists, so it's really hypocritical to comment.
"They crashed and burned a couple of years ago," and you checked out. Fair enough.
Maybe @errormaven should have done the same. But failing to recognize that people like you, doing what you did, are the very reason why CW lacks the resources to meet its obligations, and then commenting on how CW does not meet its obligations, is really lacking self awareness.
At some point they will close their doors, people like me will lose the remainder of our subscriptions, and then we will all have one less thing to complain about. Just sayin'. Anyone who really cares about @errormaven and his plight should maybe sign up for a subscription, rather than coming onto a free coin forum to poop on CW.
Your argument reminds me of a very cleverly written, but utterly fraudulent, advertisement that I saw in one of the Chicago newspapers back in the 80's. It purported to offer to sell a one ounce gold piece for slightly less than the market price of gold, as an introductory offer of course because they were such nice people. The cleverly written part was that the piece was described as "one ounce of .999% fine gold," a number that is mathematically and literally less than one percent gold.
They also offered to sell a matching one ounce silver piece, that was the same diameter as the gold piece. Silver is much less dense than gold, of course, but they could have made up for this difference in density by making the gold piece thin or the silver piece thick. However, the two pieces were in a holder similar to a Capital Plastics holder so you could not see the relative thicknesses in the advertisement.
I called the office of the Chicago Postal Inspector since these pieces were being sold by mail, but after I explained the situation I was told that I could not file a complaint against the seller because I had not purchased the item from the seller, and therefore had not been defrauded by the seller. In other words, because I had not given him my money, I could not complain against him.
A couple of years later, after gold had risen in price a bit, an elderly couple came in to the coin shop where I was working at the time to "sell their gold." They handed me one of the two-piece sets that I remembered from the ad, and after I opened it up in front of them you could see that the "gold" piece was the exact same diameter and thickness as the silver piece. I then performed a specific gravity test on each piece in front of them, proving that the "gold" piece was a gold-plated silver piece.
The elderly gentleman was practically crying as he said "But I thought I was buying an ounce of gold." I explained to them that .999% meant less than one percent, but I'm not sure if they believed me. I reassembled their set and they left with it, perhaps to see if they got the same answer from a different coin shop.
Though I have not given Coin World my money for a few years, I do think that I am qualified to talk about them.
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@MasonG said:
I don't think there's anything at all hypocritical about having an opinion on a topic you are not financially invested in.
You can have all the opinions you want. But when you are part of the crowd refusing to pay, I don't see the value in your opinion that someone should get paid. Yeah, @errormaven should be paid. But with my money, not yours. Thanks for weighing in.
Anyone who really cares about @errormaven and his plight should maybe sign up for a subscription, rather than coming onto a free coin forum to poop on CW.
And anyone who isn't a paid member of Coin Universe (PCGS) and actively sends coins in for grading should not negatively comment on this forum.
Also, if you don't purchase coins from eBay, stop your complaining about all things eBay.
If you don't purchase and submit coins to Heritage and/or Great Collections, stop your whining.
(I think we get your drift. . .)
Anyone who really cares about @errormaven and his plight should maybe sign up for a subscription, rather than coming onto a free coin forum to poop on CW.
And anyone who isn't a paid member of Coin Universe (PCGS) and actively sends coins in for grading should not negatively comment on this forum.
Also, if you don't purchase coins from eBay, stop your complaining about all things eBay.
If you don't purchase and submit coins to Heritage and/or Great Collections, stop your whining.
(I think we get your drift. . .)
How about you mind your own business and stop telling people how to mind theirs
Maybe start practicing what you are preaching. You are ignoring me, although you apparently needed a tutorial on how to do so. Why would I care about any advice you have for me??? You have not met the bar I set for people I take advice from.
I am sorry also this got stepped on. My intentions were simply to read a bit of your wisdom, and
encourage you to continue to share with others.
Right. So go pay for a CW subscription, and then read the back issues. No, you intention was to "support" @errormaven by reading his work product without compensating him. I'm sure he appreciates the "support."
@errormaven earns money by writing the columns. If he had an interest in "sharing with others," like you, for free, he wouldn't be pissed that CW is stiffing him on what they owe him.
@errormaven said:
I've contacted Rick Amos. I haven't received a satisfactory answer. And I've heard nothing in the last month.
It sounds like CW is having financial difficulties.
Yes, CW is having financial difficulties. Because, in the age of the internet, people, like @habaraca right here, want everything for free, while CW cannot produce a quality publication on advertising revenue alone.
Maybe an unpopular thing for me to say here, on this free internet forum, but I don't think anyone who isn't a paid CW subscriber should be weighing in here, because they are part of CW's problem, not @errormaven's solution.
I subscribed for 50+ years, except for the five years that I worked there and got it for free, so I feel qualified to comment even though I let my subscription lapse when they crashed and burned a couple of years ago.
I have a good friend who worked there when I did. He has been a columnist for decades, but they stopped paying him a while back, and eventually started re-running old columns of his without the courtesy of asking permission or even informing him that they were doing so. They never paid him for the last several new columns that they used.
I happen to be a subscriber, and I am absolutely not condoning anyone stiffing anyone for work satisfactorily completed. All I'm saying is that anyone, including you, with all due respect, who does not financially contribute to CW, is part of the reason why they cannot pay their columnists, so it's really hypocritical to comment.
"They crashed and burned a couple of years ago," and you checked out. Fair enough.
Maybe @errormaven should have done the same. But failing to recognize that people like you, doing what you did, are the very reason why CW lacks the resources to meet its obligations, and then commenting on how CW does not meet its obligations, is really lacking self awareness.
At some point they will close their doors, people like me will lose the remainder of our subscriptions, and then we will all have one less thing to complain about. Just sayin'. Anyone who really cares about @errormaven and his plight should maybe sign up for a subscription, rather than coming onto a free coin forum to poop on CW.
Your argument reminds me of a very cleverly written, but utterly fraudulent, advertisement that I saw in one of the Chicago newspapers back in the 80's. It purported to offer to sell a one ounce gold piece for slightly less than the market price of gold, as an introductory offer of course because they were such nice people. The cleverly written part was that the piece was described as "one ounce of .999% fine gold," a number that is mathematically and literally less than one percent gold.
They also offered to sell a matching one ounce silver piece, that was the same diameter as the gold piece. Silver is much less dense than gold, of course, but they could have made up for this difference in density by making the gold piece thin or the silver piece thick. However, the two pieces were in a holder similar to a Capital Plastics holder so you could not see the relative thicknesses in the advertisement.
I called the office of the Chicago Postal Inspector since these pieces were being sold by mail, but after I explained the situation I was told that I could not file a complaint against the seller because I had not purchased the item from the seller, and therefore had not been defrauded by the seller. In other words, because I had not given him my money, I could not complain against him.
A couple of years later, after gold had risen in price a bit, an elderly couple came in to the coin shop where I was working at the time to "sell their gold." They handed me one of the two-piece sets that I remembered from the ad, and after I opened it up in front of them you could see that the "gold" piece was the exact same diameter and thickness as the silver piece. I then performed a specific gravity test on each piece in front of them, proving that the "gold" piece was a gold-plated silver piece.
The elderly gentleman was practically crying as he said "But I thought I was buying an ounce of gold." I explained to them that .999% meant less than one percent, but I'm not sure if they believed me. I reassembled their set and they left with it, perhaps to see if they got the same answer from a different coin shop.
Though I have not given Coin World my money for a few years, I do think that I am qualified to talk about them.
TD
Yes, you are "qualified" to say and think whatever you want. But, as the Postal Inspector tried to explain to you, you don't have what in the legal world is referred to as "standing" to have a complaint if you are not a paying customer.
You are just whining from the cheap seats. CW doesn't have money to pay @errormaven because people like you have better things to do with their money.
So, sure, it's still a free country. At least as of today, so anyone is "qualified to talk" about anything. Doesn't meant the talk from a non-paying customer isn't cheap.
Maybe pony up for a subscription, and then tell CW how to run its business. Or, express your right to free speech, but don't expect the people who matter to have any interest in listening to you.
Llamas and alpacas are camels. They aren't like camels, or related. They are camels. When was anyone going to tell me this?! How long had Bill Nye been holding out on us?
@NJCoin said:
Yeah, @errormaven should be paid. But with my money, not yours.
Close, but no cigar. @errormaven should be paid with his employer's (or the business who contracted his article's) money.
Correct. But, unless they have a government printing press, that money comes from subscribers and advertisers. Not independent observers sharing their two cents from the cheap seats. IOW, me, not you.
@NJCoin said:
Yeah, @errormaven should be paid. But with my money, not yours.
Close, but no cigar. @errormaven should be paid with his employer's (or the business who contracted his article's) money.
Correct. But, unless they have a government printing press, that money comes from subscribers and advertisers. Not independent observers sharing their two cents from the cheap seats. IOW, me, not you.
Maybe your money isn't going to @errormaven. How do you know it isn't being used to pay for scrubbing the toilets in the publisher's office?
@NJCoin said:
Yeah, @errormaven should be paid. But with my money, not yours.
Close, but no cigar. @errormaven should be paid with his employer's (or the business who contracted his article's) money.
Correct. But, unless they have a government printing press, that money comes from subscribers and advertisers. Not independent observers sharing their two cents from the cheap seats. IOW, me, not you.
Maybe your money isn't going to @errormaven. How do you know it isn't being used to pay for scrubbing the toilets in the publisher's office?
I don't. All I know is you don't think the column is worth paying for with YOUR money, but you feel the need to go on a public forum commenting on how CW conducts its business.
As the Chicago Postal Inspector would say, we can't take complaints from you.
Anyone who really cares about @errormaven and his plight should maybe sign up for a subscription, rather than coming onto a free coin forum to poop on CW.
And anyone who isn't a paid member of Coin Universe (PCGS) and actively sends coins in for grading should not negatively comment on this forum.
Also, if you don't purchase coins from eBay, stop your complaining about all things eBay.
If you don't purchase and submit coins to Heritage and/or Great Collections, stop your whining.
(I think we get your drift. . .)
Exactly!!
I think that member was being sarcastic based on other posts...
Comments
yes, you are not responsible for your thoughts or actions........ LOL
Blame it on your parents they raised you..
I regret having instigated this string of angry posts. I only wanted to let my readers know the reason for my absence.
I guess common sense isn't a flower that blooms in every garden.
Mike,
Thanks for what you do.....
I am sorry also this got stepped on. My intentions were simply to read a bit of your wisdom, and
encourage you to continue to share with others.
Hard to argue with that.
Seems to be.
Perhaps the dismissiveness could be remedied by changing “armchair QB” to “armchair HOF quarterback”?
😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Or unless you have used it on more than 25,000 patients, including at least 1,500 coronary bypasses -- then you should know a lot more about it than 99.999% of Americans.
I would only add: don't chew on fentanyl patches unless you have some naloxone handy, and only terminal cancer patients should be given fentanyl tablets to take home.
Your argument reminds me of a very cleverly written, but utterly fraudulent, advertisement that I saw in one of the Chicago newspapers back in the 80's. It purported to offer to sell a one ounce gold piece for slightly less than the market price of gold, as an introductory offer of course because they were such nice people. The cleverly written part was that the piece was described as "one ounce of .999% fine gold," a number that is mathematically and literally less than one percent gold.
They also offered to sell a matching one ounce silver piece, that was the same diameter as the gold piece. Silver is much less dense than gold, of course, but they could have made up for this difference in density by making the gold piece thin or the silver piece thick. However, the two pieces were in a holder similar to a Capital Plastics holder so you could not see the relative thicknesses in the advertisement.
I called the office of the Chicago Postal Inspector since these pieces were being sold by mail, but after I explained the situation I was told that I could not file a complaint against the seller because I had not purchased the item from the seller, and therefore had not been defrauded by the seller. In other words, because I had not given him my money, I could not complain against him.
A couple of years later, after gold had risen in price a bit, an elderly couple came in to the coin shop where I was working at the time to "sell their gold." They handed me one of the two-piece sets that I remembered from the ad, and after I opened it up in front of them you could see that the "gold" piece was the exact same diameter and thickness as the silver piece. I then performed a specific gravity test on each piece in front of them, proving that the "gold" piece was a gold-plated silver piece.
The elderly gentleman was practically crying as he said "But I thought I was buying an ounce of gold." I explained to them that .999% meant less than one percent, but I'm not sure if they believed me. I reassembled their set and they left with it, perhaps to see if they got the same answer from a different coin shop.
Though I have not given Coin World my money for a few years, I do think that I am qualified to talk about them.
TD
You can have all the opinions you want. But when you are part of the crowd refusing to pay, I don't see the value in your opinion that someone should get paid. Yeah, @errormaven should be paid. But with my money, not yours. Thanks for weighing in.
My profile has nothing to do with you ignoring me, genius.
Exactly!!
Maybe start practicing what you are preaching. You are ignoring me, although you apparently needed a tutorial on how to do so. Why would I care about any advice you have for me??? You have not met the bar I set for people I take advice from.
Right. So go pay for a CW subscription, and then read the back issues. No, you intention was to "support" @errormaven by reading his work product without compensating him. I'm sure he appreciates the "support."
@errormaven earns money by writing the columns. If he had an interest in "sharing with others," like you, for free, he wouldn't be pissed that CW is stiffing him on what they owe him.
Yes, you are "qualified" to say and think whatever you want. But, as the Postal Inspector tried to explain to you, you don't have what in the legal world is referred to as "standing" to have a complaint if you are not a paying customer.
You are just whining from the cheap seats. CW doesn't have money to pay @errormaven because people like you have better things to do with their money.
So, sure, it's still a free country. At least as of today, so anyone is "qualified to talk" about anything. Doesn't meant the talk from a non-paying customer isn't cheap.
Maybe pony up for a subscription, and then tell CW how to run its business. Or, express your right to free speech, but don't expect the people who matter to have any interest in listening to you.
Close, but no cigar. @errormaven should be paid with his employer's (or the business who contracted his article's) money.
Wow this behavior seems problematic.
Llamas and alpacas are camels. They aren't like camels, or related. They are camels. When was anyone going to tell me this?! How long had Bill Nye been holding out on us?
Correct. But, unless they have a government printing press, that money comes from subscribers and advertisers. Not independent observers sharing their two cents from the cheap seats. IOW, me, not you.
Does it? So what's the remedy?
The Ignore function? If so, THAT does not require a public post.
Seems like you are adding to the problem, rather than the solution.
Maybe your money isn't going to @errormaven. How do you know it isn't being used to pay for scrubbing the toilets in the publisher's office?
Actually, I think he should be paid with anyone OTHER than NJ's money. They already have his and it wasn't enough.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I don't. All I know is you don't think the column is worth paying for with YOUR money, but you feel the need to go on a public forum commenting on how CW conducts its business.
As the Chicago Postal Inspector would say, we can't take complaints from you.
I think that member was being sarcastic based on other posts...
your friendly reminder to be kind.
Isa (she/her)
PCGS Marketing