NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/collecti/10316

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 2.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!grayling.CS.Berkeley.EDU!templin
From: [e-mail] (Fred Templin)
Newsgroups: rec.collecting
Subject: Re: COINS:Novice question about coins as investments
Message-ID: <1k1d86$[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:58:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>    <[e-mail]> <1j4m4a$[e-mail]> <1jhn4r$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 39
NNTP-Posting-Host: grayling.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes:
|> In article <1jhn4r$[e-mail]>, you write...
|> >|> 2) it is not possible to depreciate > 100%; if you are talking about U.S.
|> >|>    coins, at the worst, you have face value as a bottom.  Coins can, and do
|> >|>    appreciate > 300%; but will never depreciate to that extent.  (Do you mean
|> >
|> >Forgive me for not being an ace mathemetician, Jack. When I say "depreciates
|> >300%" I would hope that the non-critical reader would take that to mean "a
|> >coin which once bid at $300 now only bids at $100". If your intent was to
|> >render a math lesson, then I thank you for setting me straight. Otherwise,
|> >I'd recommend you find another vehicle for flaming those whom you don't
|> >even know...
|> >
|>  I didn't think this was a flame, but rather an important correction.
|> People have enough difficulty communicating without adding the further
|> complication of unclear and misleading writing.
|>  The statement above is obviously wrong but it is too much to expect the
|> reader to try to figure out what the author really meant.
|>  Look up the definitions of 'biweekly', 'bimonthly' and 'biannual' in a
|> modern dictionary and you will see what happens when people routinely
|> use words improperly - the words become meaningless.
|>
|>  larry henling [e-mail]


Your point that I may have overreacted is well taken, Larry. I don't feel
that one should be cautious of posting for fear of cencureship, but I do
acknowledge that (especially where numismatics are concerened) accurate
written communication is important. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that readers
would understand my meaning even though the math was inaccurate. I believe
my reaction was more one of embarrasement that I could have let slide a math
faux pas like that rather than the notion I was being flamed.
--
---------------------------------------------------

    Fred L. Templin
    ([e-mail])

---------------------------------------------------