Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1
Any insult would have been in my first post -- at that point you didn't seem to take offense. The second post emphasized what I think was at best very fuzzy "thinking" as to your reasons for the Gandil ID. If you are offended by that I don't care.
Thanks for posting your facial ID resume. As a consultant on this particular subject (sometimes even paid) for major AH's, grading companies, Library of Congress, Boston Public Library, Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum to name a few (and even for non-baseball folks such as at the Harriet Beecher Stowe Museum), and having published literally a few hundred pages on the subject for SABR, I can tell you that people who have problems with this don't get them all wrong - they get a fair number of them right. The problem is that they can't tell the difference between when they get it right vs. when they are asserting an ID that is beyond ludicrous. Your Mollwitz ID was nicely done, but Your Gandil and Waner IDs are beyond ludicrous. If you are offended, I can live with that.
|
We agree to disagree on the Waner. As for the Gandil, I may be wrong. Still, on other fronts, even with all the care that can be taken, even the most studied and precise of men can be wrong. Not an insult, just an observation from experience.