One of the interesting aspects of the recent brouhaha is that it once again highlights the differences between TG customers and Raggies, as least the ones who come on-line. You guys would NEVER let me get away with making an explanation with holes in it, and then ducking the follow up questions. In fact, I\'ve gotten grilled pretty good, and I\'m the one in plain sight, with a defensible position.

And yeah, it also highlights the difference between the two website policies.

Now, what does all this tell us about the two products, and those who use them?

Silver Charm:
I believe it was legendary stock picker Peter Lynch of Fidelity fame who said,

\"If do not understand what a company does then you should\'nt buy them.

Marc At: \"I don\'t characterize the behavior of Ragozin players as a matter of course,\" TGJB recently wrote. But the above post sure seems like characterization of Ragozin players to me.

Also, it\'s always reassuring to hear a figuremaker declare himself as the one with a defensible position. I\'m sure everyone who reads the promotional board of a figuremaker finds this sort of statement quite helpful, quite reassuring. Most figuremakers don\'t think their positions are defensible, so this is some pretty distinguinshing stuff.

Also, too, the praising of the toughness of the Thorograph customers, that\'s brave stuff. Sure to provoke interesting dialogue.

Silver Charm:
Let me rephrase correctly.

\"If you do not understand what a company does then you should\'nt buy them.

I might also add, if you go into in a business and they will not explain to you what they do, then they are usually hiding something.

TGJB: Marc,

You are confusing identifying (or describing)something with characterizing it. I know it is just confusion, because a stand-up guy like you would never intentionally misrepresent something.

Identify-- Winona Ryder walked out of the store with dresses that did not belong to her.

Characterize-- Winona Ryder stole the dresses, in full knowledge of what she was doing.

Show me where in that post I characterized the Ragozin players. I\'m expecting \"we agree to disagree\" here. I did identify their behavior.

An example of characterizing a Ragozin player might be, \"Marc comes on here with an agenda, so he has no qualms about acting in an intellectually dishonest fashion\".

On your other point, I can declare myself the one with a defensible position because I am out there defending it. Friedman got beat up so bad in the first round that he didn\'t even answer the bell for the second, which makes his contemptous dismissal of Shrek\'s request on the Rag board for an explanation of how the Chilukki figure was determined an act not only of abject cowardice, but of chutzpah. That would be me characterizing Friedman\'s behavior.

\"Most figuremakers don\'t think their positions are defensible\"-- the ones who make the figures you buy, anyway.

Marc At: \"Show me where in that post I characterized the Ragozin players.\"

One quote I would point to is:
\"Now, what does all this tell us about the two products, and those who use them?\"

To me, this seems to be characterizing all Ragozin players because we\'re not angry enough at Friedman for refusing to continue a dialoge with you.

\"On your other point, I can declare myself the one with a defensible position because I am out there defending it.\"

That you are. Every figure maker *thinks* his product is defensible. But you are indeed the one who feels most compelled to defend his figures to the fullest extent. Whether or not this quality is necessary for a figuremaker to create valid figures, that\'s another story.

\"Friedman got beat up so bad in the first round that he didn\'t even answer the bell for the second,\"

As Alydar tried to point out, and my primary reason for commenting on all of this, Friedman doesn\'t engage in this battle for many reasons, but I\'m not under the impression it\'s because he feels badly beaten. He may be too haughty to fight, he may not feel it\'s worth his time, but my impression is the only one who thinks he\'s beaten so bad is you. And Silver Charm.

TGJB: Marc,

This one is so weak I could tear it up without breaking a sweat, but that\'s also so obvious that I can be merciful-- even the Ragozin players who read it can see the holes in it. (That one IS a characterization, and a joke).

Sort of. (Another joke).

Because maybe they can\'t. (Yet another...)

HP:
Ragozin players - Briefs

Thorograph players - Boxers

That\'s it. HP

RICH: I think it\'s the other way around.

Alydar in California: JB wrote: \"Marc, you are confusing identifying (or describing)something with characterizing it. I know it is just confusion, because a stand-up guy like you would never intentionally misrepresent something.\"

JB,

You are incorrect on the definitions.(Do you want to see them?) The confusion here is yours.

Marc At: \"The confusion here is yours.\"

No, you must be wrong. I am laughable, and only interested in misrepresenting the truth, so he must be right, as always. This is why he reveals all contrasting arguments as the intellectually inferior/devious points of view that they must be. As always.

TGJB: Random House College Dictionary:

char-ac-ter-ize
1-- to mark or distinguish as a charateristic; be a characteristic of.
2-- to DESCRIBE the CHARACTER or individual QUALITY of. (Emphasis added).
3-- to ATTRIBUTE character to: \"to CHARACTERIZE SOMEONE AS A COWARD\". (Emphasis added).

You get to do \"identify\".

This subject came up when my lawyer Joe Friedberg drafted the letter to the Ragozin office after we caught their employees on tape lying about us. I wanted to go much further, he wouldn\'t characterize their behavior, at least not past certain limits.

Identify-- We have tapes of Ragozin employees telling a prospective client we don\'t use live ground.

Characterize-- We caught those morally bankrupt Ragozin employees intentionally lying about us in order to hurt our business, and help theirs.

But like I said, I don\'t characterize the behavior of the Ragozin players AS A MATTER OF COURSE.

Alydar in California:      JB,

         Marc wrote: \"But the above post sure seems like characterization of Ragozin players to me.\"

     You wrote: \"Marc, you are confusing IDENTIFYING (or DESCRIBING)something with characterizing it. I know it is just confusion, because a stand-up guy like you would never intentionally misrepresent something.\"

       From dictionary.com. The EMPHASIS is mine.

Entry: CHARACTERIZE
Function:   verb
Definition:   distinguish
Synonyms:   belong to, brand, button down, constitute, define, delineate, DESCRIBE, designate, differentiate, discriminate, feature, IDENTIFY, indicate, individualize, individuate, inform, make up, mark, outline, peculiarize, peg, personalize, pigeonhole, portray, represent, signalize, singularize, stamp, symbolize, tab, typecast, typify

TGJB: Very cute-- sort of the key race theory for words. So, by your DEFINITION, belong to means the same thing as pigeonhole means the same thing as constitute means the same thing as outline.

You might try a dictionary which actually has more than one word definitions in it.

You have too much free time on your hands, Clarence Darrow.

Alydar in California: Silver Charm wrote: \"I believe it was legendary stock picker Peter Lynch of Fidelity fame who said,

\"If do not understand what a company does then you should\'nt buy them.\"

Lynch said: \"Buy what you know.\"