Stop the INSANITY!

[belle]

Date: 8/21/2006 3:44:47 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/20/2006 7:54:32 PM
Author: fire&iceI LOVE blue fluor. Instead of dissing it, the Cap't said that someone told him that perfect 'ideal' diamonds couldn't come from fluor rough. Made sense. Still didn't care -

To me - a perpective not a rule. What outways the other? Personal.

I am curious where this came from, I have never heard such a thing. Why would fluorescence have any bearing on whether or not a diamond could be cut to ideal cut grade?

Wink

it makes for a good story wink, just play along

what i want to know is, where did 'outways' come from?

hehehehe....sorry... now back to the serious discussion.

 

[WinkHPD]

Thanks Captain.

I think I might agree if the fluorescence was strong enough.

Wink

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/21/2006 1:41:42 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/21/2006 1:34:34 PM
Author: devientdrow

I think people who aren''t super douper louper types TRY and put their .02 in but really it''s fruitless. I know there have been a few posts before where I try and and put something in there and it really just doesn''t matter when after I put something in about not disregarding a stone completly it''s followed up but 10 posts of people saying just the opposite. Maybe that sounds like I would be giving up or not trying my best to promote balance, but really I come on here to read about and admire diamonds, relax and enjoy myself. So I for the most part, don''t even try anymore.

I guess I don''t understand that. It''s fruitless why? Because you''re in the minority of opinions? Why is it fruitless because ten other people say the opposite?
Those ten people don''t negate your opinion.....it''s still valid on its own.

Look, I''m clearly in the minority opinion in this discussion, and it doesn''t stop me from sharing my less-popular viewpoint.

I can also appreciate that some folks get tired of trying to promote balance, but if that''s true, then I feel like you can''t complain about the lack of it. If you want balance, do something to make it happen. Balance doesn''t mean an equal number of opinions on either side - it''s not a tug-of-war, and it''s not a popularity contest.

If your opinion is ''follow the eye'' and ten others say ''follow the paper'', your opinion might be the only one that resonates to someone asking.

But, what devientrow said actually is why I started this thread. You know I''m not afraid to post a stone just outside of ideal. I''m not afraid to endorse a stone as a possibility. I''m not afraid to post a stone that doesn''t have all the numbers because what GIA had before was plenty to go on and get started. Heck, I would even recommend EGL or IGI stones (both having (IGI sporatic) crown & pav information). But, when I recommended a stone within budget, within the selected vendors inventory that only got a vg/g - literally someone said I proposed it in "jest". Something has gone awry.

There are lots of stones that fit people''s criteria. Often, the slight difference in visual optics doesn''t equate to the premium that super duper loupers have.

Too add to that sentiment - some may feel optimum light return could be consrued by their eye as "chaotic". I know I feel that way when I look at the Leo stone - more facets for more optics. Maybe not apples to apples - but certainly worth consideration.

Al, I doubt whether you are in the minority reading this thread. You are just bold enough to defend your stance - which is VERY VALID for *you*. I''m sure there are many that won''t post their view here for the very reason why "we" the collective un number/super loupers supporters don''t post often in the other threads. Just a perspective.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:00:20 PM
Author: CaptAubrey

Date: 8/21/2006 3:44:47 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/20/2006 7:54:32 PM
Author: fire&iceI LOVE blue fluor. Instead of dissing it, the Cap''t said that someone told him that perfect ''ideal'' diamonds couldn''t come from fluor rough. Made sense. Still didn''t care -

To me - a perpective not a rule. What outways the other? Personal.

I am curious where this came from, I have never heard such a thing. Why would fluorescence have any bearing on whether or not a diamond could be cut to ideal cut grade?

Wink

I had forgotten this discussion.

F&I''s recollection is not quite correct. What I was told by this person (whom I will not name, for discretion''s sake, but I suspect his name would be familiar to many as he''s an authority on diamond cutting), was that a diamond with strong fluorescence will never have the same brilliance, fire, etc., as a diamond with no fluorescence, even if both are cut to identical ideal proportions.

I''m not sure I agree with this, but he presumably has his reasons for this opinion, and he''s got more experience with diamonds than I ever will.

Thanks for clarifying. So, by appearance wise - it will not *look* ideal even though cut to ideal proportions? Was he mostly referring to stones that would border on having cloudy issues? Very curious about this.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:01:28 PM
Author: belle

Date: 8/21/2006 3:44:47 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/20/2006 7:54:32 PM
Author: fire&iceI LOVE blue fluor. Instead of dissing it, the Cap''t said that someone told him that perfect ''ideal'' diamonds couldn''t come from fluor rough. Made sense. Still didn''t care -

To me - a perpective not a rule. What outways the other? Personal.

I am curious where this came from, I have never heard such a thing. Why would fluorescence have any bearing on whether or not a diamond could be cut to ideal cut grade?

Wink

it makes for a good story wink, just play along

what i want to know is, where did ''outways'' come from?

hehehehe....sorry... now back to the serious discussion.

Yep, when all else fails - the spelling/grammer card is played.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:06:11 PM
Author: fire&ice

But, what devientrow said actually is why I started this thread. You know I'm not afraid to post a stone just outside of ideal. I'm not afraid to endorse a stone as a possibility. I'm not afraid to post a stone that doesn't have all the numbers because what GIA had before was plenty to go on and get started. Heck, I would even recommend EGL or IGI stones (both having (IGI sporatic) crown & pav information). But, when I recommended a stone within budget, within the selected vendors inventory that only got a vg/g - literally someone said I proposed it in 'jest'. Something has gone awry.

I guess I'd respectfully suggest that "something HASN'T gone awry". The system is not broken. I looked at the thread you're mentioning, and I think you handled it very well in responding to that person who made that comment.

Incidentally, in that same thread, you also commented that you 'weren't loving' any of the choices initially presented. I don't see how that's much different than cut-freaks making a similar comment. The only difference is the difference between what your threshold of acceptability is vs. theirs.

But I don't think that any one person's comment is significant enough to rise to the level of calling for a wholesale stoppage of cut-freaks offering opinions in the name of balance.

Date: 8/21/2006 4:06:11 PM
Author: fire&ice

Al, I doubt whether you are in the minority reading this thread. You are just bold enough to defend your stance - which is VERY VALID for *you*. I'm sure there are many that won't post their view here for the very reason why 'we' the collective un number/super loupers supporters don't post often in the other threads. Just a perspective.

And simiarly, F&I, I know that Rod isn't the only one who waves the "buy with the eye" flag......it's just that he is bold enough to defend his stance.

I'm sure you're also right that there are many who share my view and may not post here....and I'm sure you're also right that some of them aren't posting for the very reason you're citing.

BUT...... I don't see any of them making a clarion call to "stop the insanity" (trying to stifle the buy-with-the-eye crowd) as a corrective handicap to their reluctance to post.

I don't see any of them saying that you shouldn't lull buyers into a false sense of security by telling them they don't need data. I don't see any of them saying you shouldn't express your opinion on what you value when making a purchasing decision.

 

[belle]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:19:09 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 8/21/2006 4:01:28 PM
Author: belle

Date: 8/21/2006 3:44:47 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/20/2006 7:54:32 PM
Author: fire&iceI LOVE blue fluor. Instead of dissing it, the Cap''t said that someone told him that perfect ''ideal'' diamonds couldn''t come from fluor rough. Made sense. Still didn''t care -

To me - a perpective not a rule. What outways the other? Personal.

I am curious where this came from, I have never heard such a thing. Why would fluorescence have any bearing on whether or not a diamond could be cut to ideal cut grade?

Wink

it makes for a good story wink, just play along

what i want to know is, where did ''outways'' come from?

hehehehe....sorry... now back to the serious discussion.

Yep, when all else fails - the spelling/grammer card is played.

actually, i was playing the humor card.

guess you didn''t ante up on that one. sorry.

i thought it was funny, since i really didn''t have any other point for this deadhorse thread. surely i had nothing to fail at.
well...except the humor.

 

[CaptAubrey]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:17:42 PM
Author: fire&ice
Thanks for clarifying. So, by appearance wise - it will not *look* ideal even though cut to ideal proportions? Was he mostly referring to stones that would border on having cloudy issues? Very curious about this.

I did not ask for clarification at the time, but I believe that''s what he meant. As Wink suggests, I could see how, if the fluorescence is apparent under visible light, it would mask a certain amount of fire and brilliance. But diamonds with such strong fluorescence are pretty rare, so it''s possible he meant something else.

This is one of those issues in the trade around which there is a lot of disagreement.

 

[fire&ice]

To add - I never said that there isn''t a place for the numbers lovin super duper louper lovin people. This thread wasn''t a call to stop that - just the out of balance proportion of it all.

Just because someone is lacking the numbers, doesn''t mean they are "lulled into a false sense of security". You can learn quite a bit about a stone from eyeballing, knowing table & depth, a tightness of mm and talking to the vendor - even sending to a second set - not to verifty numbers - just optical properties. All I see from a picture is how large the table is. I could turn the tables and say that numbers can lull someone into a false sense of security.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:43:26 PM
Author: fire&ice
To add - I never said that there isn''t a place for the numbers lovin super duper louper lovin people. This thread wasn''t a call to stop that - just the out of balance proportion of it all.

Just because someone is lacking the numbers, doesn''t mean they are ''lulled into a false sense of security''. You can learn quite a bit about a stone from eyeballing, knowing table & depth, a tightness of mm and talking to the vendor - even sending to a second set - not to verifty numbers - just optical properties. All I see from a picture is how large the table is. I could turn the tables and say that numbers can lull someone into a false sense of security.

F&I, I thought that the purpose of a picture was not about the table, at all, but to show what any set of averaged numbers could not (not average as in GIA, but average as in one set of crown & pavilion angles, because you don''t know how each plane is in real alignment)...whether the minor facets play out as you would like them to. I personally don''t read ISs with confidence, but I think that''s their intent.

 

[february2003bride]

I have a non-ideal and not even an excellent cut (it''s very good/good), princess that I love and get compliments on quite often!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:43:26 PM
Author: fire&ice

To add - I never said that there isn''t a place for the numbers lovin super duper louper lovin people. This thread wasn''t a call to stop that - just the out of balance proportion of it all.

I can understand that....but it''s not the cut-freaks'' burden to provide balance. I don''t have a problem with the balance, so I don''t feel compelled to fix it.

If you feel the balance isn''t sufficient, then it''s up to you do to something about it. One way is to give the "other side of the coin" view in those thread when people ask. For those who feel they aren''t up to it (for whatever reason), fine....but I don''t feel moved by the cry for balance if you aren''t willing to contribute to the effort.

Date: 8/21/2006 4:43:26 PM
Author: fire&ice
To add - I never said that there isn''t a place for the numbers lovin super duper louper lovin people. This thread wasn''t a call to stop that - just the out of balance proportion of it all.

Just because someone is lacking the numbers, doesn''t mean they are ''lulled into a false sense of security''. You can learn quite a bit about a stone from eyeballing, knowing table & depth, a tightness of mm and talking to the vendor - even sending to a second set - not to verifty numbers - just optical properties. All I see from a picture is how large the table is. I could turn the tables and say that numbers can lull someone into a false sense of security.

I''m not saying that''s what I think.....I was intentionally being facetious to make the point. Of course you can learn a lot by eyeballing a stone....

You can learn a lot more from doing BOTH. Eyeballing and reviewing the technical data.

I refuse to accept the notion that each doesn''t have it''s place.....and that both cannot be useful to the SAME buyer.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/21/2006 1:26:42 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/21/2006 1:12:44 PM
Author: widget
.....but is there ''balance'' on this site?

I''ve always had the sense that just about everyone is totally into ''super ideal, H&A, AGS graded stones, and that touting any virtues of 60/60s is close to blasphemy!

Am I wrong?

widget

In my very humble opinion, the answer is yes and no.

Yes, there is a lack of balance, and no, it''s not blasphemy to tout other than super-ideal, by-the-numbers stones.

But....why is there a lack of balance? Because those of you who aren''t the super-douper louper types don''t add your perspective when a new poster comes here asking for input.

For those of you lamenting the lack of balance, you have the power to change that by contributing. There are tons of you who like buying with less info and buying stones that are beautiful but non-ideal-conforming....you, Deco, F&I, Rod, etc. But the only one I ever see participating in those threads trying to bring the balance is Rod.

If more of you offered your insights when people came asking about ''how do I find a great diamond, etc. etc.'', it would be more balanced. People would get the cut-freak opinions AND the beauty opinions.....best of both. Each person could the decide for himself which resonates to him.

AND.....some may even decide that BOTH perspectives resonate to them, and they will do both. They will narrow selections according to the paper and then use their eyes as the final determinant on their selections.

It just rankles me to have someone say ''that''s more information than needed''. Maybe to you, but not to me.

It rankles me that the suggested way to achieve balance is to call for cut-freaks to stop providing information on what they feel is valuable to them instead of calling for those who value buying by eye to be more vocal.

And it rankles me that people have to pick one or the other and cannot appreciate that beauty and technical appreciation can co-exist peacefully.

Well said Alj. Key word ... balance. Rod IMO is a great example in this thread becuase he is one who used his eyes to compare. Counsel along the same lines should be encouraged to all consumers. If they are looking at a stone that perhaps somehow doesn''t make GIA Ex or AGS Id grade (or makes one or the other), my humble opinion is that they should, just for their own knowledge and if possible, compare what they are considering alongside a GIA Ex/AGS Id type and then decide if the premium (if indeed there is one) is worth it to them or not. Most importantly pick what pleases your lady''s eye the most if you''re getting her involved.

Peace,

 

[belle]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:43:26 PM
Author: fire&ice

All I see from a picture is how large the table is.

that doesn''t mean that''s all anyone can tell from a picture though.

just because *you* can only tell how big the table is doesn''t mean it isn''t a worthy part of the decision making process. i think pictures are extremely helpful because

1. you can determine optical symmetry
2. you can see inclusions
3. you can determine minor facet configuration
(i could probably keep going)

to me, that is very useful and important information. it would absolutely help in narrowing down diamonds beyond the numbers.

arguing that the super loupers are taking things too far is in itself heading that direction. everyone that comes here for advice should take it for what they paid. surely people are at least that intelligent.

 

[decodelighted]

Respectfully ... I interpreted F&I''s original point to be that WE ALL, from time to time, get caught up in "nitpicking". Spec-hounds & Eye-trusters alike. Sometimes we even, gasp, hold newbies'' potential stones up to higher standards than THE STONES WE OWN OURSELVES.

When you get caught up in the "this & the that" and color & pav. angles and white inclusions vs. pinpoints and painting etc etc etc ... it is sometimes TOO MUCH INFO for a newbie.

Soooooo. Not saying anyone should adjust their styles or change their world view ... Just to, perhaps, ask themselves the simple questions "Am I nitpicking?" "Am I asking them to be pickier THAN I WAS?" I think that''s reasonable ...

If you''re in the mood to nitpick, or be the "super idealist" in a thread, or wax poetic about esotericness ... that''s cool! The rest of us will have to speak up & make BALANCE HAPPEN.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 5:18:08 PM
Author: decodelighted
Respectfully ... I interpreted F&I's original point to be that WE ALL, from time to time, get caught up in 'nitpicking'. Spec-hounds & Eye-trusters alike. Sometimes we even, gasp, hold newbies' potential stones up to higher standards than THE STONES WE OWN OURSELVES.

When you get caught up in the 'this & the that' and color & pav. angles and white inclusions vs. pinpoints and painting etc etc etc ... it is sometimes TOO MUCH INFO for a newbie.

Soooooo. Not saying anyone should adjust their styles or change their world view ... Just to, perhaps, ask themselves the simple questions 'Am I nitpicking?' 'Am I asking them to be pickier THAN I WAS?' I think that's reasonable ...

If you're in the mood to nitpick, or be the 'super idealist' in a thread, or wax poetic about esotericness ... that's cool! The rest of us will have to speak up & make BALANCE HAPPEN.

I get that, I really do. But what do you think many of those cut-freaks were before they became cut-freaks? Yep, that's right...they, too, were regular consumers. Speaking for myself, I know I was.

It's up to a newbie to decide how much merit and weight to give to the information given.....and it's up to him to say "look, I don't want the mother of all stones....here are my priorities." And I've seen folks do that with great success.

I've seen people who want D, IF stones patiently outline why they realize it's a mindclean issue and not a visual difference, but they want it anyway. Anyone who comes here has a mouth (or in this instance a keyboard), and they will get as good as they give. The better they outline their priorities, the better information they will get to fit them.

I've seen people say "hey, this is what I can afford" and seen folks respond to pointing out several things that will fit that budget.

I guess what I'm trying to say is......I LIKE the nitpicking, and if someone doesn't find value in it, they are certainly capable of ignoring it. Just as I can ignore the techni-freaks on the electronics board who insist that my choice isn't top-shelf to them.

Unfortunately for us, we don't know if the poster is a nit-picker or not until he tells us. So, since I'm not sure what he will value, I'll offer anything I think MAY be helpful. Up to him what to do with it.

Most of the time, as Storm pointed out, the question is "what is YOUR opinion"....not "what do you think I will like". If asked (either generally or specifically), I see no problem giving it. Doesn't mean anyone else has to agree with it or not....and I expect that others (including the non-Idealsters) are equally free to do likewise.

 

[flopkins]

Hrm... well I have to pop in and give my 2cents -

Alj - while I agree that *in theory* what other ppl''s criteria for diamonds are really shouldn''t make a difference on anyoone''s decision, I have to say that for most people (or, maybe just me, as I probably can''t extrapolate for others) I think it *does* matter what other ppl think/say/opinions are, on some level. I, like many others, got my ering before I found PS, and I have to say, when I found out my diamond was not ''ideal'' I was afraid to post my ring for months, because I felt like ppl would think it ''inferior'' and that people would slam it. And, to PSers'' credit, I got many fine comments about it. But it *is* a bit intimidating for a lot of folks, I think. Of course, this is the nature of a diamond forum. OF course the ppl here are going to obsessed about diamonds, and want to dissect every last detail of them, etc...

And while I also agree that balance is key, I have to echo the senitments of devientdrow and decodelighted, and add that often times I don''t bother posting my opinion on a diamond, and up until recently didn''t even check ROckyTalky regularly, not because I don''t think my opinion is valid, but because, when I see these posts about ''which diamond should I chose'' or whatever, *that I simply do not care* which they choose. THere, I said it.

Yes, the forum is unbalanced. And maybe I should post more if I feel it should be more balanced. That is a good point. But honestly, most of the time I simply don''t care enough about a 40.1 PA vs a 41.1 PA to even bother reading the thread, let alone post.

So I guess my POV is lacking because of laziness and indifference...

oh, and yes...

HELLO, MY NAME IS FLOPKINS AND I HAVE A 60/60 STONE AND I LOVE IT BC MY DH GAVE IT TO ME!!!!!!

 

[fire&ice]

Regarding pictures - I was referring to the one posted by a poster. All you can tell is possibly the table percentage - provided the angle isn''t correct. For all I know, the dark spot could be a piece of dust.

A picture can decieve. I buy from pictures all the time; and, unless it''s a duplicate to something I already have - It never shows the piece in viewing here and now time. .

 

[Rod]

Date: 8/21/2006 5:35:46 PM
Author: flopkins
Hrm... well I have to pop in and give my 2cents -

Alj - while I agree that *in theory* what other ppl''s criteria for diamonds are really shouldn''t make a difference on anyoone''s decision, I have to say that for most people (or, maybe just me, as I probably can''t extrapolate for others) I think it *does* matter what other ppl think/say/opinions are, on some level. I, like many others, got my ering before I found PS, and I have to say, when I found out my diamond was not ''ideal'' I was afraid to post my ring for months, because I felt like ppl would think it ''inferior'' and that people would slam it. And, to PSers'' credit, I got many fine comments about it. But it *is* a bit intimidating for a lot of folks, I think. Of course, this is the nature of a diamond forum. OF course the ppl here are going to obsessed about diamonds, and want to dissect every last detail of them, etc...

And while I also agree that balance is key, I have to echo the senitments of devientdrow and decodelighted, and add that often times I don''t bother posting my opinion on a diamond, and up until recently didn''t even check ROckyTalky regularly, not because I don''t think my opinion is valid, but because, when I see these posts about ''which diamond should I chose'' or whatever, *that I simply do not care* which they choose. THere, I said it.

Yes, the forum is unbalanced. And maybe I should post more if I feel it should be more balanced. That is a good point. But honestly, most of the time I simply don''t care enough about a 40.1 PA vs a 41.1 PA to even bother reading the thread, let alone post.

So I guess my POV is lacking because of laziness and indifference...

oh, and yes...

HELLO, MY NAME IS FLOPKINS AND I HAVE A 60/60 STONE AND I LOVE IT BC MY DH GAVE IT TO ME!!!!!!

Hey Flopkins......so we can like form a kewl 60/60 club and we can like build a platform in a tree and we can like admire the beauty our rocks produce in diffused like light. Sounds like FUN!! It''s nice to see I''m not alone in this 60/60 club.

 

[flopkins]

Rod - I am happy to join the club...

but perhaps you are better with the engineering than me - care to make the tree house?


maybe the super-duper-idealists would have to give a special password to come visit us:

 

[Rod]

Date: 8/21/2006 5:47:11 PM
Author: flopkins
Rod - I am happy to join the club...

but perhaps you are better with the engineering than me - care to make the tree house?


maybe the super-duper-idealists would have to give a special password to come visit us:

No, this is where the super duper idealists would come in handy. We can point out the tree we like and how high we want our platform to be and "they" can give us the exact architectural specifications to ensure we built the "perfect" platform........

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:01:28 PM
Author: belle

Date: 8/21/2006 3:44:47 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/20/2006 7:54:32 PM
Author: fire&iceI LOVE blue fluor. Instead of dissing it, the Cap''t said that someone told him that perfect ''ideal'' diamonds couldn''t come from fluor rough. Made sense. Still didn''t care -

To me - a perpective not a rule. What outways the other? Personal.

I am curious where this came from, I have never heard such a thing. Why would fluorescence have any bearing on whether or not a diamond could be cut to ideal cut grade?

Wink

it makes for a good story wink, just play along

what i want to know is, where did ''outways'' come from?

hehehehe....sorry... now back to the serious discussion.

LOL! That''s me, just playing along...

Speaking of playing, must be about time to introduce painting into this thread...

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 5:35:46 PM
Author: flopkins

Alj - while I agree that *in theory* what other ppl's criteria for diamonds are really shouldn't make a difference on anyoone's decision, I have to say that for most people (or, maybe just me, as I probably can't extrapolate for others) I think it *does* matter what other ppl think/say/opinions are, on some level. I, like many others, got my ering before I found PS, and I have to say, when I found out my diamond was not 'ideal' I was afraid to post my ring for months, because I felt like ppl would think it 'inferior' and that people would slam it.

I can honestly appreciate that perspective, Flopkins.

Speaking just for myself, though, I can only say that your fear is yours.....not mine. I honestly have no control over the fact that you were afraid to post your ring....the same way that others have no control over the fact that I'm so direct.

If you are comfortable letting what others might think keep you from expressing your opinion, that's absolutely your choice and no one (me included) can tell you that you should do something else. Similarly, if I'm comfortable expressing mine, no one should tell me that it's not ok because it's not balanced.

Date: 8/21/2006 5:35:46 PM
Author: flopkins

up until recently didn't even check ROckyTalky regularly, not because I don't think my opinion is valid, but because, when I see these posts about 'which diamond should I chose' or whatever, *that I simply do not care* which they choose. THere, I said it.

Yes, the forum is unbalanced. And maybe I should post more if I feel it should be more balanced. That is a good point. But honestly, most of the time I simply don't care enough about a 40.1 PA vs a 41.1 PA to even bother reading the thread, let alone post.

I applaud that....there's nothing wrong with saying "hey, I don't care what he/she picks."

My only point is: those who WANT balance are the ones who have to provide it. If you want it badly enough, you will, and if you don't (because you don't care or whatever), you won't. Either way is fine by me. I can respect anyone's decision to participate or to abstain from participation.

I respect those who want to bitch about the outcome when they are willing to be part of the solution.

I respect those who want to abstain from participating provided then are also willing to abstain from bitching about the outcome.

I'm less accepting/respecting of the armchair quarterbacking.....the sitting on the sidelines and then bitching about how the game is being played. Just how I feel about it....and I walk the walk.

 

[Rod]

Date: 8/21/2006 5:50:34 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/21/2006 4:01:28 PM
Author: belle

Date: 8/21/2006 3:44:47 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/20/2006 7:54:32 PM
Author: fire&iceI LOVE blue fluor. Instead of dissing it, the Cap''t said that someone told him that perfect ''ideal'' diamonds couldn''t come from fluor rough. Made sense. Still didn''t care -

To me - a perpective not a rule. What outways the other? Personal.

I am curious where this came from, I have never heard such a thing. Why would fluorescence have any bearing on whether or not a diamond could be cut to ideal cut grade?

Wink

it makes for a good story wink, just play along

what i want to know is, where did ''outways'' come from?

hehehehe....sorry... now back to the serious discussion.

LOL! That''s me, just playing along...

Speaking of playing, must be about time to introduce painting into this thread...

Don''t you dare!!!! LOL

 

[fire&ice]

I don''t sit on the sideline and b*tch.

But, when people point and say that I am being insulting & that I believe everyone thinks my opinion is the way everyone thinks.

- even I''m done.

Al, you are firm in your belief. I''m firm on mine. Doesn''t mean that your style of buying doesn''t suit you and visa versa. It''s a balance that should be offered. Neither style is being dissed - just dissed for them.

 

[Mara]

This thread is getting insane!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 5:58:38 PM
Author: fire&ice

Al, you are firm in your belief. I''m firm on mine. Doesn''t mean that your style of buying doesn''t suit you and visa versa. It''s a balance that should be offered.

Gee, I hope you don''t infer that I was trying to suggest you should buy according to my style, or me according to yours. That''s not it at all. As you note, we each know what style of buying suits the other.

What we *don''t* know is which style of buying suits any individual PSer (average customer) when he/she first comes here. So, speaking for myself, I don''t like to presume how much information I think an ''average'' customer needs or wants.

I''d rather he had access to both perspectives. If we both provide our perspectives, there IS balance. If I provide mine and you don''t provide yours, there isn''t balance. It''s up to those who care about balance to provide it.

 

[belle]

Date: 8/21/2006 6:30:23 PM
Author: Mara
This thread is getting insane!

'getting'?

it must be gettng time for some lemon pie

 

[Mara]

Date: 8/21/2006 6:35:31 PM
Author: belle

Date: 8/21/2006 6:30:23 PM
Author: Mara
This thread is getting insane!

''getting''?

time for lemon pie?

ice cream drumsticks for all!!!!

 

[belle]

too many calories in drumsticks. i analyzed them already and nixed them based on the numbers.

besides lemon pie is the best.