your opinion?

[iraweissman]

I'll see your edit, and raise you an edit

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 4/20/2009 9:22:10 AM
Author: iraweissman
I never said Paul recommends stones of his. I said he offers advice advising people to buy the same type of stone he sells.

Nope. He only goes into the techincal discussion regarding cuts and in this thread, clarity. I didn''t see anything thing he wrote that pushing for his type of stone other than that it could hide what you call central dark inclusions.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 4/20/2009 2:27:24 AM
Author: iraweissman

Date: 4/20/2009 2:12:09 AM
Author: civictypesi
Ira, is there an email address where I may contact you?

I can''t private message you (no way to do it on PS) and I can''t post my email address publicly here, so all I can suggest is going to my website and on option #3 there''s a link to a ''contact me'' page.

Ira, you DO realize that you''re not allowed to encourage alternate methods of contacting you, right?

Interesting to see someone break so many PS rules in one thread

 

[iraweissman]

I didn''t think it was a problem, since I didn''t encourage anything. The consumer wanted to contact me. Regardless, I just sent an inquiry to an operator of the board to see if I was in violation. If so, I will edit the post.

Date: 4/20/2009 10:21:08 AM
Author: purrfectpear

Date: 4/20/2009 2:27:24 AM

Author: iraweissman

Date: 4/20/2009 2:12:09 AM

Author: civictypesi

Ira, is there an email address where I may contact you?

I can''t private message you (no way to do it on PS) and I can''t post my email address publicly here, so all I can suggest is going to my website and on option #3 there''s a link to a ''contact me'' page.

Ira, you DO realize that you''re not allowed to encourage alternate methods of contacting you, right?


Interesting to see someone break so many PS rules in one thread

 

[Rockdiamond]

Ira- I really feel like I'm sticking my head into the lion's mouth here- as I have had disagreements with Paul that have been similar in nature to yours. I do so as you've rasied some very valid points.
Paul's attitude really does seem to be "Agree with me, or you're a dinosaur who refuses to accept science"
I've accepted the fact that some people's minds are set in stone- Paul probably feels that way about me. There are readers and posters here that are completely sold on the "facts" Paul puts and others put forth.
Don;t believe for a second that everyone here feels that way.
I've gotten many letters from people who were glad someone in the trade took the time and effort to bring a different point of view into the conversation.
It's not exactly "wise" to disagree publicly ( as you've learned)- but many PS readers don't feel the same way as some of the more vocal posters. To the credit of the people who run PS, they have allowed this type of convesation to occur-thereby enriching the entire forum with different points of veiw.

There's many things you and I agree on Ira.

Please take this as constructive criticism, but I do feel that the title and premise of your website is misleading.

Just as we both feel that there are different points of view- that not everything Paul iand others are saying is "Truth" carved in stone, neither is it proper to call your site "Truth about diamonds"
It's a site designed to sell diamonds for one particular company. Just like it's important for "infomercials" to be properly identified, so should your site.
The title seems to attempt to hide the true purpose.
And as we clearly agree on, there's different "truths" which can co-exist.
When one person tries to invalidate others' points of view by calling their own viewpoint "Truth", the implcation is that any other way of looking at it is a lie, or false.
When that happens, you get the type of conversation you've had here for a few days......

 

[iraweissman]

Hi David. I greatly appreciate your response and comforting words.

As regards my website, I''m pretty sure it would be against forum rules for me to respond and explain to you why I did what I did on my personal website not related to PS. I will try to track you down privately, and perhaps we can continue the conversation there.

Thanks,
Ira

Date: 4/20/2009 2:53:36 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Ira- I really feel like I''m sticking my head into the lion''s mouth here- as I have had disagreements with Paul that have been similar in nature to yours. I do so as you''ve rasied some very valid points.

Paul''s attitude really does seem to be ''Agree with me, or you''re a dinosaur who refuses to accept science''

I''ve accepted the fact that some people''s minds are set in stone- Paul probably feels that way about me. There are readers and posters here that are completely sold on the ''facts'' Paul puts and others put forth.

Don;t believe for a second that everyone here feels that way.

I''ve gotten many letters from people who were glad someone in the trade took the time and effort to bring a different point of view into the conversation.

It''s not exactly ''wise'' to disagree publicly ( as you''ve learned)- but many PS readers don''t feel the same way as some of the more vocal posters. To the credit of the people who run PS, they have allowed this type of convesation to occur-thereby enriching the entire forum with different points of veiw.


There''s many things you and I agree on Ira.


Please take this as constructive criticism, but I do feel that the title and premise of your website is misleading.


Just as we both feel that there are different points of view- that not everything Paul iand others are saying is ''Truth'' carved in stone, neither is it proper to call your site ''Truth about diamonds''

It''s a site designed to sell diamonds for one particular company. Just like it''s important for ''infomercials'' to be properly identified, so should your site.

The title seems to attempt to hide the true purpose.

And as we clearly agree on, there''s different ''truths'' which can co-exist.

When one person tries to invalidate others'' points of view by calling their own viewpoint ''Truth'', the implcation is that any other way of looking at it is a lie, or false.

When that happens, you get the type of conversation you''ve had here for a few days......

 

[Rockdiamond]

You''re welcome Ira- but there''s really nothing to discuss privately.
I promise, I really do feel it''s a bad name - you''re not going to change my mind.
I also feel that you are doing exactly what you object to others doing here- stating your opinion but calling it a fact.
I am hyper sensitive to this as we "live on the web"- I''ve seen so many bad sites- even the hint of impropriety is a terrible thing.
Clearly your less than transparent affiliation with one vendor, and the fact you label your opinions "facts" you''ve really crossed that line IMO>

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Good morning from Dallas, TX, gentlemen, and thank you for the nice words about me.

Sad to see that you are both misquoting any objections that I have raised in the past. Anyway, after my activities here are taken care of (in a few days), I would like to come back into this thread and identify point per point where Ira has been giving incorrect information.

As for both your problems with me objecting you, let me already tackle this. I cannot help it if you cannot accept and understand a simple concept as reflector technology and a simple tool like the idealscope. Both of you brushing it of as a gimmick is not an example of a different opinion. It is an example of stubbornly refusing to accept simple fysics.

It is the same as stating that gravity does not exist. If you offer such incorrect information, it is normal that someone takes the time to call you out.

In the case of Ira, he has achieved a record of constantly bringing up such incorrect statements in less than a week''s presence on this forum. Because it is such a long list, and because some of it particularly are about myself, my company and my product, I need to take some extra time to react to this. I will come back to you in a few days.

Live long,

 

[Rockdiamond]

You're quite welcome Paul!
Thanks for the nice words about me too.

ALthough I may have done so years ago, I do not believe I have called reflector technology a "gimmick" here on PS.
If I did, I was incorrect in that categorization.

It's never productive when a disagreement degenerates into name calling- that really serves no purpose.
I'm pretty sure we can agree on that.

My position is not that reflector technology is ineffective.
Rather, that the information they generate is not necessarily Germain to many people who want to buy a diamond.

I'm operating real world here.
Dealing with a broad swatch of people.
Although a lot of people read Pricescope, most of the people buying diamonds in as jewelry stores- as well as the internet, do not read any diamond forum.
Not all of them are totally misinformed, and getting ripped off.
Not all are buying bad stones.

If we are talking about 95% of the regular posters here on PS, ASET and IS images are quite important.

If we're talking about readers of Pricescope- as opposed to regular posters- the numbers are not nearly as biased.

But it's very dangerous to disagree with this point specifically. Many other things, no problem.
I say this with all due respect, but it's true.
It might even be impolite to raise a different view point- if so, I apologize.

Paul, you equated Newton's Law of Gravity with Reflector technology.
The principles might have everything to do with physics- but diamonds, and how people look at them do not always follow suit.

You drop an apple there is absolutely ZERO doubt.
It will fall ( if you're on Earth)

Show two diamonds to 100 people- one does great on the reflector technology, the other is a diamond I might consider well cut, that does not score well in the IS ASET. Show these diamonds to people in all lighting. Show these diamonds to people who love diamonds, but have never read a forum.

Is your argument that 100% of the people will pick the stone that did better on the IS ASET?
Or, is the argument that anyone who picks the "other" stone is someone who refuses to accept science?

 

[strmrdr]

Hi David,
I wanted to say your posting style in general is much improved over when you first rejoined.
Have you found one of the 60/60s you admire yet?
I haven''t heard anything in a while.
I am positive you will find out that reflectors work just as well on them.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you very much Karl- your words really mean a lot.
No doubt, it helps anyone to learn to better express things so as not to insult, or inflame any situation. Thank you as well for being a good motivator in that regard.

Thankfully, we've been quite busy- I have not scoured the market, and most of the stones we see are cut with smaller tables.
There's no question in my mind Lazare Kaplan- I believe they coined the phrase "Ideal Cut" sometime in the early '80's started a trend that would change the way diamonds were cut.
Many people still prefer a "spreadier" stone, when given the choice side by side- but the "ideal cut" trend is pervasive. SO much so that it's difficult to even find 60/60's nowadays.