Jim-
Thanks for the reply. My bosses in NYC have been running me ragged filing stories on Question 9, and I had an out-of-town guest in Vegas over the weekend who had never gotten a lap dance, so I had to show her a good time. Now that I have a free moment, allow me to respond to a few of your statements in an attempt to at least clarify some of my own.

“Slabbed chips are heinous, but you are entitled to have any opposing view you like and I will be the last person to tell you that you can't have or express that view, here or anywhere else.”

I think many misinterpreted my statements on free speech. I have never had anyone on this board try to deny my rights to express an opinion. It’s part of why I love it here. I was referring to those who would advocate banning all slabbed chips from the convention. As far as I’m concerned, that is a feeble attempt to stifle debate. People speak not only through their words but through actions and examples (and as you point out below, by exercising their economic power). If a dealer wants to sell slabbed chips, and demonstrate to buyers why they are so great, he should be entitled to do that. I believe that keeping those dealers out is an attempt to stifle the opposition.

"I am a great admirer of Thomas Jefferson. There is, however, an interesting anomaly in your comments. You advocate a "marketplace" of ideas, but fail to see (or at least fail to acknowledge) that the "boatload of other people" you mentioned above is the "marketplace" and we are expressing our "ideas" in the only way that the "marketplace" truly understands (that is, by exercising our economic power to oppose a product we think not only worthless but detrimental to our hobby).”

Individuals opposed to slabbing should most definitely exercise their power by refusing to purchase slabbed chips -- as I would do myself. However, if the majority (who oppose slabbed chips) attempts to ban those chips from the market they are not simply expressing their ideas economically, they are also preventing the minority (those who would purchase such chips) the opportunity to economically express the opposing ideas.

“I'm not at all concerned whether my "views" can or cannot stand up to the opposition. They have expressed their views, I've expressed mine. As Andy Hughes mentioned in his response, we had a panel discussion seminar on slabbing at the 2001 convention. I was one of the panelists, presenting the anti-slabbing position. The other panelists were CT Rogers (a chip dealer who was pro-slabbing), Ken Hallenbeck (then vice president of the club, a long time coin guy and very pro-slabbing) and Steve Rocchi of Collectors Universe, the original and most prominent of the slabbing companies.

“I welcomed the opportunity to debate the issue with them and would have no qualms about doing so again. A willingness to engage in debate, however, goes only so far. At some point, the debate has to end and action has to be taken, one way or the other. It is simply my view (not shared by all those who are anti-slabbing) that the appropriate action is to prohibit slabs entirely from the club's venues, including the convention.”

I think I’ve made the point above, but to reiterate, it appears to me you are willing to accept opposing views when expressed verbally, but would deny the opposition the chance to express them economically.

As for the army debate, my the subject of my analogy (although it may not have been a great analogy to begin with) was the U.S. military in 1991, and the fact that I was opposed to their specific actions at that time in history. I have no qualms with the U.S. military as a whole, although I do disagree with most of the causes for which it was utilized during the latter half of the 20th century.

“H'm. You want a debate, but we should have to leave the country because our point of view differs from yours? Now there's a real Jeffersonian concept.”

I never said anyone should HAVE TO leave the country. I simply suggested that people who prefer to only allow one side of an argument to be represented would be more comfortable in a totalitarian country.

Thanks for the reply, and I hope I've at least cleared up my statements. I welcome your thoughts or opinions.

Al