On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:39:23 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Jim
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:02:18 -0700, Peter W. Rowe
discovered a keyboard and, for our
edification and amusement, submitted

However, Currently, it's not the biggest, or the finest, diamond around. And
for sheer size, the Cullinan, originally weighing in at over 3100 carats (one
and a third POUNDS) is still the largest rough diamond ever found, or at least,
the largest one we have records of. It's also one of the finer quality stones
ever found too.

Peter

Allin all, gentlemen, this exchange has been one of the most enjoyable
and educational instances of Chauvinism I've come across -- and I do
NOT mean anything derogatory in the use of that term. I grant you both
the laurel wreaths!
Blessed be, for sure...

From Wikipedia, as good a definition as any. Similar to Websters for all
intents and purposes...

"Chauvinism" == in its original and primary meaning,
is an exaggerated, bellicose patriotism and a blind belief in national
superiority and glory. [1] By extension it has come to include an extreme and
unreasoning partisanship on behalf of any group to which one belongs,
especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival
group..."

Within the scope of that definition, I have to disagree with your
characterization, sir. First of all, neither I, nor Ganesh, have written
anything that suggests extreme or unreasoning partisanship, nor have either of
us displayed anything even remotely sounding of malice or hatred. We're
talking about stones only, after all, not cultures, peoples, national
populations, or anything of that sort to which that term usually applies. Ganesh
has shown us only that he's proud of the Heritage of Indian diamonds, and
perhaps, jthat he's either less impressed with or less informed about diamonds
from other sources. As I've also pointed out, Indian diamonds DO indeed have a
wealth of history behind them that many other diamond sources do not have, and
this is well deserving of respect, particularly when one of the main aspects of
the desireability of diamonds or any other gem is in fact, the history and lore
of those stones. . I've conceeded this, and certainly Ganesh seems to believe
it. Nothing chauvinistic there. Simply a difference in opinion regarding the
importance of some of the facts involved. Differences of opinion regarding
various aspects of the facts, as well as perhaps some discounting of some of the
facts may involve national pride, but in the absence of malice or disparaging
comments about stones other than from India, I'd say there is nothing in this
exchange that rises to the definition of chauvinism on Ganesh's part, and I
certainly hope you're not suggesting that my posts meet that definition either.

And for the record, even if you didn't mean it as such, the term itself carries
negative connotations. Perhaps you'd care to substituted some less intense
term?

if indeed, Ganesh's posts had clearly shown the sort of emotional irrationality
normally associated with the term chauvinist, I probably would not have
bothered to react to his posts with any sort of reply. Were they really
classic chauvinism, I'd probably in fact have rejected them as spam or otherwise
against the terms of the group charter...

Peter