In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

So WHAT, Brian? Steve is Pro code test, so you decide everyone who is
pro code test is like Steve?

If Steve has a problem with anonymous posters, so what?

Nursie only has "problems" with those who think differently than her.

Hypocrisy with hysteresis.

I think you and Brian should take it up with Steve.

We have. In public. That's what has you up a tree and yelling. :-)

I'm certainly not going to condemn every anonymous poster no matter if
they disagree with me or not. I won't condemn Blackguard or Quitefine or
Leo or any of them.

But...you WILL side with them, even cheer them on, if they are PCTA.

And you say I have a thing about stating the obvious!

Once again, *so what*? You'll side with an anonymous NCTA or interested

No code test person.

If an anonymousie shows up, then they are unidentified. No one can
really know what their opinions on the code test are... Hi hi.

To expect me to bust someone's chops because they are anonymous and
express an opinion that I agree with is unrealistic and a bit odd. Fight
your own fights.

Tsk. Nobody's "chops were busted." :-)

If you have a beef with chops, then get ham. Or fish around for
another tasty subject. Or vegetate.

The only "fighting" or "chop busting" going on is the self-perceived
activity going on in the mind of individual readers.

It ain't my fight, and you'll not be able to make it my fight. I may
occasionally have something to say if one of them makes a particularly
offensive post, but none of them have.

You ARE making it a fight! :-)

Absolutely not! :^) Brian wants me to condemn them because Steve does.
Ain't my fight at all.

If it isn't "your fight," then why are you spending so much time talking
about other "fights?" :-)

You are taking two different things here, notably the fact that some of

us don't condemn anonymous posters, and furthermore, we also don't
condemn anonymous posters that may agree with us, and expecting
something that just isn't human nature. Now when the anonymous poster
disagrees with us, its more likely that a person will say something
negative about the anonymous poster, but that doesn't mean we all have to.

Nobody is forcing you to support the anonymousie PCTA-ers. :-)

But you do. Hi hi.

LIB! I've been here for years now and it's official now. I'm a PCTA!

"LIB?" :-)

Coslo, you support the anonymousie PCTA types. You must. You
don't "bust their chops."

I'd say you secretly support them by not saying nasty about Their
saying nasty.

You can post as Billybeeper all day as far as I am concerned. Leo is
civil, and I have no problem with that.

But you DO have a problem here, don't you? Hi hi.

Nope.

To (again) state the obvious, you've already devoted much of your time
to talking about "chop busting" and "fights." You DO have a problem.

Steve thinks elsewise. Argue the point with him.

There is NO argument with the gunnery nurse. She never does
or says anything wrong. :-)

Frankly my dear Lenover21, I don't give a damn about Steve and his mode

of expression.

Right. Another example of the PCTA extra Double Standard. Hi hi.

I don't particularly care for it, but he and you and
Brian have carved out a relationship that seems to give all of you what
you seek in here.

I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

We "have a relationship?"

I have no "relationship" with any uncouth left-over marine who
thinks that a purchasing agent job equals "engineering." Hi hi.

I don't have any "relationship" with some SOB (the B stands for
Beeper) who wants to insult my wife and imply harm is coming
to me and my family.

You have a very strange comment and have driven way out of the
limits of definitions of the word "relationship."

Not our argument, Brian. I don't think I've ever made a condemnation of

an anonymous poster, with the possible exception of a fellow that I
outed a year or so ago. And I'm not sure if I dissed him or just outed
him. But even if I did, it may have come across in a post in which I was
arguing with someone. At which point it was part of our argument. And If
I did, it was not a good point.

Take your moderator's job up with the Bored of Arbitration.

I believe that is the job you are attempting to do.

I'm not bored. :-)

Meanwhile, look up a bunch of cute Yiddish pejoratives, find out
what they mean. Or demean. Then check back who has used them
repeatedly.

Why? I don't use Yiddish.

You would if someone called you a "Putz" for over a year in public.

You'd learn what it would be if you were called a Schmuck in public.

You and Brian certainly have a strange
obsession with Steve that seem to make it impossible to post to anyone
else without mixing *them* up with Steve.

I have an "obsession?" With whom? :-)

I am doggedly persistent in showing how the morse code test is a
Dump Huck idea, worthless in this day and age of radio hobbyists,
and good only for bragging rights of the olde-tyme hammes of the
ARS [Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society].

Call that an "obsession" if you must. You are non-conformist in
your definitions of words.

Coslo, you started this particular thread. Did you do that because
your "chops got busted?" Hi hi.

What are you going to do for an encore? Try to have the last word?

Hi hi.