bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a
mirror
up
to
them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing.

You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you.

You're in denial, Brian...No problem...WE see it...

Who? You and you anonymous "attacker?"

(1) I am not a victim

"(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi!

I imagine you hear a lot of laughter, Brian....

That's how hams laugh.

Strange...When I laugh it sounds more like "hahaha".

So why do you type,
"Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !!!"

and not all of it
from kids playing in the yard or the "laugh track" on your
favorite
sitcom.

I'm not big on sitcoms. You provide enough comic relief for me.

The sad part, Brian, is that the laugh's on you. You just
can't
or won't see it.

You're only partly correct. I don't see it because it isn't there.

Sure it is.

You're the lone lost patrol on rrap. You're an Army of one.

Perhaps...but then the number of real idiots is only a few. It
doesn't take that much to
rein them in.

There's no lying involved, Brian, other than your attempt
to
redirect the specific comments being made.

Nice try. Very transparent.

No dodge, plymouth, nor chrysler. You lied.

Cute. Still doesn't change anything. And no, I did not lie.

That makes lie #5.

You've not provided 1 through 4 yet, Brain.

Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery
e-mailer...

But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you
making
yet
another lie?

Nope.

Show it.

It's in this thread chain, Brian. Help yourself.

So you're taking the fifth?

Nope.

QUOTE HEADER ONLY:

Apr 5, 12:16 pm hide options

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Apr 2005 12:16:41 -0700
Local: Tues, Apr 5 2005 12:16 pm
Subject: A Special Reply to a Private E-Mail Threat
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

From: "bb" on Mon, Apr 4 2005 4:25 pm:

UNQUOTE:

You try to redirect, and I refuse to allow you. No
problem.

Big problem(s). You lied. You lied four times. You lied about
your
inuendo...(SNIP)

There was no "innuendo". There was YOU trying to make
something
out of something else said.

Sorry Steve, anyone with more than half their brain tied behind their
back would see your inuendo. How's Jim?

What inuendo, and which Jim? There's at least four that post in
here on a semi-regular basis.
Also, I kow at least two "Jim's" at work and a couple each in CAP and
the local Amateur Radio club.

(UNSNIP)...you lied when you characterized the anon e-mailer as
and
"attacker,"...(SNIP)

I didn't say he made an attack, Brian.

You characterized him/her as an "attacker."

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh...Now I CHARACTERIZED them as an "attacker"....Nice
way to try and get around yet
another comprehension/attetnion gaffe, eh, Brian?

I'm curious how you define an "attacker?"

Why? The issue here is not what I consider an
"attacker"...It's about you substantiating
claims you've made.

Perhaps an attacker is a person who makes attacks???

Seven hostile attacks???

I guess you were trying to say something there, Brian...but it got
lost in the silliness.

I said he made a threat to
forward my other comments to the family of the young lady whose
picture
we were discussing. The word "attack" was the other
correspondants,
not mine.

So you define as a threat someone who passes your comment on to the
person you made the comments about?

In to context in which the respondant was making such claims, yes.

You're pretty weak in the knees on this one.

Nope.

(UNSNIP)...you lied about all of it not being a problem for
anyone
except your anonymous "attacker," and then you lied about Len's
involvement in this thread.

I didn't say Lennie was involved in the thread. Re-read what
was
written originally, Brian!

"Len"

Lennie. And you STILL haven't acknowledged the original
statements, Brian.

Seems you and the anonymous lying coward have the same reading
and
comprehension deficits, Brian.

So how is Jim?

Which Jim? Why should I know? What does "Jim" have to do with
your refusal to substantiate an
obvioulsy flawed assertion?

I wonder how many lies you'll tell tomorrow?

None...So far, you've not shown where I lied at all, Brian.

One so far. See above.

Still zero, Brian.

You would have to matter for that to happen,and you just
don't
matter.

Obviously not true, since responding to posts I make
accounts
for
over 85% of YOUR posts.

What's your track record?

Oh, I make no "warranty" about what and how I post.

You couldn't honor the warranty when it comes due.

There being none, there is none to honor.

Then you are honorless. But we knew that already.

Again...How can one "honor" something that is not in place?

I quite
readily acknowledge that I am quite ready to stand toe-to-toe
with
those who are obviously lying, misrepresenting Amateur Radio,
or
inisist on acting foolishly in public.

Toe to toe?

Yep.

Sounds like a fight.

It would be if there was a capable "opponent". You do not
qualify.

Welp, you got called on your inuendo, you got called on
characterizing
the anon e-mailer as an "attacker," you got called on your lying,
and
now the mirror is being help up for you to see yourself as the
liar
that you are.

I didn't make any innuendo.

You did.

Your opinion. YOU editorialized on my comments. The context you
took it in was not what was
stated or intended.

You injected your own opinion.

Opinions are not allowed, Oh Master Gunny?

I wasn't a Master Gunny...And sure, opinon is allowed...as long as
you remember what is opinion and
what is fact. And the FACTS are that my comments were neitehr stated
with the intent or objective that
you and the respondant were implying.

I didn't call the e mailer an "attacker".

You repeated it often enough.

I didn't repeat ANYthing, Brian.

I have YET to call the other party an "attcaker".

Everyone reading this KNOWS that YOU are lying, Brian...Becasue
they can go back and read the thread and
see that you are yourself lying.

Here are all of my comments from March 31st, the date of my
original post. For brevity, I have snipped everyone else's
comments,
however you can easily cross-check the other thread to see that I
have
not "edited" my own words, even for typos:

QUOTE:

Hello Everyone,


In the thread about " Selling 52 Simplex Radios", the following
comments were made by Mike Coslo, "Rabbi Phil" and myself:


QUOTE:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Rabbi Phil wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

(SNIPPAGE HERE)

Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had
that

young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem
selling
SOMEthing!

UNQUOTE:

So...later this morning I received a private e-mail from one
of
RRAP'S regular posters.

I have snipped the person's name, call sign and e mail headers
since the letter was sent in private e-mail. However the e-mail
made
some very damning comments and a not-so-subtle threat.

"not-so-subtle threat???"

Yep.

And you said "I didn't call the e mailer an "attacker"."

I didn't.

Please find ONE sentence under my screen name wherein I have
called the third party an

I guess people who make threats aren't attackers.

No attack occured.

QUOTE:

In rrap Steve Robeson wrote:

Burghardt in NY has had that
young lady in the tight fitting sweater
for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing!
73
Steve, K4YZ

Burghardt Amateur Center is not in NY. It's a family business
which
was established by Stan Burghardt, W0IT (SK) 68 years ago in a
small
South Dakota town.

A few years ago one of Stan's long-time employees, Jim Smith W0MJY,
purchased the business from Stan and became the second owner. It
remains a family owned business, and the lady you mention is Jim's
daughter, Michele, KC0MYV, a wholesome midwesterner who is very
active
in running the "business side" of the store. Often she is pictured
standing alongside her dad in their QST ads, never in my knowledge
in
a

provocative sweater.

The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling
SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever
seen

on rrap. I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on
rrap
by

the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments
to
Michele and Jim.

UNQUOTE

He's wrong. I've seen you make substantially greater threats on
rrap.

Such as...?!?!

Here's my response to this "letter", made in a very public
forum
so

that the correspondant can't make any other assinine insinuations
or
out-of-context editorializing:

(1) I stand corrected on the South Dakota -vs- New York. My
bust.

I chalked that up to an honest mistake, not one of your four (4)
lies.

You've still not provided a SINGLE lie, let alone four, Brian.

(2) I am sure the young lady is very good at what she does,
and
is every bit the "wholesome" person you report. I NEVER said
anything
to the contrary. You are welcome to cite the part of the post
wherein
I said differently, but you and I both know it's not there.

That's what makes it inuendo. If you had meant that she was actually
selling radios rather than "SOMEthing" else in a tight sweater, you
would have typed a five letter word (radio) without capitalization
rather than a 9-letter codeword implying "SOMEthing" else in that
tight
sweater.

That's your interpretation, Brian, but one already disporven.

(3) The young lady's character and wholesomeness
notwithstanding,

"character and wholesomeness notwithstanding???"

Is there any question about her character and wholesomeness???"

Your an idiot.

Nope.

You are out-of-context, Brian...Nice try.

THEY obviously had NO PROBLEM in posing her in a tight sweater,
profile, in order to attract some male attention to thier ads.
"Rabbi
Phil" commented about someone else "selling radios" with pictures
of
pretty women. I pointed out that another Amateur dealer had been
doing
the same thing, and obviously it worked. Pictures of pretty women
sell
everything from soft drinks to firearms to high speed automobiles.
Amateur Radio is no different. No problem.

Idiot. Why don't you put up a picture of your "wholesome" spouse
instead of that guy in a tight Air Force flight suit to register more
hits...?

Register more hits on what? I am not selling anything. And if
you're refering to me about the flight
suit, it's not tight. Matter of fact, it's a bit too baggy.

Now, Dear Anonymous Writer (anonymous HERE...since you and I
both
know who you are)...You can go RIGHT AHEAD and forward ANYthing you
like to ANY one you like. Tell them about "how trashy" the item
was,
if you want, but it IS archived right ehre in Google.

You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do
that
people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments
all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off
thier
backs. This is one of those moments.

Have a nice day.

Steve, K4YZ

UNQUOTE

OK, Brain...YOU show US wherein I called the anonymous
correspondant an "attacker".

Matter of fact, go back to the original thread and go through
any
of the posts I made and find one where I called the correspondant
an
"attacker".

Thankfully that sub-group of ner-do-wells is fairly
narrow.
You.
Lennie. Todd. Mark Morgan. The fairly few number of
anonymous
cowards who haven't got the guts or strength of conviction to
stand
behind thier already lame game.

"Thier" lame game?

Look, you're the one playing off-duty COP on rrap.

What "cop"...?!?! The only thing I have "arrested" is the
promulgation of further lies, mistruths and assinine assertions by
you,
Lennie and Todd. So far, while not 100% effective, it's worked.

You've created more lies in the past few days than the opinions that
you try to "correct."

Nurse, heal thyself.

Heal myself of what?

You've shot off
your mouth once too often and someone is now trying to get back
at
you
with vile comments about your daughter.

They are vile and speak to the character of the "author".
He'll
get his eventually.

And you never acknowledge my thanks to you.

I didn't make my comment for you. I made them for your daughter.

My daughter doesn't need your help, Brian. But it WAS me that
uttered the gratuity. Guess that it was
too much to expect you to acknowledge it.

You shot off your mouth again
about a young woman in an amateur radio advertisement, and some
anonymous rrapper called you on it.

There was no "shooting" off of anyone's mouth. There was a
comment about how effective the presence of a pretty woman in an
Amateur Radio advertisment helps to sell Amateur Radio equipment.

Indeed.

Absolutely indeed.

Unless you know something I don't know about it, "sex" is a
multi-billion dollar selling tool. I can't drive the few minutes
to
work without passing a half dozen biilborads that have beautiful
women
and handsome men hawking some goods on it...

"SOMEthing"

Lot's of things. Deodorant. Cars. Trips to Aruba. Tupperware.


You stand alone. No one supports your latest gaffe.

So far, Mike Coslo made a statement that very celarly said
that
the statement could be read as such. He was correct.

"could be..."

Yep. YOUR statement was that I "stand alone".

You were AGAIN proven wrong.

Sucks to be you.

And so far, neither you, any of the anonymous lying cowards,
the
original correspondant or Lennie have disproven otherwise.

I know the difference between a "radio" and "SOMEthing in a tight
sweater." And so do you.

I know that full figured women in tight fitting sweaters get my
attention and draw it to billboards,
TV ads, and even print ads in QST...Just like I said before.

But it would help. So far you've made countless accusations
of
mental defect, but have yet to prove a one.

One day you'll be picked up and everyone will nod "we suspected, but
what's a person to do?"

And you still have not told us what YOUR professional credentials
are to make such an assessment.

I, on the otherhand, have two decades of experience from which to
make an informed opinion.

On the OTHER hand, YOU have made COUNTLESS assertions and
misrepresentations that you can't or won't substantiate, your
LATEST
being the one that ARES can't/won't respond to any "major"
emergency
due to alleged age, infirmity or previous obligations of the
members.

We're focusing on your problems here. Don't try the old dodge,
plymouth, and chrysler routine.

The issue here was YOUR opinion of what YOU thought I said...Not
what was ACTUALLY said or the

Someone here HAS some issues to deal with Brian...But it's not
me.

Of course you don't. You're unable to take that very first step
because you're in denial.

There's nothing to deny other than it's great fun rubbing your
nose in your own mistruths and aborted efforts
to redirect attention away from your other on-going efforts to "dodge"
the questions posed to you
vis-a-vis ARES and it's supposed inability to respond to emergencies.

Now...THIS post asks you to explain several of YOUR "gaffes",
and
provides SPECIFIC quotes that DISPROVE your silly allegations.

Oh, geez, some old man having to pull two shifts and complaining that
he has to pull two shifts?

I didn't see him complaining...That was yet another BillyBeeper
insertion of opinion.

Hang me high because a tired old man complains about two shifts!

I would if I could, but I still don't see where a "tired old man"
was complainng of
ANYthing...I do, however, see YOU trying to avoid the questions put to
you.

So how are you going to climb out from under THIS one, Brian?
Disappear for another couple weeks and hope we forget about YOUR
lying?

Steve, K4YZ

Me climb out??? Hi, hi!

Yes. You.

This must be the place where you would type, "BWHA ha ha ha ha ha

ha................................................ .................................................. ..............................................!"

You made the inuendo, you made another four lies to cover it, and
today
you produce yet another lie -as- predicted. Too bad for you.

You claim I've lied five times.

You've not provided a single one of them.

Now...what were they?

Steve, K4YZ