RadioBanter - View Single Post

April 18th 05, 11:28 PM

wrote:
From: on Sun,Apr 17 2005 9:29 am

wrote:
From: on Sat,Apr 16 2005 8:44 am

You're misquoting all over the place, Len. But it doesn't matter.
Here, I'll clear it up:

This is NOT a court of law and "exactness" of quoting
is NOT required...

Are you afraid of exact quotes, Len? You seem to be.

except by those who live for the
pitiful "word battle" and self-glorification.

You mean like someone who needs to talk about his past
as a PROFESSIONAL over and over and over again?

MARS and amateur radio aren't the same thing. But many radio
amateurs
are involved in MARS.

The MILITARY Affiliate Radio System is DIRECTED by the
Department of Defense. They function quite well by
sole use of military personnel.

No hams are involved in MARS?

See the links to the
actual words of the DoD DIRECTIVE posted in here...see
the links to several of the "Grecian Firebolt" radio
exercises posted in here.

Were you a part of that exercise, Len?

That's my position. If Steve says different, argue with *him*.

Considering that James P. Miccolis is a "good buddie"
of that wonderful representative of a modern U.S.
Amateur Extra, that is a specious comment of yours. :-)

Not specious at all, Len. You hold me responsible for what someone
else does. Doesn't work like that, Len.

You HAVE supported him in the recent past and not long
ago disavowed any attempt to control his emotional
outbursts.

What you're saying is that if I agree with him on something,
I'm somehow responsible for everything he does.

MARS always was and remains a MILITARY radio system.

But most of the participants aren't in the military.

How do YOU know?

I have sources, Len.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That is acceptible

"acceptable", Len. A PROFESSIONAL writer doesn't make
such mistakes. ;-)

ONLY to reputable
journalistic practice. YOU are NOT a "reputable
journalist." You do NOT have the qualifications.
You are NOT INVOLVED in journalism. :-)

Neither are you, Len.

Do you feel insulted by my posts, Len? It seems so - you seem to
find
insult in everything.

Not me.

Yes, you.

You are the one with daydreaming about the
"need" of morsemanship in amateur radio licensing
test.

You really are unable to handle opposition and difference of
viewpoints, Len.

Oh, yes, that ties right in with a Canadian museum
having morse code in its window...sure...

Those windows really seem to bother you.

? I wash windows. I like Microsoft windows.

I figured you for a Mac user, Len. ;-)

What "bothers" me is that a NON-SERVUNG

"SERVUNG"?

What does that mean?

(EVER) person
tried to make out like he was the "expert" on the
United States military use of radio.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything, Len. I think
the fact that I pointed out some of your mistakes really
burns your bacon.

You are NOT QUALIFIED for such a judgement. shrug

Sure I am.

What has that to do with your claim that:

"If you ain't got the guts to tell the details, you AIN'T done it.
Simple as that."

That's what you wrote, Len. Does it only apply to Steve and not to
Brian.

Simple. Brian has NOT insulted me personally, not even
many times over. Robeson HAS and continues to do it.

Ah, I see.

If someone agrees with you and demonstrates the proper kudos,
you accept what they say as absolute fact, without any details or
supporting evidence.

But if someone disagrees with you, and maybe "returns your fire"
in the form of name calling and other jackass behavior, you
demand "proof" and deny the reality of their experience. In fact,
you claim that:

"If you ain't got the guts to tell the details, you AIN'T done it.
Simple as that."

Of course you've also demonstrated that no matter what proof is
presented, you won't accept it, and will attack the messenger.

So there's no reason to give you details or proof.

I'm just showing what a damn LIAR he is.

What lie?

The claim he has made is that he found someone who knew you from
when
you were allegedly at NADC. And that someone says you didn't do such
a
great job there.

That's the LIE you are referring to.

That he found someone, or what the person said?

Why do you say "allegedly" there?

Because I don't know for sure. You've made mistakes before.

Why should I accept your words as fact when you don't accept mine?

If you don't believe I
was there (I was), then Robeson's claim is irrelevant.

No, it isn't.

Either you were there, or you weren't. That's objective reality.
Whether I believe it or not doesn't affect whether you were
there or not.

You claim without proof that no such person exists. So it's your
word against his.

Why do you feel you are INVOLVED with Robeson?

What involvement? I'm simply pointing out some facts.

You've already disavowed any capability of controlling
his emotional tantrums in here.

So? *You* can't control his emotional tantrums "in here", either,
despite all your alleged knowledge of human nature and psychology, etc.

In fact, Len, you can't even control your own emotional tantrums "in
here" ;-)

Now maybe it's true and maybe it isn't. But it's basically your word
against that of some unknown person.

IMAGINARY person.

The only way that could be proved true is if:

1) You were never at NADC, so nobody could know you from there.

2) Everyone who knew you there is now dead or otherwise unable to
communicate with Steve.

3) You have complete information that no one you knew there has
communicated with Steve.

I can't "disprove" something that doesn't exist.

So it's your word against his. Nothing more or less.

If you wish a reference to the fact that I WAS at NADC
or that I worked with NADC engineers in the 1970s, you
can verify that with KD6JG.

Why? Was he there with you? How do I know his information is reliable?

More important - how would it prove that Steve has not communicated
with someone who knew you there?

Jimmie boy, you are getting VERY tiring with all this
"intellectual word gaming" in here.

Now there you go, Len, trying to make me angry by calling me names.

The fact is you know you've painted yourself into a logical corner,
and you're trying to bluff and bluster your way out.

Can't you take "strong opposition"?

All you are doing
is WASTING TIME of others.

How? I'm simply pointing out some of your mistakes and holes in your
logic. Do you consider what you write to be a waste of time?

I have plenty of time but
grow tired of your constant petulance.

What "petulance", Len? I'm not calling you names.

You have NO return on any investment.

That's not what my monthly statements say! ;-)

All you seem to do is follow
your buddie's word and SUPPORT him. You have NO proof
that this imaginary "reference" of Robeson exists,
can NOT present it to anyone else.

I'm not trying to prove it one way or the other. That's for
you and Steve to do. I'm just pointing out that your claims
are as unproven as his.

It's just your word against his. Nothing more.

Why bother with
all your foolish word games in here?

Typing practice. Spelling practice. Logic practice.

Plus it's mildly amusing.

Are you that hard
up for something to do?

Not me. Obviously *you* are, though...

Bye. Off.

Sounds like a veiled command for me to shut up.

At least you won't call me a "feldwebel".