RadioBanter - View Single Post

June 20th 05, 04:06 AM

On 19 Jun 2005 18:58:24 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
snip

Seig Heil!!! :-)

Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr.
Godwin's rule.

"attempt"? Hardly!
snip

Attempt, definitely. Because, as has been demonstrated many times
before, the discusion will continue regardless of whether
Godwin's impotent rule has been 'invoked' or not.

The version of Godwin's rule that I use says that the person
who uses stoops to calling their opponent "Hitler", "Nazis"
or references to them, has lost the argument. That the
discussion
continues is irrelevant. Len has lost the argument.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up, Jim - for a minute there, I was
afraid that you hadn't accomplished anything useful there!

So it wasn't an "attempt" but a success.

Was it? Not really - the discussion will continue.

Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument.

Oh. OK then. That matters a lot.

Glad you agree!

Guess that makes you 'right', then.

Yes, it does.

That's important!

Len was 'wrong', and you were
'right'.

Yep.

That's important!

Feel better now?

Sure. How about you?

Just fine, thanks! Glad you're feeling better!

But it just had to be done, didn't it?

No, it didn't. But I did it anyway.

Of course you did. You had to!

Nope. I chose to.

The choice, Sir, was not yours to make - you simply could not
resist doing so.

I chose to respond. Other times I choose not to. Len posts
far more than I respond.

I suggest that you responded because you had to respond.

That claim is incorrect. I chose to respond.

....so you seem to believe.

You couldn't help yourself!

What's to help?

Yourself. Said so right there in that sentence!

Do you believe in free will, Leo?

I do indeed. Seen any lately?

Is there a problem with that? Do you think Len's slurs
are acceptable behavior?

There are several folks here whose 'slurs' and language are
much worse
than this example

Yes, Len has done worse....

Is that what I said? Don't think so!

It's a valid interpretation.

Not at all - you are in error.

That claim is incorrect...

Hey, it was my statement - I get to be the judge of that!

That claim is incorrect (still).

(a reference to the bumbling and
comical 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes")

The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1

Godwin invoked.

For what? I did not use Hitler/Nazi references to anyone
involved in the discussion. I simply stated the fact
that ol' Adolf was a feldwebel in the German Army in WW1.

I see.

You just felt it necessary to blurt that out, for no reason at all?

Nope. With good reason.

I'm sure that we'd all love to hear your good reason for resurrecting
the work history of the long departed Fuhrer back there, Jim - please
share!

You of course realize that there is a school of thought that
invocation of Godwin's Law can be interpreted to include any such
reference to that - um - Teutonic regime of the 1930's and 1940's?
Especially the Big Guy himself?

Oh - I forgot - you said you use another interpretation of that
rule.......

Heh heh.

Yep.

- always has been, always will be.

That claim is incorrect. Usenet is not eternal.

It's not my job
to run around and point that out all day every day.

You have avoided the question.

Do you think Len's slurs are acceptable behavior?

Not my job to judge that, Jim. That's apparently your role.

And apparently your role has become "defender of the Len".

How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

Heh. "Those who ain't with me are agin' me....!" - what movie was
that from again???

In other words, you won't answer the question.

That is correct - I have no opinion on the subject.

That's a contradiction. You just answered the question.

"I have no opinion on the subject" is a simple, direct answer.

Thanks!

Actually, it is neither an answer nor a refusal to answer. It is
nothing at all.

But, as long as you're happy with that - you're welcome - for nothing!

In short, I have
no answer to your (rhetorical) question.

Yes, you do! Your answer is that you have no
opinion one way or the other.

Heh heh.

Seek elsewhere.

Why? You answered the question. Thanks again.

Heh.

It's not my job to point that out to each and every participant on this group Jim - is it yours? Why?

Your argument seems to be that since Len will probably exhibit
his typical immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun
Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior anyway, there's no
point in pointing out when he is, indeed, exhibiting his typical
immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting
jackass behavior. Is that about right?

Nope. You have avoided the question.

See how that works?

Apparently, you do. You have a long history of avoiding any question
that you don't like - or didn't ask.

Why should I answer the questions of others, when they don't
answer mine?

Well, that's a bit childish, but it is Fathers' Day, so I'll help you
out a bit here.

Because you should! Why should you let the behaviour of others
negatively influence yours?

If Johnny jumped in the mud, would you jump in the mud?

Jeez. Kids these days!

Perhaps you have a valid point, since if what Len seeks is
attention, pointing out his typical immature ethnic-slur
Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior
gives him that attention.

(73 de Jim etc. sig missing again)

Not missing - omitted.

In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe!

None of the above.

Not true.

That claim is incorrect.

I don't think so!

Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think?

Not at all.

The original meaning of "73" is "a friendly greeting
between operators". In the context of amateur radio,
this means between amateur radio operators.

In the words of Hans - thank you, Captain Obvious!

Most people don't know the original meaning.

In an Amateur Radio newsgroup? Heh heh. OK, Jim - whatever
you say.

Did *you* know the original meaning?

I did indeed - it's not exactly a secret.....didn't I quote you
something from the "92 code" a while back?

It would be inappropriate to use the greeting to
someone who is not an amateur radio operator.

Which I am. And have stated many times before.

And your callsign is?

Not going to be used in this newsgroup. For reasons explained
earlier.

Then there's room for doubt. Perhaps you are an amateur radio
operator, perhaps not.

Starts with VE3, though - issued in 2002.

Maybe...

There you go again - not believing!

You can state almost anything here, but as long as you
remain an "anony-mousie", there's room for doubt.

LOL! Anony-mousie? That's a Len term.

Yep.

You may not like the guy much, but you seem to be learning from him!

I've learned some things from Len. For example, I used to think
that he might be capable of a reasonable discussion on amateur
radio policy issues, even with those who disagree with him. I learned I
was wrong about that...

You appear to have learned a few more tricks than that!

Woof!

Good for you.

Poor memory? Google 'er up.....

I know what you claimed. But there's no independent
evidence.

You claim to be an educated guy, Jim, there isn't much evidence
of that either!

Zing! Was that written in a fit of pique? As an insult?

Of course not! Simply an illustration that, in the absence of
conclusive and irrefutable proof, one has no other means to ascertain
whether another individual is misrepresenting themselves other than
the evidence that they present in their posts over a period of time.

So far, we haven't seen much of anything posted that would support
your claims of post-grad education - no thesis references, no detailed
insight which would require that level of training, no written
expressions of advanced theoretical knowledge. A few moderately
complex calculations, perhaps - some correct, at least one not by a
long shot.

In short - your word is all we have.

One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can.
Anyone can.

But to choose to doubt someone simply because they no longer appear to
agree with you or support your views - doesn't seem particularly
brainy, now does it?

You see where reasonable doubt might creep in - right?

But don't worry - I believe you!

Thanks!

No problem!

73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3)

Thanks!

73, Leo