nobodys old friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys_old_friend wrote:
Dr.Ace wrote:
"nobodys_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

meaning you agree that Dan mispoke I should think when he claimed, "He
argues with everyone about everything." the rest is simply a matter of
opinion, and point of view

Hardly a misrepresentation of your conduct here, Mark.

certainly is everyone and everything are all inclusive terms

I am certain that that meant something to you...

You OTOH say you will agree to discuss something only after everyone
agrees to agree with you, in advance

I've never seen or heard Dan say any such thing.

then you have not been paying attenion. he claims that he will only
discuss emergency comms when I agree with his disriction of the nature
and importance of the beliefs he holds

cuting the english cop crap

Reinserting Mark's censorship in order to maintain context:

then you have not been paying attenion. he claims that he will only
discuss emergency comms when I agree with his disriction of the nature
and importance of the beliefs he holds

QUOTE:

"disriction"...?!?!

You can't "discuss" something unless you are utilizing the same
language, the same grammar, and the same meaning of words.

UNQUOTE

in the "hams to resure" thread somwhere before the religionous...(SNIP)
cuting the english cop crap

Reinserting Mark's censorship to maintain context:

QUOTE:

in the "hams to resure" thread somwhere before the religionous...(SNIP)


Here, for example... "hams to the resure"? "religionous"?

UNQUOTE

You continue to "dismiss" as "speling cop crap" efforts to get you
to use the same words in the same context as others so that we may all
understand each other.

Your "cut" and "speling cop crap" are nothing but censorship.

And you DO remember who was famous for censorship, don't you,
Mark?

discusion, the reference was that I must accept that coms I thinks are
merely important are vital to safety and recovery of the region.
Indeed, like Stevie is ****ed that I see ARES type comms, by and large,
as merely preforming the important job of keeping a lot of the small
stuff off the plate of the first responders, as opposed to stuff
affecting the real size and scope of the disaster.

One cannot carry out a meaningful discourse unless there are
certain basic understandings from which to frame that conversation.

you are just plain wrong on that

No, I am not.

As any lingusitics professor, Mark...

guess you don't follow the public debate on much of ANY political issue
in the nation

Sure I do.

And I know that each of the parties concerned use the same words
and in the same context.

BTW, Mark...that was a really WEAK effort at diversion...

So far, you've not demonstrated that you have a real-time frame of
reference on "emergency comms" from which to make an informed opinion.

not needed at all, indeed if I had than I would likely be unable to
discuss the issue with any impartiality, which would seem to be Dan's
(and your's) problem. You all can't what you are talking about becuase
your own egos are involved

It's got nothing to do with ego.

It has to do with disparate parties discussing a common subject
from a common understanding.

"Communication" does NOT occur unless both parties have SOME
common frame of reference from which to understand each otehr.

I have taken accepting as fact the claimed message traffic and comented
on its importance in the over all scheme of thing

That said what?

The latter type certainly did not occour during Katrina, at least in
part becuase for Hams to delver such messages there would have had to
have been somebody to to compose the message and give to us and
Somebody to delviver it to, both ends broke down in Katrina, terribly
limiting our poetencail usefullness as Hams

Your complete ignorance of what has transpired in THIS region,
from your perch on Michigan's Upper Penninsula, is obvious.

I know what is going on there

Obviously not.

you are not in that region either strictly speaking

Sure I am.

you over look the fact that the onlooker sees most of the game, and the
players don't

Ahhhhhh....so from your perch in UP Michigan you know more about
what's going on than those of us who have actually been involved in
it..?!?!

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! ! !

FYI, not ALL "emergency comms" are formal written traffic. And
not all "emergency comms" involve "Hi Mom, I'm safe And Will Call
Later" traffic.

never said anything of the sort

You aren't capable.
Like I've said before, an_old_fiend is apparently in the same camp as Todd
(same mindset).
Also since an_old_fiend doesn't have a call sign his opinion in
radio.amateur groups doen't mean much.

I just choose not to sign it,

unlike some of you I have a life outside Ham radio, I dislike the
common custom of reduceing a person to a callsign

Mark's callsign is K B 9 R Q Z. He is an NCT.

my word 2 true statements in a row I may die of the shock

Don't tease me.

but as I said I have a callsign just chose not to sign to ervything

"everything"...

No...You claimed that you didn't sign your Amateur Radio callsign
to Amateur Radio related posts because "...unlike some of you I have a
life outside Ham radio, I dislike the common custom of reduceing (sic)
a person to a callsign."

(A) Your callsign has EVERYthing to do with "Ham" radio, and (B)
attaching your Amateur Radio callsign no more "reduces" you in an
Amateur Radio forum than using your ISP screen name "reduces" you on
the Internet.

He's spent
countless months telling us of his "disability" and intent to use the
American's with Disabilites Act to "sue" anyone/everyone associated
with his failure to get a coded license.

but you saved by lying again

Nope.

BTW, Mark, WHAT "life" outside of Amateur Radio?

my life is non of YOUR busness unless I chose to share those deatils

You have no life outside Amateur Radio, Mark. As a matter of
fact, you have little life that moves you beyond the four walls of your
house.

You've now created at least three screen names that I count as
"active" in order to get around Google's "daily posting limit" so you
can keep the list loaded with your rhetoric.

so? you count

I don't have to. It's obvious.

You've alleged that I am "obsessive-compulsive" about responding
to RRAP posts, yet YOU are the one who has created the means by which
you can defeat the posting limits so YOU can "pounce" on everyone
else's posts.

and it is ok acording to you for you count my ppost and analyze them
but not for me when I choose to do the same

Doesn't sound like much of a life to me..

Thank you Stevie must mean I am doing something right that you
disaprove

You're a deceitful, lying , pathologically mistruthful sexual
devaiant, Mark.

There's so much about you to disapprove of.

Steve, K4YZ