Thread: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
View Single Post
  #96   Report Post  
Old February 4th 07, 02:21 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
Leo Leo is offline
external usenet poster
  
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 44
Default Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, 7:42?pm, Leo wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. orks
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. very time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

Please demonstrate!

It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo".

K8MN wrote:

"Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?"

Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors).

And you ("Leo") replied:

"I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure."

Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some
would call that "lying", btw.

Some might call that "the lure"....


Then you wrote:

"Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without
fail!"

Note that last sentence:

"Every time - without fail!"

All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six
months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those
postings.

Factual errors according to whom? With reference to what source?

In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction?

You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you? It would save a
lot of time looking them all up again!


Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/
corrected here.

....if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it
would be appreciated! Specifics would be nice, too.


Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement
is simply conjecture.


Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did
challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here.

I'll bet he'd be crushed!


There's your demonstration.

Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over
the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate
your claim.


Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up
with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave
are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS
moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can.

Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim. Just a form of censorship
imposed on others by those who like censorship. A moderated group
would not suit your purpose either! Where else could you go but here
to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all
wrongs'?

Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare
that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not
have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here? And
encourage everyone to join them?

Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back!

You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever
wonder why?


And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either.

Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is
intentionally post misinformation?

Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not
come from Len himself?

How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not
misinformation? That's magical!


So it's really a moot point, "Leo".

Perhaps....

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote