wrote:

(snip of wordy rant)

Google never forgets.

Remember that...

Last night I did a quick copy of the
All-Time Posters on RRAP and here is what they had for 28
Dec 06:

-me- 6,191

No, Len, that number is way too low.

According to Google, your postings to rrap since 1997 are no less than:

846 as
1230 as
10 as
39 as
1204 as
6210 as
1454 as

That's a grand total of no less than 10,993 postings to rrap, under no
less than seven different screen names, all by you. There may be more -
10,993 is a minimum number.

Google never forgets.

If your ability to count *your own postings* results in a number that
is so inaccurate, why should anyone trust your counts of other things?

If your ability to represent your own history of posting to rrap is so
error-filled, why should anyone trust your recounting of other history?

wrote:
wrote:

(snip of wordy rant)

Google never forgets.

Remember that...

Last night I did a quick copy of the
All-Time Posters on RRAP and here is what they had for 28
Dec 06:

-me- 6,191

No, Len, that number is way too low.

According to Google, your postings to rrap since 1997 are no less than:

846 as
1230 as
10 as
39 as
1204 as
6210 as
1454 as

That's a grand total of no less than 10,993 postings to rrap, under no
less than seven different screen names, all by you. There may be more -
10,993 is a minimum number.

Google never forgets.

If your ability to count *your own postings* results in a number that
is so inaccurate, why should anyone trust your counts of other things?

If your ability to represent your own history of posting to rrap is so
error-filled, why should anyone trust your recounting of other history?

Jim, would you mind tallying up all of your postings under all of your
screen names?

Thanks a bunch.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

(snip of wordy rant)

Google never forgets.

Remember that...

Last night I did a quick copy of the
All-Time Posters on RRAP and here is what they had for 28
Dec 06:

-me- 6,191

No, Len, that number is way too low.

According to Google, your postings to rrap since 1997 are no less than:

846 as
1230 as
10 as
39 as
1204 as
6210 as
1454 as

That's a grand total of no less than 10,993 postings to rrap, under no
less than seven different screen names, all by you. There may be more -
10,993 is a minimum number.

Google never forgets.

If your ability to count *your own postings* results in a number that
is so inaccurate, why should anyone trust your counts of other things?

If your ability to represent your own history of posting to rrap is so
error-filled, why should anyone trust your recounting of other history?

Jim, would you mind tallying up all of your postings under all of your
screen names?

Whatever would be the point of that?

Here are just *some* of yours, Brian Burke:

1577 as
2863 as
2973 as
2211 as

These are just your posts to rrap, and just the ones using those four
screen names. There are probably many more under other names.

Total comes to 9,624.

Google never forgets.

There are probably other screen names


Thanks a bunch.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

(snip of wordy rant)

Google never forgets.

Remember that...

Last night I did a quick copy of the
All-Time Posters on RRAP and here is what they had for 28
Dec 06:

-me- 6,191

No, Len, that number is way too low.

According to Google, your postings to rrap since 1997 are no less than:

846 as
1230 as
10 as
39 as
1204 as
6210 as
1454 as

That's a grand total of no less than 10,993 postings to rrap, under no
less than seven different screen names, all by you. There may be more -
10,993 is a minimum number.

Google never forgets.

If your ability to count *your own postings* results in a number that
is so inaccurate, why should anyone trust your counts of other things?

If your ability to represent your own history of posting to rrap is so
error-filled, why should anyone trust your recounting of other history?

Jim, would you mind tallying up all of your postings under all of your
screen names?

Whatever would be the point of that?

Here are just *some* of yours, Brian Burke:

1577 as
2863 as
2973 as
2211 as

These are just your posts to rrap, and just the ones using those four
screen names. There are probably many more under other names.

Total comes to 9,624.

Google never forgets.

There are probably other screen names

Nope, I think I had one with my call. I switched to an "anon" after
too much unwarranted attention was being paid to where my residence was
by some of the bad elements on RRAP. Then Hans asked me to give up
Billy, and I did. I selected a screen name with "ham" in the title
just for fun.

Now, Jim, would you mind tallying up all of your postings under all of
your screen names?

Betcha can't.

From: on Sat, Dec 30 2006 3:42 am

wrote:
wrote:

(snip of wordy rant)

AS IF Miccolis is 'never' wordy... :-)


Last night I did a quick copy of the
All-Time Posters on RRAP and here is what they had for 28
Dec 06:

-me- 6,191

No, Len, that number is way too low.

Google provided it. I just copied the numbers that Google
put up of the TOP TEN. shrug

Miccolis says the Top Ten listing is "wrong." That's a NEW
territory of criticsm for him! :-)

The WORST I can be accused of is being incomplete. :-)

Miccolis cribs license class totals from the AH0A website
and implies they are "his" since he NEVER shows the origin
of his data. shrug


If your ability to count *your own postings* results in a number that
is so inaccurate, why should anyone trust your counts of other things?

If I had "counted my own postings" I would have done so and
listed all my 'handles' (screennames). :-)

If your ability to represent your own history of posting to rrap is so
error-filled, why should anyone trust your recounting of other history?

Jim, would you mind tallying up all of your postings under all of your
screen names?

Thanks a bunch.

Brian, you're asking the impossible! :-)

"Quitefine" will never admit it. Nun of the Above is NEVER wrong!

Happy New Year,

wrote:
From: on Sat, Dec 30 2006 3:42 am
wrote:
wrote:

Last night I did a quick copy of the
All-Time Posters on RRAP and here is what they had for 28
Dec 06:

-me- 6,191

No, Len, that number is way too low.

Google provided it. I just copied the numbers that Google
put up of the TOP TEN. shrug

It's inaccurate. You did not interrogate Google correctly, and so the
number you gave is much lower than the actual number.

If you can't be accurate, why should anyone trust you?

says the Top Ten listing is "wrong."

Nope.

I'm saying *you* are giving a number that is very inaccurate. 6,191 is
a lot less than 10,993.

That's a NEW
territory of criticsm for him! :-)

"Criticsm"?

The WORST I can be accused of is being incomplete. :-)

In error is more like it.

cribs license class totals from the AH0A website
and implies they are "his" since he NEVER shows the origin
of his data. shrug

No, that is not correct.

The totals I post every two weeks do not come from AH0A.

I have posted my source here. You are either too lazy or too
incompetent to find it ;-)

If your ability to count *your own postings* results in a number that
is so inaccurate, why should anyone trust your counts of other things?

If I had "counted my own postings" I would have done so and
listed all my 'handles' (screennames). :-)

But you didn't. That means you intentionally posted a number that was
too low.

Some would say you tried to deceive us.

If your ability to represent your own history of posting to rrap is so
error-filled, why should anyone trust your recounting of other history?

Jim, would you mind tallying up all of your postings under all of your
screen names?

Thanks a bunch.

Brian, you're asking the impossible! :-)

Not impossible at all. Just unlikely.

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sat, Dec 30 2006 3:42 am
wrote:
wrote:

Last night I did a quick copy of the
All-Time Posters on RRAP and here is what they had for 28
Dec 06:

-me- 6,191

No, Len, that number is way too low.

Google provided it. I just copied the numbers that Google
put up of the TOP TEN. shrug

It's inaccurate. You did not interrogate Google correctly, and so the
number you gave is much lower than the actual number.

If you can't be accurate, why should anyone trust you?

says the Top Ten listing is "wrong."

Nope.

I'm saying *you* are giving a number that is very inaccurate. 6,191 is
a lot less than 10,993.

That's a NEW
territory of criticsm for him! :-)

"Criticsm"?

The WORST I can be accused of is being incomplete. :-)

In error is more like it.

cribs license class totals from the AH0A website
and implies they are "his" since he NEVER shows the origin
of his data. shrug

No, that is not correct.

The totals I post every two weeks do not come from AH0A.

I have posted my source here. You are either too lazy or too
incompetent to find it ;-)

If your ability to count *your own postings* results in a number that
is so inaccurate, why should anyone trust your counts of other things?

If I had "counted my own postings" I would have done so and
listed all my 'handles' (screennames). :-)

But you didn't. That means you intentionally posted a number that was
too low.

Some would say you tried to deceive us.

If your ability to represent your own history of posting to rrap is so
error-filled, why should anyone trust your recounting of other history?

Jim, would you mind tallying up all of your postings under all of your
screen names?

Thanks a bunch.

Brian, you're asking the impossible! :-)

Not impossible at all. Just unlikely.

So why should anyone trust anything you say when you run around
tallying up everyones posting totals except your own? Personal
opinion: you can't be trusted. ;^)

wrote:
From: on Sat, Dec 30 2006 3:42 am

wrote:
wrote:

(snip of wordy rant)

AS IF Miccolis is 'never' wordy... :-)

I like the one where he goes on and on and on about Amateur
contributions during WWII, when everyone know that the gubmn't shut
down amateur radio during WWII. None-the-Less, he goes on and on and
on about it.

Last night I did a quick copy of the
All-Time Posters on RRAP and here is what they had for 28
Dec 06:

-me- 6,191

No, Len, that number is way too low.

Google provided it. I just copied the numbers that Google
put up of the TOP TEN. shrug

Miccolis says the Top Ten listing is "wrong." That's a NEW
territory of criticsm for him! :-)

The WORST I can be accused of is being incomplete. :-)

Miccolis cribs license class totals from the AH0A website
and implies they are "his" since he NEVER shows the origin
of his data. shrug


If your ability to count *your own postings* results in a number that
is so inaccurate, why should anyone trust your counts of other things?

If I had "counted my own postings" I would have done so and
listed all my 'handles' (screennames). :-)

If your ability to represent your own history of posting to rrap is so
error-filled, why should anyone trust your recounting of other history?

Jim, would you mind tallying up all of your postings under all of your
screen names?

Thanks a bunch.

Brian, you're asking the impossible! :-)

NOT impossible. He's merely unwilling. ;^)

"Quitefine" will never admit it. Nun of the Above is NEVER wrong!

Happy New Year,



Happy New Year.