"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , rickman writes
On 10/22/2014 11:15 AM, John S wrote:

What the hell are you seeking?

Drama

And, of course, confrontation.

Untrue.

The confrontation is sought only by those who seek to respond
in a tendentious and abusive manner, such as John S and rickman
above.

On 10/22/2014 11:10 AM, gareth wrote:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , rickman writes
On 10/22/2014 11:15 AM, John S wrote:

What the hell are you seeking?

Drama

And, of course, confrontation.

Untrue.

The confrontation is sought only by those who seek to respond
in a tendentious and abusive manner, such as John S and rickman
above.

In what way have I been abusive, Gareth? As for tendentious, it you who
have done so with most all of your original posts. It seems to me that
you are a lost and lonely soul and are seeking some attention. If you
wish to discuss technicalities of ham radio, I'm all for it. Can we
please be gentlemen about it? If not, I will never respond to you again.

On 22/10/14 17:42, John S wrote:
On 10/22/2014 11:10 AM, gareth wrote:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , rickman
writes
On 10/22/2014 11:15 AM, John S wrote:

What the hell are you seeking?

Drama

And, of course, confrontation.

Untrue.

The confrontation is sought only by those who seek to respond
in a tendentious and abusive manner, such as John S and rickman
above.

In what way have I been abusive, Gareth? As for tendentious, it you who
have done so with most all of your original posts. It seems to me that
you are a lost and lonely soul and are seeking some attention. If you
wish to discuss technicalities of ham radio, I'm all for it. Can we
please be gentlemen about it? If not, I will never respond to you again.


If you look in the uk.r.a archive going back to 1997 or so, long before
I started posting, you will see he has been like this for decades. The
only changes have been his sock puppets (a long list) and his prime
targets.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

If you look in the uk.r.a archive going back to 1997 or so, long before I
started posting, you will see he has been like this for decades. The only
changes have been his sock puppets (a long list) and his prime targets.

You're the one who is hurling abuse, repeatedly, into this thread.

You need to learn that those who disagre with you are not being abusive
not are they a problem of any sort.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:08:11 +0100, gareth wrote:


You need to learn that those who disagre with you are not being abusive
not are they a problem of any sort.

Oh, the irony.

"gareth" wrote in news:m28rqd$mds$1@dont-
email.me:

You need to learn that those who disagre with you are not being abusive
not are they a problem of any sort.


So do you.

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
"gareth" wrote in news:m28rqd$mds$1@dont-
email.me:

You need to learn that those who disagre with you are not being abusive
not are they a problem of any sort.

So do you.

I take exceptions to rude personal remarks, but never to technical
discussion
which is what I am after.

"John S" wrote in message
...

In what way have I been abusive, Gareth?

See below.

It seems to me that you are a lost and lonely soul and are seeking some
attention.

On 10/22/2014 1:06 PM, gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...

In what way have I been abusive, Gareth?

See below.

It seems to me that you are a lost and lonely soul and are seeking some
attention.

I don't believe that statement is considered abuse.

On 22/10/2014 17:42, John S wrote:
On 10/22/2014 11:10 AM, gareth wrote:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , rickman
writes
On 10/22/2014 11:15 AM, John S wrote:

What the hell are you seeking?

Drama

And, of course, confrontation.

Untrue.

The confrontation is sought only by those who seek to respond
in a tendentious and abusive manner, such as John S and rickman
above.

In what way have I been abusive, Gareth? As for tendentious, it you who
have done so with most all of your original posts. It seems to me that
you are a lost and lonely soul and are seeking some attention. If you
wish to discuss technicalities of ham radio, I'm all for it. Can we
please be gentlemen about it? If not, I will never respond to you again.

Welcome to the club.
I disagreed with him and so have been labelled as abusive.
Each time he comments that I have been abusive I request that he posts a
link to the post where I abused him. Oddly he has never managed to do so
on any single occasion.

In reality he has hurled abuse at me for being a warmongering baby
killer after spuriously deciding that I was in the army (I posted that I
had used military comms, I had when liaising between RAF and mountain
rescue I am a qualified mountain leader and ex-rescue).

Funnily enough he could come up with no evidence that I was ever in the
army either. (I wasn't by the way but I was in uniform in the cubs in
the 70s - we never actually went to war in the cubs but I did make a
pointy stick once).

You can independently check google if you wish, it can be quite
enlightening.

Andy