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

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
That is 'normal' for him.

Untrue.

Sometimes he will post a non-abusive post of his
victim and totally misrepresent its content.

Untrue.

He fabricates abuse/insults
against himself as a justification for his own tirades of abuse.

Untrue. Perhaps you are confused by your own remarks about sheep,
methylated spirit, special brew, Asperger's Syndrome and lavatory cleaning,
topping it all with how easy it was to wind up some people, like shooting
rats in a barrel?

He also
fabricates stories about people

Untrue

for example I have never been dismissed,
left a company on bad terms, or even after a short period of employment-
as
he keeps claiming.

Untrue, that information was provided by Stan White G4EGH (Remember? Your
bosom pal whose wife babysat your children until you turned on him as you
turn on all others?) who decribed you
as being in floods of tears down the phone to him when you were terminated.


Nor do I have a brother who is a milkman, or one who has
ever been a milkman.

But your behaviour and language is as one from the working class and
not as one from the degree-educated minority.

Those two show the span of his obsessions.

I've never been obsessed by you; however, I have consistently responded
defensively
to your obsession with me, as evidenced by this and other non-technical
contributions
that you have maed to this thread.

His vendetta against me started

Incorrect. I have never had a vendetta against you, but I have consistently
sought an
apology and retraction from you that my wife is a sheep in the bed next to
me.

after I corrected him on a number of
technical matters,

Untrue. You have never corrected me on anything. True, you have disagreed,
but
that is not the same thing, and I have taken you to task over the personal
remarks
that you make when disagreeing.

I think the first was logs and the dB

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong in that. In electrical engineering,
the dB
is a unit-free expression of a power ratio.

and of course
there was DSP and his Big K nonsense.

There was no nonsense there, because all the texts, textbooks and URLs to
which I referred said that samplling was a simple multiplication of the
incoming
waveform by the Dirac Delta function, but without there being any factor to
deal
with the obvious anomaly that such a multiplication could only result in
infinitely
high samples. Later on, when working at a DSP company in Bath (picoChip, as
was)
I came across some training material which resolved that anomaly and which
satisfied ny curiosity. (For those interested, the extra factor which must
be included
is a Delta Funcion multiplied by the sampling interval, but that important
factor is missing
from several books on the subject. I suspect that none of the authors,
despite the great
advances they make in the application of DSP don't understand the anomaly,
and skip
over it quickly, probably cribbing off each other's texts)

When you subsequently claimed to have told me of that and were solicited for
the message id
or URL, you went strangely quiet on the matter.

He got even more riled

Untrue, I don't get riled, but you certainly do by this wall of text that
you are seeking
to discredit me.

Perhaps you have revealed more about your own character than you intended,
by
indicating your wish that we should become riled by yor goading?

when he tried
to play the degree card, suggesting only those with a degree should have a
Full Licence.

Sense of humour failure, there, I think, OM?

I'm not quite sure where that would leave his cronies,

Unlike you, with your apprentice in potty-mouthism, I have no cronies. My
opinions are my own. Had you not noticed that I chastised one of those whom
you say are my cronies for mouthing off infantile remarks in your style?

who
couldn't muster a degree between them.

You know nothing about them, for one has a degree in physics, another
a mature student's OU degree.

However, he didn't like being out
bid by someone with two degrees

Completely untrue. Your snobbish posturing about your two of everything,
degrees,
patios, and cars, to name just a few, makes you a source of fun. May I refer
you
to your comment above, "who couldn't muster a degree between them. "?

and his attempt at goading blew up in his
face.

One thing that I have never done in 20 years' of Usenet use is to goad
others,
as do you on a daily basis.

You can verify this in the archive

Untrue. There is no verification possible. HOWEVER, if you review Reay's
posts,
both in this NG and in uk.net.news.config over only the past 24 hours, you
can
see who it is that goads in extremis.