On 10/26/2014 9:20 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 27/10/14 01:02, rickman wrote:
On 10/26/2014 8:46 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/26/2014 6:21 PM, Clod's Conscience wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:16:25 -0500, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote in
:

RSI

Never mind RSI, the acronym for the rest of that is TMI.

That's an initialism http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/initialism

An acronym is something like RADAR Radio Detection And Ranging, or
GARETH
Gormless Amateur Radio Enthusiast Total Headcase.


LOL!

Does anyone ever talk about amateur radio in these groups?


We try, but Evans and his chums usually jump in and ruin the thread.

There are moderated groups where he can't get up to his tricks.

You've seen his false attempts at technical threads, they are no more
than vehicles for abuse, as you've seen.



Brian,

Actually, I do think they are attempts of technical threads, within his
limited capacity of understanding. But they quickly result in abusive
responses when his fallacies are pointed out.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 10/26/2014 9:34 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/26/2014 9:20 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 27/10/14 01:02, rickman wrote:
On 10/26/2014 8:46 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/26/2014 6:21 PM, Clod's Conscience wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:16:25 -0500, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote in
:

RSI

Never mind RSI, the acronym for the rest of that is TMI.

That's an initialism http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/initialism

An acronym is something like RADAR Radio Detection And Ranging, or
GARETH
Gormless Amateur Radio Enthusiast Total Headcase.


LOL!

Does anyone ever talk about amateur radio in these groups?


We try, but Evans and his chums usually jump in and ruin the thread.

There are moderated groups where he can't get up to his tricks.

You've seen his false attempts at technical threads, they are no more
than vehicles for abuse, as you've seen.



Brian,

Actually, I do think they are attempts of technical threads, within his
limited capacity of understanding. But they quickly result in abusive
responses when his fallacies are pointed out.

So why do the rest of you have to act like children as well? Why not
just ignore him? I seem to recall that you have stated that you take
pleasure in jousting with him. Or do I have you mixed up with someone
else?

The bottom line is that by arguing with him endlessly it ruins the group
for everyone else every bit as much as he does, if not more. If it were
just him he would be easy to ignore. The topics he brings up could be
discussed without all the back and forth banter.

Just treat him as if he were the devil incarnate and refuse to even look
his way much less mention his name!

--

Rick

On 10/26/2014 11:27 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/26/2014 9:34 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/26/2014 9:20 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 27/10/14 01:02, rickman wrote:
On 10/26/2014 8:46 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/26/2014 6:21 PM, Clod's Conscience wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:16:25 -0500, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote in
:

RSI

Never mind RSI, the acronym for the rest of that is TMI.

That's an initialism http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/initialism

An acronym is something like RADAR Radio Detection And Ranging, or
GARETH
Gormless Amateur Radio Enthusiast Total Headcase.


LOL!

Does anyone ever talk about amateur radio in these groups?


We try, but Evans and his chums usually jump in and ruin the thread.

There are moderated groups where he can't get up to his tricks.

You've seen his false attempts at technical threads, they are no more
than vehicles for abuse, as you've seen.



Brian,

Actually, I do think they are attempts of technical threads, within his
limited capacity of understanding. But they quickly result in abusive
responses when his fallacies are pointed out.

So why do the rest of you have to act like children as well? Why not
just ignore him? I seem to recall that you have stated that you take
pleasure in jousting with him. Or do I have you mixed up with someone
else?

The bottom line is that by arguing with him endlessly it ruins the group
for everyone else every bit as much as he does, if not more. If it were
just him he would be easy to ignore. The topics he brings up could be
discussed without all the back and forth banter.

Just treat him as if he were the devil incarnate and refuse to even look
his way much less mention his name!



You have me mixed up with someone else.

But then why do YOU keep these threads going?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 21:34:08 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

But they quickly result in abusive
responses when his fallacies are pointed out.

Watching from the sidelines I see the insults flying in all directions.

If someone has made an error there are good ways and bad ways of pointing
that out as any parent will know. What we normally see here is the bad
way which usually involves attacking the person rather than the idea.


--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

In message
, Brian
Reay writes
Jerry Stuckle wrote:


There are moderated groups where he can't get up to his tricks.

You've seen his false attempts at technical threads, they are no more
than vehicles for abuse, as you've seen.



Brian,

Actually, I do think they are attempts of technical threads, within his
limited capacity of understanding. But they quickly result in abusive
responses when his fallacies are pointed out.

His understanding is certainly limited, there is other evidence to support
that, but as for attempts at
improving understanding, why does recycle the same topics again and again?
Some have been around the block several times, even though they have been
explained. He makes no attempt to digest the responses he receives, beyond
twisting highlights to further his barrage of abuse. Why is this obvious?
Well, he rubbishes perfectly valid answers and even, on occasions, goes on
to rewrite history as if he has 'found a book' which explains things.

The question is, why?

Do a search for Westinghouse in the archive of uk.railway

I really think that Rick's advice is best, although I wouldn't go as far
as to "treat him as if he were the devil incarnate and refuse to even
look his way much less mention his name". He has, on the odd occasion,
some very valid points to make.

However, you have to be careful, as this is sometimes just a ploy
(conscious or otherwise) to draw you into what you think is a normal,
civilised discussion, and it rapidly turns out not to be. The important
thing is not prolong pointless arguments, otherwise you risk getting
tarred with the same brush.
--
Ian

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
He has, on the odd occasion, some very valid points to make.

I always have valid points to make.


However, you have to be careful, as this is sometimes just a ploy
(conscious or otherwise) to draw you into what you think is a normal,
civilised discussion, and it rapidly turns out not to be.

Completely untrue. It is a device of the gratuitously abusive to justify
their
own abusive psyches by claiming that my intention is to cause abuse, which
it has never been in 20 years of subscribing to Usenet. By expressing such
an
opinion, you are allowing yourself to be brainwashed by reay.

The important thing is not prolong pointless arguments, otherwise you risk
getting tarred with the same brush.

Agree absolutely, but technical discussions are not pointless arguments.

On 27/10/14 08:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message
, Brian
Reay writes
Jerry Stuckle wrote:


There are moderated groups where he can't get up to his tricks.

You've seen his false attempts at technical threads, they are no more
than vehicles for abuse, as you've seen.



Brian,

Actually, I do think they are attempts of technical threads, within his
limited capacity of understanding. But they quickly result in abusive
responses when his fallacies are pointed out.

His understanding is certainly limited, there is other evidence to
support
that, but as for attempts at
improving understanding, why does recycle the same topics again and
again?
Some have been around the block several times, even though they have been
explained. He makes no attempt to digest the responses he receives,
beyond
twisting highlights to further his barrage of abuse. Why is this obvious?
Well, he rubbishes perfectly valid answers and even, on occasions,
goes on
to rewrite history as if he has 'found a book' which explains things.

The question is, why?

Do a search for Westinghouse in the archive of uk.railway

I really think that Rick's advice is best, although I wouldn't go as far
as to "treat him as if he were the devil incarnate and refuse to even
look his way much less mention his name". He has, on the odd occasion,
some very valid points to make.

However, you have to be careful, as this is sometimes just a ploy
(conscious or otherwise) to draw you into what you think is a normal,
civilised discussion, and it rapidly turns out not to be. The important
thing is not prolong pointless arguments, otherwise you risk getting
tarred with the same brush.

Which is why I make a point of not replying to Evans.

OTOH, if others are involved, I'm happy to discuss the topics with then,
of course. Sadly, this results in abuse from Evans but we can't let him
'censor' by injecting abuse.

In message , Brian Reay writes



Which is why I make a point of not replying to Evans.

Maybe not directly, but where possible, I'd also try to refrain from
making unnecessary references to historical events - except maybe (for
example) when engaged in light-hearted banter and general humorous skit.
However, even this may be interpreted by some as being personal attacks.
Personally, I would suggest that all posters in this NG adopt a style
that would be likely to pass moderation in the forthcoming uk.r.a.m.


--
Ian

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:12:28 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Brian Reay writes



Which is why I make a point of not replying to Evans.

Maybe not directly, but where possible, I'd also try to refrain from
making unnecessary references to historical events - except maybe (for
example) when engaged in light-hearted banter and general humorous skit.
However, even this may be interpreted by some as being personal attacks.

Are you saying that we should treat him as we would a loony on a bus?

In message , Radiohead70
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:12:28 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Brian Reay writes



Which is why I make a point of not replying to Evans.

Maybe not directly, but where possible, I'd also try to refrain from
making unnecessary references to historical events - except maybe (for
example) when engaged in light-hearted banter and general humorous skit.
However, even this may be interpreted by some as being personal attacks.

Are you saying that we should treat him as we would a loony on a bus?

*You* might think that, but *I* couldn't possibly comment.
--
Ian