|
Disgusting behavious by hams
I have had an amateur radio license for 57 years, and have operated
virtually all modes over this time including sideband, CW, fast and slow scan television, radio teletype, and some other digital modes, on both HF and VHF / UHF frequencies. Not until my recent arrival on Usenet newsgroups did I discover this additional source of timely amateur information. I am disgusted and utterly appalled at the total lack of good judgment and appropriate behavior, to say nothing of common courtesy and ham radio civility which shows up here on occasion. In particular, the thread in this newsgroup dealing with a most unfortunate spat between individuals who happened to have ham radio licenses is inexcusably inappropriate. I feel embarrassed to be a member of a group who allow this type of behavior to go unchecked. I sincerely request that those responsible for posting such material, entirely and utterly unrelated to amateur radio, take their childish battle off of this news group and any other amateur radio news group. It is hardly worthy of a children's playground behavior, let alone a meeting place for technically educated adults. Smarty |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Smarty wrote:
I have had an amateur radio license for 57 years, and have operated virtually all modes over this time including sideband, CW, fast and slow scan television, radio teletype, and some other digital modes, on both HF and VHF / UHF frequencies. Not until my recent arrival on Usenet newsgroups did I discover this additional source of timely amateur information. I am disgusted and utterly appalled at the total lack of good judgment and appropriate behavior, to say nothing of common courtesy and ham radio civility which shows up here on occasion. In particular, the thread in this newsgroup dealing with a most unfortunate spat between individuals who happened to have ham radio licenses is inexcusably inappropriate. I feel embarrassed to be a member of a group who allow this type of behavior to go unchecked. I sincerely request that those responsible for posting such material, entirely and utterly unrelated to amateur radio, take their childish battle off of this news group and any other amateur radio news group. It is hardly worthy of a children's playground behavior, let alone a meeting place for technically educated adults. Smarty You arrived on usenet too late. It was a good discussion platform when many experts exchanged valuable ideas, but it fell victim of the new developments in IT and internet, and general unwillingness to adapt. Most users who wanted a modern system left for the forums and later the social media, and what was left was a group of unmannered and often autistic folks who are not a good representation of the community, no matter if it is amateur radio or another topic that is being discussed. Usenet as a discussion platform as it is now should not be taken seriously. It is in its late stages of dying. What is left of usenet is now mainly used for binary file transfer. The discussions that once took place on usenet are now on forums, blogs, twitter and facebook. It can be seen as a pity, but the blame mostly falls on the usenet maintainers. (who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms) |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Rob wrote:
snip (who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms) If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't be asking such questions. -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
|
Disgusting behavious by hams
"Smarty" wrote in message
... In particular, the thread in this newsgroup dealing with a most unfortunate spat between individuals who happened to have ham radio licenses is inexcusably inappropriate. It is not a spat between individuals; it is a one sided vindictive campaign, a vendetta, by Tomlinson directed at me for which I reserve the right of reply. Tomlinson frequently arrives out-of-the-blue spitting feathers from his spleen when I have been involved in unrelated threads, despite that I am a champion for the very civility and decency that you seek. It is an unfortunate truism that there are those from your side of the pond, jimp, stuckle and john s to name but three who are also immature spleen a-venters. |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Rob wrote:
wrote: Rob wrote: snip (who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms) If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't be asking such questions. I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough. Only since 1994; a newbee then. When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene in disgust. Pity. The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers to interact with USENET. Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders support uuencode/uudecode. There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that leads too. -- Jim Pennino |
Your first sentence sums up the problem: You are too immature to rise above it or ignore those posts. Thus, you become the problem.
There is no reason to reply. All you do is toss petrol on the fire. Stop feeding the trolls! |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:57 PM, wrote: Rob wrote: wrote: Rob wrote: snip (who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms) If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't be asking such questions. I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough. Only since 1994; a newbee then. Like you... When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene in disgust. Pity. The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers to interact with USENET. Not entirely. There was also the fact that many people were using slow modem connections and were being charged by the byte (which is still true in some parts of the world today). HTML unnecessarily increased download time and bytes transferred. As does not snipping previous diaglog... Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders support uuencode/uudecode. Not necessarily. Some news servers don't accept any attachments; others don't accept binary attachments. If an attachment is uuencoded, a news server doesn't know what the attachment is. The majority of the prohibitions against attachments were on a group basis and enforced by a UDP for blatant repeat offenders. There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that leads too. And many news servers don't cary many of the alt.* groups. They're not as well supported as the big eight. Which is but one of the effects of there being no "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" applied to the alt. groups. -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/14/2015 9:22 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/14/2015 7:57 PM, wrote: Rob wrote: wrote: Rob wrote: snip (who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms) If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't be asking such questions. I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough. Only since 1994; a newbee then. Like you... When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene in disgust. Pity. The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers to interact with USENET. Not entirely. There was also the fact that many people were using slow modem connections and were being charged by the byte (which is still true in some parts of the world today). HTML unnecessarily increased download time and bytes transferred. As does not snipping previous diaglog... I snipped what I deemed was appropriate. Sorry if that doesn't suit the trolls. Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders support uuencode/uudecode. Not necessarily. Some news servers don't accept any attachments; others don't accept binary attachments. If an attachment is uuencoded, a news server doesn't know what the attachment is. The majority of the prohibitions against attachments were on a group basis and enforced by a UDP for blatant repeat offenders. Once again you show your ignorance. There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that leads too. And many news servers don't cary many of the alt.* groups. They're not as well supported as the big eight. Which is but one of the effects of there being no "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" applied to the alt. groups. No, it's because most of the news servers don't want trolls creating thousands of newsgroups which aren't used. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip I snipped what I deemed was appropriate. Sorry if that doesn't suit the trolls. And he is off and running... snip No, it's because most of the news servers don't want trolls creating thousands of newsgroups which aren't used. Point totally missed as usual as Jerry Stuckle the magnificent climbs atop his high horse off to tilt at "trolls". -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
wrote:
Rob wrote: wrote: Rob wrote: snip (who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms) If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't be asking such questions. I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough. Only since 1994; a newbee then. Do you really think you should start a ****ing contest to win an argument? Lame... When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene in disgust. Pity. The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers to interact with USENET. I already told you that I have seen the debate more than often enough. It is like the hams who think that only CW should be used because it is the best mode for weak signal work and they have all the equipment. They have focussed so strongly on that, that they did not see the world around them has changed. They keep hammering out the same thing even when it is no longer true. Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders support uuencode/uudecode. What I mean is that charters and server policies explicitly disallow them, and that there are active "guardians" on groups, and even robots, that go after those that post them. This meant that a discussion that requires a simple drawing or schematic for clarification could not be held on usenet, and people went to places where it was no problem. In the first stage, those were the webforums. This was very unfortunate because it fragmented the community, now you had to look on a specific forum instead of "on usenet" which was more like a network of forums. The usenet people failed to see that and stubbornly held to their sacred 80-character fixed font paradigm, while the rest of the world moved on to flowed paragraphs, inline illustrations, simple markup, etc. But they lost the common communication platform in that process. (had the usenet guardians not be so stubborn, the web forums could have used usenet as their underlying message store and forward layer) There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that leads too. There are always pros and cons to "there should be law and order". |
Disgusting behavious by hams
"jta" wrote in message
... Your first sentence sums up the problem: You are too immature to rise above it or ignore those posts. Thus, you become the problem. There is no reason to reply. All you do is toss petrol on the fire. Stop feeding the trolls! Another hypocrite with an holier-than-thou stance who resorts to the very abuse that he sought to proscribe. |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/15/2015 4:31 AM, Rob wrote:
wrote: Rob wrote: wrote: Rob wrote: snip (who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms) If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't be asking such questions. I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough. Only since 1994; a newbee then. Do you really think you should start a ****ing contest to win an argument? Lame... That's trolls for you... When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene in disgust. Pity. The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers to interact with USENET. I already told you that I have seen the debate more than often enough. It is like the hams who think that only CW should be used because it is the best mode for weak signal work and they have all the equipment. They have focussed so strongly on that, that they did not see the world around them has changed. They keep hammering out the same thing even when it is no longer true. There is nothing wrong with CW. However, I have, in over 47 years of being a ham, seen ANYONE say "only CW should be used...". Lame. Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders support uuencode/uudecode. What I mean is that charters and server policies explicitly disallow them, and that there are active "guardians" on groups, and even robots, that go after those that post them. It's up to the people who proposed the newsgroup as to whether they allow attachments or not. And if attachments are banned, I see no reason why the ban should not be enforced. This meant that a discussion that requires a simple drawing or schematic for clarification could not be held on usenet, and people went to places where it was no problem. In the first stage, those were the webforums. So? There never was a problem with uploading the image to a server and pointing people to it. We did that back in the early 80's. We even did it in the 70's when we use mail lists as the precursor to usenet. This was very unfortunate because it fragmented the community, now you had to look on a specific forum instead of "on usenet" which was more like a network of forums. The usenet people failed to see that and stubbornly held to their sacred 80-character fixed font paradigm, while the rest of the world moved on to flowed paragraphs, inline illustrations, simple markup, etc. But they lost the common communication platform in that process. (had the usenet guardians not be so stubborn, the web forums could have used usenet as their underlying message store and forward layer) No, Usenet was designed as a text-based network, and nothing has changed that. It still has its purpose. And if you don't like it, there are always web-based forums. What HAS killed usenet is the trolls driving people away. At least with web-based forums you can ban trolls. Not possible on usenet. There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that leads too. There are always pros and cons to "there should be law and order". -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/15/2015 2:21 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip I snipped what I deemed was appropriate. Sorry if that doesn't suit the trolls. And he is off and running... snip No, it's because most of the news servers don't want trolls creating thousands of newsgroups which aren't used. Point totally missed as usual as Jerry Stuckle the magnificent climbs atop his high horse off to tilt at "trolls". The shoe fits... But then trolls don't like me. And I really don't care. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Quote:
You want the flames to end? Then stop the flaming! You have the power to do so. |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/15/2015 2:21 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip I snipped what I deemed was appropriate. Sorry if that doesn't suit the trolls. And he is off and running... snip No, it's because most of the news servers don't want trolls creating thousands of newsgroups which aren't used. Point totally missed as usual as Jerry Stuckle the magnificent climbs atop his high horse off to tilt at "trolls". The shoe fits... Non sequitur. But then trolls don't like me. And I really don't care. Not everything is about you. -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Rob wrote:
wrote: Rob wrote: wrote: Rob wrote: snip (who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms) If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't be asking such questions. I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough. Only since 1994; a newbee then. Do you really think you should start a ****ing contest to win an argument? Lame... What argument? When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene in disgust. Pity. The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers to interact with USENET. I already told you that I have seen the debate more than often enough. Yep, but you had three points so I addressed three points. It is like the hams who think that only CW should be used because it is the best mode for weak signal work and they have all the equipment. They have focussed so strongly on that, that they did not see the world around them has changed. They keep hammering out the same thing even when it is no longer true. Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders support uuencode/uudecode. What I mean is that charters and server policies explicitly disallow them, and that there are active "guardians" on groups, and even robots, that go after those that post them. This meant that a discussion that requires a simple drawing or schematic for clarification could not be held on usenet, and people went to places where it was no problem. In the first stage, those were the webforums. Again, it has always been allowed on groups where it was appropriate. This was very unfortunate because it fragmented the community, now you had to look on a specific forum instead of "on usenet" which was more like a network of forums. The usenet people failed to see that and stubbornly held to their sacred 80-character fixed font paradigm, while the rest of the world moved on to flowed paragraphs, inline illustrations, simple markup, etc. But they lost the common communication platform in that process. (had the usenet guardians not be so stubborn, the web forums could have used usenet as their underlying message store and forward layer) There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that leads too. There are always pros and cons to "there should be law and order". -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip That's trolls for you... Trolls to the left of him. Trolls to the right of him. Into the valley of flames... -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/15/2015 1:28 PM, wrote:
Rob wrote: wrote: Rob wrote: wrote: Rob wrote: snip (who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms) If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't be asking such questions. I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough. Only since 1994; a newbee then. Do you really think you should start a ****ing contest to win an argument? Lame... What argument? When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene in disgust. Pity. The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers to interact with USENET. I already told you that I have seen the debate more than often enough. Yep, but you had three points so I addressed three points. It is like the hams who think that only CW should be used because it is the best mode for weak signal work and they have all the equipment. They have focussed so strongly on that, that they did not see the world around them has changed. They keep hammering out the same thing even when it is no longer true. Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders support uuencode/uudecode. What I mean is that charters and server policies explicitly disallow them, and that there are active "guardians" on groups, and even robots, that go after those that post them. This meant that a discussion that requires a simple drawing or schematic for clarification could not be held on usenet, and people went to places where it was no problem. In the first stage, those were the webforums. Again, it has always been allowed on groups where it was appropriate. This was very unfortunate because it fragmented the community, now you had to look on a specific forum instead of "on usenet" which was more like a network of forums. The usenet people failed to see that and stubbornly held to their sacred 80-character fixed font paradigm, while the rest of the world moved on to flowed paragraphs, inline illustrations, simple markup, etc. But they lost the common communication platform in that process. (had the usenet guardians not be so stubborn, the web forums could have used usenet as their underlying message store and forward layer) There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that leads too. There are always pros and cons to "there should be law and order". Ask not for whom the bell trolls. It trolls for thee... |
Disgusting behavious by hams
"jta" wrote in message
... Your first sentence sums up the problem: You are too immature to rise above it or ignore those posts. Thus, you become the problem. There is no reason to reply. All you do is toss petrol on the fire. Stop feeding the trolls!- Ahhh, you prove my point! You cannot see the truth when it's right at the end of your own nose. You want the flames to end? Then stop the flaming! You have the power to do so. Another hypocrite with an holier-than-thou stance who resorts to the very abuse that he sought to proscribe. |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/15/2015 2:22 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/15/2015 2:21 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip I snipped what I deemed was appropriate. Sorry if that doesn't suit the trolls. And he is off and running... snip No, it's because most of the news servers don't want trolls creating thousands of newsgroups which aren't used. Point totally missed as usual as Jerry Stuckle the magnificent climbs atop his high horse off to tilt at "trolls". The shoe fits... Non sequitur. I knew you wouldn't understand. But everyone else here did. Such are trolls. But then trolls don't like me. And I really don't care. Not everything is about you. Nope, but your trolling here is. And you are all about trolling. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/15/2015 2:59 PM, John S wrote:
Ask not for whom the bell trolls. It trolls for thee... ROFLMAO! I love it! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I knew you wouldn't understand. But everyone else here did. Such are trolls. trolls trolls trolls... Here a troll, there a troll, EVERYWHERE a troll.. -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/15/2015 7:42 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: I knew you wouldn't understand. But everyone else here did. Such are trolls. trolls trolls trolls... Here a troll, there a troll, EVERYWHERE a troll.. A typical troll response. There are just a couple in this newsgroup. But you're at the top of the list. How does it feel to finally be the best at something? But then this isn't the only newsgroup you're known for trolling, is it? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
A typical troll response. Trollin', trollin', trollin' on the river of **** -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/16/2015 3:12 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: A typical troll response. Trollin', trollin', trollin' on the river of **** ROFLMAO! Another typical troll response. Is that all you know? I guess so - you're completely unable to otherwise carry on a discussion. But I guess this makes you feel like people care. Here's a hint, troll. We don't. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip ROFLMAO! Another typical troll response. Is that all you know? trolls trolls trolls trolls... -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/16/2015 5:15 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip ROFLMAO! Another typical troll response. Is that all you know? trolls trolls trolls trolls... Yup, that's you. And you think you're making me mad. Far from the truth. The only one you're irritating is yourself. ROFLMAO! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip And you think you're making me mad. Far from the truth. The only one you're irritating is yourself. ROFLMAO! From my point of view it is like lightly touching a cat's ear and watching the reflex reaction. -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/16/2015 8:39 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip And you think you're making me mad. Far from the truth. The only one you're irritating is yourself. ROFLMAO! From my point of view it is like lightly touching a cat's ear and watching the reflex reaction. ROFLMAO! Trolls like you really are entertaining. You're so stoopid you don't realize how stoopid you look! I pointed this thread out to some other pals. We're getting a good laugh over your posts. Keep it up - we're snowed in today and I can use the laughs. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:19:04 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
ROFLMAO! Another typical troll response. If, as you suggest the poster, is a troll then if a person keeps responding to that troll then is he not himself a troll? Just asking. Charlie. M0WYM. -- He who throws dirt loses ground. |
Disgusting behavious by hams
"Charlie" wrote in message
... On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:19:04 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: ROFLMAO! Another typical troll response. If, as you suggest the poster, is a troll then if a person keeps responding to that troll then is he not himself a troll? Just asking. I think that the three troublesome Yanks have well demonstrated recently that it is they, and they alone, who are the trolls and dung-stirrers in these radio amateur NG. |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip ROFLMAO! Trolls like you really are entertaining. You're so stoopid you don't realize how stoopid you look! I see trolls... -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
gareth wrote:
I think that the three troublesome Yanks have well demonstrated recently that it is they, and they alone, who are the trolls and dung-stirrers in these radio amateur NG. Been hauled before a judge lately? -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/17/2015 1:54 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip ROFLMAO! Trolls like you really are entertaining. You're so stoopid you don't realize how stoopid you look! I see trolls... Ah, damn. I lost my bet. I bet you'd come back with another one of your tunes. One of the other guys was right on, though! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/17/2015 1:20 PM, Charlie wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:19:04 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: ROFLMAO! Another typical troll response. If, as you suggest the poster, is a troll then if a person keeps responding to that troll then is he not himself a troll? Just asking. Charlie. M0WYM. Only in your mind, Charlie. Trolls won't discuss the facts. Look back at the beginning of this thread, where I corrected him on a couple of points. He wouldn't discuss the points at all. Jim is a well-known troll in several newsgroups. Correcting him is not trolling. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip Ah, damn. I lost my bet. I bet you'd come back with another one of your tunes. One of the other guys was right on, though! Twitch that ear, kitty. -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip Trolls won't discuss the facts. Look back at the beginning of this thread, where I corrected him on a couple of points. He wouldn't discuss the points at all. One can not "discuss points" with an egotistic ass with delusions of omniscience who's primary response is to call anyone that disagrees with him in the slightest a troll. -- Jim Pennino |
Disgusting behavious by hams
On 2/17/2015 3:40 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip Ah, damn. I lost my bet. I bet you'd come back with another one of your tunes. One of the other guys was right on, though! Twitch that ear, kitty. ROFLMAO! I won this one, though! You're so predictable. So far I'm ahead $25. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com