From: (John=A0Smith)
Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine
your IQ has been tested

and blows him away...


Your "imagination" is limited only yourself. Nothing odd about how you
continue to prefer to change the topic to one of a poster instead of the
topic. You see, this is a flub of the communication-challenged. Denial
is not a river in Egypt. Try and remain focused on the topic and not
allow your personal emotions to dictate poor communication form. Once
again, remaining on topic is the preferred MO. If you continue to
struggle with such, you may wish to examine your present agenda.

And, surely you have rubbed elbows with

colleges such as he has, perhaps you even

share many of the same friends--too bad

about Carl Sagans' passing--I bet you miss

him...


And my "bet" is proving more valid with each uncontrollable emotion of
yours that manifests in the most entertaining of manners. With a single
post, I have not only captivated yourr attention, but created an entity
of obsession so intense, your can focus on nothing but your newly chosen
"topic"...."me". (makes sign of cross, blesses the unsavory and newfound
church member wearing Halloween mask) .


and hold many as close personal friends--

Claiming you knew Sagan personally means nothing to the masses, so
forgive my curiosity for inquiring as to why you felt it to important to
mention? Feeling bad about yourself and needing a pick-me-up? LOL..


the rich exchange you have with them keeps

you quite up to date--I can tell from your text...


And the contingency can tell quite more from your multiple posts
"suddenly" (LMAO) focusing on nothing but myself. Now,,,THAT is the
defnition of rich,,but you continue with the gaffes, so it's more than
worth the entertainment.

Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an

"Arm-Chair-Genius."


Nor you with managing to remain on topic and focus on the subject
instead of changing it to one of a poster you became fixated upon with
your manias. Of course, people like yourself need reminded that usenet
participants should focus on subject matter and not that of the poster,
but like you said, no one would -ever- confuse you with someone who
comprehended proper communication etiquette.

Warmest regards,

John

Right backatcha!!

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:14:42 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (John*Smith)
Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine
your IQ has been tested

and blows him away...


Your "imagination" is limited only yourself. Nothing odd about how you
continue to prefer to change the topic to one of a poster instead of the
topic. You see, this is a flub of the communication-challenged. Denial
is not a river in Egypt. Try and remain focused on the topic and not
allow your personal emotions to dictate poor communication form. Once
again, remaining on topic is the preferred MO. If you continue to
struggle with such, you may wish to examine your present agenda.

And, surely you have rubbed elbows with

colleges such as he has, perhaps you even

share many of the same friends--too bad

about Carl Sagans' passing--I bet you miss

him...


And my "bet" is proving more valid with each uncontrollable emotion of
yours that manifests in the most entertaining of manners. With a single
post, I have not only captivated yourr attention, but created an entity
of obsession so intense, your can focus on nothing but your newly chosen
"topic"...."me". (makes sign of cross, blesses the unsavory and newfound
church member wearing Halloween mask) .


and hold many as close personal friends--

Claiming you knew Sagan personally means nothing to the masses, so
forgive my curiosity for inquiring as to why you felt it to important to
mention? Feeling bad about yourself and needing a pick-me-up? LOL..


the rich exchange you have with them keeps

you quite up to date--I can tell from your text...


And the contingency can tell quite more from your multiple posts
"suddenly" (LMAO) focusing on nothing but myself. Now,,,THAT is the
defnition of rich,,but you continue with the gaffes, so it's more than
worth the entertainment.

Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an

"Arm-Chair-Genius."


Nor you with managing to remain on topic and focus on the subject
instead of changing it to one of a poster you became fixated upon with
your manias. Of course, people like yourself need reminded that usenet
participants should focus on subject matter and not that of the poster,
but like you said, no one would -ever- confuse you with someone who
comprehended proper communication etiquette.

Warmest regards,

John

Right backatcha!!


Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed
to transmit anywhere.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Dave:

"Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to
transmit anywhere."

That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the
radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only,
very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other
half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by
citizens...

.... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the
various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well
be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather
insane system...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:14:42 -0400, (I
| AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
|
| From: (John Smith)
| Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine
| your IQ has been tested
|
| and blows him away...
|
|
| Your "imagination" is limited only yourself. Nothing odd about how you
| continue to prefer to change the topic to one of a poster instead of the
| topic. You see, this is a flub of the communication-challenged. Denial
| is not a river in Egypt. Try and remain focused on the topic and not
| allow your personal emotions to dictate poor communication form. Once
| again, remaining on topic is the preferred MO. If you continue to
| struggle with such, you may wish to examine your present agenda.
|
| And, surely you have rubbed elbows with
|
| colleges such as he has, perhaps you even
|
| share many of the same friends--too bad
|
| about Carl Sagans' passing--I bet you miss
|
| him...
|
|
| And my "bet" is proving more valid with each uncontrollable emotion of
| yours that manifests in the most entertaining of manners. With a single
| post, I have not only captivated yourr attention, but created an entity
| of obsession so intense, your can focus on nothing but your newly chosen
| "topic"...."me". (makes sign of cross, blesses the unsavory and newfound
| church member wearing Halloween mask) .
|
|
| and hold many as close personal friends--
|
| Claiming you knew Sagan personally means nothing to the masses, so
| forgive my curiosity for inquiring as to why you felt it to important to
| mention? Feeling bad about yourself and needing a pick-me-up? LOL..
|
|
| the rich exchange you have with them keeps
|
| you quite up to date--I can tell from your text...
|
|
| And the contingency can tell quite more from your multiple posts
| "suddenly" (LMAO) focusing on nothing but myself. Now,,,THAT is the
| defnition of rich,,but you continue with the gaffes, so it's more than
| worth the entertainment.
|
| Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an
|
| "Arm-Chair-Genius."
|
|
| Nor you with managing to remain on topic and focus on the subject
| instead of changing it to one of a poster you became fixated upon with
| your manias. Of course, people like yourself need reminded that usenet
| participants should focus on subject matter and not that of the poster,
| but like you said, no one would -ever- confuse you with someone who
| comprehended proper communication etiquette.
|
| Warmest regards,
|
| John
|
| Right backatcha!!
|
|
| Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed
| to transmit anywhere.
|
| Dave
| "Sandbagger"

On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Dave:

"Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to
transmit anywhere."

That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the
radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only,
very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other
half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by
citizens...

... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the
various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well
be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather
insane system...

Warmest regards,
John

On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:31:49 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

I am also open to them providing a section of this spectrum to
specialized hobbies and for experimentation... however, the majority
of it is mine

is it half or the majority?

Well, granting the "other users"--gov't, military, community transportation,
hobbists, etc... a whole half is probably over-kill--but better to be
generous than not...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Marbles can be used in models with excellent results! However, if forced
to keep using all of mine up... I may end up at a disadvantage... I seem
to have misplaced some!!!


"Freeband sucks" wrote in message
news:1116010170.3e6f1873b1407f9d5191a59369c56138@b ubbanews...
| On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith"
| wrote:
|
| Dave:
|
| "Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to
| transmit anywhere."
|
| That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in
the
| radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only,
| very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other
| half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by
| citizens...
|
| ... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the
| various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well
| be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather
| insane system...
|
| Warmest regards,
| John
|
| On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:31:49 -0700, "John Smith"
| wrote:
|
| I am also open to them providing a section of this spectrum to
| specialized hobbies and for experimentation... however, the majority
| of it is mine
|
| is it half or the majority?

From: (John=A0Smith)
Dave:
"Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed
to transmit anywhere."

That is NOT what I said at all,

Yea,,,well, N3CVJ has a bad habit of deliberately misattributing claims
to those he admires. Congratulations.

Warmest regards,

John

backatchacottonpicker

On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Dave:

"Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to
transmit anywhere."

That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the
radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only,
very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other
half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by
citizens...

Forgive me then. I seemed to remember you first saying that ALL the
spectrum belonged to the citizens. I'm sorry if I got that wrong.


But if all of the spectrum doesn't belong to the citizens, then who
does it belong to?


... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the
various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well
be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather
insane system...


I would agree, and it seems that you've modified your original
proposal for "radio anarchy" to one of "looser regulation".

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Be kind to John.

I have been. I have treated him in kind response.

He shares your opinion that

people should be allowed to transmit

anywhere.

David Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

Such an opinion appears nowhere except in forges and your repetitious
references to such. The extent at which you defile yourself is nothing
short of astonishing.