On 9/7/2013 3:37 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response
from so
many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate
solution to
any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just
one
such instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably
get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder
why?)


Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?



2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing
^^^
-------------------------------------------------|||

See this part? Now read the rest of the post...


additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can
use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile
usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams,
and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem,
from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you
are
giving your opinion on it.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would
not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate
all
the conversations?


I wasn't talking to you.

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.


You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.

But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

I think it is about me because... well, because you *were* talking about
me ("him" in this case), see the quote above.

I know it is a public forum. That is what I had to point out to you.
You seem to object to me using it as a public forum. You don't like
what I say and you don't like who I say it to.

If you don't like my posts, why do you keep replying to them?

BTW, by calling me a troll, *you* have started the ad hominem attack. If
you don't like the conversation you are free to not participate. You
are also free to killfile me. Then you won't be bothered by me anymore.

I'm sorry it got to this point. I don't try to antagonize people like
you, but there are no small number of folks on the Internet who seem to
want to run things and that doesn't work with me.

Thanks for the good information you have provided.


You just don't get it, do you?

I can talk ABOUT you all I want. But that doesn't mean you are worth
talking TO you.

And yes, this is a public forum. If I don't like what you say, I am free
to speak my view, also. But you don't seem to like that.

And no, calling you a troll is not an ad hominem attack on you. But it
just might be to trolls.

BTW - I'm not trying to "run things". I WAS trying to give you good
information on ways to solve your problem. But you kept on arguing, even
though the FCC regs say what you want to do is illegal.

You don't like the FCC's rules? Well, T.S. That's what they are. As I
said before - if you don't like them, petition the FCC to change them.
But your continued arguing in this or any other forum will get you no
positive result - and a lot of negative ones.

Dude, you are a tough cookie. Ok, you win. I'm a troll and you are
the... well, whatever you are picturing yourself to be.

Does that make you feel better?

BTW, you were trying to run things. You seem to be incensed that I
replied to your post. Are you not saying I shouldn't reply? If not,
just what *are* you going on about?

I never suggested that you shouldn't speak your mind. I'm just pointing
out that you seem to be saying I don't have the right to reply which is
bogus.


Nope. I didn't say you couldn't post. I just said I wasn't talking to
you. But you still felt it necessary to object to my post. And you
complain about ME trying to run the conversation? No, those are the
actions of trolls.

And with this post, I'm tired of trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a
waste of time.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

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

On 9/7/2013 3:44 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:37 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response
from so
many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate
solution to
any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just
one
such instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd
probably
get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder
why?)


Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?



2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's
placing
^^^
-------------------------------------------------|||

See this part? Now read the rest of the post...


additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can
use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile
usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams,
and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem,
from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet
you
are
giving your opinion on it.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained
repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would
not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate
all
the conversations?


I wasn't talking to you.

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.


You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.

But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

I think it is about me because... well, because you *were* talking
about
me ("him" in this case), see the quote above.

I know it is a public forum. That is what I had to point out to you.
You seem to object to me using it as a public forum. You don't like
what I say and you don't like who I say it to.

If you don't like my posts, why do you keep replying to them?

BTW, by calling me a troll, *you* have started the ad hominem
attack. If
you don't like the conversation you are free to not participate. You
are also free to killfile me. Then you won't be bothered by me anymore.

I'm sorry it got to this point. I don't try to antagonize people like
you, but there are no small number of folks on the Internet who seem to
want to run things and that doesn't work with me.

Thanks for the good information you have provided.


You just don't get it, do you?

I can talk ABOUT you all I want. But that doesn't mean you are worth
talking TO you.

And yes, this is a public forum. If I don't like what you say, I am free
to speak my view, also. But you don't seem to like that.

And no, calling you a troll is not an ad hominem attack on you. But it
just might be to trolls.

BTW - I'm not trying to "run things". I WAS trying to give you good
information on ways to solve your problem. But you kept on arguing, even
though the FCC regs say what you want to do is illegal.

You don't like the FCC's rules? Well, T.S. That's what they are. As I
said before - if you don't like them, petition the FCC to change them.
But your continued arguing in this or any other forum will get you no
positive result - and a lot of negative ones.

Dude, you are a tough cookie. Ok, you win. I'm a troll and you are
the... well, whatever you are picturing yourself to be.

Does that make you feel better?

BTW, you were trying to run things. You seem to be incensed that I
replied to your post. Are you not saying I shouldn't reply? If not,
just what *are* you going on about?

I never suggested that you shouldn't speak your mind. I'm just pointing
out that you seem to be saying I don't have the right to reply which is
bogus.


Nope. I didn't say you couldn't post. I just said I wasn't talking to
you. But you still felt it necessary to object to my post. And you
complain about ME trying to run the conversation? No, those are the
actions of trolls.

Go back and read my post. I didn't complain that you posted. I
complained that the content of your post contradicted the facts and that
you continued to make these wrong claims. You continued to say that I
could use Ham radio for my needs long after I have explained that I
can't get the rest of the kayaking community to switch radios.

You can go on about it all you wish, but that is not a realistic
expectation. So your comments are far off target. That is my point.
But you are free to continue to state them.


And with this post, I'm tired of trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a
waste of time.

After the first few posts, yes, the rest of this conversation *has* been
a waste of time.

--

Rick