From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 5:30 pm

wrote:
on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:

Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)

Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.

Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?

Robesin did.

They are birds of a feather, Brian.

They might share a brain...

At least Heil didn't consume time and resources in a useless exercise
as Robesin has.

I will dispute that. Very little of Heil's messaging in
here appears useful...except to him. It is almost
entirely about demeaning lots of others. He only makes
nice-nice to other pro-coders.


The only difference
between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
is evident in both.

I see a lot more difference between them than that, but without getting
into a great big ****ing match with either of them, I'll sum it up in
that one of them should be kept away from society, the other is merely
annoying and needs to stick to meaningful exchanges on the air, such as
"you're 59."

Har! Yes, good old "you are 5-9-9!" :-)

...even if a repeat is requested on half of what the
other station transmitted. :-)


Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
at the same time logic...]

Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
REGULATE US amateur radio. Heil's concept of who rules
is faulty.

They tend to ignore facts.

"Tend?" Hell, no, they OUTRIGHT ignore them.

Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
others.

The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
license. In any discussion with others about a singular
test to ENTER amateur radio, Heil does not play well and
assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.

That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares. Heil
has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(

Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong. Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way. Like Robeswine's present antics, no
one said a word...

Hypocrisy in action.

However, Hans Brakob told the Robeswine off several times.
Hans is about the oldest tymest ham in this newsgroup, a
morseman, but one who doesn't think the morse code test
is necessary. Hans earned that right.

The key ingredient is always that morse code test. Anyone
against it are always "wrong" but those for it are always
"right"...in the pro-code-test morsemen's definition of
truth, justice, and the morse way.


["signature" omitted due to all the amateur hissy fits
about being a Life Member of a Professional Association]

From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm

wrote:
wrote:

Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong.

If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
and attack the person who points out their mistake.

Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.

Fascinating. Miccolis is becoming a clone of Robesin.

Jimmy engages in some kind of weird wordplay wherein he
both manipulates word meanings and loaded "questions"
so that he can come back with "you are simply wrong"
to anyone protesting/challenging/saying-an-opposite.

To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.
Never mind that several hundred have already seen
the old words in past messages, Jimmy MUST have those
quotes in here! :-)

Jimmy never served in any military, never volunteered
for anything in the military or in one of his
governments. Yet, he is a self-righteous "expert"
who wants to demean military that are serving (or
veterans of service) with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer." Jimmy
doesn't give a **** if he insults 99.99% of everyone
else, he MUST insult one who IS a veteran and who is
on his enemies list. Therefore, he exhibits the
same syndrome as that sick Robesin.


How many newcomers actually read rrap?

How many *people* actually read rrap?

Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.

I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
period. Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
the anony-mousies in here. I've suggested it to Paul
Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
check.


Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.

Do your own homework.

Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION. Everyone
will be busy arguing and arguing over the OLD post and
Jimmy can simply ignore the current post. :-)


Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...

Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
on all sides of various issues.

Yup. Someone recently said that service members are subsidized, which
isn't even a RRAP issue.

Now, just WHY would some dumb sonnovasnitch try to insult
about a million members of the United States military?

I don't understand that. It must be some twisted so-and-so
who never volunteered for any military service and thinks
they are so much better than any service person...


As Heil says, "Bully for you."

The more you post, the deeper into a corner you get.

It's the Robeswine syndrome in Jimmy's posts again...going
deeper and deeper and deeper until, like falling into a
Black Hole, they can never get out.

---

I stopped by the Armed Forces Career office on the 3rd floor
of the Media City Mall in Burbank, CA, today. It's next to
the 3rd floor entrance to Sears at the south end of the Mall.
Nice place. Very attractive, really. Not busy today. Had
a nice chat with an Army E-5 there. He got some information
(on you-know-who) and we traded a few items of personal info.
He got a kick out of my miniature DD-214 photocopy. [no
background check of me was necessary, Paul Schleck]

You might note that Robesin's QRZ bio has been altered. He
doesn't mention his "USMC career" at all now! Wonder why?
:-)


["signature" omitted here due to hissy fits of the
'moderator team' or whatever]

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong.

If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
and attack the person who points out their mistake.

Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.

Who is "Robesin"?

It's something several people need to understand. However, those who
most need to understand it are those who reject it the loudest.

How many newcomers actually read rrap?

How many *people* actually read rrap?

Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.

Think about when things really went downhill....

Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.

Do your own homework.

Brian, *you* made the claim. You wrote: "Proof?"

which means you are claiming you have proof of something.

You made the claim - you back it up. Show us where the person in
question:

"said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he couldn't have ham radio his
way."

You said you had proof. This sort of thing is what Usenet archives are
for. If he really wrote something like that, show us where he wrote it.

If you don't, or can't, why should anyone believe your claim? You've
made mistakes here before, like the part about "liberal'" FDR and the
Bonus Marchers, when it was really "conservative" Herbert Hoover who
ordered troops to disperse them. You were wrong about FDR, maybe you're
wrong about the "proof" you claimed.

Telling me "Do your own homework" is a clear indication that you don't
really have any proof, and that you're misquoting a dead person.

Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...

Who is "Robeswine"?

Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
on all sides of various issues.
---

You've convinced me too, Brian.

Any doubts I had have been laid to rest.

I'm completely convinced, now.

As Heil says, "Bully for you."

You don't have to keep trying to convince me, Brian. I'm already
convinced!

wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm

wrote:
wrote:


To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

who wants to demean
....
with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer."

Why do you think the word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?

I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary:

"a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
advantageous to the public"

What is demeaning about that?

"subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"

Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.

OTOH, governments subsidize all kinds of things. Why do you think the
word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?

How many newcomers actually read rrap?

How many *people* actually read rrap?

Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.

I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
period.

How would that be done, Len? Who has the authority to shut down rrap?
Obviously you do not, because you would have done it by now.

No, wait, that's not right. You don't always do what you say you are
going to do.

Len, if you want rrap to go silent, why don't you lead the way?

Perhaps you want rrap to continue, because without it, you'll not be
able to rant the way you have for the past decade or so.

Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
the anony-mousies in here.

Not even you, Len.

I've suggested it to Paul
Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
check.

You mean he's pointed out how *your* behavior doesn't meet IEEE
standards....

I see a contradiction, Len.

On the one hand you want rrap shut down.

On the other hand, you don't want a moderated newsgroup, and you attack
the person who wants to set one up.

Sounds like you have issues with control, Len. Self-control, that is.
You realize that your postings are buried in the noise here, but on a
moderated newsgroup they'd not be allowed. You'd have to control your
behavior on a moderated newsgroup, and that's a problem for you.

Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.

Do your own homework.

Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION.

How is it misdirection?

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

--

btw, Len, you don't have to keep trying to convince me. I'm convinced!

From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am

wrote:
on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
wrote:
wrote:

Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong.

If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
and attack the person who points out their mistake.

Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.

Fascinating. Miccolis is becoming a clone of Robesin.

only has a lag of about 7 years on the long slide of robson

No, Mark. Jimmie was on AOL on one of their ham radio
"discussion" boards (exclusive of Usenet), sounding like
the 120-year-old 1x1 superextra clone of the ARRL,
parroting their phrases like he was a paid PR pro from
Newington on commission. Someone apparently tipped him
off on Usenet back then and he showed up in here. Same
PR phrasing, same braggadoccio about amateur radio as on
AOL's board, same talking-down with smug arrogance
to anyone not embracing Jimmie's vision of the
All-Codah Heaven (but no mention of "virgins").

The Robeswine is a relative latecomer to RRAP, but he
initially came on trying to out-do Chesty Puller, USMC,
but coming out more like Gomer Pyle. The Robeswine must
have spent days collecting all the emotionally-loaded
catch-phrases of the USMC and generally speaking like
left-over sound bites from TV's JAG (now a "defunct"
series).

Jimmy engages in some kind of weird wordplay wherein he
both manipulates word meanings and loaded "questions"
so that he can come back with "you are simply wrong"
to anyone protesting/challenging/saying-an-opposite.

To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.
Never mind that several hundred have already seen
the old words in past messages, Jimmy MUST have those
quotes in here! :-)

again on his way being the new Robeson

Jimmie cries out "You have no proof!" when others don't
care to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue old posts by
MISDIRECTION of quoting them. It is like he desperately
must "win" old arguments he never won.

The Robeswine used to do that but lost it a few years
ago, preferring to directly insult his challengers...in
everything from their sexual preferences to practicing
pedophilia to claims of odd anti-patriotism for honoring
deceased members of one's military unit. In addition,
the robeswine pretended to be some kind of "authority"
who could have anyone "picked up" after making a single
telephone call. I'm leaving out the sick desires of
his to "talk" to spouses.

Jimmy never served in any military, never volunteered
for anything in the military or in one of his
governments. Yet, he is a self-righteous "expert"
who wants to demean military that are serving (or
veterans of service) with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer." Jimmy
doesn't give a **** if he insults 99.99% of everyone
else, he MUST insult one who IS a veteran and who is
on his enemies list. Therefore, he exhibits the
same syndrome as that sick robeswine.

With Jimmie it gets WORSE in my opinion. He is so
confused about "service to the country" that he doesn't
hesitate to engage in sick wordplay about servicemenbers
being "subsidized" by taxpayers.

How can OFFERING ONE'S LIFE be "subsidized?!?" That is
implicit in EVERY military servicemember's Oath on first
joining any branch. [in my day it was direct, not
implicit, but I have been "told" that the exact wording
has changed since then] Is that in the Oath spoken by
police, firemen, paramedics, forest service rangers,
jailhouse guards? I've never heard of that, but it might
be so. Just the same, NO police, firemen, etc., ever
have to face artillery, strafing from aircraft, salvos
and torpedoes on open ocean and deliberate open warfare
on land. Jimmie just doesn't understand that. He's
never tried to. He READS about it and then says he
"knows all about it" (and is the "expert" on it).


How many newcomers actually read rrap?

How many *people* actually read rrap?

Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.

I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
period. Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
the anony-mousies in here. I've suggested it to Paul
Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
check.

it might work

I don't say it will "work." I can't see any other choice.
It doesn't provide a TRUE discussion forum about policy
matters now.

The newsgroup has been infected with a cancerous growth
of filthy sayings by those who truly "can't play well
with others." This cancer has metastasized into most
threads. The newsgroup is already terminal. Parts of it
have already died. It is best to just BURY it and hope
for some "ressurection" much later, perhaps after the FCC
makes some decision on last year's NPRM about eliminating
the code test for amateur licenses.


Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.

Do your own homework.

Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION. Everyone
will be busy arguing and arguing over the OLD post and
Jimmy can simply ignore the current post. :-)

That's a constant with Miccolis. Feigned outrage and demand
to "show us the posting." Actually a good ploy to avoid
answering the basic challenge. But, it is old, trite, used
by many since old days of ARPANET and useless as a "reply."


Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...

Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
on all sides of various issues.

Yup. Someone recently said that service members are subsidized, which
isn't even a RRAP issue.

Now, just WHY would some dumb sonnovasnitch try to insult
about a million members of the United States military?

I don't understand that. It must be some twisted so-and-so
who never volunteered for any military service and thinks
they are so much better than any service person...

I'm going to hold to what I wrote. Every military veteran I
know will agree with me. If some never-serving sonnovawhich
wants to argue that "subsidy" thing they can shove it.

Paul Schleck and the Waffen SS guy can go do ALL the "personal,
non-professional life" background checks on me they want. They
won't turn up anything heroic (no "seven hostile actions"), just
doing my job(s) as best I could, following the rules, getting
paid regularly, never being fired for cause.

From Jimmie Miccolis we don't have enough hints that he DOES
have a "personal, non-professional life" to DO a full back-
ground check. He is proud of doing nothing at work. Hans
Brakob, Phil Kane, Bill Sohl, myself have all said what we
did and what we do for a living. So have others. But not
Jimmie M. All we hear from Jimmie are his amateur radio
adventures. He may have no other life. But, he is THE
'expert' on ALL matters, never ever hesitating to call
others "wrong" when they are in disagreement with him.

Jimmie's latest, his infamous "military persons get
'SUBSIDIZED' by taxpayers" is perhaps his crowning
achievement in looking down at all others. About a
million 'others.' How is a LIFE 'subsidized?'

That is NOT an amateur radio subject, certainly not policy.

Plain and simple fact: It is out of line, INSULTING to
anyone who is or has been in the United States military.

Miccolis won't apologize for that insult. He is always
"right." QED.


You might note that Robesin's QRZ bio has been altered. He
doesn't mention his "USMC career" at all now! Wonder why?
:-)

I just noticed that )having checked on it interesting it still shows
up on his home page

That's how it goes with the robeswine, HIS words are the ONLY
"facts" we can get. NO documented proof from real official
sources, not even a snapshot of him in that alleged 18-year
military career. Just His words.


["signature" omitted due to not receiving a "subsidy" for
posting in here...to those who object to what I wrote, the
ByteBrothers' famous phrase is invoked]

wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 5:30 pm

wrote:
on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:
Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)
Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?
Robesin did.
They are birds of a feather, Brian.
They might share a brain...

At least Heil didn't consume time and resources in a useless exercise
as Robesin has.

I will dispute that. Very little of Heil's messaging in
here appears useful...except to him. It is almost
entirely about demeaning lots of others. He only makes
nice-nice to other pro-coders.

Wowsers, Len. If we change the bit about "pro-coders" to "no-coders",
it fits you to a T.


The only difference
between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
is evident in both.
I see a lot more difference between them than that, but without getting
into a great big ****ing match with either of them, I'll sum it up in
that one of them should be kept away from society, the other is merely
annoying and needs to stick to meaningful exchanges on the air, such as
"you're 59."

Har! Yes, good old "you are 5-9-9!" :-)

Good old Len. Nobody but a rank greenhorn would issue a statement in
morse like "you are 5-9-9". A phone op wouldn't do it at all.

...even if a repeat is requested on half of what the
other station transmitted. :-)

You didn't get the first half right so I have doubts as to your second
statement. After all, you aren't involved and aren't sitting around
monitoring CW QSOs with your trusty Icom receiver.

["signature" omitted due to all the amateur hissy fits
about being a Life Member of a Professional Association]

That's your story and you may or may not stick to it. I think you've
gotten a little nervous about using the sig in light of your actions.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 5:30 pm

["signature" omitted due to all the amateur hissy fits
about being a Life Member of a Professional Association]


That's your story and you may or may not stick to it. I think you've
gotten a little nervous about using the sig in light of your actions.

So, how are things in the Waffen SS? Jimmie should be
happy You Are On The Job protecting Him...

Have you and Paul had a difficult time on my "personal, non-
professional life" background check? Have you contacted the
Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers yet? I gave
you their address. It's in all the better trade magazines.

I'm not worried. Are you worried that I'm not worried?

Or do you want me to be worried about your being worried
about my not being worried? :-)

So, when are the moderator police going to show up at my
house? I can put on a bigger pot of coffee. Is that a "service"
to the country? Or would you call that a "country crock?"

I think of most of your little endearing messages as a country
crock. Really spreads greasy stuff in here.

As ever, to you, the famous ByteBrothers phrase invoked.

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm

wrote:
wrote:

To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

The only logical explanation I can see for Brian's refusal is that he
now isn't so sure that his claim is accurate.

who wants to demean
...
with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer."

Why do you think the word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?

I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary:

"a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
advantageous to the public"

What is demeaning about that?

"subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"

Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.

OTOH, governments subsidize all kinds of things. Why do you think the
word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?

Len was recently attempting to cast aspersions on my U.S. Department of
State employment so it is interesting to look at the line he spouted:

On Sunday, Sept. 10, 2006 he wrote:

"Tsk, all those years in the State Department (paid for by the
US taxpayer) and he picked up NOTHING on diplomacy."

and

"Tsk, and all those Department of State years and
you never learning any diplomacy skills paid for by the US
taxpayer..."

He didn't write that I was paid by the U.S. Government. He wrote that
my years were paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.


How many newcomers actually read rrap?
How many *people* actually read rrap?
Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
period.

How would that be done, Len? Who has the authority to shut down rrap?
Obviously you do not, because you would have done it by now.

Len thinks he is in charge of the newsgroup now. He is a self-appointed
advocate for something-or-other, dontcha know?

No, wait, that's not right. You don't always do what you say you are
going to do.

Len, if you want rrap to go silent, why don't you lead the way?

Perhaps you want rrap to continue, because without it, you'll not be
able to rant the way you have for the past decade or so.

Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
the anony-mousies in here.

Not even you, Len.

I've suggested it to Paul
Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
check.

You mean he's pointed out how *your* behavior doesn't meet IEEE
standards....

I see a contradiction, Len.

On the one hand you want rrap shut down.

On the other hand, you don't want a moderated newsgroup, and you attack
the person who wants to set one up.

Sounds like you have issues with control, Len. Self-control, that is.
You realize that your postings are buried in the noise here, but on a
moderated newsgroup they'd not be allowed. You'd have to control your
behavior on a moderated newsgroup, and that's a problem for you.

Problem? He can't control his behavior. He is the way he is.

Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
Do your own homework.

Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION.

How is it misdirection?

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

It simply isn't misdirection. After all, Brian stated something without
proof. You asked to see the proof and Len accused you of misdirection.
The misdirection is Len's.

--

btw, Len, you don't have to keep trying to convince me. I'm convinced!

I've been convinced for years.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 5:30 pm

["signature" omitted due to all the amateur hissy fits
about being a Life Member of a Professional Association]


That's your story and you may or may not stick to it. I think you've
gotten a little nervous about using the sig in light of your actions.

So, how are things in the Waffen SS?

I haven't the slightest idea, Len. Is it your belief that it is still
in existence?

Jimmie should be
happy You Are On The Job protecting Him...

Remember your recent words where you state that this is a public
bulletin board that anyone may comment on anything? Why Are You Using
Caps To Begin Words? dOES yOUR kEYBOARD hAVE A sTICKY cAPS kEY?

Have you and Paul had a difficult time on my "personal, non-
professional life" background check?

Why no, Len. Much of your "personal, non-professional life" can be
found right on usenet. It is plain for anyone to see.

Have you contacted the
Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers yet?

No, not yet.

I gave
you their address.

Why yes, you did. I'd already found it though. It is on the web site.

It's in all the better trade magazines.

I couldn't find it in "Farm Industry News" or "Guitar Player".

I'm not worried. Are you worried that I'm not worried?

Thou dost protest too much.

So, when are the moderator police going to show up at my
house?

Moderator police? What are you going on about, Leonard?

I can put on a bigger pot of coffee. Is that a "service"
to the country?

What do you think, Len? Is it?

Or would you call that a "country crock?"

I think of most of your little endearing messages as a country
crock. Really spreads greasy stuff in here.

What do you think of your own little endearing messages, Len? What are
they?

As ever, to you, the famous ByteBrothers phrase invoked.

Do you think that violates the IEEE Code of Ethics?

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am

wrote:
on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
wrote:
wrote:
Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong.
If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
and attack the person who points out their mistake.
Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.
Fascinating. Miccolis is becoming a clone of Robesin.
only has a lag of about 7 years on the long slide of robson

No, Mark. Jimmie was on AOL on one of their ham radio
"discussion" boards (exclusive of Usenet), sounding like
the 120-year-old 1x1 superextra clone of the ARRL,
parroting their phrases like he was a paid PR pro from
Newington on commission. Someone apparently tipped him
off on Usenet back then and he showed up in here. Same
PR phrasing, same braggadoccio about amateur radio as on
AOL's board, same talking-down with smug arrogance
to anyone not embracing Jimmie's vision of the
All-Codah Heaven (but no mention of "virgins").

Did someone tip you off to amateur radio, Len? You haven't shown up on
the bands yet.


The Robeswine

Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len?

is a relative latecomer to RRAP, but he
initially came on trying to out-do Chesty Puller, USMC,
but coming out more like Gomer Pyle. The Robeswine must
have spent days collecting all the emotionally-loaded
catch-phrases of the USMC and generally speaking like
left-over sound bites from TV's JAG (now a "defunct"
series).

Jimmie cries out "You have no proof!" when others don't
care to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue old posts by
MISDIRECTION of quoting them. It is like he desperately
must "win" old arguments he never won.

Your statement above is completely incorrect. Brian Burke asserted that
he was quoting a dead man as saying something that Jim didn't recall the
fellow as writing. Brian was asked to provide proof that his quote was
accurate. He has not done so and now we have you crying, "misdirection".

The Robeswine

Who?

...used to do that but lost it a few years
ago, preferring to directly insult his challengers...in
everything from their sexual preferences...

Is that like "smoking preference"? The fellow with numerous issues
wrote about his sexual desires in another newsgroup. We already know
what they are.


How can OFFERING ONE'S LIFE be "subsidized?!?"

Ask Saddam Hussein. He was in the business of subsidizing the lives of
bombers some years back.

Just the same, NO police, firemen, etc., ever
have to face artillery, strafing from aircraft, salvos
and torpedoes on open ocean and deliberate open warfare
on land. Jimmie just doesn't understand that. He's
never tried to. He READS about it and then says he
"knows all about it" (and is the "expert" on it).

You read about amateur radio and claim to know all about it. You set
yourself up as an expert. Go figure.

Your blurb on artillery reminds me: That sphincter post of yours--where
and when did you undergo the artillery barrage? Was your friend Gene
there to confirm it? Did his sphincter tighten too?

Dave K8MN