|
Convinced Again
Dave Heil wrote: Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len? "Red-hatted monkey..." Heil has a pocketful of them, but attempts to chastize others. 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 above is wishful thinking. Jim has the memory of an elephant. Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
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? There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question. There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as Heil has - "do your own homework." 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" A serviceman or woman is not a private person. Nor are they a private company. Do you even know what they are? What is demeaning about that? What isn't demeaning about it? "subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy" So? 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. You don't say. |
Convinced Again
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len? "Red-hatted monkey..." Heil has a pocketful of them, but attempts to chastize others. Heil is an amateur extra morseman, therefore above reproach. 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 above is wishful thinking. Jim has the memory of an elephant. It has become more the effluent... :-( But, Miccolis is also an amateur extra morseman, therefore He is above reproach. Tsk, all those "above reproach" guys. No one can approach them. Maybe its their bad breath? shrug As ever, to both of them I invoke the famous ByteBrothers phrase. [that "signature" is the same as on the message header...why are so many anal-retentive on this "signature" thing?] |
Convinced Again
wrote:
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? There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question. A now-dead person isn't going to ask it. There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as Heil has - "do your own homework." Sure there is. You claimed that a now-dead person wrote something here on rrap. Your memory isn't perfect - in fact, you've recently been shown to be mistaken on some things. You've been asked to back up your claim - to show where the now-dead person actually wrote what you claimed. But you either can't do that, or won't do it. Either way, your claim must be assumed to be false until you provide some proof. Google contains all the archives. I have seen a nonsense tactic used by both you, Brian P. Burke, N0IMD, and Leonard H. Anderson. It goes like this: You claim someone said or did something, but provide no proof. Usually the false claim is in the form of a misquote or a misinterpretation of history. When the claim is challenged, and the correct quote or history provided, you either ignore the truth on and/or simply insult the person. Often the misquote or mistake is repeated later, and the cycle begins again. Len does this more than you, but you've picked up on his example. Misquoting the dead - that's pretty lame. |
Convinced Again
|
Convinced Again
wrote:
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len? "Red-hatted monkey..." Heil has a pocketful of them, but attempts to chastize others. Heil is an amateur extra morseman, therefore above reproach. "Heil" can spell "chastise" and did not bestow the name "red-hatted monkey" or "old organ grinder". I've used them when applicable. 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 above is wishful thinking. Jim has the memory of an elephant. It has become more the effluent... :-( More of your misdirection? But, Miccolis is also an amateur extra morseman, therefore He is above reproach. I think you dislike him because he tangles you in facts and doesn't stoop to your level. Tsk, all those "above reproach" guys. No one can approach them. Maybe its their bad breath? shrug Wowsers! You have olfactory links with your internet service there at the Anderson home communications center? As ever, to both of them I invoke the famous ByteBrothers phrase. You can invoke the spirit of Tesla for all I care. [that "signature" is the same as on the message header...why are so many anal-retentive on this "signature" thing?] Why are you so touchy on the subject of the IEEE Code of Ethics? Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
wrote:
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am The Robeswine Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len? he is the guy that makes death threats with your blesing Dave ...not to mention the many years he posed as a USMC veteran and has never offered any proof whatsoever of that. But, that's okay since the robeswine is an amateur extra and that's okay... You know what Brian Burke would tell you: Do your own homework. Who is "Robeswine"? Is that like "smoking preference"? The fellow with numerous issues wrote about his sexual desires in another newsgroup. note your own words In another Newsgruop thus you agree and makethe case the your friend Robeson stlked me and my discussion which were in the right NG for thing to make an issue here Mark, does that mean that Heil wants to talk about 'smoking?' I wonder why? Maybe you have some inside knowledge of the term "smoking preference" that you'd care to share with us, Len. If you go into a restaurant and the hostess asks, "Do you have a smoking preference", that she means something entirely different. What do you think she means? For my part, I only smoke DURING sex... :-) Maybe your bearings are seizing up. Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
wrote:
From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am wrote: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm wrote: wrote: 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. I love it when you talk tough, Len. The money I received as base pay for my entire four years in the military totaled about 11.5 thousand dollars. I got even for that in the end. I had to "buy back" my time by paying 3% of that sum toward Federal retirement. It was a bargain. Paul Schleck and the Waffen SS guy can go do ALL the "personal, non-professional life" background checks on me they want. Who is the "Waffen SS guy"? Google provides--in spades. They won't turn up anything heroic (no "seven hostile actions")... You keep selling yourself short. There was the threat of the Soviet bombers. There was the classic sphincter post which recounted what it is like to undergo an artillery barrage. Where and when was it that you underwent this ordeal? Can your friend Gene confirm it? Did his sphincter tighten too? ...just doing my job(s) as best I could, following the rules, getting paid regularly, never being fired for cause. That's the story of most of us, Len. You have taken it upon yourself to hint that others defrauded their employers, were incompetent in what they did, never did what they've said they did or that you know better how they should have accomplished their jobs. That's strange, don't you think? 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. Why, has he violated the IEEE Code of Ethics? He is proud of doing nothing at work. Why did you write the obvious untruth? Hans Brakob, Phil Kane, Bill Sohl, myself have all said what we did and what we do for a living. So have others. You recounted portions of your work so many times that I'm quite certain that some of us would be able to recite it from memory. But not Jimmie M. All we hear from Jimmie are his amateur radio adventures. Maybe you can clarify something for me. Is it "Jimmie" or "Jimmy". You keep switching from one to the other. What kind of thing would you like from him in this amateur radio newsgroup? Why makes you feel that you're entitled to the information? He may have no other life. Is that your belief, Len, or are you simply honked that he hasn't opted to share it with you. After all, there is certainly precedent for Jim to believe that you'd simply use the information to attempt belittlement of his work or home life. But, he is THE 'expert' on ALL matters, never ever hesitating to call others "wrong" when they are in disagreement with him. I've noticed that others are told they are wrong when they are, in fact, wrong. I've also noticed that you seem to set yourself up as an expert in areas where you have little or no experience--amateur radio, State Department communications, U.S. Navy communications, U.S. Coast Guard communications. 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?' I happen to live in a state where a substantial portion of the residents have their lives subsidized by government/taxpayers. These subsidies include food, shelter and medical care. That doesn't mean that a crime has taken place. That is NOT an amateur radio subject, certainly not policy. Drifting off into your military experiences, the war in Iraq, your PROFESSIONAL radio experiences--those things aren't amateur radio subject, but you've never let that stand in your way. Plain and simple fact: It is out of line, INSULTING to anyone who is or has been in the United States military. I don't feel insulted. Miccolis won't apologize for that insult. He is always "right." QED. Len Anderson has never apologized for any of his mistakes or deliberate untruths in this venue. 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, Who is "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. Imagine that. I guess you'll just have to deal with it or await the outcome of Brian Burke's contact with the "Stolen Valor" folks, huh? ["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] I'm unfamiliar with it, Len. What is it? Dave K8MN |
Markie the registered pedo
Roger Wiseman AB8MQ, posing as " wrote:
an old friend wrote: show- Markie wants us to show him our dicks, gents! Us? Do you mean those of us reading and posting to the newsgroup (and the other newsgroups you've added) or are you just addressing the other voices in your head? At any rate, be my guest. You first. (superfluous groups trimmed) Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com