In . com " writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

writes:

But, I digress. Your chief interest seems to be in
trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in
the amateur radio service person (although one who has
been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since
1956). Have you really done that? Are you really
going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and
reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Yes, I'm sure
you really, really WANT to do that! :-)

What an obnoxious quibble.

Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not?

Considering the dictionary definition of quibble
( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quibble ):

-noun
1. an instance of the use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or
irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue.
2. the general use of such arguments.
3. petty or carping criticism; a minor objection.
-verb (used without object)
4. to equivocate.
5. to carp; cavil.

the term "true quibble" is an oxymoron, and likely a "meta-quibble" of
its own.

Unless you're trying to argue that it *truly* was a quibble, in which
case I will agree.

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In . com " writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

What an obnoxious quibble.

Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not?

Considering the dictionary definition of quibble
( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quibble ):
way not try avoiding ****ing contest yourself

in only choosing to attack ONEside you take part in the on going fight
Paul and nobody as not neutral as yourself is going to be trusted very
far on proposaing anything to end the combat that is the standard on
RRAP

From: an old friend on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:18 pm

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
" writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

What an obnoxious quibble.


Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not?

Considering the dictionary definition of quibble
( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quibble ):

way not try avoiding ****ing contest yourself

I don't think he can, Mark.

in only choosing to attack ONEside you take part in the on going fight
Paul and nobody as not neutral as yourself is going to be trusted very
far on proposaing anything to end the combat that is the standard on
RRAP

Well, Paul has a LOT to learn about moderating. I'm
speaking from experience of years of moderating several
BBS discussion boards locally. I wisely learned NOT
to take part in any "****ing contests" in public...or
private in order to do that.

Those moderators who could not help themselves and got
into one-sided public squabbles either quit in anger
or got removed by the Sysop. I only quit when the BBSs
went out of business due to Internet competition.

So far, it looks like Schleck is gunning ONLY for me.
I can't prove any reason for that other than the
postings in this "news thread" of "Gerritsen sentenced."
I have several suspicions, though. :-)

I'll say this, though. NOBODY that doesn't talk nice-
nice about present-day conditions in US amateur radio
is going to have a snowball's chance in hell of ever
getting into public view. One can take that to the
bank (and get interest on it). EVERYONE has to be kind
to all in the moderating team, call them by titles or
suitable honorifics. [one can envision saying "sir" in
response to all written text, perhaps saluting in some
form is required?] It's fairly certain that amateur
extra licensees will be exempt, regardless of what they
post and to whom. All others will be graded by license
class with those not licensed in amateur radio being at
the very bottom...with me totally blocked out. shrug

It will be okay if an amateur extra calls others by
'cutesy' names, demeans and denigrates their work,
what they've done, accuses them of pedophilia or
homosexual conduct, calls for 'consultation' with their
wives, insults their wives, even manages to insult two
large universities as being "correspondence schools."
That's okay since he has a "military" rank in the Civil
Air Patrol.

It will be okay if another amateur extra demeans
military personnel and insults them by saying they are
"subsidized" by the government...even though he never
served, never volunteered, hasn't even been in
government employ. Such an amateur extra is free to
demand whatever he wants of anyone challenging him.
He need not defend his demands for He IS an extra.

Who MIGHT get blocked may (no assurances of this) be
the anonymous trolls, misfits, and general filth-
babblers behaving like middle-school adolescent males
discovering that they can cuss out adults in perfect
safety. I'm really not sure if the "moderating team"
will be able to judge these, because they minute one
of them mumbles nice-nice about amateur radio as the
team does it, they might allow them to post?

It's all in what is said and who says it. Never EVER
be forceful in defending your position here, Mark. The
mear hint of it going against the establishment of olde-
tyme hams will get you labeled with "(mis)conduct."

Ptui.