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