On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,
and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

It's a simple question. Your reply or lack
of one says much more about you than it
does about me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan?

and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it?


I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

Of course - so long as it predates my original post!


It's a simple question. Your reply or lack
of one says much more about you than it
does about me.

LOL!


73 de Jim, N2EY




73' Leo

On Feb 7, 7:03�pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan? *

and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it? * *

No.

I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

Of course - so long as it predates my original post!

Ah - so you add a condition!

Nevertheless, it's a simple task to find an uncorrected factual error
in Len's postings here.

Scroll back up this thread to January 30. See the post Len made at
7:56 PM (at least, that's the time Google lists.

In that long, long post, Len says:

""CB" came into being in 1958."

But that's incorrect. By a whole decade.

My point is proved.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

nope more like woger and yourself not anybody


http://members.cox.net/mikedn/morgan-argue.jpg

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:45:02 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote:

wrote:

nope more like woger and yourself not anybody



funny that you like to might fun of the diabled even when it has
nothing to do with the thread

but then you are a censor wannabe

As opposed to you.. a censorship practitioner!!???


vk3rdf said...
just seeing if some blokes were serious in claiming you do not allow posts
on your blog

1:44 AM

mark said...

yes obvuiously I do allow it but I do ask they reasonably on tpoic to the
entry posted to BTW I remind folks since I decide what gets posted my own
remark can follow as quickly as i can type em

1:46 AM



HHHmmm, you seem to have censored yourself. I see that you removed the
statement concerning the fact that you decide what is posted after our
little tete d'tete and then suddenly the above appears. No comments other
than your own and suddenly some concerned citizen decides to post?? OOOhhh
pleezzzeeee

Don't you sleep at all Mark. A fellow from "down under" posts and you can
respond less than 2 minutes later?? Perhaps your "wife" the ham and F Arts
major can teach you something else

BTW does your radio club know just what a ****** you are?? I am surprised
that you are even allowed in...well not really since you are not who you say
you are. Perhaps on Veterans Day or Memorial Day you can regale them with
stories of your military involvement in Iraq or was it Kuwait?

And yet one person does not challenge your Bravo Sierra at your "military"
career.

Feel free to deny everything, that's what you do best The alleged Mark
Morgan..profession and permanent victim



sorry, I callz 'em as I seez 'em



No 73 EVER for you



Dean




http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 7 Feb 2007 16:41:37 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 7:03?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan?

and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it?

No.

I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

Of course - so long as it predates my original post!

Ah - so you add a condition!

An obvious condition, considering that my post referred to your
activities which preceeded it! Just keeping you honest.....


Nevertheless, it's a simple task to find an uncorrected factual error
in Len's postings here.

Scroll back up this thread to January 30. See the post Len made at
7:56 PM (at least, that's the time Google lists.

In that long, long post, Len says:

""CB" came into being in 1958."

But that's incorrect. By a whole decade.

Hmmm - I don't believe that one qualifies, Jim. The concept of the
'Citizen's Band' dates back to 1945 - but the allocation was way up in
the UHF bands, where radio equipment for the average 'citizen' was
quite impractical, due to the the technology of the time (both size
and cost of the transceiving equipment would have been enormous!. In
other words, it existed in regulations only, but was virtually
unusable for its intended purpose by the general public it was
designed to serve.

The "Citizen's Band" that exists to this day, in the 27 MHz band, does
indeed date back to 1958.

I'd say he was right on this one, from a practical point of view.


My point is proved.

Not yet!


73 de Jim, N2EY


73, Leo

On Feb 8, 8:56�am, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 16:41:37 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 7:03?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan?

and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it?

No.

I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

Of course - so long as it predates my original post!

Ah - so you add a condition!

An obvious condition, considering that my post referred to your
activities which preceeded it! *

A condition you added at the last possible moment.

Just keeping you honest..... *

When have I ever been less than honest?

Nevertheless, it's a simple task to find an uncorrected factual error
in Len's postings here.

Scroll back up this thread to January 30. See the post Len made at
7:56 PM (at least, that's the time Google lists.

In that long, long post, Len says:

""CB" came into being in 1958."

But that's incorrect. By a whole decade.

Hmmm - I don't believe that one qualifies, Jim.

It does. Len got the date wrong, that's all. A simple factual error.

*The concept of the
'Citizen's Band' dates back to 1945 - but the allocation was way up in
the UHF bands, where radio equipment for the average 'citizen' was
quite impractical, due to the the technology of the time (both size
and cost of the transceiving equipment would have been enormous!. *

That's your opinion.

The facts are that "CB" was created at least a decade before 1958.
There was type-accepted CB equipment on the market in 1948. There were
several manufacturers making and selling UHF CB equipment before 1958,
and it was being bought and used. There were even handhelds for UHF
CB.

Probably the best known example was the Vocaline transceiver, which
was small, simple, rugged, relatively low cost and easy to use.

other words, it existed in regulations only, but was virtually
unusable for its intended purpose by the general public it was
designed to serve.

It did not "exist in regulations only". How usable it was is a matter
of opinion.

But the usability or popularity of pre-1958 CB is not the issue. The
fact is that Len got the date for the creation of CB wrong.

The "Citizen's Band" that exists to this day, in the 27 MHz band, does
indeed date back to 1958.

Yes, it does. But CB was not created in 1958.

27 MHz CB is sometimes referred to as "Class D" CB. IIRC, Class C CB
refers to 27 MHz radio control.

But Class A and Class B CB refer to UHF CB, and predate 1958 by at
least a decade.

I'd say he was right on this one, from a practical point of view. *

Of course you would say that. But you'd be mistaken.

My point is proved.

Not yet! *

Yes, it is. The fact is that CB was created at least ten years before
1958. What band it was on, and how popular it was are immaterial - the
radio service known as CB wasn't created in 1958.

Those are the facts.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:18:00 -0000, "Dean M" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:45:02 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote:

wrote:

nope more like woger and yourself not anybody



funny that you like to might fun of the diabled even when it has
nothing to do with the thread

but then you are a censor wannabe

As opposed to you.. a censorship practitioner!!???

I do not practice censorship at all
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


BRAVO SIERRA MARK You stated yourself, until you edited it away that you
only allow those posts that you agree with By definition that's censorship

Is this what they taught you in military officer training school??

You are definitely the quintessential mental deficient

sewer file for you

reply all you want

I pity the Copper Country club you belong to

phhewww



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dean M wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA MARK You stated yourself, until you edited it away that you
only allow those posts that you agree with By definition that's censorship

Sorry, that's not the definition of "censorship".
Discrimination is not necessarily censorship.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Dean M wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA MARK You stated yourself, until you edited it away that you
only allow those posts that you agree with By definition that's
censorship

Sorry, that's not the definition of "censorship".
Discrimination is not necessarily censorship.

I would certainly agree with you BUT what his niblets was doing was not
being discriminating, far from he. He invited comments then refused to post
any of those that he did not approve of. As in point, he revised that thing
he calls a blog, to eliminate anything he wrote

trying to post a a dozen or so insulting coments to this blog just doesn't

work since i moderate them



IOW if it's not to his liking it's outta here



OOOppss now I'll be sued for copyright infringement Thanks Cecil, just what
I need ;-)



--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com