Leo wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:35:49 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:35:02 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jan 2007 23:08:00 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Bob Brock on Mon, Jan 29 2007 11:10 pm

On 29 Jan 2007 16:44:02 -0800, " wrote:
On Jan 29, 3:32?pm, Dave Heil wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
"Bob Brock" writes:
In response to "Dee Flint" :
snip
Poor Heil doesn't
realize he's been controlled every time he tries to
control others! :-) Gotta love it...! :-)
Right on. Jim and I had a long, long thread going quite some time ago
on this very subject ("Owned or free...", IIRC) whereby I attempted to
point this very fact out to him. And still, many months later, he
continues to correct, proclaim and argue, often in multiple posts
daily. Regardless of how quixiotic this pursuit is, the good fight
must be fought!
You're a selective reader, "Leo". Good old Mr. Wilson, er Len saw my
post about Tandy/Radio Shack gobbling up Allied electronics and had to
attempt to dazzle me with his expertise. A lengthy treatise including
his having been around when Allied came into existence followed.
I'd tend to agree, "Dave", if this was an isolated post that was
hijacked by mean 'ol Len.

Silly ol' Len leapt in with keyboard blazing. Silly ol' Len needed to
exhibit his expertise on matters dealing with Allied Electronics. The
only problem he had is that was short on information.

That was of paramount importance - many future generations of usenet
Googlers will pay homage to you for pointing that out to all with such
elegance and aplomb!

It seemed important enough for him to post his usual insulting crap,
"Leo". I'm sure that future generations will learn a great deal about
amateur radio from the misinformation and disinformation put forth by
Leonard H. Anderson.

Hear, hear!

By the way, my name is Dave. We don't know that yours is Leo.

"We"? The OCD was a bit obvious - there aren't multiple personalities
in there too, are there? ("Daves"?)

There are other readers of the newsgroup who don't know you to be Leo,
"Leo". I am Dave and my amateur radio callsign is K8MN. Drop me a line
at and see who responds, "Leo". You're still sniping
anonymously.

It isn't, though - is it? See a pattern?
Isolated post? It doesn't matter to Len. I have seen a pattern in his
behavior, "Leo".

You certainly have - every time you post a follow up to one of Len's
posts!

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I'll bet you don't!

Yessir, Len's a regular puppeteer.
He sure is!
Not.

Whatever you think, "Daves"!

It certainly appears that the puppet master is doing the dancing and
that the supposed puppets are calling the tune, "Leo".

Dave K8MN

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:37:28 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:35:49 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:35:02 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jan 2007 23:08:00 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Bob Brock on Mon, Jan 29 2007 11:10 pm

On 29 Jan 2007 16:44:02 -0800, " wrote:
On Jan 29, 3:32?pm, Dave Heil wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
"Bob Brock" writes:
In response to "Dee Flint" :
snip
Poor Heil doesn't
realize he's been controlled every time he tries to
control others! :-) Gotta love it...! :-)
Right on. Jim and I had a long, long thread going quite some time ago
on this very subject ("Owned or free...", IIRC) whereby I attempted to
point this very fact out to him. And still, many months later, he
continues to correct, proclaim and argue, often in multiple posts
daily. Regardless of how quixiotic this pursuit is, the good fight
must be fought!
You're a selective reader, "Leo". Good old Mr. Wilson, er Len saw my
post about Tandy/Radio Shack gobbling up Allied electronics and had to
attempt to dazzle me with his expertise. A lengthy treatise including
his having been around when Allied came into existence followed.
I'd tend to agree, "Dave", if this was an isolated post that was
hijacked by mean 'ol Len.

Silly ol' Len leapt in with keyboard blazing. Silly ol' Len needed to
exhibit his expertise on matters dealing with Allied Electronics. The
only problem he had is that was short on information.

That was of paramount importance - many future generations of usenet
Googlers will pay homage to you for pointing that out to all with such
elegance and aplomb!

It seemed important enough for him to post his usual insulting crap,
"Leo". I'm sure that future generations will learn a great deal about
amateur radio from the misinformation and disinformation put forth by
Leonard H. Anderson.

Hear, hear!

By the way, my name is Dave. We don't know that yours is Leo.

"We"? The OCD was a bit obvious - there aren't multiple personalities
in there too, are there? ("Daves"?)

There are other readers of the newsgroup who don't know you to be Leo,
"Leo".

Kind of you to step up and speak for them all, "Daves".

I am Dave and my amateur radio callsign is K8MN. Drop me a line
at and see who responds, "Leo". You're still sniping
anonymously.

Odd that you would consider this interchange "sniping" - if I agreed
with you, would it become a "conversation"? Sure would!

And no, the definition of anonymous is "having no known name " -
mine's Leo! Whether you believe that or not is completely irrelevant
to me.

Should I prefer to communicate with K8MN, I would use the ham bands to
do so (where your callsign, and mine, are both relevant and required
by law). But you're not there - you're here! Usenet ain't radio, OM.


It isn't, though - is it? See a pattern?
Isolated post? It doesn't matter to Len. I have seen a pattern in his
behavior, "Leo".

You certainly have - every time you post a follow up to one of Len's
posts!

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without fail!

Now there's a pattern if I ever saw one.......


I'll bet you don't!

Yessir, Len's a regular puppeteer.
He sure is!
Not.

Whatever you think, "Daves"!

It certainly appears that the puppet master is doing the dancing and
that the supposed puppets are calling the tune, "Leo".

Whatever you say, "Daves" - you're obviously in complete control!


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

On Feb 1, 5:01�pm, Leo wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. *Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, 5:01?pm, Leo wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. orks
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. very time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

Please demonstrate!

73, Leo

On Feb 1, 7:42�pm, Leo wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. *Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

Please demonstrate!

It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo".

K8MN wrote:

"Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?"

Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors).

And you ("Leo") replied:

"I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure."

Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some
would call that "lying", btw.

Then you wrote:

"Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without
fail!"

Note that last sentence:

"Every time - without fail!"

All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six
months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those
postings.

Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/
corrected here.

Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did
challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here.

There's your demonstration.

Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up
with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave
are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS
moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can.

And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either.

So it's really a moot point, "Leo".

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, 7:42?pm, Leo wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. orks
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. very time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

Please demonstrate!

It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo".

K8MN wrote:

"Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?"

Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors).

And you ("Leo") replied:

"I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure."

Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some
would call that "lying", btw.

Some might call that "the lure"....


Then you wrote:

"Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without
fail!"

Note that last sentence:

"Every time - without fail!"

All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six
months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those
postings.

Factual errors according to whom? With reference to what source?

In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction?

You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you? It would save a
lot of time looking them all up again!


Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/
corrected here.

....if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it
would be appreciated! Specifics would be nice, too.


Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement
is simply conjecture.


Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did
challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here.

I'll bet he'd be crushed!


There's your demonstration.

Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over
the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate
your claim.


Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up
with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave
are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS
moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can.

Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim. Just a form of censorship
imposed on others by those who like censorship. A moderated group
would not suit your purpose either! Where else could you go but here
to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all
wrongs'?

Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare
that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not
have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here? And
encourage everyone to join them?

Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back!

You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever
wonder why?


And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either.

Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is
intentionally post misinformation?

Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not
come from Len himself?

How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not
misinformation? That's magical!


So it's really a moot point, "Leo".

Perhaps....

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

From: Leo on Sun, Feb 4 2007 9:21 am

On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 1, 7:42?pm, Leo wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 1, wrote:

Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some
would call that "lying", btw.

Some might call that "the lure"....

...and some would, rightly, say that "Judge" miccolis just
has his head up his ass... shrug


All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six
months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those
postings.

Factual errors according to whom? With reference to what source?

In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction?

"Judge" Miccolis, Ultimate Authority of course. :-)

"Professor Irwin Corey" is gone, so a replacement was
needed. The slow must go on...


You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you? It would save a
lot of time looking them all up again!

...if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it
would be appreciated! Specifics would be nice, too.

Sigh...here we go seven years into the past...sort of
like that old CBS program "You Are There." The one
that opened with the announcer saying, "All things are
as they were then...and you are there."

Or even the old Lone Ranger program, "Come with us now
to the days of yesteryear...and the thundering hooves
of the grate hoarse Jimmie" [paraphrased]



Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement
is simply conjecture.

Reminds me of that great one-page cartoon once in CQ,
"Vector Conjecture." [a take-off on all the Vector
explanations of SSB by the phasing method]


Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did
challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here.

I'll bet he'd be crushed!

Freshly-squeezed. From Florida (California only has frozen
oranges now).


There's your demonstration.

Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over
the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate
your claim.

Oh, oh, here comes the "promise" of Extra-out-of-the-box."
Seven years ago I was supposed to have "promised" something
that had some kind of "moral imperative" to it, like "do it
or forever be silent" and other assorted bull**** from the
control freaks in here. :-(

In a way that is good. Folkses won't discuss my even-
earlier "promises" I made to certain ladies of my bachelor
days! :-) phew


Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up
with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave
are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS
moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can.

Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim. Just a form of censorship
imposed on others by those who like censorship. A moderated group
would not suit your purpose either! Where else could you go but here
to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all
wrongs'?

"Pathological?" My take on that was 'congenital.'

"Captain Righteous!" One of the X-Men, soon to be in
a Marvel Comics at your neighborhood newsstand!

Picture the offspring of "Baitman" and "Oblivious Man."
Mighty muskles all over in that tight suit of his, but
wearing his shorts on the outside instead of inside.

Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare
that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not
have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here? And
encourage everyone to join them?

Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back!

You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever
wonder why?

We will never know. Captain Righteous will immediately
shift to my "faults" and never, ever admit his "why."

Mike Coslo didn't do anything wrong. Nobody wanted to
join him so that all would have a happy, happy, we-all-
think-the-same kaffeklatsch.

The buzz should be about hive minds...


And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either.

Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is
intentionally post misinformation?

Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not
come from Len himself?

How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not
misinformation? That's magical!

"Everything I say is a lie."

If it is a "lie" then that sentence cannot be true because
it is encompassed by "everything." Ergo, I do not lie.
But, I MUST be lying! :-)

A classic conundrum. Jimmie trying to beat it.

Boom, boom.

On the other hand (besides four fingers and a thumb), maybe
I WON'T go away? See, if I said I was "going," then that
would be a lie...and, in order to fulfill the Mighty Masters
of Macho Morse wishes that I am lying, then I must be
planning to stay here. If I lie then I can't possibly be
going. But, I am supposed to go, yet I haven't so there-
fore I am telling the truth. But, but, I lie so there-
fore I have to stay here (a fate worse than death?)?

Please pass the Tylenol.


So it's really a moot point, "Leo".

Perhaps....

"Moot?" "Moot Court?" Captain Righteous imitating John
Houseman's character on "Paper Chase?"

This is Salem II, where heretics are tried on the trump
test of FIRE on the charge of Whichcraft! Gather ye the
wood to pile it higher around the stake...they want that
stake to be cooked well-done. With A-1 Operator Sauce!

beeeep, beeeep,

LA

On Feb 4, 9:21�am, Leo wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. *Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

Please demonstrate!

It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo".

K8MN wrote:

"Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?"

Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors).

And you ("Leo") replied:

"I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure."

Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some
would call that "lying", btw.

Some might call that "the lure".... *

Some might do that.

But, by definition, if a person intentionally makes an untrue
statement, intending to deceive, that person is telling a lie.

So what you are saying is that Len tells lies in order to "lure"
others.

Myself, I have never referred to anyone here as a liar, nor their
statements as lies. Mistakes or errors, yes, but not lies.


Then you wrote:

"Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every time - without
fail!"

Note that last sentence:

"Every time - without fail!"

All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six
months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those
postings.

Factual errors according to whom?

According to objective reality.

*With reference to what source?

Objective sources.

In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction?

Reality does that.

For example, suppose someone stated that the distance from Tokyo,
Japan, to Vladivostok, Russia, was 500 miles.

That statement could be checked against paper maps, atlases, online
mapping resources, etc.

It turns out that the actual distance between those cities is more
than 660 miles. Objective reality shows that the person who stated
"500 miles" made a factual error. A mistake.

See how easy that is? It's not a matter of belief or opinion, but of
objective reality.

You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you?

Not handy ;-)

*It would save a
lot of time looking them all up again!

Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/
corrected here.

...if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it
would be appreciated! * *Specifics would be nice, too.

"There's a flaw in your cunning plan, Baldrick!"

Although the number of Len's factual errors here is considerable, it
is by no means beyond my capabilities to provide a total, and
specifics.

However, that would be counterproductive.

Because as soon as I did so, you would say that I had taken the lure
and verified your claim of "Every time - without fail!"

IOW, you would say that once I provide details of a factual error made
by Len, it is no longer a factual error that I let pass, and instead
became one more "lure" that I went after.

Of course some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's
kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you.

So the only way for me to prove that your claim of "Every time -
without fail!" is false, is for me to leave at least some of Len's
factual errors alone. Which I have already done.

Now of course someone else could come along and point out
one or more of Len's factual errors here, and then show that I had
left those error(s) alone.

But then you could claim that the reason I left those error(s) alone
was that I had not identified it/them as factual error(s) in the first
place.

And again, some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's
kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you.

Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Which it has.

Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement
is simply conjecture.

If I were to fall for your cunning plan, you would immediately
disqualify any specific example I would give, by employing the
discussion listed above.

Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did
challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here.

I'll bet he'd be crushed! *

He certainly gets upset enough over them. A mature person would simply
accept the corrections and say thank you to the person who pointed out
the factual error.

There's your demonstration.

Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over
the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate
your claim.

Yes, I have. To say more would be to fall victim to your cunning
plan.

Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up
with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave
are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS
moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can.

Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim.

Maybe not for you. Others have a very different experience.

Just a form of censorship
imposed on others by those who like censorship.

Not according to the definition of "censorship".

*A moderated group
would not suit your purpose either! *

Actually, it would.

I participate in several moderated email reflectors. They work and are
lots of fun.

Where else could you go but here
to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all
wrongs'? *

"pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all wrongs'?"?

That's not me at all.

I'm simply correcting some of Len's errors and expressing an opinion.

That really bothers him.

Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare
that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not
have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here? *And
encourage everyone to join them?

I don't recall - who was that?

Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back!

Or maybe it didn't work.

You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever
wonder why?

Actually, I have left rrap for months at a time, except to post the
ARS license numbers. Check out google for my posting history.

And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either.

Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is
intentionally post misinformation?

Nope.

Len doesn't always post misinformation. Some of what he writes is
actually true!

And it is you, not I, that says his factual errors are intentional.

Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not
come from Len himself?

Look it up.

How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not
misinformation?

I presumed that Len told the truth.

Is that wrong?

*That's magical! *

You're saying it's magic if Len tells the truth here? That it is more
logical to think that Len is telling untruths than to think that he is
telling the truth?

Interesting.

Are you trying to lure Len into one of his rants against you?

So it's really a moot point, "Leo".

Perhaps....

We will see.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
On Feb 1, 5:01�pm, Leo wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?
I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. �Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. �Every time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

"Leo" is a one-way street.

Dave K8MN