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

On 5 Feb 2007 15:43:57 -0800, wrote:

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. 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"....

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. very 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.

Unsubstantiated.


ith reference to what source?

Objective sources.

Unsubstantiated.


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

Reality does that.

Unsubstantiated.


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.

Oversimplification.


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

Not handy ;-)

I thought not! Unsubstantiated.


t 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! pecifics 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.

Apparently, it is - as you have not done so.


However, that would be counterproductive.

It would be counterproductive to prove your point? Not much of a
point, then.


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!"

Only if you 'took the bait' on all of them - which is likely true, as
you have no examples which would prove otherwise.


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.

Sounds like a guy who cannot offer any proof to the contrary to me.


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

Evasive. Still not a single example, so far!


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.

Not yet, you haven't. All you have done so far is avoid proving your
point!


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.

....so there is no evidence to disprove my claim, is there? I thought
not.


Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Which it has.

Not.


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.

....so there isn't any proff that I'm wrong, is there?


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.

LOL! You're his playtoy!


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.

So there really isn't any proof that I'm incorrect, is there? I
thought not (again!)


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.

Please provise substantiation for this claim too!


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

Not according to the definition of "censorship".

A moderator blocking posts from others because someone finds them
offensive isn't censorship? LOL!



moderated group
would not suit your purpose either!

Actually, it would.

Apparently not - you need RRAP!


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

Those are reflectors, not groups. Please learn how the Internet
works.


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.

Sure doesn't play out that way on RRAP......LOL!


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

Some of? LOL!


That really bothers him.

Does it? ROTFLMAO!


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?
nd
encourage everyone to join them?

I don't recall - who was that?

Selective memory - no wonder you can't recall responding to all of
Len's posts! In fact, you replied to many of Mike's posts on this
subject. LOL!


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

Or maybe it didn't work.

They never do!


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.

Immaterial. Everyone left here for months at a time due to the 'QRM'
from the resident psychos.


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.

LOL!


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

Correct. (.....finally!)


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

LOL!


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

Look it up.

It was a rhetorical question - he of course said that! Don't you
remember?


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

I presumed that Len told the truth.

Why? You start off most of your posts to Len with the words "You're
wrong....". Why would you presume that he is stating fact this time?
Are you stupid?


Is that wrong?

That's nonsensical - based on your past history. Magical, actually.


hat'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.

Your conclusion is indeed magical.


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

Nonsensical question. That's your job, not mine! LOL!


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

Perhaps....

We will see.

All we have seen so far is that you have nothing to offer to
substantiate your claims. As usual. Your entire post above contains
no fact, no rebuttal, and no proof - just conjecture and
unsubstantiated claims - and an expectation that others will do your
research for you.

Which, of course, will not happen. That job belongs to you - should
you be up to the task, step up and get it done!

You have facts? Let's see 'em.


73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

On Feb 6, 5:25�pm, Leo wrote:
On 5 Feb 2007 15:43:57 -0800, wrote:

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. *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"....

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. *very 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.

Unsubstantiated.

NMP

With reference to what source?

Objective sources.

Unsubstantiated.

NMP

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

Reality does that.

Unsubstantiated.

NMP

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.

Oversimplification.

How is that an oversimplification?

Is the distance from Tokyo, Japan to Vladivostok 500 miles or more
than 660 miles - or some other distance? In objective reality, it
cannot be both 500 miles and more than 660 miles at the same time.

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

Not handy ;-)

I thought not! *Unsubstantiated.

NMP

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! *pecifics 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.

Apparently, it is - as you have not done so.

That's incorrect.

The fact that I have not done something does not mean it is beyond my
capabilities.

I have not eaten any ice cream today, but it is not beyond my
capabilities to eat some before today ends.

However, that would be counterproductive.

It would be counterproductive to prove your point?

It would be counterproductive to give a total.

*Not much of a point, then.

Then why are you disputing it?

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!"

Only if you 'took the bait' on all of them - which is likely true, as
you have no examples which would prove otherwise.

I have examples.

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?

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.

Sounds like a guy who cannot offer any proof to the contrary to me. *

Nope.

It's someone who has seen and avoided the flaw in your cunning plan.

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

Evasive. *Still not a single example, so far!

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?

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.

Not yet, you haven't. *

Yes, I have. I have left some of Len's factual errors uncorrected.
Doing that proves my point!

All you have done so far is avoid proving your
point!

NMP

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.

??

Think about it.

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.

...so there is no evidence to disprove my claim, is there?

Yes, there is.

All you have to do is look at Len's postings, note the factual errors,
and then look up which errors I have corrected and not corrected.

*I thought not.

You thought wrong.

NMP

Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Which it has.

Not.

NMP

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.

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?

...so there isn't any proff that I'm wrong, is there? *


There's plenty of proof. You're not willing to look at it.

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.

LOL! *You're his playtoy!

Not at all.

I post a few words. He posts a bunch of paragraphs in response. I am
civilized and well behaved, he is out of control.

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.

So there really isn't any proof that I'm incorrect, is there?

Yes, there is.

I thought not (again!)

You thought wrong - (again)!

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.

Please provise substantiation for this claim too!

I have a different experience.

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

Not according to the definition of "censorship".

A moderator blocking posts from others because someone finds them
offensive isn't censorship? *

No, it's not. Check your dictionary.

LOL!

*moderated group
would not suit your purpose either!

Actually, it would.

Apparently not - you need RRAP!

Not really.

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

Those are reflectors, not groups.

There's no real difference to the users who want to have real
discussions.

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.

Sure doesn't play out that way on RRAP......LOL!

Promoting accuracy is pathological?

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

Some of? *LOL!

Yes, some of. Len makes more errors than I correct.

That really bothers him.

Does it?

Yes.

*ROTFLMAO!

NMP

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?
nd
encourage everyone to join them?

I don't recall - who was that?

Selective memory - no wonder you can't recall responding to all of
Len's posts! *In fact, you replied to many of Mike's posts on this
subject. *LOL!

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

Or maybe it didn't work.

They never do!

Moderated reflectors work. Why shouldn't moderated newsgroups? WHat's
the big difference?

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.

Immaterial. *Everyone left here for months at a time due to the 'QRM'
from the resident psychos.

Incorrect. If *everyone* left rrap, there would have been no postings
to rrap at all.

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.

LOL!

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

Correct. *(.....finally!)

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

LOL!

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

Look it up.

It was a rhetorical question - he of course said that! *Don't you
remember?

I remember. You are the one who asked the question.

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

I presumed that Len told the truth.

Why?

Did I make a mistake in assuming that Len would tell the truth?

You start off most of your posts to Len with the words "You're
wrong....". *

That's incorrect, Leo....;-)

Why would you presume that he is stating fact this time?

Benefit of the doubt.

Is it wrong to assume that Len would tell the truth?

Are you stupid?

No, Leo.

Are *you* stupid?

Is that wrong?

That's nonsensical - based on your past history. *Magical, actually.

It's nonsensical/magical to assume Len would tell the truth?

Perhaps you are right, Leo. Based on *Len's* past history, it may
really *be* nonsensical to assume he is telling the truth.

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.

Your conclusion is indeed magical. *

Which conclusion?

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

Nonsensical question. That's your job, not mine! *LOL!

Perhaps you and Len are the same person "Leo". There is no proof that
you are not.

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

Perhaps....

We will see.

All we have seen so far is that you have nothing to offer to
substantiate your claims.

Who is "we"?

*As usual. *Your entire post above contains
no fact, no rebuttal, and no *proof - just conjecture and
unsubstantiated claims - and an expectation that others will do your
research for you.

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?

Which, of course, will not ...

Not My Problem!

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