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!

On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

....nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

73, Leo

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

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

From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500

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?

HUSH, Leo! The jig is up...we've been FOUND OUT!!!

Le Grande Conspiracie has been shot down!

Quick, burn all the classified papers, evacuate
the Embassy, then execute Plan B!


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?

Cranky Spanky seems to think he is "Jim Phelps." Little
does he know that not only will "the Secretary disavow
any knowledge of him" but never knew him in the first
place and doesn't have ANY tape that self-destructs in
five seconds! :-)

cue theme from "Mission Impopsicle"


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

LOL!

Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky
as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to
Readers Digest.

I've a hunch that it would be too far-out and be
undigestable to the Digest. :-)

cue theme from "Moonlight Zone"

Bon chance, mon ami, salute,
LA

On 8 Feb 2007 12:03:03 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500

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?

HUSH, Leo! The jig is up...we've been FOUND OUT!!!

Le Grande Conspiracie has been shot down!

Quick, burn all the classified papers, evacuate
the Embassy, then execute Plan B!

Egad! He's on to us! Quick, hide!



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?

Cranky Spanky seems to think he is "Jim Phelps." Little
does he know that not only will "the Secretary disavow
any knowledge of him" but never knew him in the first
place and doesn't have ANY tape that self-destructs in
five seconds! :-)

cue theme from "Mission Impopsicle"

....for a guy who supposedly made it all the way to a Masters degree,
he seems to have a great deal of trouble thinking 'outside the box'.

It's sad, in a way.....



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

LOL!

Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky
as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to
Readers Digest.

I'm afraid that your article would be returned without the $100 cheque
- he's actually quite forgettable....


I've a hunch that it would be too far-out and be
undigestable to the Digest. :-)

As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway? I
have conflicting figures here from some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....


cue theme from "Moonlight Zone"

....or the theme from 'Trailer Park Boys'


Bon chance, mon ami, salute,

La guerre, la guerre....tojours la guerre! snappy salute

LA

73, Leo

From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500

wrote:
From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500
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:


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

What cunning plan?

HUSH, Leo! The jig is up...we've been FOUND OUT!!!

Le Grande Conspiracie has been shot down!

Quick, burn all the classified papers, evacuate
the Embassy, then execute Plan B!

Egad! He's on to us! Quick, hide!

I can't run...I have to stay and feed my dog Fideaux
some Alpeaux dog food...


Cranky Spanky seems to think he is "Jim Phelps." Little
does he know that not only will "the Secretary disavow
any knowledge of him" but never knew him in the first
place and doesn't have ANY tape that self-destructs in
five seconds! :-)

cue theme from "Mission Impopsicle"

...for a guy who supposedly made it all the way to a Masters degree,
he seems to have a great deal of trouble thinking 'outside the box'.

He hasn't been able to open it yet.


Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky
as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to
Readers Digest.

I'm afraid that your article would be returned without the $100 cheque
- he's actually quite forgettable....

I agree. :-)


I've a hunch that it would be too far-out and be
undigestable to the Digest. :-)

As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway? I
have conflicting figures here from some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....

Heh heh heh. Moon? A mere quarter-million miles away, but
saying that off-hand is classified as an ERROR and MISTAKE
to Cranky. He gonna do da Spanky and demand 6-digit
absolute numbers or have me taken out and shot for making
a MISTAKE!

Nah, Cranky no be wrong. Ever. "CB" radio (as all know
it today) on 11m was authorized in the USA in 1958. It
was in all the electronics trade papers and Regulations of
our FCC. In 1958 little Cranky was just beginning to read,
but might have reached 13 WPM level in morse code...

The ****y pedant is correct in saying CLASS A and CLASS B
Citizens Band radio existed prior to 1958 but that was
above 400 MHz and never became a market best-seller. The
11m Citizens Band here was CLASS C (radio control, now in
our Part 95 regs as "Radio Control Radio Service") and
CLASS D (23 channels of radiotelephone, sharing channel
23 with R-C). The old A and B classes of Citizens Band
were eliminated several years back (maybe decades, exact
date immaterial to normal folks). By the time of
regulation changes to "CB" here, the number of channels
was expanded to 40. Not that THAT helped since there were
at least a million "11m" CB radios in-use here then and
more in various world nations. Hardly anything but
heterodynes. [at least they were 'hetero', it would be
hell if they were 'homodynes'...:-) ]

Heil on the break-in: "You aren't funny, Leonard!"

:-)


cue theme from "Moonlight Zone"

...or the theme from 'Trailer Park Boys'

Theme from "Clockwork Yellow"? "2007: A Code Oddity"?


Bon chance, mon ami, salute,

La guerre, la guerre....tojours la guerre! snappy salute

Oui. Always the WORD WAR 3 bitter fight waged by
morsemen...

Well, after feeding Fideaux with Alpeaux I might have a
pizza with peppereaunix...? As I eat that I'll read
biographies of Guglielmeaux Marconeaunix and Phileaux
Farnsworth.

Leonardeaux