| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#392
August 24th 04, 04:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: Jimmy Who fraid to pick up rolled newspaper. Yell DMC might talk Jimmy's wife. Jimmy Who cowed by immortal Diminutive Man? Perish the thought! All look out for another 5000-word Essay by the renowned Ham Historian! Not so nowned. He not haff old rule book show CW-Only subbands. Never fear...he will GET them and rationalize whatever they say to "prove" what He said is "correct" and anything else "wrong!" Just wait. Poor guy needs time to do such spinning. LHA / WMD |
|
#393
August 24th 04, 07:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , (Quitefine) writes: In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. You have not had a problem with others' anonymity, as long as they agreed with you. Jimmie, why do you LIE? Whom do you address, Len? I've never tried to "hide in an anyonymity" in here. Yes, you have. "not that there's anything wrong with that" ;-) My postings are clearly MINE. Many if not most of them, until recently, did not contain your name, callsign or other identification. And you have used at least six different screen names in this newsgroup. The conclusion is obvious. But, you have the audacity to assume an UNSIGNED anonymity and then chide others about it. Tsk, tsk, tsk. We have not "chided" anyone for wishing to be anonymous. You have no problem with the anonymity of "Leo" or "Vipul". But in our case, you are far more interested in who we are than in what we have to say. That is very interesting. What? Is your real identity Spock from the Star Trek original series/ Spock always said "interesting." :-) Why does our anonymity bother you so much, but not the anonymity of "Shah101" and "Leo"? Could it be you have a ....double standard? Can you explain why you respect only the anonymity of those who agree with you? Can you explain why you seek to aggravate someone you have described as "nuts"? Nuts is how nursie acts. If you think that, why do you aggravate him? Nobody needs shrink school diplomas to observe irrationality. Let us hold this mirror for you, Len...;-) |
|
#394
August 24th 04, 07:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(William) writes: (Quitefine) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? I wrote of you in the past tense, not us. You did not answer the question, which was 'why' you used the past tense. Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. I merely wished to reduce spam at my original e-mail account, and it has worked. You did not clearly identify yourself. You can and will read nefarious intent into any of my actions. Is there something "nefarious" about wishing to be anonymous? We do not think so. Regardless, my posting style has not changed and anyone who asks will be told who I am. Perhaps. But you avoid many direct questions. Can you explain this? No. Perhaps 'Steve' respects our anonymity. Perhaps he has changed. Steve only changes when he goes on his meds, and when he goes off his meds. You claim that he is "nuts" and "on meds". If you believe that to be true, why do you antagonize him? |
|
#395
August 24th 04, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Quitefine) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: (Quitefine) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? I wrote of you in the past tense, not us. You did not answer the question, which was 'why' you used the past tense. Why not? You have no future on RRAP. Just go back to being Jimmy Who. That's anonymous enough. Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. I merely wished to reduce spam at my original e-mail account, and it has worked. You did not clearly identify yourself. I didn't intend to fool anyone. I rarely sign off with my name or call anyway. Haven't for a long time. You can and will read nefarious intent into any of my actions. Is there something "nefarious" about wishing to be anonymous? We do not think so. Steve thinks so, and that's what's important here. Regardless, my posting style has not changed and anyone who asks will be told who I am. Perhaps. But you avoid many direct questions. So? Can you explain this? No. Perhaps 'Steve' respects our anonymity. Perhaps he has changed. Steve only changes when he goes on his meds, and when he goes off his meds. You claim that he is "nuts" and "on meds". If you believe that to be true, why do you antagonize him? Simple. He won't back off. He doesn't know how to. His handlers cannot control him. He's a menace. Tell Jimmy Who that he has to be more firm with his attack dog. Sheesh! All these dual-personalities on rrap. |
|
#396
August 24th 04, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: Jimmy Who fraid to pick up rolled newspaper. Yell DMC might talk Jimmy's wife. Jimmy Who cowed by immortal Diminutive Man? Perish the thought! All look out for another 5000-word Essay by the renowned Ham Historian! Not so nowned. He not haff old rule book show CW-Only subbands. Never fear...he will GET them and rationalize whatever they say to "prove" what He said is "correct" and anything else "wrong!" Just wait. Poor guy needs time to do such spinning. Meanwhile we get Quitefine diversion. Hi, hi! He so silly. |
|
#397
August 24th 04, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: Jimmy Who fraid to pick up rolled newspaper. Yell DMC might talk Jimmy's wife. Jimmy Who cowed by immortal Diminutive Man? Perish the thought! All look out for another 5000-word Essay by the renowned Ham Historian! Not so nowned. He not haff old rule book show CW-Only subbands. Never fear...he will GET them and rationalize whatever they say to "prove" what He said is "correct" and anything else "wrong!" Just wait. Poor guy needs time to do such spinning. Meanwhile we get Quitefine diversion. Hi, hi! He so silly. Shhhh. We can't tell Jimmie that. He get all flustery, make lots and lots of indents as hypocritical anonymous anomaly in here. That's what happens to olde-tyme hammes doing too much morse? |
|
#398
August 24th 04, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Quitefine) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (Quitefine) writes: In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. You have not had a problem with others' anonymity, as long as they agreed with you. Jimmie, why do you LIE? Whom do you address, Len? James P. Miccolis, one of the few here on AOL. :-) Jimmie, quit the charade. You were OUTED after the first message. Not a problem (except to Yell-yell) on ID-ing you by phrases, syntax and opinions. The spacing thing doesn't fool anyone. Quit the charade. |
|
#399
August 24th 04, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(William) writes: (Quitefine) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: (Quitefine) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? I wrote of you in the past tense, not us. You did not answer the question, which was 'why' you used the past tense. Why not? You have no future on RRAP. Just go back to being Jimmy Who. That's anonymous enough. Miccolis must think he has a "job" on here, trying to establish a perfect attendence by being here every single day, writing thousands of words in order to establish a "rep" as a "guru." Jimmie thinks he "has a future." That be enough rationalization. Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. I merely wished to reduce spam at my original e-mail account, and it has worked. You did not clearly identify yourself. I didn't intend to fool anyone. I rarely sign off with my name or call anyway. Haven't for a long time. Jimmie big on HYPOCRISY, doing it with anonymous UNSIGNED messages. Tsk, tsk. You can and will read nefarious intent into any of my actions. Is there something "nefarious" about wishing to be anonymous? We do not think so. Steve thinks so, and that's what's important here. Yell-yell BMOC here, leader of troop, example of modern ham extra, custodian of good manners and civil discourse. Regardless, my posting style has not changed and anyone who asks will be told who I am. Perhaps. But you avoid many direct questions. So? Tsk. Jimmy ask anonymous questions, get anonymous replies. Jimmy not like anyonmous replies but like anonymity. Strange. Can you explain this? No. Perhaps 'Steve' respects our anonymity. Perhaps he has changed. Steve only changes when he goes on his meds, and when he goes off his meds. You claim that he is "nuts" and "on meds". If you believe that to be true, why do you antagonize him? Simple. He won't back off. He doesn't know how to. His handlers cannot control him. He's a menace. Yell-yell obsessed with hate of newsgroup enemies. Yell-yell never retreats...he "advances to the rear." :-) Tell Jimmy Who that he has to be more firm with his attack dog. Everyone send Jimmie newspapers...so he can roll them up and whack whacko attack dog. Sheesh! All these dual-personalities on rrap. REAL psychologists would have fun with all that! :-) "Examples" of what happens to code-tested olde-tyme hammes. |
|
#400
August 24th 04, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Notfine Miccolis in PA) writes: In article , (William) writes: (Quitefine) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? Jimmy like to live in PAST. He now tense. I wrote of you in the past tense, not us. You did not answer the question, which was 'why' you used the past tense. Why Jimmy live in PAST so much? Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. I merely wished to reduce spam at my original e-mail account, and it has worked. You did not clearly identify yourself. "Quitefine" big HYPOCRITE. "Quitefine' no ID. No guts. Cowardice as gunnery sergeant Yell-yell shout. Tsk tsk. You can and will read nefarious intent into any of my actions. Is there something "nefarious" about wishing to be anonymous? We do not think so. Jimmy do anonymity and hypocrisy bit. Tsk, tsk. NEFARIOUS! Regardless, my posting style has not changed and anyone who asks will be told who I am. Perhaps. But you avoid many direct questions. What questions? Anonymouse Quitefine ask questions...get anonymous replies. :-) Can you explain this? No. Perhaps 'Steve' respects our anonymity. Perhaps he has changed. It's that time of the month for gunnery nurses to change uniforms. Steve only changes when he goes on his meds, and when he goes off his meds. You claim that he is "nuts" and "on meds". If you believe that to be true, why do you antagonize him? Why anonymous Jimmy antagonize everyone else? :-) Tsk, tsk. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
| FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters for the Period Ending May 1, 2004 | General | |||
| First BPL License Awarded - | Boatanchors | |||
| First BPL License Awarded - | Boatanchors | |||
Linear Mode
