On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
snip

So let's recap:

With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long,
lengthy
and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing.

I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards
rather than my own.

I even got you to admit something good about K3LT.

And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of
inappropriate words.

Jim,

This is really uncharacteristic of you.

That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.

Nope - not that one

I am amazed that a well
educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above,
given the behaviour that started it off in the first place.

You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.

Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in
violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional
changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes.

You remember that, don't you, Jim?

Bully-like behaviour, Jim?

Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.

Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or
intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup.


I wouldn't have thought it possible.

It isn't.

(ahem)


That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there.

Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?

Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks,
now did he?


So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has
vanquished, as he says to the crowd:

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

No.

dang. I thought you of all people would be.

Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you
frequently speak have gotten to. That's all.

You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly?

You know.

But hey, you beat Kim, right! That's all that matters.....


73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

Thank you.

Not really

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

In article , Leo
writes:

On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
snip

So let's recap:

With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long,
lengthy and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing.

I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards
rather than my own.

I even got you to admit something good about K3LT.

And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of
inappropriate words.

Jim,

This is really uncharacteristic of you.

That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.

Nope - not that one

That's the one I was referring to.

Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate words?

I am amazed that a well
educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above,
given the behaviour that started it off in the first place.

You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.

Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in
violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional
changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes.

So her wishes are more important than my standards?

You remember that, don't you, Jim?

Bully-like behaviour, Jim?

Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.

Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or
intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup.

Nope. Not from where I sit.

I wouldn't have thought it possible.

It isn't.

(ahem)

That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there.

Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?

Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks,
now did he?

Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying", saying
that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live together,
making salt when it was against the law....

Very annoying fellow at times.

So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has
vanquished, as he says to the crowd:

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

No.

dang. I thought you of all people would be.

Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you
frequently speak have gotten to. That's all.

You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly?

Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly?

Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel.

You know.

But hey, you beat Kim, right!

Not according to Kim.

Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree.

So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser.

That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread.

That's all that matters.....

Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a
callsign I think is inappropriate.

73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

Thank you.

Not really

Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
snip

So let's recap:

With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long,
lengthy and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing.

I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards
rather than my own.

I even got you to admit something good about K3LT.

And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of
inappropriate words.

Jim,

This is really uncharacteristic of you.

That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.

Nope - not that one

That's the one I was referring to.

Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate words?

Nope - the characteristic of always portraying gentlemanly conduct,
which is clearly missing here. As you are aware.

I am amazed that a well
educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above,
given the behaviour that started it off in the first place.

You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.

Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in
violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional
changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes.

So her wishes are more important than my standards?

Nice diversion, Jim - you know that your standards are not the issue.

You remember that, don't you, Jim?

Bully-like behaviour, Jim?

Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.

Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or
intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup.

Nope. Not from where I sit.

Sorry to hear that, Jim.

I wouldn't have thought it possible.

It isn't.

(ahem)

That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there.

Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?

Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks,
now did he?

Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying", saying
that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live together,
making salt when it was against the law....

Very annoying fellow at times.

....but totally unrelated to the issue. As you are aware.

So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has
vanquished, as he says to the crowd:

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

No.

dang. I thought you of all people would be.

Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you
frequently speak have gotten to. That's all.

You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly?

Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly?

Really, Jim. An inane question, indeed.


Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel.

Not the issue. As you are aware.

You know.

But hey, you beat Kim, right!

Not according to Kim.

According to you - read your own post!

Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree.

So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser.

That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread.

Not true at all, Jim.

Let me quote your own words from your reply to to Kim in the full
version of this post:

"....Too bad you failed, Kim. But I hope you had fun."

An interesting way to declare a draw, Jim.


That's all that matters.....

Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a
callsign I think is inappropriate.

Sidestepping the issue.


73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

Thank you.

Not really

Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion. I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

73, Leo

Leo wrote:

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion.

....and yours seems to be to set yourself up as an expert in debate while
taking the view that we're somehow obligated to be even handed toward
something which we find in poor taste.

I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

Jim is quite obviously acting on his principles in this matter.

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

What game are we playing which requires a level field? Kim wasn't being
courteous to others in her choice of callsign. Perhaps you'll want to
take her to task over it. She singled herself out in her choice of
calls.
Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those
you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to
defend bad taste.

Dave K8MN

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion.

...and yours seems to be to set yourself up as an expert in debate while
taking the view that we're somehow obligated to be even handed toward
something which we find in poor taste.

Not at all - you have missed the point entirely. My condolences.


I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

Jim is quite obviously acting on his principles in this matter.

You think?

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

What game are we playing which requires a level field? Kim wasn't being
courteous to others in her choice of callsign. Perhaps you'll want to
take her to task over it. She singled herself out in her choice of
calls.

And two wrongs somehow make a right? Of course she singled herself
out with that call. So what? Does that make her a "bad person",
somehow unfit for common courtesy, Dave?

Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave -
it's a fact of life.


Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those
you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to
defend bad taste.

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil

Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave -
it's a fact of life.


Hmmmm, never thought of it that way, Leo, but your observation comes true.
I can't tell you how many times I have been given "oh jeeze" looks from
women who think I absolutely deliberately grew these things to their size!
I guess I've never paid that much attention to it; it's the equivalent of
"blaming" someone for being born any other way.

Kim W5TIT

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:46:22 -0600, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil

Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave -
it's a fact of life.


Hmmmm, never thought of it that way, Leo, but your observation comes true.
I can't tell you how many times I have been given "oh jeeze" looks from
women who think I absolutely deliberately grew these things to their size!
I guess I've never paid that much attention to it; it's the equivalent of
"blaming" someone for being born any other way.

Yup, people do have a natural tendency to get hung up on physical
characteristics. I've heard that from a couple of friends in the same
- um - situation...guys have trouble looking you in the eye, and the
other women (and some guys..) become insecure. Dumb and insensitive,
but it seems to be human nature.

You may want to suggest an experiment to those guys who do not
understand how this must feel. Ask them to place a large banana in
the inside front of their pants before they head off to work one
morning. Have them engage as many of their co-workers as possible in
conversation.

Then, the next day, have them go in (minus the banana ) and see if
they can find anyone who remembers what the hell they were talking
about the day before......

That oughta learn 'em!


Kim W5TIT

73, Leo

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion.

...and yours seems to be to set yourself up as an expert in debate while
taking the view that we're somehow obligated to be even handed toward
something which we find in poor taste.

Not at all - you have missed the point entirely. My condolences.

Yes, that looks like your mode: instant expert; proposals that we accept
what we find in bad taste. Your condolences aren't needed.


I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

Jim is quite obviously acting on his principles in this matter.

You think?

Yes, I do. You must not think so as you "expected better" than for him
to do so.

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

What game are we playing which requires a level field? Kim wasn't being
courteous to others in her choice of callsign. Perhaps you'll want to
take her to task over it. She singled herself out in her choice of
calls.

And two wrongs somehow make a right? Of course she singled herself
out with that call. So what? Does that make her a "bad person",
somehow unfit for common courtesy, Dave?

Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave -
it's a fact of life.

*Wink* and *chuckle* on your part noted.


Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those
you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to
defend bad taste.

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.

So the Mark Twain quote isn't an accurate assessment of humankind?

Dave K8MN

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:00:59 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion.

...and yours seems to be to set yourself up as an expert in debate while
taking the view that we're somehow obligated to be even handed toward
something which we find in poor taste.

Not at all - you have missed the point entirely. My condolences.

Yes, that looks like your mode: instant expert; proposals that we accept
what we find in bad taste. Your condolences aren't needed.

Not at all, Dave. Not an expert at all - just someone who believes in
treating people fairly, and isn't easily offended by mere words.

Keep the condolences, though.



I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

Jim is quite obviously acting on his principles in this matter.

You think?

Yes, I do. You must not think so as you "expected better" than for him
to do so.

You think?

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

What game are we playing which requires a level field? Kim wasn't being
courteous to others in her choice of callsign. Perhaps you'll want to
take her to task over it. She singled herself out in her choice of
calls.

And two wrongs somehow make a right? Of course she singled herself
out with that call. So what? Does that make her a "bad person",
somehow unfit for common courtesy, Dave?

Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave -
it's a fact of life.

*Wink* and *chuckle* on your part noted.

That was a smile, Dave - what wink and chuckle? Kim replied with some
valuable insight on this comment - please read what she wrote in her
previous post, and do your best to empathize with her reply.



Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those
you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to
defend bad taste.

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.

So the Mark Twain quote isn't an accurate assessment of humankind?

It is, unfortunately. Did you read my reply, though? - I'll post it
again so you can have another run at it:

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Leo wrote:

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion.

...and yours seems to be to set yourself up as an expert in debate while
taking the view that we're somehow obligated to be even handed toward
something which we find in poor taste.

I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

Jim is quite obviously acting on his principles in this matter.

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

What game are we playing which requires a level field? Kim wasn't being
courteous to others in her choice of callsign. Perhaps you'll want to
take her to task over it. She singled herself out in her choice of
calls.
Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.


Oh puhleeze, Dave. Live with the fallout!?! It's an amateur radio
callsign! Not a GD BOD decision! ROFLMAO!!!

Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those
you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to
defend bad taste.

Dave K8MN


Kim W5TIT