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

Leo wrote:

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:

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.


Given a choice between voicing disapproval and the *wink* and *chuckle*,
your choice has been obvious.

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:

So your private morals must be at odds with your public morals.

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

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?

Yes, I'll have to disagree with it. "Bill" is a good neighbor. "Pete"
lives on the other side of me. "Pete" has a dog which he allows to roam
freely. "Pete" refuses to control the dog and laughs when I tell him
that I object to his dog's use of my lawn for a toilet.

"Bill" asks if he can borrow my lawn mower. I lend it to him. A month
later, "Pete" asks if he might borrow the mower. I tell him "no". I've
not treated these individuals equally. It is my view that I'm not bound
to do so.

Get real, "Leo".

Dave K8MN

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:04:55 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

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:

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.


Given a choice between voicing disapproval and the *wink* and *chuckle*,
your choice has been obvious.

Really - what were you thinking of, Dave? Tsk, tsk.


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:

So your private morals must be at odds with your public morals.

Perhaps - are yours, Dave? I sincerely hope so.

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

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?

Yes, I'll have to disagree with it. "Bill" is a good neighbor. "Pete"
lives on the other side of me. "Pete" has a dog which he allows to roam
freely. "Pete" refuses to control the dog and laughs when I tell him
that I object to his dog's use of my lawn for a toilet.

"Bill" asks if he can borrow my lawn mower. I lend it to him. A month
later, "Pete" asks if he might borrow the mower. I tell him "no". I've
not treated these individuals equally. It is my view that I'm not bound
to do so.

No, you certainly are not.

One question, though... did you put up posters all over the
neighbourhood to let everyone know what a jerk you thought Pete is?
Do you tell everyone that you meet that he is an inconsiderate boor?
Do you go to the mall with a bucket of the dog droppings and tell
everyone within earshot how wrong Pete is?

That would be OK to do, you know - you and Pete are not on the air!



Get real, "Leo".

I think, therefore I am, "Dave".


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

Leo wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:04:55 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

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:

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

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?

Yes, I'll have to disagree with it. "Bill" is a good neighbor. "Pete"
lives on the other side of me. "Pete" has a dog which he allows to roam
freely. "Pete" refuses to control the dog and laughs when I tell him
that I object to his dog's use of my lawn for a toilet.

"Bill" asks if he can borrow my lawn mower. I lend it to him. A month
later, "Pete" asks if he might borrow the mower. I tell him "no". I've
not treated these individuals equally. It is my view that I'm not bound
to do so.

No, you certainly are not.

Then what about your comments about folks deserving equal treatment?

One question, though... did you put up posters all over the
neighbourhood to let everyone know what a jerk you thought Pete is?
Do you tell everyone that you meet that he is an inconsiderate boor?
Do you go to the mall with a bucket of the dog droppings and tell
everyone within earshot how wrong Pete is?

That's *three* questions, "Leo".

I've never brought up Kim's inappropriate call on the air. Both "Bill"
and "Pete" are hypotheticals.

That would be OK to do, you know - you and Pete are not on the air!


Hypothetical Pete isn't a ham. He never heard of the Amateur's Code? I
didn't lessen his operating pleasure.

Dave K8MN

The plot thins:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:02:39 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:04:55 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

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:

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

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?

Yes, I'll have to disagree with it. "Bill" is a good neighbor. "Pete"
lives on the other side of me. "Pete" has a dog which he allows to roam
freely. "Pete" refuses to control the dog and laughs when I tell him
that I object to his dog's use of my lawn for a toilet.

"Bill" asks if he can borrow my lawn mower. I lend it to him. A month
later, "Pete" asks if he might borrow the mower. I tell him "no". I've
not treated these individuals equally. It is my view that I'm not bound
to do so.

No, you certainly are not.

Then what about your comments about folks deserving equal treatment?

Dave, you are jumping to confusions here

My next paragraph focusses on this statement further:


One question, though... did you put up posters all over the
neighbourhood to let everyone know what a jerk you thought Pete is?
Do you tell everyone that you meet that he is an inconsiderate boor?
Do you go to the mall with a bucket of the dog droppings and tell
everyone within earshot how wrong Pete is?

That's *three* questions, "Leo".

Oh - you're right! Thanks, "Dave"

Care to answer them?


I've never brought up Kim's inappropriate call on the air. Both "Bill"
and "Pete" are hypotheticals.

Oh - I forgot - real life is different than on the air. You only need
to act in a friendly and courteous manner when you are on the air,
right? Not here, for example. Who could possibly be listening here?

Got it.


That would be OK to do, you know - you and Pete are not on the air!


Hypothetical Pete isn't a ham. He never heard of the Amateur's Code? I
didn't lessen his operating pleasure.

This is funny. Maybe he has a hypothetical Extra ticket? Maybe he's
just ignoring you on the air cause you hate his hypothetical dog,
Dave.

But Hey, you didn't answer any of my questions yet, Dave! Bummer!

Betcha thought I wouldn't notice, huh?

BTW, speaking of questions, you accidentally cut one of my questions
out of your reply, Dave - just to help out, I listed it below.
preceeded by your comments:

Regarding:

Full figured women dealing with fallout as a fact of life...

Dave said:

Given a choice between voicing disapproval and the *wink* and
*chuckle*, your choice has been obvious.

And Leo asked:

Really - what were you thinking of, Dave? Tsk, tsk.

BTW, I can do a "smiley" OK, but what is the graphic symbol for a
"chuckle"?? And doesn't a "wink" have a semicolon in it, like this
?

LOL.


Dave K8MN

Dave, you're a funny guy! Please be careful not to step in any of the
hypothetical dog poop next time you cut your lawn!

And next time you see Hypo Pete, tell him that Leo says he should
think about moving to a new neighbourhood!

73, Leo

Alpha Mike Foxtrot

In article , Leo
writes:

Get real, "Leo".

I think, therefore I am, "Dave".

True enough.

"Dave" put Descartes before de horse...

:-)

LHA / WMD

On 18 Jan 2004 20:34:07 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

Get real, "Leo".

I think, therefore I am, "Dave".

True enough.

"Dave" put Descartes before de horse...

:-)

Len, that's a good one! LOL!

LHA / WMD

73, Leo