"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:15:41 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for
HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will
boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country" due
to
its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get
thought
up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN

Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO.

I simply asked if anyone would consider boycotting no code HF
operators from other countries. Oz is already issuing licenses.
Asking a question is not proposing anything. However, making that
jump in logic is typical of usenet in general.

Well, excuse the observation he but you asked and was answered, at least
by N2EY and by me. Both answers were succinct and without merit for the
return you have above--which seems quite defensive and I'm puzzled by why.

So, you simply asked and were quite simply answered.

And, since you were the one who asked the question of such a weird concept
you would be observing your own actions with regard to your last sentance.

Kim W5TIT

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:55:21 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:15:41 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for
HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will
boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country" due
to
its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get
thought
up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN

Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO.

I simply asked if anyone would consider boycotting no code HF
operators from other countries. Oz is already issuing licenses.
Asking a question is not proposing anything. However, making that
jump in logic is typical of usenet in general.

Well, excuse the observation he but you asked and was answered, at least
by N2EY and by me. Both answers were succinct and without merit for the
return you have above--which seems quite defensive and I'm puzzled by why.

So, you simply asked and were quite simply answered.

And, since you were the one who asked the question of such a weird concept
you would be observing your own actions with regard to your last sentance.

Kim W5TIT


OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.

Bob Brock wrote:

OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.


You won't answer anyone elses questions, why should they answer yours.

Gotta play nice, or at least make sense.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:55:21 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:15:41 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott
QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement
for
HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will
boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country"
due
to
its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get
thought
up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN

Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO.

I simply asked if anyone would consider boycotting no code HF
operators from other countries. Oz is already issuing licenses.
Asking a question is not proposing anything. However, making that
jump in logic is typical of usenet in general.

Well, excuse the observation he but you asked and was answered, at
least
by N2EY and by me. Both answers were succinct and without merit for the
return you have above--which seems quite defensive and I'm puzzled by
why.

So, you simply asked and were quite simply answered.

And, since you were the one who asked the question of such a weird
concept
you would be observing your own actions with regard to your last
sentance.

Kim W5TIT


OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.


Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would "boycott
someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you
doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to you
and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word
about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the
victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question, with
nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic.

I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a
court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion.

Kim W5TIT

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:46:51 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:


OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.


Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would "boycott
someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you
doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to you
and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word
about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the
victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question, with
nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic.

I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a
court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion.

Kim W5TIT


From elsewhere in the thread...

[I said]

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.

[Dick Carroll said]

Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it.

--------------------------------------
I admit that you may not agree with the above accusation. If so, say
so now and I'll apologize.

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:46:51 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:


OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.


Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would
"boycott
someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you
doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to
you
and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word
about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the
victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question,
with
nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic.

I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a
court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion.

Kim W5TIT


From elsewhere in the thread...

[I said]

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.

[Dick Carroll said]

Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it.

--------------------------------------
I admit that you may not agree with the above accusation. If so, say
so now and I'll apologize.


Nope, I don't. But for goodness sake, don't apologize. Good grief. You've
nothing to be apologetic about--'least not the way I see it.

And, for goodness sake again--don't *even* be affected by anything Dick
Carroll, Waddles (WA8ULX or whatever), Larry Roll or even Dave Heil says.
They're humorous, at best. They all remind me of drunken old rambling men.

Kim W5TIT

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:46:31 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:46:51 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:


OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.


Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would
"boycott
someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you
doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to
you
and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word
about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the
victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question,
with
nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic.

I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a
court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion.

Kim W5TIT


From elsewhere in the thread...

[I said]

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.

[Dick Carroll said]

Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it.

--------------------------------------
I admit that you may not agree with the above accusation. If so, say
so now and I'll apologize.


Nope, I don't. But for goodness sake, don't apologize. Good grief. You've
nothing to be apologetic about--'least not the way I see it.

And, for goodness sake again--don't *even* be affected by anything Dick
Carroll, Waddles (WA8ULX or whatever), Larry Roll or even Dave Heil says.
They're humorous, at best. They all remind me of drunken old rambling men.

Kim W5TIT

Since I apparently misunderstood you, please accept my apology.

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Well, excuse the observation he but you asked and was answered, at least
by N2EY and by me. Both answers were succinct and without merit for the
return you have above--which seems quite defensive and I'm puzzled by why.

So, you simply asked and were quite simply answered.

And, since you were the one who asked the question of such a weird concept
you would be observing your own actions with regard to your last sentance.


Hey Kim


I don't think we can apply the regular rules of logic to this one!

- Mike KB3EIA -