wanna talk SHUDDER?
 

In article , Leo
writes:

Well, things aren't always quite that black-and-white, Clint. I am
certainly not a sympathizer nor apologist for either side of the
arguement. Not beacuse I am firmly in one camp or the other - it's
much simpler than that.

Much simpler. YOU hide behind anonymity to relieve yourself on
the group by pretending to exist. You HIDE.


So, here it is - my position: I don't really care that much one way
or the other.

You MUST "care" a great deal...but don't have the COURAGE to
speak out as yourself, not an ANONYMOUS troll.


In short, to restate, I don't care too much one way or the other.
perhaps because I didn't go through the rigourous testing that the
Extras did years ago. I didn't have to draw schematics on my test, or
answer essay-type questions, and pass 20 WPM Morse - many of these
fellows did, though, and it must burn them up to see us get in there
today with multiple choice answers and 5 WPM code.

How does anyone KNOW "what you did years ago?"

You are ANONYMOUS, have no verifiable identity.


Now stop debating, Clint - for God's sake, you'll go blind :)

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

You've got to define sound first. For example if you simply define it as
waveforms in the air, then yes it does make a sound. However if you define
it as the result when waveforms in the air are converted to a form that can
be interpreted by the brain, then it doesn't make a sound.

Either way though you are right that the tree is still there.

There is NO such person in any QRZ listing of Canadian or USA radio
amateurs. Ergo, that person doesn't exist.

Why do you believe that spectres or the imagination are "rational,
civil" persons?

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

Yep, Dick. It's starting to look like that's what I'll have to do.

Maybe you can get an RM going for a new "Ostrich class" license?

Got your blinders on?

Well said, Sir! Spot on.

73, Leo

On 25 Sep 2003 00:31:08 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Leo

writes:

Well, things aren't always quite that black-and-white, Clint. I am
certainly not a sympathizer nor apologist for either side of the
arguement. Not beacuse I am firmly in one camp or the other - it's
much simpler than that.

Much simpler. YOU hide behind anonymity to relieve yourself on
the group by pretending to exist. You HIDE.

Just like someone who posts here under several different AOL screen names, such
as "nocwtest", "averyfine", "averyfineman", "lenof21", "lenover21", and
probably some more I've forgotten.

It's also interesting that when "vshah101" showed up here and posted
"anonymously", Len had no problem with him at all.

So, here it is - my position: I don't really care that much one way
or the other.

You MUST "care" a great deal...but don't have the COURAGE to
speak out as yourself, not an ANONYMOUS troll.

Ah, the old ad-hominem. You attack the person, not the issue. Vshah101 is
against the code test, so it was OK with Len if he posted "anonymously".

In short, to restate, I don't care too much one way or the other.
perhaps because I didn't go through the rigourous testing that the
Extras did years ago. I didn't have to draw schematics on my test, or
answer essay-type questions, and pass 20 WPM Morse - many of these
fellows did, though, and it must burn them up to see us get in there
today with multiple choice answers and 5 WPM code.

How does anyone KNOW "what you did years ago?"

You are ANONYMOUS, have no verifiable identity.

Sure he does. He's "Leo".

Oh wait, now I get it. You are angry because you don't know things about him
like his last name, his callsign, his job, his age, his military service, etc.
You can't use any of those things against him.

Now stop debating, Clint - for God's sake, you'll go blind :)

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Not a troll at all, Sir.

I merely came to this group to post the results of the RAC Morse
survey - which I did in an impartial manner. This is the policy group
- thought it would be a good place to post it.

Very shortly after that, I was attacked by several of the menbers of
the group, for entirely nonsensical reasons. I then tried to clarify
my points for all concerned, and received another barrage of crap from
a copule of simians (that means monkeys, Clint - don't look it up) who
assumed that I was pro code, or not pro code, not a ham, and some
moronic 'terrorists come from Canada' inferences, which were way out
of line (say, didn't the US Air Force discover that they had a
Syrian-born airman in their ranks spying in the secure prisoner area
in Quantico recently - did he come from Canada too? Jeez.....)

I have made my position known very clearly - but there are still a few
folks in this group who incorrectly assume that someone has to be
Pro-this, or Anti-that. Perhaps my language was too erudite for those
folks - I'll try again, in plain English:

I learned Code to get on HF. It was the law, so I did it.

I use it more than I thought I would (I like it!)

Many people operate on HF and never use CW - so it isn't really a
functional requirement any more. It is a strong tradition, however,
dating back to the beginning of the hobby. As Len will tell you,
Marine officers don't really need swords anymore - but they all get
one, its tradition.

I don't believe that everyone should be forced to learn it. If
someone is interested enough to do so, however, they should be
encouraged.

If the Amateur community wants to keep it as a requirement, that's OK
with me. If tradition is that important to the community, I'll respect
that. I have it, I'm in. If the vote says that it goes, then I'm
cool with that too. Doesn't mean that I can't continue to use it.

Clear?

73, Leo

Or is a troll just someone who won't agree with you, Sir?

On 25 Sep 2003 03:34:56 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY)
writes:

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right opinion?

;^) Brian

Leo wrote:
Absolutely correct, N2EY - for these folks, the message is everything.
Agree, or be attacked personally.

You know, being a member of this group is a lot like adopting a pet
porcupine. For the most part, it's an intelligent and good natured
animal - but you do have to watch out for the pricks.... ;)

73, Leo


Interesting, I have a "Porky-Pine" on my QSL card. I don't know what
the significance of that is, but I like the critters.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Me too.

Say, maybe that could be the official mascot of this group? A
Porky-Pine.....; )

73, Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:47:07 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

Interesting, I have a "Porky-Pine" on my QSL card. I don't know what
the significance of that is, but I like the critters.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

Don't ignore him, that's what the PCTA crowd devolves to doing
in it's (non)tactics.... but, likewise, take Leo with a grain of salt
and realize you are dealing with somebody who is disingenuous and
basically a plant.

Clint, I see a slight resemblance to one newsgroupie in here that
used several false identities...had an address in Landing, NJ. :-)

One time this poseur was an "Army officer about to be called to
active duty" in some conflict, thus setting the stage for the Fake's
disappearance. The same individual used another Fake identity and
was going to "visit my neighborhood" to "explain things to me" but
never got any farther than Anaheim, CA, some distance to the south.
The LAPD got a recording of the "message" he left at my telephone
number (authorized tap while my wife and I were up north visiting).
The LAPD has a section that works on Stalkers, organized after one
stalker knifed a young actress to death some years ago. They take
stalking seriously, even with two-bit puerile fakes who don't have the
guts to be themselves.

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

Wrong. He was just laughing at you.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Heh, you guys really don't help your cause much
do you.

Clint, the PCTA have exhausted their valid reasons for code test retention
long ago, well before Restructuring. All the PCTA are able to do in here
is go into character assassination. And they do...
:-)

Well, then you have nothing to worry about, OM - no character to
assassinate.

Sleep well,

73, Leo

On 25 Sep 2003 20:56:31 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

Wrong. He was just laughing at you.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Heh, you guys really don't help your cause much
do you.

Clint, the PCTA have exhausted their valid reasons for code test retention
long ago, well before Restructuring. All the PCTA are able to do in here
is go into character assassination. And they do...
:-)

You TOTALLY NEGLECT the obvious postings of the barbarian
character assassin in here still calling himself "K4YZ."

You are NOT a fair judge at all, just trying to incite a Flame War by
misdirecting to certain others.

By pretense at "fairness," your singling out certain targets is an open
example of HYPOCRISY.



here is a quote from Leo just a few threads up.. it's a cut and paste...
...referring to *certain people* in here...

"For the most part, it's an intelligent and good natured
animal - but you do have to watch out for the pricks.... ;)"

oh, yes... hypocrisy? by definition!

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...


Clint, I see a slight resemblance to one newsgroupie in here that
used several false identities...had an address in Landing, NJ. :-)


and also, always remember this statement he made on september
25 in THIS newsgroup.... check it out and you'll see, just use a
find string search if need be, but he made THIS comment
when referring to certain people in here.. guess who, right?
And I QUOTE...

"For the most part, it's an intelligent and good natured
animal - but you do have to watch out for the pricks.... ;)"

Okay... now.. remember he said that the NEXT time he jumps
on YOUR for making "personal attacks" instead of "concise
argument and logical debate"...

I TOLD you he'd reveal himself eventually.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Um, Clint...

What's a NCTA crow?

Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:04:23 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
but you do have to watch out for the pricks.... ;)


this from a man who says the NCTA crows uses personal attacks
and abusive language instead of facts, evidence and intellectual
argument.

it's TOO easy...

Clint
KB5ZHT

Actally, that's a quote from your friend, Len. Note the
CAPITALIZATION of all of the NOUNS to make it clearer.

You really should investigate an English as a Second Language course,
my friend!

Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:06:46 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:


You TOTALLY NEGLECT the obvious postings of the barbarian
character assassin in here still calling himself "K4YZ."

You are NOT a fair judge at all, just trying to incite a Flame War by
misdirecting to certain others.

By pretense at "fairness," your singling out certain targets is an open
example of HYPOCRISY.



here is a quote from Leo just a few threads up.. it's a cut and paste...
..referring to *certain people* in here...

"For the most part, it's an intelligent and good natured
animal - but you do have to watch out for the pricks.... ;)"

oh, yes... hypocrisy? by definition!

Clint
KB5ZHT

Clint,

That was humour. Not logic.

I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear for you before I posted. ;)

Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:12:05 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:


"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...


Clint, I see a slight resemblance to one newsgroupie in here that
used several false identities...had an address in Landing, NJ. :-)


and also, always remember this statement he made on september
25 in THIS newsgroup.... check it out and you'll see, just use a
find string search if need be, but he made THIS comment
when referring to certain people in here.. guess who, right?
And I QUOTE...

"For the most part, it's an intelligent and good natured
animal - but you do have to watch out for the pricks.... ;)"

Okay... now.. remember he said that the NEXT time he jumps
on YOUR for making "personal attacks" instead of "concise
argument and logical debate"...

I TOLD you he'd reveal himself eventually.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Actually, that was a fact. Character is absent in this individual -
that's why he behaves the way he does. He respects no one other than
himself - so - ergo - no character.

The other was humour. As I have already explained. And also fact!

Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:14:02 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Well, then you have nothing to worry about, OM - no character to
assassinate.


and you DID it again. That's the SECOND personal attack you've made,
while at the SAME time saying the NCTA crowd is the one who does it.
Along with THIS statement YOU made..

"For the most part, it's an intelligent and good natured
animal - but you do have to watch out for the pricks.... ;)"

referring to some people in this newsgroup on this same date (september
25).

You really SHOULD consider stopping and cutting your losses; the more
you speak, the more you harm your own case. I must admit, you do a much
better job at defeating yourself than 1,000 well trained debaters could.

Clint
KB5ZHT

"If the only tool you have in life is a hammer, you tend to treat
everything as if it were a nail..."

--Abraham Maslow

73, Leo

On 25 Sep 2003 20:56:31 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right
opinion?

;^) Brian

PCTAs have to stick together. If they don't, they hang separately.

:-)

You really should investigate an English as a Second Language course,
my friend!

Leo


Oh, is that the BEST dodge you could come up with? when ANYBODY
can read that you were saying that as a reply to N2EY?

Oh, nice try. I figured something better or nothing, but not just saying
THAT.

Clint
KB5ZHT

here is the entire text, you're post to N2EY...

CUT AND PASTE

Absolutely correct, N2EY - for these folks, the message is everything.
Agree, or be attacked personally.

You know, being a member of this group is a lot like adopting a pet
porcupine. For the most part, it's an intelligent and good natured
animal - but you do have to watch out for the pricks.... ;)

73, Leo

On 25 Sep 2003 09:10:15 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

(Brian) wrote in message
. com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right
opinion?

Yep, you and Len sure defended "vshah101" in here...


=====

The time stamp was 9/25/03 11:21

"Leo" wrote in message
...
Actually, that was a fact. Character is absent in this individual -
that's why he behaves the way he does. He respects no one other than
himself - so - ergo - no character.

The other was humour. As I have already explained. And also fact!

Leo


....and the opposite of a "fact" is a "falsehood", which you commited a few
threads up by trying to pass that off as a quote of Len's!!!! Which is it
hypocrit boy? Yea, you "explained" this time but you ALSO said
it wasn't you and that I needed an english language lesson because you
were quoting Len. I have already cut and paste the post that BUSTS you
on that.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Sorry, my error - I read the test from Len at the top of your post,
and assumed you were referring to that - my bad....

Let me know when you set up the ESL course - maybe I'll go with you
;)

But, in answer to your post - that is not hypocrisy at all - its a
fact. This group contains several trolls who try and dominate every
thread, and twist it around to a code argument. You are one of those
trolls. Plain and simple - ask the rest of the group, if you don't
believe me! Ask them!

30, Leo


On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:18:45 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:

here is the entire text, you're post to N2EY...

CUT AND PASTE

Absolutely correct, N2EY - for these folks, the message is everything.
Agree, or be attacked personally.

You know, being a member of this group is a lot like adopting a pet
porcupine. For the most part, it's an intelligent and good natured
animal - but you do have to watch out for the pricks.... ;)

73, Leo

On 25 Sep 2003 09:10:15 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

(Brian) wrote in message
.com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right
opinion?

Yep, you and Len sure defended "vshah101" in here...


=====

The time stamp was 9/25/03 11:21

Rather than starting a new thread, kindly use the original so that I
can see what you're referring to. In one of your 4,362 posts today,
you credited me with a quote that actually came from Len. Please
clarify - which one?

Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:22:21 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Clint,

That was humour. Not logic.

I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear for you before I posted. ;)

Leo


HEY, wait a minute.. a few threads back up you TOLD me,
and I quote...

"Actally, that's a quote from your friend, Len. Note the
CAPITALIZATION of all of the NOUNS to make it clearer.

You really should investigate an English as a Second Language course,
my friend!

Leo"

Okay, so FIRST you say it's a quote of Len's (which I proved it
was NOT with a cut and paste and the time stamp so it can
be found easily).. THEN you admit it but try to dodge by
saying "it's humor, not logic"... but ADMITTING it all the same
by trying to EXLPAIN it the second time.

BUSTED!

so, in addition to being a hypocrit, you are an outright liar.

It's SO easy.
You need to just find whatever ham set you up to come in
here and do this that you've failed and been exposed.

Talk some more and incriminate yourself. :)))

Clint
KB5ZHT

No problem - I found it. As I explained in your previous post, this
was my error - I saw the text from Len that you attached at the
beginning of the message, and assumed that you were attributing that
to me.

Copy below:

Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:06:46 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:


You TOTALLY NEGLECT the obvious postings of the barbarian
character assassin in here still calling himself "K4YZ."

You are NOT a fair judge at all, just trying to incite a Flame War by
misdirecting to certain others.

By pretense at "fairness," your singling out certain targets is an open
example of HYPOCRISY.



here is a quote from Leo just a few threads up.. it's a cut and paste...
..referring to *certain people* in here...

"For the most part, it's an intelligent and good natured
animal - but you do have to watch out for the pricks.... ;)"

oh, yes... hypocrisy? by definition!

Clint
KB5ZHT

Note the capitalization of the words in Len's post - that's what I
replied to you on. Your quote from me was actually below that - and I
missed it. Sorry. If you read my reply carefully, you will see that
I do not capitalize any of my comments. Should be a good clue to the
error that occurred (read carefully, please!). But, my friend, you
have tried to jump on folks for making mistakes before, and here we go
again!

To clarify, here's a wrap up of this thread so far: (and referring to
the quoted message above:)

- Len wrote the capitalized buffoonery. As usual. Simila merdae,
differo diem.....

- I wrote the 'porcupine' comment. It was intended as tongue-in-cheek
humour. It is also quite true (ask the group!)

- I misread your posting, and erroneously thought that you were
attributing Len's comments to me. I apologized.

- 'Hypocrisy' means "insincerity by virtue of pretending to have
qualities or beliefs that you do not really have." I state my beliefs
clearly and honestly in every post. They are mine.

- 'Hypocrisy' does not mean pointing out that some members of this
group were accuratery described by the metaphoric porcupine comment.
That too is my belief. And others, as you have seen.

- 'Capitalized' means using all big letters in your words.

- You were writing in support of Len's buffoonery. As usual. Simila
merdae, differo diem ad nauseum.....

- Porcupines are good natured animals. They have quills. The quills
are sometimes called pricks.

- So are obnoxious, loud and arrogant people :) They are not
porcupines, though. Just pricks. They are not considered to be good
natured animals.

- You seem to see this issue as some sort of victory. It is not. The
only issue currently being debated is the manner in which you and a
few others deal with issues. I could not care less whether code
testing stays or goes. This is beyond your comprehension. But, this
group is about amateur radio policy, not just code testing issues!

- English isn't your strong suit. You should read carefully before you
answer postings.

- Me too. :)

- You posted this issue three seperate times, in a childish attempt to
declare a victory that cannot possibly exist, as discussed above.

- You will misunderstand most of the above.

- The majority of readers of this newsgroup will not.

- Tomorrow, you will post further buffoonery. About code testing, and
nothing else.

- Big Al will reply to this message with Ho Ho. Or Ay Yi Yi. Or
both.

- The people of Texas are probably very grateful that you are not a
lawyer. People on Death Row are probably very upset that you are not a
D.A.

All is right with the world.

Sleep well,

30, Leo


On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:41:40 GMT, Leo wrote:

Rather than starting a new thread, kindly use the original so that I
can see what you're referring to. In one of your 4,362 posts today,
you credited me with a quote that actually came from Len. Please
clarify - which one?

Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:22:21 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
. ..
Clint,

That was humour. Not logic.

I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear for you before I posted. ;)

Leo


HEY, wait a minute.. a few threads back up you TOLD me,
and I quote...

"Actally, that's a quote from your friend, Len. Note the
CAPITALIZATION of all of the NOUNS to make it clearer.

You really should investigate an English as a Second Language course,
my friend!

Leo"

Okay, so FIRST you say it's a quote of Len's (which I proved it
was NOT with a cut and paste and the time stamp so it can
be found easily).. THEN you admit it but try to dodge by
saying "it's humor, not logic"... but ADMITTING it all the same
by trying to EXLPAIN it the second time.

BUSTED!

so, in addition to being a hypocrit, you are an outright liar.

It's SO easy.
You need to just find whatever ham set you up to come in
here and do this that you've failed and been exposed.

Talk some more and incriminate yourself. :)))

Clint
KB5ZHT

Interesting Mike, you have one on your QSL card, and I have one, or should I
say parts thereof, on my truck!!!! Roadkilled one the other day!


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...


Interesting, I have a "Porky-Pine" on my QSL card. I don't know what
the significance of that is, but I like the critters.


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Brian) wrote in message
e.com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right
opinion?

Yep, you and Len sure defended "vshah101" in here...

Don't misdirect.

Don't tell me what to do or what not to do, little boy. ;-)

You are NOT the moderator of this newsgroup.

I never claimed to be. And neither are you, Leonard. Live with it.

You TOTALLY NEGLECT the obvious postings of the barbarian
character assassin in here still calling himself "K4YZ."

Incorrect. I have repeatedly pointed out Steve's behavior as counter
productive. It has become obvious, however, that you and he have some sort of
reciprocal provocation agreement. You proke him and he responds.

You are NOT a fair judge at all, just trying to incite a Flame War by
misdirecting to certain others.

What did I write that is not true?

'Vshah101' show up here and posted anonymously. Nasty stuff, but he was
anti-codetest

You defended him and had no problem with anything he wrote.

It is a fact that no one who agrees with you can do any wrong, and no one who
disagrees with you can do any right.

You keep proving the following profile over and over again, Len:

No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors,
ethnic/racial/religious slurs, excessive emoticons and/or general infantile
behavior.

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)