In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


Y'know what, Larry? Phuck (HansTM) you and your patriarchal high horse you
ride around on. I owe *you* nor anyone else, *but* possibly Dwight, an
apology. I can nearly guarantee you that Dwight would know that I was not
commenting on the part about his brother. Now sit the phuck down and shut
the phuck up.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

I neither stand nor speak while I'm typing at my computer keyboard.
And you're still a childish, boorish, ignorant person. You screwed up
and you'll never admit it, because you are totally self-centered. Whether
Dwight took offense or not, others have -- and that is what you should
be apologizing for. However, you're too self-centered to ever be able
to figure that out. You're pitiful.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:


Y'know what, Larry? Phuck (HansTM) you and your patriarchal high horse
you
ride around on. I owe *you* nor anyone else, *but* possibly Dwight, an
apology. I can nearly guarantee you that Dwight would know that I was
not
commenting on the part about his brother. Now sit the phuck down and
shut
the phuck up.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

I neither stand nor speak while I'm typing at my computer keyboard.
And you're still a childish, boorish, ignorant person. You screwed up
and you'll never admit it, because you are totally self-centered. Whether
Dwight took offense or not, others have -- and that is what you should
be apologizing for. However, you're too self-centered to ever be able
to figure that out. You're pitiful.

73 de Larry, K3LT



As stated, no one (*other* than possibly Dwight) was owed an apology. Have
you ever seen me demand an apology for being offended by you, Larry? And,
as has come to pass, Dwight was quite reasonable (something which you
neither understand nor are capable of) about how he understood the post.

And, as to your opinion of me--or anyone else, Larry--you are the last soul
on this Earth with whom I find any merit for anything done or not done by
others. Now, back to forgetting about responding to you since you drone on
with your impish, childish, boring, self-centered ignorance...

You and your *"Dr."* should have some tea...

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

As stated, no one (*other* than possibly
Dwight) was owed an apology. Have
you ever seen me demand an apology for
being offended by you, Larry? And, as
has come to pass, Dwight was quite
reasonable (something which you neither
understand nor are capable of) about
how he understood the post. (snip)


Perhaps it might be a good idea to simply drop the matter while you're
still ahead, Kim. Your words were certainly questionable and could easily be
interpreted the way many others did. But I made a choice to interpret those
words differently to avoid additional confrontation. But that doesn't mean
that my chosen interpretation is really what you meant, or is now a defense
of what you said. Enough said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

As stated, no one (*other* than possibly
Dwight) was owed an apology. Have
you ever seen me demand an apology for
being offended by you, Larry? And, as
has come to pass, Dwight was quite
reasonable (something which you neither
understand nor are capable of) about
how he understood the post. (snip)


Perhaps it might be a good idea to simply drop the matter while you're
still ahead, Kim. Your words were certainly questionable and could easily
be
interpreted the way many others did. But I made a choice to interpret
those
words differently to avoid additional confrontation. But that doesn't mean
that my chosen interpretation is really what you meant, or is now a
defense
of what you said. Enough said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Dwight, I certainly don't mean to imply you are "defending" anything I said.
I'd hardly want that and would be quite surprised by it. And, I didn't see
anyone else but Larry have the reaction to it...well, maybe Mike I think.
So, I don't define that as many. It's a pretty near given that I (nor many
others in this newsgroup) would find anything like the death of someone else
"hilarious."

At any rate, it disappoints that you chose to interpret something because
you wanted to avoid additional confrontation. I would hope you'd never
modify what you say, apart from what you truly believe, because of avoiding
confrontation. Ya sure won't find that from me...

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:



Dwight, I certainly don't mean to imply you are "defending" anything I said.
I'd hardly want that and would be quite surprised by it. And, I didn't see
anyone else but Larry have the reaction to it...well, maybe Mike I think.

Because Larry said first what many others thought.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:



Dwight, I certainly don't mean to imply you are "defending" anything I
said.
I'd hardly want that and would be quite surprised by it. And, I didn't
see
anyone else but Larry have the reaction to it...well, maybe Mike I
think.

Because Larry said first what many others thought.


Oh. So now you're a mind reader.

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"JJ" wrote in message
...

Kim W5TIT wrote:



Dwight, I certainly don't mean to imply you are "defending" anything I

said.

I'd hardly want that and would be quite surprised by it. And, I didn't

see

anyone else but Larry have the reaction to it...well, maybe Mike I

think.

Because Larry said first what many others thought.



Oh. So now you're a mind reader.

Kim W5TIT

No, I am neither psychedelic nor do I have espn. Backpeddle all you want
but you made a really stupid statement.

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

It's a pretty near given that I (nor many
others in this newsgroup) would find anything like the death of someone else
"hilarious."

Kim:

Ahem -- care to look over the above sentence and, perhaps, add something
to it? Or "not"?

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

It's a pretty near given that I (nor many
others in this newsgroup) would find anything like the death of someone
else
"hilarious."

Kim:

Ahem -- care to look over the above sentence and, perhaps, add something
to it? Or "not"?

73 de Larry, K3LT



Nope. You see? Your question proves that you understood what it is I
*meant* to say, asshole...

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

It's a pretty near given that I (nor many
others in this newsgroup) would find anything like the death of someone
else
"hilarious."

Kim:

Ahem -- care to look over the above sentence and, perhaps, add something
to it? Or "not"?

73 de Larry, K3LT



Nope. You see? Your question proves that you understood what it is I
*meant* to say, asshole...

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

The problem is, the way you constructed the sentence in question,
anyone who didn't know you would simply take at face value, to your
discredit. I'm just trying to help you out, here, but you still need to
call me names. Pitiful.

73 de Larry, K3LT