Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

Isn't it funny that a original post that had NOTHING to do with AMATEUR
RADIO is getting more exposure than the old code/no code debate???

Kind of refreshing in an OT sort of way........

- Mike KB3EIA -

"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.

Sorry, Dwight.

I wasn't referring to you. I think I put the response in the wrong place.
I was referring to fact that someone is trying to pretend he is N8WWM.

No, this is certainly different and much better than the old saw about the
boy scouts or cub scouts (is Michael up to 2 packs a day now?).

The fingers were out typing my poor brain box


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Jim Hampton" wrote:
'cmon. Read the headers. You just fed a troll


Those who have known me over the last five or six years in this
newsgroup
also know I don't troll, Jim. This topic has received massive coverage in
the news over the last few days. Because of that, I thought it was an
interesting topic to introduce in the newsgroup (something different to
talk
about).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , "Lloyd" writes:



Hey Kane, they were talking about you on 14275 yesterday.

73 de Lloyd

That's MISTER Kane to you, numbnuts.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , N8WWM writes:

He acts childish enough at times, Mike. Since Michael Jackson thinks of
himself as a kid, perhaps N8WWM can also convince Michael Jackson that he's
a kid too. I'll certainly vouch for you, N8WWM. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Im not childish I just like michaels music. Why cant we just leave his
personal
life out of this? He's innocent until proven guilty just like i am. The rain
report claimed I jammed repeaters but they didn't prove it.

Mike:

I'll attempt to explain. As a public figure, Mr. Jackson has the ability to
influence people on the basis of his personal behavior. His actions cannot
be separated from his music simply for the convenience of his audience.
A lot of young, impressionable people view him as an idol or a role model.
When his personal behavior turns out to show him to be a man of
highly suspect morality (if not sanity), then his influence immediately
turns negative -- or at least, it should. Like all public figures, Mr. Jackson
will have supporters and detractors. Personally, I find little about his
personal life which would incline me toward considering him to be anything
but a hedonistic, emotionally-incompetent, and potentially dangerous
person, who should never be given access to anyone's children.

Yes, at one time, I liked his music, and I do not deny his talent as an
entertainer. However, that is not enough. He now resides in the garbage
disposal of my esteem, along with the Dixie Chicks.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

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.

Kim:

On the contrary, your faux pas was offensive to many others. What made it
so is the fact that, as usual, it was posted with little or no thought given to
it's possible effect. And, in a nutshell, that's your main problem. You don't
seem to have any process of careful, thoughtful contemplation involved in
your postings. You simply make ill-considered, off-the-cuff reactions which,
invariably, get you in trouble. You have no intellectual credibility in this
newsgroup, and, I dare say, that is most likely the case in the rest of your
interpersonal and working relationships as well.

Have
you ever seen me demand an apology for being offended by you, Larry?

No, but I've never said anything to or about you which could be considered
offensive, Kim -- just truthful.

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.

I was impressed with Dwight's restraint -- too bad you didn't exercise any
yourself, or we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

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.

I require no validation of my qualification to judge your behavior and
actions, Kim. I am an intelligent and educated person, who has developed
mature judgement and the ability to express myself with clarity and
conviction. OTOH, you have clearly demonstrated that you are none of
the above. Therefore, you're only wasting your time if you think you can
possibly discredit me in any way.

Now, back to forgetting about responding to you since you drone on
with your impish, childish, boring, self-centered ignorance...

Suit yourself.

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

I would consider it an honor and a privilege to have tea with Dr. Laura
Schlessinger. If that fine day should ever come, rest assured, your
name will not be mentioned. I don't need her help in dealing with the
likes of you.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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:

Personally, I find little about his
personal life which would incline me toward considering him to be anything
but a hedonistic, emotionally-incompetent, and potentially dangerous
person, who should never be given access to anyone's children.

I wonder what kind of parent would allow their children to spend the
night with MJ?

Michael Jackson was actually cool at one point in his life, but that was
back when he was actually black, male and straight. Now I am not sure what
to call him..... is he male or female, black/african-american or white, gay
or straight?? I think he should assume a symbol like Prince did, but Mikey
Jackson's should be a question mark!!!!!!!!!




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

Is there anyone out there who actually believes
Michael Jackson is really innocent of this latest
charge? (snip)


Has anyone noticed the Jackson spin machine in action lately? In just
the
last few days on the talk shows, I've seen or heard from Michael Jackson's
brother, father, sister, several fans, his ex-spiritual advisor (?), his
ex-magician (?), and so on. Did you also notice they all seem to be using
the exact same words ("he's a child himself," "its' normal for him to
sleep
with kids," "it's all totally innocent," "they're out to get him because
he's famous," and so on). Too bad the victim's family doesn't have that
type
of support on those talk shows.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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