In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:

After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)

Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of
children,
yet proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the
point
of not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly
and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead
refers to
the other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender,
license
class, education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.

Well, if the shoe fits...

Sorry for replies to some older posts. I've been through two weeks of
hell at work, and didn't get to respond to everything. Now I'm taking a
well deserved day off and can get back to it.

Good to have you back, Mike

Yes, the shoe does fit.

Well, there you have it.

I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.

Lots of other reasons, too. One can only speculate on Mr. Anderson's
reasons.
;-)

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.

No it isn't.*

Rev. Jim must have gotten his shoes at Hobson's... :-)

[old Brit film, "Hobson's Choice" :-) ]

Yow - the Mostly Steve Brian MARS argument has gotten to the point
where I can hardly hack it. YMMV!

That was a good skit, though!

I doubt it is over. :-)

More one-sided name-calling and cussing from the hospital
PA...

If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.

In some cases, yes.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.

Perhaps.

Face it, he is good at it.

Not really. I have seen many other posters get the better of Mr. Anderson.
It's
not hard to do at all.

All I've done is present a differing opinion than his, and point out some of
his mistakes. His responses have been - predictable.

I must not be getting my point across here. This isn't about being
right. It's about the discourse. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's
wrong, and a lot of it is just neutral as in opinion.

Opinion is opinion.

Problem is, too many amateurs are totally inflexible and any
deviation, however slight, from established Newington
instructions is considered "perverse." :-)

It's fascinating how a few words of a different opinion can cause
Mr.Anderson
to produce volumes of verbiage. And how a calm, polite correction of even
one
of his errors brings such a torrent of anger and abuse.

Yes, I've had that happen.

It's the nature of the computer-modem beast, Mike. You can't
escape it.

Neither are you assured of having the "last word." :-)

It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Sometimes.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie. :-)

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

Just different versions of the same game.

Oh, that other one is some pretty severe stuff. Between the perverse
accusations, the threats, the obscenities and the stuff that just might
end up as courtroom evidence, this stuff is tame by comparison.

:-)

And the "game" sometimes extends
beyond the newsgroup. For example, some time back I and some others received
several unsolicited emails from Mr. Anderson, with attachments that were
allegedly pictures. I deleted them unopened, as is standard procedure for
unsolicited attachments. I found out later they were supposedly a picture of
his commercial radiotelephone license and a picture that included adult male
nudity. Of course this is second hand information because I simply deleted
the
emails, but you have to kinda wonder why such Mr. Anderson would send me
such
things.

I've heard about that one.

I might have it on an old CD archive, available for e-mail attachment if so.

It's good for about 3 days as a private web page. :-)

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!

Only by choice.

Well, sure! Steve is involved by choice too!

Not quite. There's an obsessive-compulsive disorder going on
there and he can't help jumping back in. Wait. Once time is
available, he will bring out the putz can and start polishing
some more insults. :-)

LHA / WMD

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.


No it isn't.*


Yow - the Mostly Steve Brian MARS argument has gotten to the point
where I can hardly hack it. YMMV!

I don't read most of it.

That was a good skit, though!

Exactly.

If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.

In some cases, yes.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.

Perhaps.

Face it, he is good at it.

Not really. I have seen many other posters get the better of Mr. Anderson. It's not hard to do at all.

All I've done is present a differing opinion than his, and point out some of
his mistakes. His responses have been - predictable.

Totally predictable, in fact.

I must not be getting my point across here. This isn't about being
right. It's about the discourse. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's
wrong, and a lot of it is just neutral as in opinion.

What isn't neutral is the undeserved abuse dealt out to others for
simply disagreeing or pointing out mistakes. But see below about the
"game".

It's fascinating how a few words of a different opinion can cause Mr.
Anderson
to produce volumes of verbiage. And how a calm, polite correction of even
one
of his errors brings such a torrent of anger and abuse.

Yes, I've had that happen.

Exactly.

It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Sometimes.

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

Just different versions of the same game.

The game you describe is simple attention-getting behavior. It's
exactly the same as the small child who tries all sorts of behaviors
in order to get adult (typically parental) attention. That the
attention takes the form of punishments doesn't matter to the child as
much as the attention itself.

A variation is to get the adult/parent to lose control, start
screaming and yelling, etc., as a way of getting the child and adult
on the same behavioral level.

Much if not most of what Len does with his newsgroup postings here is
exactly the same thing.

You may think he is "good at it" but the reverse is true. Compare how
much response he gets for the amount of posting he does. Or if you
want to be specific, note how many of my posts elicit a response from
him, and how many of his posts elicit a response from me. Note also
the length, content and tone of the responses.

"Good at it"? Not at all.

Oh, that other one is some pretty severe stuff. Between the perverse
accusations, the threats, the obscenities and the stuff that just might
end up as courtroom evidence, this stuff is tame by comparison.

And the "game" sometimes extends
beyond the newsgroup. For example, some time back I and some others received
several unsolicited emails from Mr. Anderson, with attachments that were
allegedly pictures. I deleted them unopened, as is standard procedure for
unsolicited attachments. I found out later they were supposedly a picture of
his commercial radiotelephone license and a picture that included adult male
nudity. Of course this is second hand information because I simply deleted the
emails, but you have to kinda wonder why such Mr. Anderson would send me such
things.

I've heard about that one.

Exactly.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!

Only by choice.

Well, sure! Steve is involved by choice too!

Yep. There are good choices and not-so-good choices.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

Y'know, with all this discussion about different phonetic alphabets,
people confusing "Papa" with "Japan" and DX/contest folks using a
completely different set and being cornfuzed by anything else, it makes
me wonder.

Doesn't all this add up to 'phone modes being "slow", "limited" and
"error-prone"?

73 de Jim, N2EY


I wondered when someone would pop up with that comment.

Didn't want to disappoint!

I think CW is generally slower, though.

All depends on what's being done. With a clear channel and fast talkers, it
takes skilled CW/Morse operators to keep up with 'phone. OTOH, when actual
record "write it down" messages are being handled, the speed limit is often how
fast the receiving op can write legibly. Most people who don't know some form
of shorthand run out of steam at 20 to 40 wpm. Of course typing can be much
faster.

Under those conditions, CW/Morse is often *faster* and *more accurate* than
voice - if skilled operators are available.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

There's nothing to respect or admire able about being able to tear down,
insult, and destroy - or attempt to.

Here's a classic for ya - I call it "the sphincter post":

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001001%40nso-f
p.aol.com&output=gplain

I hear tell that those air raids on Tokyo in the fifties were exercises
in sheer terror.

I dunno, I've never been to Tokyo. Not even for 30 seconds.

Troll, troll, troll your boat...madly down the steam (puffing away
prodigiously).

Remember the exchanges about how far it is from air bases in North Korea and
Vladivostok to Tokyo, Bear bombers and such? Someone was very unhappy when
it
was pointed out that the distance is well over 650 miles, not "about 500
miles". And that the statement "about an hour in a Bear bomber" meant little
because that aircraft did not enter service until the late 1950s.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Rev. Jim pulled out his Military Google-isms of the past
and tried to make an amphibious bridge over his troubled waters. [he
was all wet]

Pointing out the fact that any American *under* a certain age grew up with
the
knowledge that hostile ICBMs could reach us in a matter of minutes sets off
a
predictable response, too.

Not in the mid- to late-1950s, senior. :-)

Exactly. When you were in Japan, there weren't even any Bear bombers in
service.

But in the '60s, when I was growing up, the Soviets had much more nuclear
strike capability. I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, even
though I was only in elementary school at the time.

Rev. Jim IS predictable.

Who?

Lives in the PAST.

Well, you can't be referring to me.

I'm not the one who repeatedly brings up half-century-old military
communications experience as some sort of qualification to determine amateur
radio policy *today*. While neglecting to mention that the facility involved
was entirely paid for by others, and utilized the full-time contributions of
over 700 other personnel....

Now, *that's* "living in the past"

I don't "live in the past". But I do have a decent memory, and the skills to
use reference resources. That obviously bothers the heck out of you, Len,
judging by how you respond to my posts.

He MUST keep on
fighting the good fight over ancient postings, again and again and
again and again and...yawn

You mean the like the one where you called another poster a "feldwebel" and
told him to "shut the hell up"?

That sequence (in "34 Years Ago Today") was a classic. ;-)

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by what
appears to be a reference to the writer's multiple sphincters (in the
next to last paragraph).

Perhaps multiple ones are needed in order to handle his prodigious output
;-)

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 15 Jun 2004 07:58:59 GMT

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/14/2004 11:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

You are still going to claim that Brian "lost" his logs, aren't
you?

As long as he keeps refusing to post some sort of "evidence" for
the claims he made, yes.

Why?

He may know just where they are.

They may have been in a garage at one time and in a storage unit
another.

You don't really know either way, do you? Tsk, tsk.

It's not what I know or don't know, Your Putziness....It's what
PuppetBoy can produce to substantiate his claims.

Can produce or will produce?

Regardless of wether they are in his garage, a rental storage
unit, his
bathroom reading rack, or his imagination, they are NOT "here"...THAT
is fact.

So what's the problem?

Anyone who reads these exchanges knows that Mr. Burke will simply
avoid/refuse any sort of substantive answer on the subject. That's
pretty much a given.

So why bother about it?

Brain knows that even if he produces some log with callsigns in it, it
becomes a simple matter to contact the various persons to ascertain if
they really DID work T5/N0IMD.

Maybe.

Or maybe those people will have moved, changed callsigns, passed away,
etc.

I am now sure that Jim was right. I am sure that Brain HAS a T5/N0IMD
"logbook" somewhere.

IIRC, the exact calim was "logs", not "logbooks". Could be some pieces
of wood.

It's just that it's empty.

Or maybe there's one entry. Or two. Or three.

Remember there were no claims as to number of QSOs, band, mode, rig,
etc. One local VHF/UHF QSO would count as "operation" wouldn't it?


Exactly. For example, I have operated from St Martin (FS) - one QSO on 2m
FM. I probably have a log of it somewhere. Ironically, that QSO was with
another country, St Martin (PJ7), but it doesn't count because it was via
the local repeater in PJ7.

Perfect example! Thanks, Alun!

In point of fact, the alleged /T5 operation was allegedly on 10 meters, and at
least two QSOs (OD5 and somewhere in Eastern Europe) were reportedly made.
Given the state of 10 meters in 1993, such contact reports are quite credible,
even with a very makeshift station.

*if* that were the case - wouldn't it make all of the claims true?

And why get all upset about it? Nobody is claiming they worked
T5/N0IMD. Nobody is complaining they didn't get a QSL card from the
alleged operation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:


Not in the mid- to late-1950s, senior. :-)

Exactly. When you were in Japan, there weren't even any Bear bombers in
service.

Okay, on the basis for one wrong statement, you mount an "air"
assault? :-)

How does a mistaken NATO code name have a relation with the
adoption of the NATO phonetic alphabet in communications in
1955?

Ah! It doesn't. But, Rev. Jimmie is out to discipline "his flock"
for "inaccuracies!" [I sense another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount in preparation! :-) ]

But in the '60s, when I was growing up, the Soviets had much more nuclear
strike capability. I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, even
though I was only in elementary school at the time.

...did you also think of U.S. military communications as consisting
of hundreds of radio operators with headsets and code keys busy
tapping out messages? :-)


Lives in the PAST.

Well, you can't be referring to me.

I'm not the one who repeatedly brings up half-century-old military
communications experience as some sort of qualification to determine amateur
radio policy *today*. While neglecting to mention that the facility involved
was entirely paid for by others, and utilized the full-time contributions of
over 700 other personnel....

Hmmm...let's see...Rev. Jimmie brings up all the morse code
ham stuff of the 50s and 60s (plus all sorts of tidbits of old
ham regulations which don't apply today) and I mention that
the U.S. military quit using manual telegraphy for fixed-point
communications in 1948. Now what kind of conclusion can we
draw from that?

Oh, yes, my mention is "wrong" since it fails to honor and
glorify the tradition of morse code in amateurism which must,
in the Belief system of Rev. you-know-who, be preserved
forever and ever in amateur radio regulations.

Okay, any positive statements about morse code are allowed
and even honored even though some of the individuals involved
are obviously fish stories. Those against morse code are evil,
wicked, mean, and nasty, are always incorrect and should never
be considered. :-)

So, some olde-tyme hamme can say he "shot bears for navel
intelligence" and that be okay. Navel intel is fine as long as
person is for morse code.

[someone's belly-button is undone...]

Now, *that's* "living in the past"

Wasn't there some stuff by the good Rev. about "the past is
prologue?" :-)

I don't "live in the past". But I do have a decent memory, and the skills to
use reference resources. That obviously bothers the heck out of you, Len,
judging by how you respond to my posts.

Yes, "obviously." So very serious! :-)

A regular World Sirius, "dogging" my thoughts! :-)

He MUST keep on
fighting the good fight over ancient postings, again and again and
again and again and...yawn

You mean the like the one where you called another poster a "feldwebel" and
told him to "shut the hell up"?

Right. The ROE of this newsgroup is:

1. Any kind of language or lack of civility by any morse code
proponent is perfectly acceptible, even encouraged.

2. Anything said by anyone who does not love, honor, cherish
morse code is to be denigrated, insulted, vilified, and looked
at nasty just because of what they think. All of those sub-
humans must always behave civilly and show respect for the
code lovers even if the code lovers are behaving as iceholes.

That pretty well sums it up. :-)

Rev. Jimmie, go back to Google where you live...

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:


Not in the mid- to late-1950s, senior. :-)

Exactly. When you were in Japan, there weren't even any Bear bombers in
service.

Okay, on the basis for one wrong statement, you mount an "air"
assault? :-)

Nope.

On the basis of a whole pattern of your errors, I point them out. ;-)

How does a mistaken NATO code name have a relation with the
adoption of the NATO phonetic alphabet in communications in
1955?

It has the same relation as your experiences at ADA. ;-)

Ah! It doesn't.

Neither does your experience at ADA. ;-)

But, Rev. Jimmie is out to discipline "his flock"
for "inaccuracies!" [I sense another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount in preparation! :-) ]

Who is "Rev. Jimmie", Len?

But in the '60s, when I was growing up, the Soviets had much more nuclear
strike capability. I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, even
though I was only in elementary school at the time.

...did you also think of U.S. military communications as consisting
of hundreds of radio operators with headsets and code keys busy
tapping out messages? :-)

Nope. I knew they had teletype and voice and lots of other systems.

Even a kid of 7 or 8 knew that, in my time.

Lives in the PAST.

You sure do ;-)

Well, you can't be referring to me.

I'm not the one who repeatedly brings up half-century-old military
communications experience as some sort of qualification to determine amateur
radio policy *today*. While neglecting to mention that the facility involved
was entirely paid for by others, and utilized the full-time contributions of
over 700 other personnel....

Hmmm...let's see...Rev. Jimmie brings up all the morse code
ham stuff of the 50s and 60s (plus all sorts of tidbits of old
ham regulations which don't apply today)

Who is "Rev. Jimmie", Len?

and I mention that
the U.S. military quit using manual telegraphy for fixed-point
communications in 1948.

They did? Everywhere?

Or did they simply start phasing it out in 1948?

And what about non-fixed-point communications, such as between ships?

Now what kind of conclusion can we
draw from that?

That you live in the past, Len. You've mentioned your ADA experience here many,
many times. How there were so many high powered transmitters, all kinds of RATT
systems, millions of messages, etc. And no Morse Code in use. ;-)

That's fine, we're all happy for ya. And the 700+ personnel who were also there
when you were. But what does it have to do with ham radio?

Oh, yes, my mention is "wrong" since it fails to honor and
glorify the tradition of morse code in amateurism which must,
in the Belief system of Rev. you-know-who, be preserved
forever and ever in amateur radio regulations.

Not at all. It's just completely irrelevant to amateur radio policy.

Okay, any positive statements about morse code are allowed
and even honored even though some of the individuals involved
are obviously fish stories.

"some of the individuals involved are obviously fish stories."??

What does that mean?

Those against morse code are evil,
wicked, mean, and nasty, are always incorrect and should never
be considered. :-)

Why should anyone be "against morse code"?

So, some olde-tyme hamme can say he "shot bears for navel
intelligence" and that be okay. Navel intel is fine as long as
person is for morse code.

Do you mean the pictures taken by W3RV? Guess what - they're real. Like it or
not, civilian contractors do go out on US Navy ships. And they do see - and
photograph - some pretty unusual stuff.

Of course such activities are also irrelevant to amateur radio policy.

[someone's belly-button is undone...]

Must be yours, Len ;-)

Now, *that's* "living in the past"

Wasn't there some stuff by the good Rev. about "the past is
prologue?" :-)

Look it up in Google and show us, Len ;-)

I don't "live in the past". But I do have a decent memory, and the skills to
use reference resources. That obviously bothers the heck out of you, Len,
judging by how you respond to my posts.

Yes, "obviously." So very serious! :-)

When you yell and scream and carry on the way you do here, you sure seem upset.
;-)

He MUST keep on
fighting the good fight over ancient postings, again and again and
again and again and...yawn

You mean the like the one where you called another poster a "feldwebel" and
told him to "shut the hell up"?

Right.

Do you think it's OK to tell someone else in a newsgroup to "shut up", Len?

The ROE of this newsgroup is:

1. Any kind of language or lack of civility by any morse code
proponent is perfectly acceptible, even encouraged.

No it isn't.

2. Anything said by anyone who does not love, honor, cherish
morse code is to be denigrated, insulted, vilified, and looked
at nasty just because of what they think.

Not at all.

All of those sub-
humans must always behave civilly and show respect for the
code lovers even if the code lovers are behaving as iceholes.

That pretty well sums it up. :-)

Really? ;-)

Rev. Jimmie, go back to Google where you live...

WHO is "Rev. Jimmie", Len?

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

In article , PAMNO
(Rev. Jim puts on his Evangelistic robes for
a hellfire-and-brimstone Sermon On The Antenna Mount which is
really a nasty old Troll for his series of shouting and hollering in the
disguise of a "polite" reply) writes:

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Soiling the environment is first nature for Steve, kind of like him
calling out cadence while he walks to the mail box.

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:



After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)


Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the point
of not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers to
the other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license
class, education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.


Well, if the shoe fits...


Sorry for replies to some older posts. I've been through two weeks of
hell at work, and didn't get to respond to everything. Now I'm taking a
well deserved day off and can get back to it.

Yes, the shoe does fit.

I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.

A simple retraction of the wrong statement, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS
Amateur Radio," is all that is needed for it to end.

If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.

I have no need for others to see my posts. It is interesting that
others claim to have me filtered, but somehow are aware of everything
I type.

Filter away!

Hi, hi, hi.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.

One replies unwittingly. He has no self-control. None at all. Hi,
hi, hi.

Face it, he is good at it. It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Remember, at least one is an unwitting participant.

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

Dave has the unique ability to make friends wherever he hams.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!

The good Rev. is a willing participant.

Whereas most antagonists eventually find no one to write to in a news
group, Len has managed to generate enough interest to make himself and
those who would spar with him into some of the leading posters.


Nothing new there, Mike.

This is no small accomplishment. I for one have to respect that.

I don't.


You don't have to, that much is true.

But he finds it irresistable. Kind of like the forbidden apple.

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (William)
Date: 6/15/2004 9:36 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nobody
is complaining they didn't get a QSL card from the alleged operation.

Correct. I QSL'd 100%.

It's easy to do when there's nothing to send.

Tsk, tsk. Nursie still trying to invent a stinging rebuke and his stinger
got broke so long ago that he can't even muster a good rash... :-)

"Nothing to send."

100% of nothing is zero (0). I sent out a few more than one (1) QSL card.

Steve is telling an "untruth." SOP.

That should be the sub-title of every post nursie makes.

"My boots are heavy, My chin strap is tight..."

Other than humorous jody songs, his posts earn a "NCI."

(NCI = No Content Indicator)

Nursie's big negative nothing. Less rest mass than a neutrino.

A black hole?

Temper fry...

Tempura!

LHA / WMD

bb