|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: So WHAT, Brian? Steve is Pro code test, so you decide everyone who is pro code test is like Steve? If Steve has a problem with anonymous posters, so what? Nursie only has "problems" with those who think differently than her. Hypocrisy with hysteresis. I think you and Brian should take it up with Steve. I'm certainly not going to condemn every anonymous poster no matter if they disagree with me or not. I won't condemn Blackguard or Quitefine or Leo or any of them. But...you WILL side with them, even cheer them on, if they are PCTA. And you say I have a thing about stating the obvious! Once again, *so what*? You'll side with an anonymous NCTA or interested No code test person. To expect me to bust someone's chops because they are anonymous and express an opinion that I agree with is unrealistic and a bit odd. Fight your own fights. It ain't my fight, and you'll not be able to make it my fight. I may occasionally have something to say if one of them makes a particularly offensive post, but none of them have. You ARE making it a fight! :-) Absolutely not! :^) Brian wants me to condemn them because Steve does. Ain't my fight at all. You are taking two different things here, notably the fact that some of us don't condemn anonymous posters, and furthermore, we also don't condemn anonymous posters that may agree with us, and expecting something that just isn't human nature. Now when the anonymous poster disagrees with us, its more likely that a person will say something negative about the anonymous poster, but that doesn't mean we all have to. Nobody is forcing you to support the anonymousie PCTA-ers. :-) But you do. Hi hi. LIB! I've been here for years now and it's official now. I'm a PCTA! You can post as Billybeeper all day as far as I am concerned. Leo is civil, and I have no problem with that. But you DO have a problem here, don't you? Hi hi. Nope. Steve thinks elsewise. Argue the point with him. There is NO argument with the gunnery nurse. She never does or says anything wrong. :-) Frankly my dear Lenover21, I don't give a damn about Steve and his mode of expression. I don't particularly care for it, but he and you and Brian have carved out a relationship that seems to give all of you what you seek in here. Not our argument, Brian. I don't think I've ever made a condemnation of an anonymous poster, with the possible exception of a fellow that I outed a year or so ago. And I'm not sure if I dissed him or just outed him. But even if I did, it may have come across in a post in which I was arguing with someone. At which point it was part of our argument. And If I did, it was not a good point. Take your moderator's job up with the Bored of Arbitration. I believe that is the job you are attempting to do. Meanwhile, look up a bunch of cute Yiddish pejoratives, find out what they mean. Or demean. Then check back who has used them repeatedly. Why? I don't use Yiddish. You and Brian certainly have a strange obsession with Steve that seem to make it impossible to post to anyone else without mixing *them* up with Steve. |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: So WHAT, Brian? Steve is Pro code test, so you decide everyone who is pro code test is like Steve? If Steve has a problem with anonymous posters, so what? Nursie only has "problems" with those who think differently than her. Hypocrisy with hysteresis. I think you and Brian should take it up with Steve. We have. In public. That's what has you up a tree and yelling. :-) I'm certainly not going to condemn every anonymous poster no matter if they disagree with me or not. I won't condemn Blackguard or Quitefine or Leo or any of them. But...you WILL side with them, even cheer them on, if they are PCTA. And you say I have a thing about stating the obvious! Once again, *so what*? You'll side with an anonymous NCTA or interested No code test person. If an anonymousie shows up, then they are unidentified. No one can really know what their opinions on the code test are... Hi hi. To expect me to bust someone's chops because they are anonymous and express an opinion that I agree with is unrealistic and a bit odd. Fight your own fights. Tsk. Nobody's "chops were busted." :-) If you have a beef with chops, then get ham. Or fish around for another tasty subject. Or vegetate. The only "fighting" or "chop busting" going on is the self-perceived activity going on in the mind of individual readers. It ain't my fight, and you'll not be able to make it my fight. I may occasionally have something to say if one of them makes a particularly offensive post, but none of them have. You ARE making it a fight! :-) Absolutely not! :^) Brian wants me to condemn them because Steve does. Ain't my fight at all. If it isn't "your fight," then why are you spending so much time talking about other "fights?" :-) You are taking two different things here, notably the fact that some of us don't condemn anonymous posters, and furthermore, we also don't condemn anonymous posters that may agree with us, and expecting something that just isn't human nature. Now when the anonymous poster disagrees with us, its more likely that a person will say something negative about the anonymous poster, but that doesn't mean we all have to. Nobody is forcing you to support the anonymousie PCTA-ers. :-) But you do. Hi hi. LIB! I've been here for years now and it's official now. I'm a PCTA! "LIB?" :-) Coslo, you support the anonymousie PCTA types. You must. You don't "bust their chops." I'd say you secretly support them by not saying nasty about Their saying nasty. You can post as Billybeeper all day as far as I am concerned. Leo is civil, and I have no problem with that. But you DO have a problem here, don't you? Hi hi. Nope. To (again) state the obvious, you've already devoted much of your time to talking about "chop busting" and "fights." You DO have a problem. Steve thinks elsewise. Argue the point with him. There is NO argument with the gunnery nurse. She never does or says anything wrong. :-) Frankly my dear Lenover21, I don't give a damn about Steve and his mode of expression. Right. Another example of the PCTA extra Double Standard. Hi hi. I don't particularly care for it, but he and you and Brian have carved out a relationship that seems to give all of you what you seek in here. I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. We "have a relationship?" I have no "relationship" with any uncouth left-over marine who thinks that a purchasing agent job equals "engineering." Hi hi. I don't have any "relationship" with some SOB (the B stands for Beeper) who wants to insult my wife and imply harm is coming to me and my family. You have a very strange comment and have driven way out of the limits of definitions of the word "relationship." Not our argument, Brian. I don't think I've ever made a condemnation of an anonymous poster, with the possible exception of a fellow that I outed a year or so ago. And I'm not sure if I dissed him or just outed him. But even if I did, it may have come across in a post in which I was arguing with someone. At which point it was part of our argument. And If I did, it was not a good point. Take your moderator's job up with the Bored of Arbitration. I believe that is the job you are attempting to do. I'm not bored. :-) Meanwhile, look up a bunch of cute Yiddish pejoratives, find out what they mean. Or demean. Then check back who has used them repeatedly. Why? I don't use Yiddish. You would if someone called you a "Putz" for over a year in public. You'd learn what it would be if you were called a Schmuck in public. You and Brian certainly have a strange obsession with Steve that seem to make it impossible to post to anyone else without mixing *them* up with Steve. I have an "obsession?" With whom? :-) I am doggedly persistent in showing how the morse code test is a Dump Huck idea, worthless in this day and age of radio hobbyists, and good only for bragging rights of the olde-tyme hammes of the ARS [Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society]. Call that an "obsession" if you must. You are non-conformist in your definitions of words. Coslo, you started this particular thread. Did you do that because your "chops got busted?" Hi hi. What are you going to do for an encore? Try to have the last word? Hi hi. |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: So WHAT, Brian? Steve is Pro code test, so you decide everyone who is pro code test is like Steve? If Steve has a problem with anonymous posters, so what? Nursie only has "problems" with those who think differently than her. Hypocrisy with hysteresis. I think you and Brian should take it up with Steve. We have. In public. That's what has you up a tree and yelling. :-) I'm certainly not going to condemn every anonymous poster no matter if they disagree with me or not. I won't condemn Blackguard or Quitefine or Leo or any of them. But...you WILL side with them, even cheer them on, if they are PCTA. And you say I have a thing about stating the obvious! Once again, *so what*? You'll side with an anonymous NCTA or interested No code test person. If an anonymousie shows up, then they are unidentified. No one can really know what their opinions on the code test are... Hi hi. To expect me to bust someone's chops because they are anonymous and express an opinion that I agree with is unrealistic and a bit odd. Fight your own fights. Tsk. Nobody's "chops were busted." :-) If you have a beef with chops, then get ham. Or fish around for another tasty subject. Or vegetate. The only "fighting" or "chop busting" going on is the self-perceived activity going on in the mind of individual readers. It ain't my fight, and you'll not be able to make it my fight. I may occasionally have something to say if one of them makes a particularly offensive post, but none of them have. You ARE making it a fight! :-) Absolutely not! :^) Brian wants me to condemn them because Steve does. Ain't my fight at all. If it isn't "your fight," then why are you spending so much time talking about other "fights?" :-) You are taking two different things here, notably the fact that some of us don't condemn anonymous posters, and furthermore, we also don't condemn anonymous posters that may agree with us, and expecting something that just isn't human nature. Now when the anonymous poster disagrees with us, its more likely that a person will say something negative about the anonymous poster, but that doesn't mean we all have to. Nobody is forcing you to support the anonymousie PCTA-ers. :-) But you do. Hi hi. LIB! I've been here for years now and it's official now. I'm a PCTA! "LIB?" :-) Coslo, you support the anonymousie PCTA types. You must. You don't "bust their chops." I'd say you secretly support them by not saying nasty about Their saying nasty. You can post as Billybeeper all day as far as I am concerned. Leo is civil, and I have no problem with that. But you DO have a problem here, don't you? Hi hi. Nope. To (again) state the obvious, you've already devoted much of your time to talking about "chop busting" and "fights." You DO have a problem. hmmm..... Steve thinks elsewise. Argue the point with him. There is NO argument with the gunnery nurse. She never does or says anything wrong. :-) Frankly my dear Lenover21, I don't give a damn about Steve and his mode of expression. Right. Another example of the PCTA extra Double Standard. Hi hi. Hmm, explain? I don't care about your mode of expression either. Sometimes I enjoy it. I don't particularly care for it, but he and you and Brian have carved out a relationship that seems to give all of you what you seek in here. I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. We "have a relationship?" I have no "relationship" with any uncouth left-over marine who thinks that a purchasing agent job equals "engineering." Hi hi. Oh yes you do. Don't get so excited now! I don't have any "relationship" with some SOB (the B stands for Beeper) who wants to insult my wife and imply harm is coming to me and my family. Oh yes you do. You have a very strange comment and have driven way out of the limits of definitions of the word "relationship." Without them, you have less people to join in your posting tirades. I doubt I'm much fun to post to, certainly nowhere near as much fun as your battles with Steve. You get what you want out of those battles, all three of you. Unless you take all of this seriously. Tell me you *don't* take any of this seriously. Do you think that you will change Steve's, or Jim's, or Dave's or even my own mind? Unless you do take it seriously you are just here for the fun of it, to call Steve and the rest of us names, do whatever arguing you want to do, and get whatever response we give back to you. And that, my dear Lenover21, is a relationship that is carved out mostly between You, Brian, and Steve. Dysfunctional to be sure, but hey, I'm not going to judge. 8^) Not our argument, Brian. I don't think I've ever made a condemnation of an anonymous poster, with the possible exception of a fellow that I outed a year or so ago. And I'm not sure if I dissed him or just outed him. But even if I did, it may have come across in a post in which I was arguing with someone. At which point it was part of our argument. And If I did, it was not a good point. Take your moderator's job up with the Bored of Arbitration. I believe that is the job you are attempting to do. I'm not bored. :-) Was that a comeback? In fact the whole tack you took on that paragraph was kind of strange. It wasn't about moderating a newsgroup, it was about how well or not I treat anonymous posters. Meanwhile, look up a bunch of cute Yiddish pejoratives, find out what they mean. Or demean. Then check back who has used them repeatedly. Why? I don't use Yiddish. You would if someone called you a "Putz" for over a year in public. You'd learn what it would be if you were called a Schmuck in public. Are you calling me a schmuck? That's not very nice! 8^) You and Brian certainly have a strange obsession with Steve that seem to make it impossible to post to anyone else without mixing *them* up with Steve. I have an "obsession?" With whom? :-) With this group. I am doggedly persistent in showing how the morse code test is a Dump Huck idea, worthless in this day and age of radio hobbyists, and good only for bragging rights of the olde-tyme hammes of the ARS [Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society]. You are persistant, there is no doubt of that. Call that an "obsession" if you must. You are non-conformist in your definitions of words. Bizzare. Coslo, you started this particular thread. Did you do that because your "chops got busted?" Hi hi. What are you going to do for an encore? Try to have the last word? Hi hi. One does *not* get the last word in a debate with you, Lenover21. Changing your mind is not an option. So I just post until I get bored with you. It's just kind of fun to read your retorts. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: So WHAT, Brian? Steve is Pro code test, so you decide everyone who is pro code test is like Steve? If Steve has a problem with anonymous posters, so what? Nursie only has "problems" with those who think differently than her. Hypocrisy with hysteresis. You and "Leo" seem to get along just fine, kindly old gent. PCTA think of amateur radio as the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. QED. I happen to think of amateur radio as a pleasant endeavor in which you are not involved. Dave K8MN |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: So WHAT, Brian? Steve is Pro code test, so you decide everyone who is pro code test is like Steve? If Steve has a problem with anonymous posters, so what? Nursie only has "problems" with those who think differently than her. Hypocrisy with hysteresis. I think you and Brian should take it up with Steve. We have. In public. That's what has you up a tree and yelling. :-) I'm certainly not going to condemn every anonymous poster no matter if they disagree with me or not. I won't condemn Blackguard or Quitefine or Leo or any of them. But...you WILL side with them, even cheer them on, if they are PCTA. And you say I have a thing about stating the obvious! Once again, *so what*? You'll side with an anonymous NCTA or interested No code test person. If an anonymousie shows up, then they are unidentified. No one can really know what their opinions on the code test are... Hi hi. To expect me to bust someone's chops because they are anonymous and express an opinion that I agree with is unrealistic and a bit odd. Fight your own fights. Tsk. Nobody's "chops were busted." :-) If you have a beef with chops, then get ham. Or fish around for another tasty subject. Or vegetate. The only "fighting" or "chop busting" going on is the self-perceived activity going on in the mind of individual readers. It ain't my fight, and you'll not be able to make it my fight. I may occasionally have something to say if one of them makes a particularly offensive post, but none of them have. You ARE making it a fight! :-) Absolutely not! :^) Brian wants me to condemn them because Steve does. Ain't my fight at all. If it isn't "your fight," then why are you spending so much time talking about other "fights?" :-) You are taking two different things here, notably the fact that some of us don't condemn anonymous posters, and furthermore, we also don't condemn anonymous posters that may agree with us, and expecting something that just isn't human nature. Now when the anonymous poster disagrees with us, its more likely that a person will say something negative about the anonymous poster, but that doesn't mean we all have to. Nobody is forcing you to support the anonymousie PCTA-ers. :-) But you do. Hi hi. LIB! I've been here for years now and it's official now. I'm a PCTA! "LIB?" :-) Coslo, you support the anonymousie PCTA types. You must. You don't "bust their chops." I'd say you secretly support them by not saying nasty about Their saying nasty. You can post as Billybeeper all day as far as I am concerned. Leo is civil, and I have no problem with that. But you DO have a problem here, don't you? Hi hi. Nope. To (again) state the obvious, you've already devoted much of your time to talking about "chop busting" and "fights." You DO have a problem. hmmm..... Steve thinks elsewise. Argue the point with him. There is NO argument with the gunnery nurse. She never does or says anything wrong. :-) Frankly my dear Lenover21, I don't give a damn about Steve and his mode of expression. Right. Another example of the PCTA extra Double Standard. Hi hi. Hmm, explain? I don't care about your mode of expression either. Sometimes I enjoy it. Tsk, tsk. You want a meeting with charts and graphs and an experienced presenter to show you examples of the infamous Double Standard?!?!? You don't have that kind of time. There are many, many examples. They are all in Google, safely archived. :-) I don't particularly care for it, but he and you and Brian have carved out a relationship that seems to give all of you what you seek in here. I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. We "have a relationship?" I have no "relationship" with any uncouth left-over marine who thinks that a purchasing agent job equals "engineering." Hi hi. Oh yes you do. Don't get so excited now! Coslo, you must have been sticked in the helmet in recent past hockey games. Or you may be smoking some "good stuff" that Bob Casey said I was... :-) If you want to see where your faulty reasoning on "relationships" is, just look back over the last two weeks or so of newsgroup messages. I don't have any "relationship" with some SOB (the B stands for Beeper) who wants to insult my wife and imply harm is coming to me and my family. Oh yes you do. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now you are condoning threatening behavior...and thereby showing the PCTA extra Double Standard! You have a very strange comment and have driven way out of the limits of definitions of the word "relationship." Without them, you have less people to join in your posting tirades. I doubt I'm much fun to post to, certainly nowhere near as much fun as your battles with Steve. What "battle?" Do you perceive "battles?" Tsk. But, you've never been in the military, don't know what "live fire" is about (from weaponry, that is). "Steve" who? :-) You get what you want out of those battles, all three of you. Unless you take all of this seriously. Tell me you *don't* take any of this seriously. Do you think that you will change Steve's, or Jim's, or Dave's or even my own mind? I don't take these things seriously. :-) It's fun to poke holes in some of the cherished, beloved mythology found so abundant in olde-tyme hamme lore. Most of that lore is passed from generation to generation, preserved and cherished even though much of it is false...or appears false because alternatives aren't presented for modern-day radio. Unless you do take it seriously you are just here for the fun of it, to call Steve and the rest of us names, do whatever arguing you want to do, and get whatever response we give back to you. "We?" Do you have several alternate personalities also? Or are you just wanting to shake your "we-we?" It appears you've joined what you think is a "battle." Go for it. All you will waste is your own time...which could be spent playing with your radios (when not posting from workplace). And that, my dear Lenover21, is a relationship that is carved out mostly between You, Brian, and Steve. Dysfunctional to be sure, but hey, I'm not going to judge. 8^) You have ALREADY "judged." And ruled, sentenced, etc. :-) I don't have a "relationship" with olde-tyme hamme raddio...or its lifestyling fans. I'm just showing what a ridiculous thing the morse code test is for a civilian hobby...to a bunch of twits who still think ARS stands for Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. The FCC is on public record saying they don't think the code test serves as an indicator to them for an applicant's licensing. Oh, my, isn't that a "sunnuvagun?" If you still believe the morse code test is a valid requirement for a civilian hobby of amateur radio, then YOU are the "dysfunctional" one, not I. Have fun peeing in your own pool, Coslo. I don't swim there. |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: You have a very strange comment and have driven way out of the limits of definitions of the word "relationship." Without them, you have less people to join in your posting tirades. I doubt I'm much fun to post to, certainly nowhere near as much fun as your battles with Steve. What "battle?" Do you perceive "battles?" Tsk. Do you? You brought up the things safely archived in Google. Allow me to refresh your memory with the following Len Anderson quotes: from 1997 "You yield no actual sympathy. What you have just demonstrated is a need to fight, to battle someone who has opinions opposite to yours. The subject matters little and is only an excuse to fight." "Am I avoiding your challenge? Yessir. What you CHALLENGED (in the heat of message battle) is tantamount to DEMANDING an answer that will take a couple of man-weeks of effort to generate." "Whether or not to eliminate the U.S. code test is a battle between objectivism and subjectivsm.[sic]" "If Deignan wishes to argue for argument's sake, to do "battle" on the Internet, he can find many other newsgroups to vent personal hatreds..." "If the original communicator is passionate in opinion, the opponent is replied to in-kind and the battle is joined...a flame war is created and others join in." from 1998 "CECIL! Shame on you for introducing technical competence in this religious battle!" from 1999 "For the purposes of his newsgroup 'battle,' Robeson will not acknowledge conditions today outside of the 'official' ARRL publication area." "It is readily apparent that the SUBJECT is no longer under discussion, only another ego wounded in imaginary battle." from 2000 "Is there to be some wordy 'battle to the death' in the newsgroup on history?" "That quickly turned into a Personality Battle between the Haves (noble, proud, tenured, morseodist esperts in radio) and the Have- Nots (evil, slime, CBers who don't know Code)." "Jeffie, all you've got going here in this new misdirection is just a personal battle involving a very small part of telegraphy history...landline telegraphy at that." from 2001 "Robeson has nothing else in his discussion-debate-argument arsenal except insults and exaggerations so each and every 'reply' of his consists of little more than an obsessive 'battle' comment on personalities." "From there on, Miccolis wanted a Battle To The Death in a newsgroup. :-)" "Kelly cannot understand that, wants to put words in my messages that weren't there, and prefers a 'personal battle' (mild, sustained flame war) over morse code ability." "This whole thread has disintegrated into a personal battle of wills over messaging and message contents." "Well, that may be 'defaming' to barbarian mindsets that can only 'battle to the death' in insult messages." from 2002 "Trolling for a word fight on my document submitted to the FCC and in their database as of 13 January 1999 is frivolous and immaterial. It indicates only that Miccolis wants to 'do battle' in words to satisfy his suddenly-prissy attitude over the double standards employed by PCTAs." "Lissen up, Masters of Radio! The battle is joined...off your cots and grab your KEYS! Show them who is BOSS in amateurism!" from 2003 "You insist on making this some kind of personal 'battle' over some imagined 'superiority' in amateurism and the 'elitism' as well as 'superiority' of your status, rank, title, etc. in nothing but amateur radio." "Lissen up, Masters of Radio! The battle is joined...off your cots and grab your KEYS! Show them who is BOSS in amateurism!" from 2004 "Maybe he took the beeper's battle flag motto literally? ("Learn code or die!")" "They keep falling on the field of battle, the ground littered with pieces of ham-band-aid wrappings." "Their need to triumph over others through that archaic skill (since 1844) is so strong that they forgo any societal niceties and engage in a battle of words to the death about it! Dumb. Waste of effort." "RED ALERT! ALL HANDS TO BATTLE STATIONS!" "Perhaps you and the other personal-battle "fighters" should comment on Access BPL to the FCC instead of playing verbal paintball in a newsgroup?" "That's what it boils down to...a battle of newsgroup wills." "Destroying the code test requirement is a never-ending battle." "This has gotten off the subject of phonetic alphabets. Most threads do that, given enough Flame Warriors chomping on their bits ready to do message battle to the death, unable to skip a single message." It surely looks as if you have some familiarity with the term "battle". But, you've never been in the military, don't know what "live fire" is about (from weaponry, that is). Wuz there a lot of that in Japan during your time there, Leonard? You get what you want out of those battles, all three of you. Unless you take all of this seriously. Tell me you *don't* take any of this seriously. Do you think that you will change Steve's, or Jim's, or Dave's or even my own mind? I don't take these things seriously. :-) It's fun to poke holes in some of the cherished, beloved mythology found so abundant in olde-tyme hamme lore. As someone who isn't involved in amateur radio, I'm sure you know a great deal of the lore of amateur radio. Most of that lore is passed from generation to generation, preserved and cherished even though much of it is false...or appears false because alternatives aren't presented for modern-day radio. Groups of old timers often sit around the campfire on crisp Autumn nights instructing the newcomers in the old ways. There is much derision of those who simply can't make the grade. Your name comes up. I don't have a "relationship" with olde-tyme hamme raddio...or its lifestyling fans. That's right! You don't have a "relationship" to amateur radio past, present or future. You're the Ebenezer Scrooge of ham radio. I'm just showing what a ridiculous thing the morse code test is for a civilian hobby... What kinds of non-civilian hobbies are there, Leonard? How would you know about this morse testing "thing"? Is anything you cannot do "ridiculous"? to a bunch of twits who still think ARS stands for Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. I don't know anyone but you who thinks that the Amateur Radio Service stands for "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society". If you still believe the morse code test is a valid requirement for a civilian hobby of amateur radio, then YOU are the "dysfunctional" one, not I. Sure, Len. It appears that your are the one on the outside, looking in. Have fun peeing in your own pool, Coslo. I don't swim there. Not in the amateur radio pool, you don't. I think Mike means the r.r.a.p. pool. Here, where you swim, you're one tired, old, incontinent piranha. Dave K8MN |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: So WHAT, Brian? Steve is Pro code test, so you decide everyone who is pro code test is like Steve? If Steve has a problem with anonymous posters, so what? Nursie only has "problems" with those who think differently than her. Hypocrisy with hysteresis. I think you and Brian should take it up with Steve. We have. In public. That's what has you up a tree and yelling. :-) I'm certainly not going to condemn every anonymous poster no matter if they disagree with me or not. I won't condemn Blackguard or Quitefine or Leo or any of them. But...you WILL side with them, even cheer them on, if they are PCTA. And you say I have a thing about stating the obvious! Once again, *so what*? You'll side with an anonymous NCTA or interested No code test person. If an anonymousie shows up, then they are unidentified. No one can really know what their opinions on the code test are... Hi hi. To expect me to bust someone's chops because they are anonymous and express an opinion that I agree with is unrealistic and a bit odd. Fight your own fights. Tsk. Nobody's "chops were busted." :-) If you have a beef with chops, then get ham. Or fish around for another tasty subject. Or vegetate. The only "fighting" or "chop busting" going on is the self-perceived activity going on in the mind of individual readers. It ain't my fight, and you'll not be able to make it my fight. I may occasionally have something to say if one of them makes a particularly offensive post, but none of them have. You ARE making it a fight! :-) Absolutely not! :^) Brian wants me to condemn them because Steve does. Ain't my fight at all. If it isn't "your fight," then why are you spending so much time talking about other "fights?" :-) You are taking two different things here, notably the fact that some of us don't condemn anonymous posters, and furthermore, we also don't condemn anonymous posters that may agree with us, and expecting something that just isn't human nature. Now when the anonymous poster disagrees with us, its more likely that a person will say something negative about the anonymous poster, but that doesn't mean we all have to. Nobody is forcing you to support the anonymousie PCTA-ers. :-) But you do. Hi hi. LIB! I've been here for years now and it's official now. I'm a PCTA! "LIB?" :-) Coslo, you support the anonymousie PCTA types. You must. You don't "bust their chops." I'd say you secretly support them by not saying nasty about Their saying nasty. You can post as Billybeeper all day as far as I am concerned. Leo is civil, and I have no problem with that. But you DO have a problem here, don't you? Hi hi. Nope. To (again) state the obvious, you've already devoted much of your time to talking about "chop busting" and "fights." You DO have a problem. hmmm..... Steve thinks elsewise. Argue the point with him. There is NO argument with the gunnery nurse. She never does or says anything wrong. :-) Frankly my dear Lenover21, I don't give a damn about Steve and his mode of expression. Right. Another example of the PCTA extra Double Standard. Hi hi. Hmm, explain? I don't care about your mode of expression either. Sometimes I enjoy it. Tsk, tsk. You want a meeting with charts and graphs and an experienced presenter to show you examples of the infamous Double Standard?!?!? hmm, maybe. *Your answer* is what needs explaining. If I don't care about your mode, nor Steve's mode of expression, and you two are on opposite sides of the discussion, I need an explanation of why that means that I have a double standard. You don't have that kind of time. There are many, many examples. They are all in Google, safely archived. :-) I don't particularly care for it, but he and you and Brian have carved out a relationship that seems to give all of you what you seek in here. I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. We "have a relationship?" I have no "relationship" with any uncouth left-over marine who thinks that a purchasing agent job equals "engineering." Hi hi. Oh yes you do. Don't get so excited now! Coslo, you must have been sticked in the helmet in recent past hockey games. Nope, I took the summer off to rest a torn meniscus. Takes longer to heal as time marches on. Or you may be smoking some "good stuff" that Bob Casey said I was... :-) nahh. nothing stronger than the occasional beer for me. If you want to see where your faulty reasoning on "relationships" is, just look back over the last two weeks or so of newsgroup messages. You three are in a co-dependent relationship. Denial is okay at this stage. I don't have any "relationship" with some SOB (the B stands for Beeper) who wants to insult my wife and imply harm is coming to me and my family. Oh yes you do. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now you are condoning threatening behavior...and thereby showing the PCTA extra Double Standard! Now this ia a bizarre conclusion. I do not condone violence against anyone. If he does or does not threaten violence against you, or you do the same with him, does not affect the co-dependent relationship you have all developed. It only shows the true nature of the co-dependance. You have a very strange comment and have driven way out of the limits of definitions of the word "relationship." Without them, you have less people to join in your posting tirades. I doubt I'm much fun to post to, certainly nowhere near as much fun as your battles with Steve. What "battle?" Do you perceive "battles?" Tsk. You perceive yourself in battles all the time, if Dave's quotations are correct! 8^) But, you've never been in the military, don't know what "live fire" is about (from weaponry, that is). I've served my country for a lot longer than you ever did. You are being very irrelevant now. "Steve" who? :-) You get what you want out of those battles, all three of you. Unless you take all of this seriously. Tell me you *don't* take any of this seriously. Do you think that you will change Steve's, or Jim's, or Dave's or even my own mind? I don't take these things seriously. :-) That's really good. It's fun to poke holes in some of the cherished, beloved mythology found so abundant in olde-tyme hamme lore. Most of that lore is passed from generation to generation, preserved and cherished even though much of it is false...or appears false because alternatives aren't presented for modern-day radio. But those last two paragraphs make me wonder Unless you do take it seriously you are just here for the fun of it, to call Steve and the rest of us names, do whatever arguing you want to do, and get whatever response we give back to you. "We?" Do you have several alternate personalities also? Or are you just wanting to shake your "we-we?" Now that's not mice. It appears you've joined what you think is a "battle." Go for it. Is this the one time it "isn't" a battle? Unlike all the other battle quotes you've made? All you will waste is your own time...which could be spent playing with your radios (when not posting from workplace). And that, my dear Lenover21, is a relationship that is carved out mostly between You, Brian, and Steve. Dysfunctional to be sure, but hey, I'm not going to judge. 8^) You have ALREADY "judged." And ruled, sentenced, etc. :-) I don't have a "relationship" with olde-tyme hamme raddio...or its lifestyling fans. I think that has been disproven. I'm just showing what a ridiculous thing the morse code test is for a civilian hobby...to a bunch of twits who still think ARS stands for Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. So you really DO take this seriously. The FCC is on public record saying they don't think the code test serves as an indicator to them for an applicant's licensing. That's nice. I like the little side trips we take. 8^) Oh, my, isn't that a "sunnuvagun?" Perhaps a Huzzanga? If you still believe the morse code test is a valid requirement for a civilian hobby of amateur radio, then YOU are the "dysfunctional" one, not I. If you wish to believe that, go right ahead. Have fun peeing in your own pool, Coslo. I don't swim there. This group is the pool I speak of, and you are the majority poster, so I'd have to say that you are swimming in the deep end. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: Who peed in the pool
From: Mike Coslo Date: 9/16/2004 11:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Len Over 21 wrote: If you want to see where your faulty reasoning on "relationships" is, just look back over the last two weeks or so of newsgroup messages. You three are in a co-dependent relationship. Denial is okay at this stage. No denial needed here, Mike. Lennie and Brain have both asserted that I "can't help myself" from responding to their trash, but some quick math will show that they are up on me at least 4-to-one...Both of them frequently "divide" one of my responses into several for responding purposes, making several "responses" to one post. I do nicely without them. I wish they'd both go away...Not because of thier differing opinions, but rather because neither of them can work on getting thier "point" across without being mistruthful, abrasive or out-and-out deceitful. Putzii. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com