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'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.

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! :-)

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.

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.

Steve thinks elsewise. Argue the point with him.

There is NO argument with the gunnery nurse. She never does
or says anything wrong. :-)


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.

Meanwhile, look up a bunch of cute Yiddish pejoratives, find out
what they mean. Or demean. Then check back who has used them
repeatedly.

No PCTA double standard

Denial won't make the obvious go away.

PCTA think of amateur radio as the Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Society. QED.

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

Subject: Who peed in the pool
From: Dave Heil
Date: 9/16/2004 1:51 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

Normally I don't requote a whole post reply, but THAT one was worthy of
seeing over and over!

Nice job, Dave! Nothing like feeding Lennie the Lame is own, tired,
mistruthful rhetoric.

73

Steve, K4YZ

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