(Quitefine) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Blackguard) writes:

You worry overmuch about Quitefine's and Blackguard's identity!

We find it interesting
the anonymity of some
[such as 'Leo'] is respected,
while that of others is not.

Double standard?

No. I'm not the least bit worried about about your identity. Makes
no real difference. However, the reaction of the PCTA, specifically
Steve/K4YZ/K4CAP, to any anonymous post that disagrees with him is a
call to arms, and usually results in a "cowardly scum" accusation.

Perhaps I am Mike Coslo. Perhaps I am Jim Miccolis. Maybe I am both!

Or neither.

Or perhaps Blackguard is but
one of us.

Perhaps. I do think it's funny, though.

I will impart some wisdom to you. You may not know this.
You hate my so-called anonymity not because I don't have courage of my
convictions but because it is no fun for you to hurl insults at that
which you cannot identify. It is fun for you to hurl insults at named
people.

The plain truth!

Would you beel better if I called you "gutless scum?" Well, maybe you
would but that's not my style. Say something bad about the Morse Code
exam, and you'll get plenty of it.

You need people like Steve badly.

But with Quitefine and Blackguard, you must discuss ideas!
Or you can do as you are doing.
You can complain that we aren't real.

We are real.
Who we are is not important.
What we have to say is.
Which bothers some people.

I complain only that you receive preferential treatment for anonymii.
It is merely my way of making another point with respect to the PCTA
Double Standard.

That is important enough to point out again and again.

PAH! Whining.

as once was
and always shall be
I am
Blackguard Vox Deus

Thank you for sharing
your wisdom.

I'm still thinking about pulling a Cecil. Life is much more pleasant
on the QuiteDarkguard side.

William wrote:
(Quitefine) wrote in message ...

In article ,
(Blackguard) writes:


You worry overmuch about Quitefine's and Blackguard's identity!

We find it interesting
the anonymity of some
[such as 'Leo'] is respected,
while that of others is not.

Double standard?


No. I'm not the least bit worried about about your identity. Makes
no real difference. However, the reaction of the PCTA, specifically
Steve/K4YZ/K4CAP, to any anonymous post that disagrees with him is a
call to arms, and usually results in a "cowardly scum" accusation.


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?

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.

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 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.

You can post as Billybeeper all day as far as I am concerned. Leo is
civil, and I have no problem with that.

Steve thinks elsewise. Argue the point with him.


Perhaps I am Mike Coslo. Perhaps I am Jim Miccolis. Maybe I am both!

Or neither.

Or perhaps Blackguard is but
one of us.


Perhaps. I do think it's funny, though.


I will impart some wisdom to you. You may not know this.
You hate my so-called anonymity not because I don't have courage of my
convictions but because it is no fun for you to hurl insults at that
which you cannot identify. It is fun for you to hurl insults at named
people.

The plain truth!


Would you beel better if I called you "gutless scum?" Well, maybe you
would but that's not my style. Say something bad about the Morse Code
exam, and you'll get plenty of it.


You need people like Steve badly.

But with Quitefine and Blackguard, you must discuss ideas!
Or you can do as you are doing.
You can complain that we aren't real.

We are real.
Who we are is not important.
What we have to say is.
Which bothers some people.


I complain only that you receive preferential treatment for anonymii.
It is merely my way of making another point with respect to the PCTA
Double Standard.

That is important enough to point out again and again.

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.

No PCTA double standard
No NCTA double standard


- Mike KB3EIA -

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 -

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:

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:

William wrote:
(Quitefine) wrote in message
...

In article ,
(Blackguard) writes:

You worry overmuch about Quitefine's and Blackguard's identity!

We find it interesting
the anonymity of some
[such as 'Leo'] is respected,
while that of others is not.

Double standard?

No. I'm not the least bit worried about about your identity. Makes
no real difference. However, the reaction of the PCTA, specifically
Steve/K4YZ/K4CAP, to any anonymous post that disagrees with him is a
call to arms, and usually results in a "cowardly scum" accusation.

So WHAT, Brian? Steve is Pro code test, so you decide everyone who is
pro code test is like Steve?

BINGO!

Len does the same thing. All PCTA hams bear responsibility for what any PCTA
ham does. But that rule only applies to PCTA folks.

If Steve has a problem with anonymous posters, so what?

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.

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.

Which is the most offensive thing of 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.

All true but it makes no difference.


You can post as Billybeeper all day as far as I am concerned. Leo is
civil, and I have no problem with that.

Agreed!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Who peed in the pool
From: (William)
Date: 9/13/2004 6:25 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I'm still thinking about pulling a Cecil. Life is much more pleasant
on the QuiteDarkguard side.

We've known Cecil, and you're no Cecil.

And we've all known all along that you were on some other "side"...

Steve, K4YZ