"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news
[snip]

I am,

The fifth wheel
of the four Morsemen
of the Apocalypse *80)

- Mike KB3EIA -


So who are the "four Morsemen of the Apocalypse?"

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Oh, and the anonymousies are anonymous because they can't
handle it under their own identity. Think of that. :-)

Dunno. I don't see anything either of them have posted that is
particularly "non-handlable".

Both are NOT INVOLVED!

No ID, nothing.

Follow der uber-oberst's commands given in here. He is PCTA extra.

Since when does "der uber-oberst's" commands affect me? Or you for that

matter?

All the PCTA extras in here stick together.

Like crazy glue. :-)

For an ostensibly smart fella, you fall into categorization pretty
easily.

"Ostensibly?" :-)

Categorization is the name of the game with the PCTA extras here.

All those who aren't "ostensibly" as good as they are categorized
as "uninvolved" or something else horribly wrong. :-)

I'll post what I want, and if you don't post because of some
"command" given by someone else here, you are the victim.

I am a "victim" now? Of what? :-)

But since you
do post whatever you want, it shows the fallacy of your statement, so
why do you keep posting that?

Tsk. I am NOT a PCTA extra.

I call 'em as I see 'em...and one cannot possibly miss seeing those
PCTA extra commands and epistles. :-)

Of course you know! ;^)

I know more than you care to admit. :-)

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Oh, and the anonymousies are anonymous because they can't
handle it under their own identity. Think of that. :-)

Dunno. I don't see anything either of them have posted that is
particularly "non-handlable".

Both are NOT INVOLVED!

We don't know if they are involved or not. We do know that *you* are
not involved.

No ID, nothing.

They may or may not have amateur radio callsigns. We do know that *you*
have none.

Follow der uber-oberst's commands given in here. He is PCTA extra.

:-)

I'm sure that the statement, "Len Anderson is not a radio amateur" will
be taken by you as a command. :-)

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Oh, and the anonymousies are anonymous because they can't
handle it under their own identity. Think of that. :-)

Dunno. I don't see anything either of them have posted that is
particularly "non-handlable".

Both are NOT INVOLVED!

We are involved, Len.
We are much more involved
than you are.

No ID, nothing.

Why is that a problem
for you?

Most of your postings
do not contain any 'ID'.

You have no problem
with the anonymous postings
of "Leo", nor the non-ID
postings of "billybeeper".

Why should we be treated
differently?

Follow der uber-oberst's commands given in here. He is PCTA extra.

You have difficulty referring
to people by their names.
Why?

:-)

Not funny.

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Oh, and the anonymousies are anonymous because they can't
handle it under their own identity. Think of that. :-)

Does that include "Leo"?

We can certainly
"handle" anything you
can "dish out", Len.

We are anonymous
because we choose
to be.

You have been, or have
tried to be, anonymous
here.

Try dealing with what
we have to say, rather
than who you think we are.

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Okay folks,

We have a few posters here that are anonymous.

I decided to look into the N2EY-Quitefine connection

What is your evidence for Jim being Quitefine?


Most of Jim's posts - interestingly enough with his callsign - are
posted from google, whereas Quitefine's are all posted from AOL. A small
number of Jim's are posted from AOL, although from the headers,
Quitefine could also be Steve too.

But I doubt it is either of them.

More importantly, it is of interest that some of the people that are so
concerned about these anonymii are more concerned about that anonymity.
not either one is engaging in name calling, although Blackguard seems a
bit coarser.

Can't you guys handle it?


I am -
at least
I think I am -

- Mike KB3EIA -

I think! ;^)

I'm merely amused by the lack of consistency with which Steve
approaches the anonymii.

Call it PCTA double standard if you will - all perfectly acceptable on
RRAP.

William wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Okay folks,

We have a few posters here that are anonymous.

I decided to look into the N2EY-Quitefine connection

What is your evidence for Jim being Quitefine?


Most of Jim's posts - interestingly enough with his callsign - are
posted from google, whereas Quitefine's are all posted from AOL. A small
number of Jim's are posted from AOL, although from the headers,
Quitefine could also be Steve too.

But I doubt it is either of them.

More importantly, it is of interest that some of the people that are so
concerned about these anonymii are more concerned about that anonymity.
not either one is engaging in name calling, although Blackguard seems a
bit coarser.

Can't you guys handle it?


I am -
at least
I think I am -

- Mike KB3EIA -

I think! ;^)


I'm merely amused by the lack of consistency with which Steve
approaches the anonymii.

Call it PCTA double standard if you will - all perfectly acceptable on
RRAP.

You are taking in the data, and coming to the wrong conclusion.

It isn't the base content but the underlying tone which gets the
response. I simply look at Steve as a feedback generator. Feedback is
derived from input, as it were.

The objections to Quitefine and Blackguard are their anonymity, not
their content. Okay. Your answer to all their questions is "you're
anonymous"

Clever answer, that! And not an answer at all.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

William wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...

I'm merely amused by the lack of consistency with which Steve
approaches the anonymii.

Call it PCTA double standard if you will - all perfectly acceptable on
RRAP.

You are taking in the data, and coming to the wrong conclusion.

No. Brian isn't reaching the conclusion YOU want.

It isn't the base content but the underlying tone which gets the
response. I simply look at Steve as a feedback generator. Feedback is
derived from input, as it were.

Classic case of a servo loop with too much gain...results in
oscillation and instability.

Nursie's loop filter is way off what it should be. More oscillation.

The objections to Quitefine and Blackguard are their anonymity, not
their content. Okay. Your answer to all their questions is "you're
anonymous"

Tsk.

The anonymousies are NOT INVOLVED! No ID, nothing. [see the
commands uff das uber-oberst...]

Clever answer, that! And not an answer at all.

You've not made any "answer" in your posting. Nothing at all.

What you've demonstrated is just another item in the becoming-
clear PCTA extra Double Standard: Anyone attacking NCTAs
is "OK." Anyone against PCTA extras should be forbidden
everything. :-)

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


William wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote in message

...


I'm merely amused by the lack of consistency with which Steve
approaches the anonymii.

Call it PCTA double standard if you will - all perfectly acceptable on
RRAP.

You are taking in the data, and coming to the wrong conclusion.


No. Brian isn't reaching the conclusion YOU want.

I don't care *what* conclusion Brian reaches. I will call it wrong tho'.


It isn't the base content but the underlying tone which gets the
response. I simply look at Steve as a feedback generator. Feedback is
derived from input, as it were.


Classic case of a servo loop with too much gain...results in
oscillation and instability.

Nursie's loop filter is way off what it should be. More oscillation.


You shouldn't be too mean to him - you *need* his feedback. Heck your
fishing expeditions wouldn't be half as much fun without him here.


The objections to Quitefine and Blackguard are their anonymity, not
their content. Okay. Your answer to all their questions is "you're
anonymous"


Tsk.

it a Task it, eh? 8^)

The anonymousies are NOT INVOLVED! No ID, nothing. [see the
commands uff das uber-oberst...]

So what. non-involvement isn't an issue with me. Note that I post to
you? Last time I checked, Dave didn't control me.

yelling across the room Hey Dave, do you control what I post?


Clever answer, that! And not an answer at all.


You've not made any "answer" in your posting. Nothing at all.

Umm, it was his answer, and a comment by me.

But you knew that, eh?

What you've demonstrated is just another item in the becoming-
clear PCTA extra Double Standard: Anyone attacking NCTAs
is "OK." Anyone against PCTA extras should be forbidden
everything. :-)

Who's attacking anyone? Paraaanoiia!

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

William wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message

...

I'm merely amused by the lack of consistency with which Steve
approaches the anonymii.

Call it PCTA double standard if you will - all perfectly acceptable on
RRAP.

You are taking in the data, and coming to the wrong conclusion.

No. Brian isn't reaching the conclusion YOU want.

I don't care *what* conclusion Brian reaches. I will call it wrong tho'.

Ach zo! Good old PCTA extra Double Standard invoked! :-)

If it isn't to your liking it is "wrong?"

Of course. You don't like it so therefore it is "wrong." :-)

It isn't the base content but the underlying tone which gets the
response. I simply look at Steve as a feedback generator. Feedback is
derived from input, as it were.

Classic case of a servo loop with too much gain...results in
oscillation and instability.

Nursie's loop filter is way off what it should be. More oscillation.

You shouldn't be too mean to him - you *need* his feedback.

Not at all.

I can reply to anyone.

Nursie could disappear in the next millisecond and would not affect
me at all.

Heck your
fishing expeditions wouldn't be half as much fun without him here.

"Fishing expeditions?" I don't fish.

PCTA bait their hooks and offer me their lines. No problem at all
to reel them in. Easy thing.

The objections to Quitefine and Blackguard are their anonymity, not
their content. Okay. Your answer to all their questions is "you're
anonymous"

Tsk.

it a Task it, eh? 8^)

No, a "tsk," the odd human sound made by unbelievers when they
don't bother to make a verbal comment...or the sound made when
it's obvious (to everyone else) you didn't make any sense.

You are too young to have heard "Little Yellow Basket" when it was
popular. :-)

The anonymousies are NOT INVOLVED! No ID, nothing. [see the
commands uff das uber-oberst...]

So what. non-involvement isn't an issue with me. Note that I post to
you?

It is rather obvious you posted to me. You don't need to announce it.

Last time I checked, Dave didn't control me.

Dave doesn't control anybody...despite what he may think.

Dave isn't a radio regulator...despite kissing up to Mikey Powell like
a good Republican. :-)

yelling across the room Hey Dave, do you control what I post?

He can't hear you. Still has his head deep into the Orion manual,
trying to figure out the instructions.

You've not made any "answer" in your posting. Nothing at all.

Umm, it was his answer, and a comment by me.

You've still not said anything.

But you knew that, eh?

Yes...I'm just emphasizing it for the benefit of those slow readers who
have to run their fingers under words on the screen when reading. :-)

What you've demonstrated is just another item in the becoming-
clear PCTA extra Double Standard: Anyone attacking NCTAs
is "OK." Anyone against PCTA extras should be forbidden
everything. :-)

Who's attacking anyone? Paraaanoiia!

Nope. Rather obvious...unless one is a PCTA extra with the Double
Standard. They can ATTACK all they want. And do! :-)

Poor babies just can't take the return fire. Tsk. :-)

Anonymousies will creep in to "defend" their "honor" and to do more
"attacks" on NCTA. They will help your cheer. Or the uber-oberst or
the gunnery nursie will check in with their mirrors. No problem.

Now, did you have anything of substance to say or are you just killing
time on the computer when you could be playing with your radios?